| Revision as of 10:49, 4 November 2012 editBiker Biker (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers41,047 editsm Reverted 2 edits by Callicokamaichi3 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by SineBot. (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:54, 4 November 2012 edit undo66.87.120.189 (talk) Btcoin not money play mneyNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| {{Skip to talk}} | |||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| {{to do}} | |||
| {{ArticleHistory | |||
| | action1 = afd | |||
| | action1date = 14 July 2010 | |||
| | action1link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin | |||
| | action1result = delete | |||
| | action2 = drv | |||
| | action2date = 11 August 2010 | |||
| | action2link = Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2010 August 4 | |||
| | action2result = endorse | |||
| | action3 = drv | |||
| | action3date = 3 October 2010 | |||
| | action3link = Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 26 | |||
| | action3result = endorse | |||
| | action4 = drv | |||
| | action4date = 14 December 2010 | |||
| | action4link = Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 12 | |||
| | action4result = overturn | |||
| }} | |||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Free Software |class=Start |importance=High}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Numismatics |class=Start |importange=}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Internet |class=Start |importance=High}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Internet culture |class=Start |importance=Low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Cryptography |class=Start |importance=High}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Economics |class=Start |importance=Low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Finance |class=Start |importance=Low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Law |class=Start |importance=Low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Crime |class= |importance=}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 70K | |||
| |counter = 5 | |||
| |algo = old(30d) | |||
| |archive = Talk:Bitcoin/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I|age=30|small=yes}} | |||
| == Floating point operations == | |||
| I edited the bit about FLOPS. Bitcoin does not use floating point operations, and to put a figure in FLOPS is incorrect. Even the cited "reference" (and I use the term loosely) at states "We make exactly 0 petaFLOPS. Ok, we have to work around it but how? You can't convert integer in flops operations...". This person is correct: Bitcoin is zero petaFLOPS, and integer ops can not be converted into flops. To put a FLOPS value in the Misplaced Pages article, particularly one cited from an anonymous user on a random bitcoin chat forum, is nonsense. ] (]) 23:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :If the same work were applied in FLOPS, that would be the measurement. This is only for comparing the amount of work done by Bitcoin to other computing systems which this measurement does well. We are comparing computing power here, not the work generated.--] (]) 00:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::"If the same work were applied in FLOPS, that would be the measurement" - No, it wouldn't. You can't convert between IOPS and FLOPS like that. The FLOPS value has no validity at all. The calculation of the "estimate" in the bitcointalk.org forum chat assumes that there is some kind of equivalency between the IOPS and FLOPS performed by a GPU, but there is no such equivalency. The implication of your measurement is that an increase in the FLOPS processed by an average GPU, say by 20%, would mean that the "estimate" would be also increased by 20%, even if the integer ops (and therefore, bitcoin hashes) remained constant. This is clearly invalid. The FLOPS figure is ]; it doesn't make any sense. It's like trying to say that Lance Armstrong is one of the fastest runners alive, because you can measure his average speed on a bike and convert that to an an equivalent running speed. It just doesn't make any sense. If you want to put a performance estimate, then put the number of hashes per second, or integer ops per second, not flops, because the number of flops performed by bitcoin is zero (a point that, again, the cited bitcointalk.org chat actually states). ] (]) 12:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Here's : {{cquote|Thats a gibberish number. It is like saying that one mile per hour is equal to 14.285 pounds (because some car that weighs 2000 lbs can go 140 MPH). There are no floating point operations involved in the calculation of a bitcoin hash. None at all. 0 FLOPS.}} | |||
| ::] (]) 12:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == So-called "most powerful distributed" yadda yadda == | |||
