So in this interview MaidSafe on the Keiser Report - YouTube with @dirvine, the interviewer mentions one thing about the term usage of “coin” in Bitcoin is pointed to by some as part of how the IRS got involved with Bitcoin and US exchanges starting having to get IDs and bank account numbers from users. As an American, this concerns me in regards to SAFE and Safecoin.
Is there any merit to the whole “because it’s called a coin it falls under the laws about money” and, does this mean that at leas in America, Safecoin might meet the same issues? I feel like it would be a blow to the anonymity of suddenly you had to send ID somewhere to get Safecoin.
Of course the decentralized nature of the network suggests that they would have difficulty enforcing such a thing, but I dunno, seems like it’s worth discussing.
You can just use Bitsquare.io as an exchange, they don’t require you to give any ID and you hold your coins. Later on you’ll also be able to use SAFE Exchange.
No, legalistic parsing of words probably isn’t a productive activity.
If those animals want to get you then they will use whatever form of words they can to get you.
Putting yourself out of reach makes it moot. Then, just as with PGP and the interpretation of the word ‘munitions’ they can just go perform an obscene anatomical impossibility and you just don’t need to worry about it.
That is exactly how I have seen SAFEnet all along, as making moot the natterings of lawyers, the screams of journalists and the hair-splitting of bureaucrats and politicians.
Well in Australia the tax office only looks at the cash spent to buy an object(s) (even virtual) and cash received for the object(s) then calculate tax on that
Also if a centralised exchange trades in such objects then the tax office (in western countries) want to know what profits you make and they each have their ways of working out what you owe them.
coin, token, whatever is not the point. The fact you can use them in place of money. In Australia for instance barter is also technically taxable, but few tell the ATO about their bartering. Also in Australia we have a minimum threshold in profits before the tax office needs to be informed of the “profits”
tl;dr
if it can be used in place of money the IRS, ATO, ??? will want their share of the “profits” The name is largely irrelevant. The use in place of money is what alerted the various tax offices.
The other element is cooperation and community. The system’s power over us is in proportion to how much we can become isolated. So, in the last few centuries they have managed to largely eliminate or weaken the historical, polycentric structure of western society (church, king, parliament, nobility, extended family, close family) and replace it with a supreme state confronting atomized individuals inside a panopticon hell. They are doing it right down to the present. Alan Watt (I think it was) told of how, in his youth there was a weekly, village get-together on the green where everyone would discuss the current events of the day and just hang out, but with the arrival of television, those weekly get-togethers stopped and when he walked down the street in the evening he just saw the blue glow of tv sets from the windows. In the present they are waging a war on the male and seeking to destroy the partnership of the sexes, and to turn all women into single mothers, or whores.
We need to use this tech to rebuild all of those institutions or their equivalents.
EDIT: Returning to the topic the objective nature of money, a metal that the state had no part in creating, has also been whittled away first by its debasement and then by its replacement with digital fiat. So that is another form of power, in ones pocket and not controlled by the state, that they have destroyed, and that this tech can restore.
One more off topic item - I recently stumbled on a Guardian article from 2011 about the ideas of Leopold Kohr which were essentially that when a system goes wrong, it is because it has become too big. That things work fine until the are beyond a scale where humans can relate to each other, and he points to the ability of medieval city states to adapt to local conditions, work efficiently, remain accountable, and be creative.
The article was pointing out that in 1957 (I think) Kohr had predicted the collapse that the 2008 financial crisis has begun to reveal, but that his ideas had been ignored because those accruing power did not like them.
It made me wonder about why things don’t get too big in nature, and to wonder how the holarchies we find there (atoms, molecules, proteins, cells, organs, bodies for example) might be replicated in human culture - for it is our culture that has resulted in the hierarchies which concentrate power, grow too big, and ultimately collapse as Kohr seems to have pointed out.
It is certainly a hopeful sign that technology such as SAFEnetwork is running counter to the centralisation of power, and that lots of people recognize the goodness of this, but I think we can’t assume this will be enough to establish a sustainable holarchic culture that can replace what we seem to recreate after each collapse.
the objective nature of money, a metal that the state had no part in creating, has also been whittled away first by its debasement and then by its replacement with digital fiat. So that is another form of power, in ones pocket and not controlled by the state, that they have destroyed, and that this tech can restore.