| This '''REALLY''' needs a '''reliable''' source before it can be re-inserted. The note that someone added even helpfully explained "hey this is an estimate and the hashing operation doesn't even do floating point operations"! The "citation" that Folding@Home is the "second biggest" did not at all prove that F@H is the 2nd biggest nor that Buttcoin is the biggest. The other citations were to non-]es. | |||
| Get some '''reliable''' media coverage to back up this claim or leave it out. ] (]) 13:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Namcoins == | |||
| namecoin is based on the bitcoin technology but there is no reference to it. I'm missing the aspect of the bitcoin technolgy to be something new that wasn't there before and therefore enables not just moneytrading but also building new bitcoin-alike technologies. | |||
| in this respect, bitcoin can be seen as a distributed tamperproof logic timestamp server that functions as a key-value store. how could that be included in the article? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Namecoins aren't notable. They are not being included.--] (]) 21:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Notability only applies to whether an individual article exists for a given topic, not whether that topic is mentioned in the content of other articles: see ], quote "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list.". | |||
| ::But that doesn't even matter, because in this case, notability is already established by the fact that the ] article exists. If you do not think that Namecoin is notable, then you should work to get that article deleted on that basis. ] (]) 15:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Since ] is based on Bitcoin technology, it is absolutely relevant to this article and should be included as a brief mention, perhaps in a section about such technologies that are based on or inspirired by Bitcoin. - ]] 22:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Bitcoin is exchanged throughout the Americas, Europe, Asia and Russia. == | |||
| The categories will stay accordingly.<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| :The categories only include currencies exchanged within a geographically-defined region, not every medium of exchange excepted by anyone within a specific continent. – ] 01:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Bitcoin is a currency that is traded in those areas.--] (]) 02:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Bitcoin is not a currency, it is a private scrip. It is not legal tender in any jurisdiction and is not issued by a monetary authority for the purposes of establishing the money supply of an economy. The fact that some individuals accept it for certain transactions is irrelevant. – ] 03:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I thought currency was any medium of exchange.--] (]) 04:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - I'm going to have to agree with Zntrip, if in question. Bitcoin is not a "Currency of the Americas" or any other area. I have some ] around here somewhere, if someone accepts that as currency it doesn't become a "Currency of the Americas". Beinng able to use unrecognized currency in private transactions doesn't mean it belongs in a given category like that. I also don't think it belongs in any of those categories especially when considering the nature of Bitcoin, which removes the need to tie it to any one geopolitical area. - ]] 04:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - Scrip requires a peg, for example a merchant saying that they will sell goods at such and such ratio to the scrip, or a fixed exchange ratio to a pre-existing currency. Bitcoin is not pegged to anything, its price freely floats. Therefore Bitcoin is not scrip. Anonymous, 05:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| *'''Comment''' - the UK's FSA (Financial Services Authority) calls Bitcoin a currency. ] (]) 11:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - There is no doubt that Bitcoin can be a currency/commodity by de facto. But it is not a token that gets passed around. It is quite literally brought into existence by a ledger entry secured by cryptographic hash which proves original ownership of a number value. Subsequent transactions subtract a number value and assign it to another account, again secured by a digital signature authorizing the transaction. ] (]) 05:53, 26 October 2012 (-8) | |||
| :::Most currencies don't use tokens and just adjust numeric values like you describe. In the case of Bitcoin, however, that is NOT accurate: Bitcoin uses "coins" which can be transferred either as a whole or by combining/dividing. There is no notion of accounts in the low level, that is just a high-level abstraction used by wallets. --] (]) 21:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't see how the three latest comments are relevant to the discussion. We are not discussing if Bitcoint is a currency or not; we are instead discussing if this article belongs in . – ] 15:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Use of the word "currency" == | |||
| I would like to begin a discussion, which has taken place in several other sections, about the use of the world "currency" in this article. As I have previously stated, Bitcoin does not seem to qualify as a "currency". The term is used in economics to denote the medium of exchange that is a jurisdiction's legal tender and part of the money supply of that jurisdiction's economy. I would agree however that the terms "electronic currency" (as well as e-currency, digital currency, etc.) and "alternative currency" could be used on the article, as those terms convey different concepts. – ] 23:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :It looks like ''alternative currency'' or ''electronic'' or ''virtual currency'' seems to be what most of the sources seem to use, so it would make sense to use the same terminology. - ]] 23:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :It was argued very well above that Bitcoin is agreed to be a general currency. Most currency is electronic anyways. 90% of the US dollar is. It's redundant and it implies Bitcoin is somehow lesser because it has no government issuing it. Bitcoin is medium of exchange, period, that is a currency. We are also seeing banknotes going around for Bitcoin, so it's not entirely electronic. --] (]) 23:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't see any such comment, but saying that currency is defined as a given definition (which varies, btw), and that you believe Bitcoin meets that definition, and therefore it is a currency, is ]. - ]] 23:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Additionally, the UK's FSA (Financial Services Authority) plainly calls Bitcoin a currency. Gold is a currency in the same sense.--] (]) 23:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Do you have a source for this claim? - ]] 23:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-02/europe/31272985_1_currency-traders-forex/2 | |||
| "Bitcoin poses a puzzle for regulators. It does not fit the UK Financial Services Authority's definition of e-money as it is not issued on the receipt of funds, according to an FSA response to a Bitcoin business that requested to be regulated in the UK. | |||
| But the creation of Bitcoin could amount to "issuing payment instruments" as long as Bitcoins in fact count as money, which is "if and when they become widely used", the FSA concluded. | |||
| A spokeswoman for the German Bundesbank told Reuters it was not classifying Bitcoins as e-currency."--] (]) 23:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :That's not a source, where did you get that from? - ]] 23:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Do you not see the link above? Of course it's a source.--] (]) 23:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you're not going to indent all of your comment, then no, it's hard to find stuff you link. However, that source doesn't support your claim at all. I'll ask again, do you have a source that support the claim that "the UK's FSA (Financial Services Authority) plainly calls Bitcoin a currency"? The only thing that source says is that it "could amount to "issuing payment instruments", not that it does or that this would be considered currency. - ]] 23:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Don't be a pedant. I'll find a primary source of course but my claim was quoted right in the article of a reliable piece of journalism: It's not legally classified as a e-currency by regulators who have bothered to classify it.--] (]) 23:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you're going to say something "clearly" calls something a currency, don't provide a source that says nothing of the sort, and then claim someone is being pedantic when they point this out, you cannot have it both ways. It's not legally classified as e-currency by the ], so this somehow means that it's a currency in the UK? I would love an explanation for how you came to this conclusion. - ]] 23:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If it is not being treated as a traditional e-currency but is being traded like traditional money, what else can it be besides currency? Could it be anything like the original tokens of value that were traded without governments? Weren't those currencies? It's not a matter of precision but logic. Z over here has a firm convictions that only government issued reciepts are considered money but history shows otherwise. And Bitcoin is showing not to exclusively be a e-currency. --] (]) 23:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Take the first part of your sentence: "it is not being treated as a traditional e-currency" and stop. Clarify that, "It is not being treated as a traditional e-currency by ]". and that's what the source says. The source ''does not'' say "but is being traded like traditional money" and to claim that not being e-currency means that it is a currency is a false dichotomy. "What else could it be?" is not how Misplaced Pages provides information, you need a reliable source supporting your claim. - ]] 00:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: I am referring to the coins and Bitcoin dollar bills people are using. I am speaking in general about things that are attributable.--] (]) 00:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Additionally, the US dollar is an ecurrency just like Bitcoin, which I have stated. 90% of the US dollar and Euro exist electronically. It's an obvious truism for any currency. Should we start calling the US dollar emoney now?--] (]) 00:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::...and you need a source to ] those things. Please provide a source for your claim that "UK's FSA (Financial Services Authority) plainly calls Bitcoin a currency", or anything else you just said. - ]] 00:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Let's assume for a moment you had a source that verified that "the US dollar is an ecurrency just like Bitcoin". So what? Even if that were the case (unlikely), that does not somehow mean that Bitcoin is a currency, nor does that mean that "we start calling the US dollar emoney", because the overwhelming majority of reliable sources used to describe the USD does not use this descriptor, so no, we wouldn't. We might mention in the relevant article that it had been referred to as "ecurrency" by a reliable source if prominent enough and relevant enough to the article, but that's it. - ]] 00:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: The only source is an email somebody forwarded to me. I am not going to go through the work of verifying that. What's for certain is that the FSA is not treating it like traditional e-money as cited above. Additionally, the fact that these coins and bills exist, is testament enough that Bitcoin is not a strict e-money. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20125470-1/are-physical-bitcoins-legal/ That is the principle here: Bitcoin is not solely an e-money. Electronic money under its definition on Misplaced Pages is strictly digital. --] (]) 00:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::That "the FSA is not treating it like traditional e-money as cited above" does not mean anything. A source saying that Bitcoin isn't something does not in any way come close to verifying that it ''is'' something else. The fact that coints and bills exist also do not mean that it is currency. You cannot claim that "Electronic money under its definition on Misplaced Pages is strictly digital." and then also claim that the USD is "ecurrency". Again, you cannot have it both ways. You can argue and speculate and draw whatever conclusions you'd like, but unless you have reliable sources that directly support what you're saying, it doesn't have any bearing on what the article says. - ]] 00:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: Yes, if a currency is traded physcally, it is generally a currency. I really don't care about winning arguments: The fact is Bitcoin is also a physical currency and that's attritable. To call physical objects digital and electronic is dead wrong. --] (]) 00:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: A electronic currency is a currency. A banknote is a form of currency. The general term currency applies here.--] (]) 00:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Unless you can find a reliable source that backs up what you're claiming, you can state it all you'd like and draw all the ] you'd like, but it doesn't matter, and will not effect how the article is written. - ]] 00:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::: It is not a inventive conclusion that Bitcoin banknotes and coins are traded and exist. It's already cited in the article. I can provide more citations. If it's attributable, it's encylopedic. Physical Bitcoins are physical currency.--] (]) 00:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::How does this mean that Bitcoins are not overwhelmingly referred to as electronic/digital currency? It doesn't. The same way the USD having an electronic aspect does not mean it should be referred to as "ecurrency", the inverse is also true here for the same reason: we use what reliable sources use, not what we want the article to say. The article already details the physical notes, so you're arguing for something that's already there. That however, does not change what the ] will say. - ]] 00:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::: The article summary covers the topic as a whole, not just one aspect of it. Many sources may say it is a electronic currency but it doesn't cover its physical and overall use. Sources may shape content but they don't shape organization and categorization of the content.--] (]) 01:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::The fact that Bitcoin exists physically has no bearing on whether it is a currency. Many alternative currencies exist physically. – ] 01:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::: An alternative currency is a currency. Alternative is just a subjective label.--] (]) 01:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{od|18}}The fact that these coins exist does not mean the lede changes, unless you can provide a single source that says these coins are used with anywhere near the same frequency as the electronic bitcoin, it is grossly ] to give that much weight to the physical notes. Not liking what reliable sources use to describe a subject does not mean you can change the meaning, you say "subjective", but it is a qualifier as required by a concise ]. - ]] 01:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Can we all agree that Bitcoin is an alternative currency. If so, why not just use that in the lead? – ] 01:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes. If the consensus agrees, that can be the title. Alternative is a more useful qualifier than digital which is so plainly obvious.--] (]) 01:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'll give this proposal an hour. If nobody objects, I'll change it.--] (]) 01:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Given that most of the sources in the article use "digital/electronic", and I don't see any that refer to it as an "alternative currency", it doesn't make sense to change the lede sentence in this way. It's fine to expand upon it in the article proper by explaining that it is an "alternative currency" by citing reliable sources, but it's inappropriate to ignore reliable sources and use a descriptor ] is more appropriate. - ]] 01:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There are several sources that refer to Bitcoin as an "alternative currency" (such as ). We could include them in the article. – ] 01:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Both terms could be incorporated in the lead. Example: "Bitcoin is an ] ]". – ] 01:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's very excessive. It does not read well at all. I take back what I said: Both terms are very obvious. They don't even need to be mentioned. It's really all been about writing and the readability to me, not the content.--] (]) 01:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Both terms are used but of the two, "digital/electronic" seems to be much more common (even by the Bitcoin creator), and ] is a more concise definition, since "alternative currency" means many many things, whereas electronic currency has a more narrow definition while lines up with Bitcoin more appropriately (as seen in the ] article itself). - ]] 01:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == The 100-million dollar line isn't hard to verify. == | |||
| All you have to do is take the current exchange rate and multiply it by the currency in circulation to get the current monetary supply value. Let Anonymous have the line. Thse sources are perfectly fine for something basic arithmetic can prove. --] (]) 06:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| $10 USD/BTC times 10 million Bitcoins equals $100 million. If you want to question basic mathematics, feel free.--] (]) 06:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Again, this is going back to that sourcing issue. It's all well and fine that you think that the current exchange rate times the currency in circulation equals $100 million, but this ''does not'' mean that "the total money supply is valued at over 100 million US dollars." You can't draw connections like that without a reliable source. - ]] 06:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, if 1 Bitcoin is valued at 10 dollars then 10 million of them will be valued at that price as of present. That's standard market practice.--] (]) 06:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::If it's standard market practice, then finding a source to back that statement up would be no problem. - ]] 06:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::What are you challenging here? The idea that if 1 bag of flour can be exchanged for $2, then any other identical bag can be exchanged for $2 as well? It's common knowledge. One Bitcoin is one Bitcoin and in total they can all be valued collectively at the given value. --] (]) 07:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, what I'm challenging is this leap of logic that if bitcoins are traded at $10 USD, then the "total money supply value" is over $100 million USD. Find a source for your standard practice claim, please. - ]] 07:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There is a reference on the page citing the existence of only less than 10,500,000 Bitcoins. Each of those can be exchanged for $10 at anytime. That unquestionably gives a present value of over $100 million dollars. We can put a monetary base citation in there as well, which is already in the infobox. It's very clear that this is already attributed.--] (]) 07:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Each of these can be exchanged for $10 at anytime? All 10,000,000 Bitcoins can be exchanged at once for $100 million dollars? And this would not effect the ] in any fashion? The extremely volitile nature of the Bitcoin exchange rate makes a sentence like "the total money supply valued at over 100 million US dollars" useless, because that's not describing a money supply, it's describing a market cap. Currencies do not operate by market cap and when you claim it's ] it gets into a much more complicated situtation than ''X''x''Y''=''Z''. If that's describing a market cap, that's one thing, but a market cap is ''not'' a money supply, those are not interchangable terms. - ]] 07:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Let's change it back to market cap then.--] (]) 07:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Market cap is appropriate. The float is much smaller. 78% of bitcoins have never been traded. --] (]) 20:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::That statistic comes from a flawed report. Not accurate.] (]) 23:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Tax Notes Today has an article about Bitcoin. Also, a law school is studying Bitcoin. See section about taxation that I propose for reference. Maybe that we calm troubled waters and the syop can unprotect the page. ] (]) 22:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::http://blockchain.info/charts/market-cap <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Page protected == | |||
| Hi, I just thought I'd leave a message here given that I just protected this article from editing (in response to a request at ]). I protected the page indefinitely since it seems there have been consistent disputes regarding content and references, I suggest requesting external assistance in resolving the editing conflict, perhaps via ], ], or other ]. When an agreement is reached, either request unprotection at ] or leave a note on my talk page and I or another administrator will re-enable editing. Let me know if you need assistance with expediting any solutions. · ] <sup>]</sup> 06:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Under Concern, start a section on Taxation; == | |||
| {{Edit protected|Bitcoin}}. | |||
| I propose to add a section on taxation. | |||
| See<ref name="BitCoin Tax issues Oct 2012">{{cite journal | title=2012 TNT 209-4 NEWS ANALYSIS: VIRTUAL CURRENCY: A NEW WORRY FOR TAX ADMINISTRATORS?. (Release Date: OCTOBER 17, 2012) (Doc 2012-21516) | author=Stewart, David D. and Soong Johnston, Stephanie D. | journal=Tax Notes Today | year=2012 | month=October 29 | volume=2012 TNT 209-4 | issue=2012 TNT 209-4}}</ref> for the source of the discussion. This reference could be used to support the text in the article written as of 29 October 2012. | |||
| In September 2012, the ] (IOTA), in ], Georgia, held a workshop titled "Auditing Individuals and Legal Entities in the Use of e-Money." The workshop was attended by representatives from 23 countries.<ref name="BitCoin Tax issues Oct 2012">{{cite journal | title=2012 TNT 209-4 NEWS ANALYSIS: VIRTUAL CURRENCY: A NEW WORRY FOR TAX ADMINISTRATORS?. (Release Date: OCTOBER 17, 2012) (Doc 2012-21516) | author=Stewart, David D. and Soong Johnston, Stephanie D. | journal=Tax Notes Today | year=2012 | month=October 29 | volume=2012 TNT 209-4 | issue=2012 TNT 209-4}}</ref> ], IOTA's technical taxation expert, said, "There's an awful lot happening on the Internet environment which is fascinating at the moment and introducing new challenges for auditors when it comes to virtual currency."<ref name="BitCoin Tax issues Oct 2012">{{cite journal | title=2012 TNT 209-4 NEWS ANALYSIS: VIRTUAL CURRENCY: A NEW WORRY FOR TAX ADMINISTRATORS?. (Release Date: OCTOBER 17, 2012) (Doc 2012-21516) | author=Stewart, David D. and Soong Johnston, Stephanie D. | journal=Tax Notes Today | year=2012 | month=October 29 | volume=2012 TNT 209-4 | issue=2012 TNT 209-4}}</ref> ] was mentioned during the workshop.<ref name="BitCoin Tax issues Oct 2012">{{cite journal | title=2012 TNT 209-4 NEWS ANALYSIS: VIRTUAL CURRENCY: A NEW WORRY FOR TAX ADMINISTRATORS?. (Release Date: OCTOBER 17, 2012) (Doc 2012-21516) | author=Stewart, David D. and Soong Johnston, Stephanie D. | journal=Tax Notes Today | year=2012 | month=October 29 | volume=2012 TNT 209-4 | issue=2012 TNT 209-4}}</ref> | |||
| Matthew Elias, founder of the ] (CLAG) published "Staying Between the Lines: A Survey of U.S. Income Taxation and its Ramifications on Cryptocurrencies", which discusses "the taxability of cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin."<ref name="BitCoin Tax issues Oct 2012">{{cite journal | title=2012 TNT 209-4 NEWS ANALYSIS: VIRTUAL CURRENCY: A NEW WORRY FOR TAX ADMINISTRATORS?. (Release Date: OCTOBER 17, 2012) (Doc 2012-21516) | author=Stewart, David D. and Soong Johnston, Stephanie D. | journal=Tax Notes Today | year=2012 | month=October 29 | volume=2012 TNT 209-4 | issue=2012 TNT 209-4}}</ref> CLAG "stressed the importance for taxpayers to determine on their own whether taxes are due on a bitcoin-related transaction based on whether one has "experienced a realization event."<ref name="BitCoin Tax issues Oct 2012">{{cite journal | title=2012 TNT 209-4 NEWS ANALYSIS: VIRTUAL CURRENCY: A NEW WORRY FOR TAX ADMINISTRATORS?. (Release Date: OCTOBER 17, 2012) (Doc 2012-21516) | author=Stewart, David D. and Soong Johnston, Stephanie D. | journal=Tax Notes Today | year=2012 | month=October 29 | volume=2012 TNT 209-4 | issue=2012 TNT 209-4}}</ref> Such examples are "when a taxpayer has provided a service in exchange for bitcoins, a realization event has probably occurred, and any gain or loss would likely be calculated using fair market values for the service provided."<ref name="BitCoin Tax issues Oct 2012">{{cite journal | title=2012 TNT 209-4 NEWS ANALYSIS: VIRTUAL CURRENCY: A NEW WORRY FOR TAX ADMINISTRATORS?. (Release Date: OCTOBER 17, 2012) (Doc 2012-21516) | author=Stewart, David D. and Soong Johnston, Stephanie D. | journal=Tax Notes Today | year=2012 | month=October 29 | volume=2012 TNT 209-4 | issue=2012 TNT 209-4}}</ref> | |||
| ], ] executive director, said, since the foundation is trying to pay for everything in bitcoin, including salaries, "How do we ] someone for their bitcoins? Do we ] every time a transfer happens? Payroll companies cringe."<ref name="BitCoin Tax issues Oct 2012">{{cite journal | title=2012 TNT 209-4 NEWS ANALYSIS: VIRTUAL CURRENCY: A NEW WORRY FOR TAX ADMINISTRATORS?. (Release Date: OCTOBER 17, 2012) (Doc 2012-21516) | author=Stewart, David D. and Soong Johnston, Stephanie D. | journal=Tax Notes Today | year=2012 | month=October 29 | volume=2012 TNT 209-4 | issue=2012 TNT 209-4}}</ref> The Bitcoin Foundation hopes "to push for solid guidance about its legal and tax treatment." ], legal counsel for the Bitcoin Foundation, said he would like "to help regulators understand the technology better so they can make better decisions."<ref name="BitCoin Tax issues Oct 2012">{{cite journal | title=2012 TNT 209-4 NEWS ANALYSIS: VIRTUAL CURRENCY: A NEW WORRY FOR TAX ADMINISTRATORS?. (Release Date: OCTOBER 17, 2012) (Doc 2012-21516) | author=Stewart, David D. and Soong Johnston, Stephanie D. | journal=Tax Notes Today | year=2012 | month=October 29 | volume=2012 TNT 209-4 | issue=2012 TNT 209-4}}</ref> Murck said, "Bitcoin has the potential to become much more than a niche currency, but it needs the guidance and understanding of regulators." and "The full potential of bitcoin could be realized through clearer guidelines and a better understanding by financial and tax regulators." and "Part of making that happen is to talk to regulators, the ], and tax professionals and helping them understand that bitcoin is not this nefarious thing, it's just software, it's a community, and there's nothing inherently nefarious about either of those things."<ref name="BitCoin Tax issues Oct 2012">{{cite journal | title=2012 TNT 209-4 NEWS ANALYSIS: VIRTUAL CURRENCY: A NEW WORRY FOR TAX ADMINISTRATORS?. (Release Date: OCTOBER 17, 2012) (Doc 2012-21516) | author=Stewart, David D. and Soong Johnston, Stephanie D. | journal=Tax Notes Today | year=2012 | month=October 29 | volume=2012 TNT 209-4 | issue=2012 TNT 209-4}}</ref> | |||
| <references/> | |||
| :Please discuss on this article's talk page. ] (]) 22:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::This should be the first subject under Concerns. Great work.--] (]) 00:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Can this be added as described? A "Taxation" section under "Concerns"? --] (]) 12:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::On October 31, 2012, I did some minor copyedit and fixed some formatting issues. I would be hornored to add it the the main article when protection is removed. ] (]) 19:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I removed the article link to Matthew Elias since it links to another person that's not him. --] (]) 06:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:54, 4 November 2012
Redirect to: