Topic: Devastating "Infrastructure" bill in US - contact your representatives (Read 688 times)

Wyden's amendment was the same one as discussed earlier in this thread - the Wyden/Lummis/Toomey amendment. It was blocked by Senator Shelby. It was then absorbed in to the combined Toomy/Warner/Lummis/Sinema/Portman amendment which was also blocked by Shelby. The bill has now passed the Senate with the original terrible wording.

The next step is that the bill will go to the House of Representatives to be debated and potentially amended there. The House is supposed to be on recess until September 20, but Steny Hoyer has said they will likely return much earlier, as early as August 23, to consider this bill. So everyone's got another 10 days to start contacting your Representative.

There is certainly some movement in the House regarding amending this bill. There was the tweet from Tom Emmer (co-chair of the Blockchain Caucus) which I linked to above, and earlier today there was this tweet from Anna Eshoo, who apparently is a close friend of Pelosi: https://twitter.com/RepAnnaEshoo/status/1425854869122998273

Bit of a rare occurrence, yeah.  If I had to guess, it's because there's still a reasonable element of uncertainty about it.  And it hasn't been given a huge amount of media coverage.  Then again, I try to avoid the futility of trying to guess what the market is going to do next.  Doesn't usually take much to prompt a big swing in prices.

I’m pleasantly surprised there wasn’t a weak handed sell off when Shelby decided to be an asshole & handicip bitcoin in the US (from 2023). Maybe it’s not as serious a blow as I initially thought. I’m from the UK so not directly affected any way but it would have annoyed me if we had a big dump because of it.

I know there are multiple ways the language in the bill can still be altered before it becomes law in the US. I iust thought it was interesting (and obviously good) that the price didn’t suffer.

You went way too fast way too far..
No, it's not a complicated scheme, those numbers are simply a product of two things, sometimes combined, sometimes independent
- paid articles by exchanges or wallet or other solutions providers that want to boost their numbers
- researches done to justify the exitance of some research groups and the price they ask for polling information

Would an article mentioning the fact that there are only 15 million addresses with more than 100$ worth of bitcoin make the headlines? And it is addresses, not users! "Less than 0.5% of the world population owns more than 100$ in Bitcoin", nope, not clickable!
It's the common thing when it comes to news nowadays, if you die in a crash in a pile-up on the highway with 50 others you will have a hundred articles about you, if you die alone hitting a pole you won't get even a line, big numbers and big claims it what matters, that's why you see journalist switching between the increase in price from cents to percentages, to give you the impression that something really really extraordinary is happening.

Across Europe we have a 10% so-called crypto adoption, every 1 in 10 should own some crypto, I really want to know where the fword are the supposed 200 thousand crypto owners in my metropolitan area cause I'm not seeing them anywhere, real-life, forums, Facebook, nowhere! Not even in one of the coffee shops that takes crypto where the owner always tells us that if it were for just for us same four guys that pay like that once a month he wouldn't be able to pay even the power bill for his laptop.

Anyhow, enough venting, where are we with this bill as I'm seeing a lot of articles running around in circles?
There was an amendment by Wyden, it was supposed to be adopted and then I read it was blocked(!?), so what is the current situation?

Oh gawd.... 

What's worse?  Coming up with your own number or quoting a lame study without employing any critical thinking?

I am not opposed to small sample sizes, but surely the outcome of this survey shows that the sample is not even close to representative if they are concluding that 17% of adult americans own "at least a share" of bitcoin whatever that means? - (it could mean owning 1 satoshi, no?)...

I surely would not poo poo if most Americans bought bitcoin with their stimulus checks, or even if 10% of them had, but we know that did not happen, even if some (maybe 1% or 2% may have)...

Seems like you and I may well be on a similar page, Lucius, yet I will just repeat that there seems to be an agenda in terms of overstating the level of adoption of bitcoin, and surely frequently there are desires to treat bitcoin like a mature market (asset class) or to suggest that it's run has already happened and minimize the actual fact that bitcoin is in the midst (more likely early stages) of exponential s-curve adoption, and there is still a lot of room to go.. and also in terms of portfolio size, there are very few people who likely have even 1% or even better yet 5% of their portfolio allocation in bitcoin... and we are even lucky if we can find more than 10 million people who actually know what bitcoin is even amongst current owners.... but whatever.. people can believe whatever they want to believe, and it is not even any kind of actual facts that I am able to gather either regarding actual levels of bitcoin ownership/adoption, so anyone of us who are trying to estimate bitcoin ownership/adoption levels do have to rely on a variety of sources including things like surveys, address sizes, exchange information and things like that.

He only believes in what he has read in the media, and the US media have been publishing just such information for several months now. Although the sample of 1050 consumers for me personally is not something that can give even relevant results. I really don't know where they all got BTC from, maybe stimulus checks helped them with that, or they were very active on faucets

Did you catch yesterday's roundup of the 10 sides of the raging crypto regulation debate?

If you didn't, start there by clicking the link. If you did, let's continue today with a contrarian pro-regulation view that intelligent crypto-enthusiasts like us can hold.

1. So far, the advantages of crypto - like decentralized finance, censorship resistance, and inflation hedges - are based off theory and very little empirical evidence.

So far, governments have treated crypto like a fad, but now they are fighting it. If the whole point of crypto was the ability to withstand this fight, surely regulation is the best test of its capabilities? Maybe regulation will cause the crypto fiat value to drop, but it cannot touch the underlying code and logic networks.

Individual crypto businesses might fail due to regulation, but whatever survives in spite of regulations will have demonstrated the consumer value, network resilience, and competitive advantage of decentralized finance, and truly bring into reality all the advantages we currently only read about in whitepapers.

Holy shit.

You believe that 46 million Americans own bitcoin?  Would those be significant and meaningful levels of ownership or some kind of token ownership of 10,000 satoshis?  How would they own such bitcoin?  on robinhood?  From where do you get that kind of a number of bitcoin owners?

Seems that 46 million would be something like 15% of the quasi-adult USA population, no? - if we considered that maybe there are about 300 million Americans over the age of 12 (presuming that NOT too many Americans below 12 own significant amounts of bitcoin - even if there are anecdotal cases of such happenings).

I would suspect that there could be 10% of Americans that have some exposure to bitcoin (not likely much if anything), but still probably less than 1-2% that have any kind of significant and meaningful stake in bitcoin - such as up to 5% or more of their investment portfolio (however they quantify their investment portfolio - or even have one).

Of course, there is geographical disproportionalities in bitcoin (whether we are referring to the USA or other parts of the world), and likely the worldwide levels of bitcoin adoption are even way smaller than they are in the USA.. , and even though I am kind of shooting my own numbers out of my ass, I tend to get a bit irritated when I see members suggesting that bitcoin adoption is at any kind of significant and meaningful levels, even if there is truth that there seems to be decent willingness for the bitcoin (and perhaps crypto, too - those shitcoining/scamming fucks) to be pretty damned vocal and influential in recent times, but the vocal activism and influentialness of bitcoin, to the extent it exist, is surely NOT coming based on widespread adoption of bitcoin, and in that regard, we quite likely remain early as fuck in terms of actual broader levels of popular bitcoin adoption, whether referring to the USA or other parts of the world which is even likely lower levels of bitcoin adoption, as I already mentioned.

im not playing social drama games. your obsession with social drama is what confuses YOU when you see other people write stuff.. you think its all about drama queens because thats your obsession is..
grow up..

anyways..
to all other readers:

people should learn stuff about how politics and how regulations work. for their own learning.

politicians. are not the guys that enforce regulations. thats for things like the SEC and courts. so like i said before, learn the SEC interpretations of a broker. such as learn about MSB. then you will learn how the SEC will enforce the regulations.
how the SEC will register brokers and get them to comply. who the SEC will get to comply, etc

because if this bill passes it wont be a congressman or a senator handling the bureaucracy of it all. its not politicians interpretations that matter. its the SEC's interpretation. as they are the ones that enforce it.

so learn who is going to be doing what. learn what is going to be doing who. then you may start to have some thoughts about what should be amended.. instead of playing ignorant and just wanting to shout that 'goberment are bad men' with memes(facepalm)

because all i can see is people crying "old man made me angwy. mummy hit the bad man' even though they cant even work out what their suppose to be angry about. or who

FACT: old guy in all the memes shown is not going to be the guy heading up the broker registration applications.. so learn who is and what it takes to be a broker..
if you stil dont know.. LEARN then have an opinion. and stop the social drama of having an opinion without learning

again a hint: MSB

while all you lot are pointing fingers and making chidlish means of an old guy politician. you are not learning about what the SEC are going to be interpreting as it will be them that will be doing the actual regulation stuff.
so go learn, and dont waste time making memes

and if over the last 10 days of this topic creation. if you have

• made atleast 5 posts in this topic
• you still dont know words such as 'series 7'.. 'MSB' and how they relate to this topic..
• you have only read the truncated tweet/o_e_l_e_o version of bill

     "any person who (for consideration) is responsible for and regularly provides any service effectuating transfers of digital assets."[missing part tweet/o_e_l_e_o omitted 'for another person']

• yet you DO know about a meme seen on twitter involving an old politician
• whereby you know his name and his age and all that drama..

.. then your research has been wasted in the wrong direction for the last 10 days... probably take a few days away from twitter and reddit and use your time more wisely on better sources of info.

That's them bending the knee to the US.


And on a perhaps unrelated note, amazing that this few lines about crypto in a bill totally unrelated to crypto, was what held up everyone. On a big picture view, this event will be seen as a watershed moment and will do more for recognition that first thought.

Anyway, next chance up for amendment, on to the House. Will probably happen later this year on the back of another ATH ride.

The bill is clearly being revoked by the crypto enthusiast in the USA because more than 46 million Americans now owns bitcoin and percentage is being grown at rapid pace but these demotivational and anti crypto bills in the name of trillion dollars infrastructure bills are clearly not good for most of us but if someone believes it then having prejudice mind of knowing everything then we can't say anything to them or make clarifications to them.These government puppets who only wants to make decisions for their bank rolls will also come to one point where inflation will end up all their bad moves because crypto is not going to be ignored now.

You need an "Explain like I'm in my thirties, but have all the social awareness of a 5-year-old".  

Your interpretation of what the bill mentions or not is irrelevant to the matter at hand.  You have no influence.  Any thoughts you may have on the subject have zero impact.  What matters is how the largely uninformed and often corrupt politicians interpret what the bill mentions or doesn't mention.  

So if you could take a break from trying to be the centre of attention and boasting "lOoK hOw SmRt I aMs", whilst simultaneously grossly missing the point, that would be great.  

It is clear that franky1 is a peculiar guy. I put him on ignore for a while. Not only does he seem to understand it better than all the members of Congress, but also all the forum members who have commented on the thread and the other crypto news sites, Youtube videos etc. that I've seen have commented on the bill. None have the vision that franky1 has, but he has it so clear that he calls us trolls:


We are all mistaken and do not understand such obvious things. Lol.

I really don't want to hash this out with you for a second time. I would suggest you go and watch any of the recordings of the Senate proceedings from the last couple of days (they are all freely available on YouTube), where you can see them discussing exactly this issue. When the people whose jobs it is to interpret the bill think that the wording includes miners, nodes, and devs, then that's what is going to happen. When the people who actually wrote the cryptocurrency provision in the bill (Senators Portman and Sinema) then file an amendment to correct it because they agree the wording is too broad, then it doesn't matter what you or anybody else thinks - the government thinks that miners can now be classed as brokers, and so they will do that as and when it suits their purposes.

If you think you understand the bill better than the entirety of the US Congress, then great for you. But as far as they are concerned, this wording allows miners, nodes, and devs to be classified as brokers. It doesn't matter how stupid you think that is - that is the conclusion they have reached, and so that is the conclusion that the government and IRS will work on unless we get the bill amended.

no where in the bill does it mention that nodes, devs or miners will be brokers

and there is too much crying in this topic from people that cant understand anything beyond ELI-5 to understand what the wording actually does say

its almost as stupid as hinting that uber drivers are brokers because they take custody and move around assets(people and packages)
(now await the FUD to start of parcel companies needing to inspect all packages incase they contain private keys. because in these fantasists minds parcel companies and delivery guys should be brokers too(facepalm))

people really need to read proper terminology and stop crying because they dont understand the wording
no bill has ever been wrote in ELI-5. so it needs people to stop crying thats its not wrote eli-5. and put some effort into understanding legalese and actually learn what financial terminology is


its not about random people just seeing accounts/transactions(nodes)
its not about random people just collating accounts/transactions(miners)
its definetly not about random people making software for it(developers)

yes its not about mining pools because mining pools dont actually get deposits or do withdrawals.

its about regularly offering a service to take responsibility of someones funds(custodian)and for a fee administer it to someone else.. its the definition of a MSB
Money Service Business

think more.. western union. and less about your grandma putting money in your birthday card..

..
also lets say in some 5yo's nightmare where their nightmare came true. its not like users are suppose to by law just email the SEC with any transaction they spot over $10k

its actually a case still where businesses offering regular services of deposits and withdrawals on behalf of other people for a fee. where those businesses have to register as a MSB. take some financial qualification, and have a employee that is a compliance guy, create their own policy handbook of how their business will operate to remain compliant.
have that policy handbook approved as meeting the standards of regulation. get licenced
and such.... and then as part of it. report any large movements they handle

once people actually read what it takes to be a broker. they will realise that their nightmares about nodes. miners. devs are just dreams.. .. fantasies in their head. and not what is actually being proposed. because their role/job/hobby/life has nothing to do with that kind of 'handling' of funds

alot of people in this topic spreading fear dont even know what a MSB is and always evade the discussion about MSB's, and try to poke into the fear that every human has to report on each other..

if only they learn about what the requirements are to be an MSB..  they might learn what brokers really are and why their fears are so irrational. and missing the real discussion that should be happening about the bill.

develops node users and miners were never in the red zone of risk..
if people realise that sooner they could ask their senators for actual amendments that would impact those who are at risk even less.
EG. ensuring it only applies to US registered MSB serving only US residents. and not stretching to other country MSB serving US residents. or US MSB serving other countries residents
as not ensuring that can expand US jurisdiction too far outside its borders

..
its like people are crying if this is said
"any person running in the olympics has to have a mandatory drug test every 6 years"
the crying is about the "any person" where now its spreading fud that any runner has to have drug tests..
WRONG
they miss out the crucial parts .. they miss out understanding what it takes to actually qualify for the olympics.
they miss out that it involves only those on the olymplic running track

all because fud "any person" makes it sound bad for everyone (facepalm)

can people try to learn the legalese and actually learn things like MSB and brokers. and stop crying about two words taken out of context "any person"

.. then spend your time learning where this bill can actually impact people

Incorrect. The estimated crypto tax revenues would account for about 2% of the spending in this bill.

It's not the tax which will cripple growth, it's the definition of miners, nodes, and developers as "brokers".

No, they want to clarify the language so that only actual brokers are classified as brokers.

The proposed amendment didn't exempt them from regulation, but simply define broker properly.

Your video and transcript is badly inaccurate.

---

There might be a small sliver of hope for other countries. If this bill does pass unchanged, and forces miners, nodes, developers, indeed the entire cryptocurrency industry out of the US, then other developed nations will see a big boost to their own industries, along with the growth, profit and taxable revenue that this brings. They might decide it is in their best interests to legislate more cautiously/cleverly, and attract as much of this their country as possible. Imagine the advantage, for example, if one country had attracted the majority of early internet developers. They may view bitcoin and cryptocurrency in the same way.

It's not going to "force" anything, the EU is already taking steps in that direction as I was saying in a previous comment:

EU wants to ban crypto anonymous transactions and wallets

The rest of the countries, maybe they have not started with legislative initiatives like that but that is what they want. They don't need much persuasion to take steps in that direction.

Another problem I see is that large institutional buyers, that could influence politicians, won't care that you can't do anonymous P2P transactions. The only thing they will care about is if it affects the price, but I think that influence will be short term only. Saylor, Musk etc, buy fully KYC. That we individuals can have a privacy space on the blockchain I think they don't really care.

Somehow missed this point yesterday, and it's more valid by the day.

Ask anyone anywhere in the world working in finance/banking. When it comes to compliance, they can find wiggle room for EU laws, even for OECD but if it just breathes on OFAC and the US, everything else is put on the back burner.

"US nexus" is the kill-all in compliance. And if this bill passes, which it looks like it will, it's going to force the EU and others to change the way they view crypto dealings with individuals/p2p.

If you remember what happened when FB Libra was on the agenda in US politics, you could see what attitude US politics took and cut it at the root - while Congressman Sherman called Bitcoin just a little baby - which was obviously starting to be a growing threat. At that time, the former Treasury Secretary Mnuchin gave a speech in which he only reiterated that the US would defend its currency in all possible ways.

This is just a continuation of a policy that was obviously quietly being prepared during the Trump presidency - only it was not clear to the public, as was the case in China when in 2019 they clearly said that they would ban crypto mining which was preceded by the banning of everything else related to cryptocurrencies.

I agree that politics will never allow the people to be too independent of a system that favors the rich and successful - and they need people who work 8 hours a day, have mortgages, and are afraid of the system. I dare say that little has changed since the time of slavery, the common man is more or less just a modern slave who gets just enough to survive - the goal of politics is to keep it that way.

The US senate debate on crypto rages on. Can you understand this sentence? 'The Biden administration is pushing back against a last-minute effort by a bipartisan group of senators to limit a proposal in the infrastructure bill to increase federal regulation of cryptocurrencies'.

Lobbying against lobbying against lobbying? Maybe we need a blockchain to record and verify opinions of lawmakers on crypto. Today let's try and make sense at least of how many sides to this debate there are, even if we can't understand who is on which side!

Side 1 is easy: The Biden administration wants to tax crypto to fund an infrastructure bill.

Side 2 is easy: crypto investors think this will cripple growth.

Side 3: Some senators want an amendment that limits the authority of the executive over crypto.

Side 4: 2 senators propose a compromise, that exempts some crypto actors from regulation, seen as too few exemptions by Side 3 and too many by Side 1.

Side 5 now just wants to break this impasse and get the infrastructure bill passed.

Side 6 takes specific issue with the definition of a crypto miner, that they think will drive miners out of the US.

Side 7 takes issue with crypto mining and the energy footprint it causes.

Side 8 is the news media that writes confusing narratives, and Side 9 is people like us trying desperately to count how many sides there are!

I really hope this isn't the case. I'd like to think our democracy hasn't devolved this far just yet. There are also better ways to get these provisions through Congress than this, if this was their ultimate end goal. The language of the initial bill is utterly terrible, and pretty much reads like it was written by someone who knows nothing about crypto and thinks it is just the same as buying and selling stocks through a broker. They could have written something much more subtle but achieving the same end goal if that was their underlying desire.

I'm not giving up hope yet. At least on paper, we had 99 out of 100 Senators agreeing to the crypto amendment (although I've explained above how I suspect that wasn't really the case, and others did not object simply because they knew Shelby would). Any Democrat not voting for the bill would have been hung out to dry, regardless of their feelings on the crypto language.

In any case, we'll have to wait and see what happens in the House.

This succinctly sums up what happened:
https://twitter.com/CryptoCobain/status/1424839023055495174
I don't think there is any hope House will change this, since all 50 Dems voted for this, plus 19 Republicans.

All a political charade.  This is all part of their plan to benefit those in power. The political elites will never give up their power by letting the masses gain control through what crypto has the potential to offer - usurping the banks, private transactions, universal currency, escape from rampant fiat inflation, etc.

I certainly expect government to tax everything they can that isn't nailed down - that doesn't mean they should. Why should people pay taxes on income they were already taxed on? Double-taxation. They added 87k new IRS agents that will go towards policing the poor and the middle class, while the elites use Monero and offshore accounts to ensure they never pay a dime in taxes and get even richer. This will also kill off mining and developer jobs in the US, weakening us against countries that allow it. Most people invested in crypto were willing to sacrifice taxation at the exchanges. This bill kills the entire industry in the US.

Interesting point. Well said.

You've ultimately got to start expecting more taxes on cryptocurrency transactions in future. I find it funny that ramping up reporting of cryptocurrency transactions, which every single bank in America has to do thoroughly for their own services, is "interpreted" as a bad thing. The people who benefit most from moving large amounts of money via cryptocurrency are now the richest people in society, who love to use these "grey" areas within financial regulations to hide money. Ultimately it is the poor and middle class who end up paying more than their fair share. I don't agree with it being tied to an infrastructure bill however, that is due to the perverse way laws in America are being made these days and the sheer laziness of politicians forcing masses of unrelated new regulations together in packages in order to bargain for unpopular things - you end up with the most mediocre and generally poor outcomes. The politicians are part of the problem and rarely work for their constituents these days.

Yup. If you trade in a peer-to-peer manner, then you are effectuating a trade and therefore classed as a broker. You must therefore collect the KYC data of the person you are trading with, and if you fail to do so, you are a criminal.

---

Looks like Shelby is feeling the pressure now and trying to save face:

https://twitter.com/SenShelby/status/1425142857199980550

Trying to say this is the fault of the Democrats, or anybody else for that matter, is a pathetic and embarrassing lie. This was his fault, and his alone.

To understand how this affects regular people, just think about how it's impossible to use Localbitcoins as a normal US person without being registered as a broker. And how many normies have faced enforcement just for using LBC without the "licence".

I worked with US freelancers, accepting payment in Bitcoin. The only way they could cash out was to use Bitcoin ATMs with upwards of 10% fees. I know there are better options now, but the US simply doesn't like people transacting outside of the system. If such a bill were to pass, everyone would be using Bitcoin at exorbitant tax rates and they'd only be able to "hold" "Bitcoin" on PayPal, Coinbase, etc.

Correct. Since it has now passed the Senate, then our only hope now lies with the House. They could pass an amendment fixing the cryptocurrency provisions, which would then lead to the two bills having to be reconciled with each other, which can be a messy process. Then the final amended bill would go back to both chambers to be voted on again.

It's already passed the Senate. It's over to the House now. We will have to wait and see what amendments they propose and how they will vote.

I suspect there are several Senators who only let the amendments pass because they knew Shelby would obstruct them.

If there's one thing I'm certain of, it is that the government will interpret the wording in whichever way they please for their own benefit.

---

Here's the next fight:
https://twitter.com/RepTomEmmer/status/1424845416697323522

Time to start contacting your Representative in the House!
https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

Thanks for the further clarification, this is really something we can put under the category of incredible nonsense that is born in the minds of some politicians.

I have warned in some of my comments before that the US has too much of a role in the world of cryptocurrencies with all that infrastructure and with its influence on the rest of the world. If such a law were passed, then it is only a matter of time before US allies would also be forced to act in the same direction, which means that the EU, Japan, Israel, the UK, India, and many other countries would do something similar.

This doesn't look good at all if it comes true, and when the mainstream media catches this, it will surely resonate strongly with the crypto world - regardless of the fact that it will take as long as 18 months to be fully implemented.

Still, there is at least one other instance where things can be fixed by what @BrianH post (House or reconciliation process), but can they just overturn the Senate's decision?

As for the discussion on the forum, people just don't understand what this is about - I haven't paid any attention to this so far. In addition, BD has recently been flooded with threads from only one user and this thread did not have much visibility.

How likely is it to pass, though?  If all but one octogenarian realise it needs amending, would the others be inclined let it through without that?  I don't know how practical it is to propose putting it on hold until he retires, heh.

And if it did pass unaltered, would enforcement be to the "spirit of the law", or the letter?  There are still a lot of ifs involved.

I totally agree, although I saw some discussion also in the WO thread and I would say some other thread, but I don't remember now exactly.


Other than that, correct me if I am wrong, the bill could still be amended until it takes effect. It would be better if it was passed in a way favorable to the crypto industry now, because then it costs more to amend later on, but it's not like if it's passed today there's no chance of changing it.

That's what I've inferred from what I've read out there. Maybe that's why it doesn't influence the price much either, because the market thinks that if it's unfavorable there's still some chance to amend until it went into effect.

The wording of the original bill is so broad that it essentially makes everyone a broker, and all brokers are legally required to process tax forms for every single one of their customers. It makes all exchanges brokers, and so non-KYC accounts become a thing of the past. OK, fine. However, it also makes anyone who develops any cryptocurrency software, such as Bitcoin Core or any wallet a broker, so these developers would be legally required to collect the personal information of everyone who downloads their software and hand them tax forms, which is insane. It also makes all node operators and all miners in to brokers as well, so nodes in the US could only accept transactions which were accompanied by KYC information, and miners could only mine transactions which were accompanied by KYC information. Fail to collect this information and you are breaking the law.

Senator Cruz put it succinctly in the Senate yesterday when he said (paraphrased) that this bill would destroy the cryptocurrency industry in the US and force all innovators, developers, engineers, etc. overseas.

The bill hasn't passed yet, and if it does it will still be 18 months or so before it takes effect.

It is disappointing there is not more discussion about this on this forum. There is much more going on on Reddit and Twitter.

The budget for Military is already huge for America as Air conditioner budgets for soldiers in Afghanistan is near about $20 Billion as per reports and they have been spending so much from a long time on military practices and as said by you it's just another excuse by a funded banker who hates decentralisation of payment system and they can't directly oppose them so make such bills and reject crypto amendments.He doesn't care about people and only doing as per direction to receive his payment but the world will get use to bitcoin inspite of their decisions.

I honestly thought this was just another one of those stories that would end with a lot of clickbait titles, without any real effect. When you say “impossible to legally use in the US,” does that mean the entire crypto industry would simply collapse into the US if this bill passes?

What is not clear to me is that the crypto market does not react negatively to such news - maybe everyone thinks that something like this simply cannot happen?

He won't change his mind. The whole $50 billion for the military thing is just a smokescreen. We already spend almost $800 billion on the military, more than the next 11 highest spending countries combined. He is entirely funded by banks and Wall Street, and he isn't running for re-election so he will suffer no consequences from this. He will do as he is told so he can continue to receive his fat paychecks. Apparently he is also trying to get Wall Street jobs for some of his staffers: https://twitter.com/twobitidiot/status/1424834077920747520

Cruz proposed another amendment to strike the cryptocurrency provisions altogether. Guess what? Shelby objected to that too. Welcome to our "democracy". Our country is a joke.

So now the original bill goes to a vote. If it passes, that's it.

No it isn't.

The original bill, if passed without amendment, can make bitcoin impossible to legally use in the US.

For companies, he is preventing the freedom of Bitcoin,  Bitcoin taxation will really increase the amount of corporate reporting, but Bitcoin is anonymous, if every one of them is under the jurisdiction of the government. To proceed, then the anonymity of Bitcoin is broken.
This is not banning Bitcoin, nor is it blocking Bitcoin, it is changing Bitcoin.

He definitely screwed up everything. From what I am reading, it seems like a given that the bill will be passed by the Senate with the original language that was going to kill the industry in the US. It could still be fixed later on by the House or reconciliation process, but Senate is looking lost.

This is over alot more than "$28 billion." Congress realizes this. Apparently they could have raised over $100B simply by hiring more IRS agents. They want to stop the crypto industry before it has a chance to really take off.
Certainly hope this is true.

https://coinmarketcap.com/alexandria/article/despite-losing-crypto-tax-fight-industry-made-d-c-take-notice
...plus miners. Everyone contact Senator Richard Shelby.

I’m reading that he can withdraw his refusal by tomorrow?
Surely somebody will talk sense into him. Apparently he’s 87 & retires soon, what an asshat.

Given Ted Cruz's consistent ability to be on the wrong side of almost every issue, I am amazed he is standing up for cryptocurrency right now. I'd urge people to tune in and listen. He is speaking the most sense he has spoken in his entire career. I'm sure it has a lot to do with Texas' potential position to attract huge numbers of miners, but still.

Don't get me wrong, this legislation is still incredibly ugly, as Senator Cruz put it. The amendment we are fighting for is simply the lesser of the two evils. The legislation will still massively affect all of cryptocurrency, and not for the better.

---

Edit:

The amendment we are interested in is now not going to be considered due to disagreement regarding a different amendment regarding $50 billion in military funding. Our democracy is so stupid.

Edit 2:

Senator Shelby refusing to let it pass because he is hung up on his military amendment. Bitcoin in America gets destroyed by one 87 year old who says he communicates with his staff via hand written notes because he can't use email. Our democracy is so stupid.

Senator Cynthia Lummis
@SenLummis
About to head down to the Senate floor to ask for unanimous consent to adopt the Toomey-Lummis-Warner amendment as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework. It’s not perfect, but it’s a big step in the right direction.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/floor_activity_pail.htm
https://twitter.com/senlummis/status/1424818165809287179?s=21





Quite incredible, we are literally creating history. Bitcoin is only 12 years old & we are changing the world of finance in the most powerful country in the world.

*facepalm*

So obvious that if the vote had happened to go the other way, you'd have looked like an even bigger pompous jackass than you already do?   

Maybe one day you'll climb out of your own backside and realise that not everyone shares your "unique" perception.  And what a relief that is.  I wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone was as single-minded as you.  Try to remember that these senators are not infallible.  Chances are, they haven't spent a decade or more studying this subject and probably aren't particularly knowledgeable about it.  And it's unlikely they all share the views regarding personal freedom generally espoused in this community (hell, you don't even share all of those values).  Some of them may have vested interests that would lead them to vote against something that benefits Bitcoin.  You have literally no idea what's going on in any of their heads.  There are so many influences on an individual's mindset that you can't possibly pretend you can predict them all.  There was every chance they could have got this wrong. 

Congratulations, you recognised the preferred outcome.  You happened to call it right this time.  But it wasn't a foregone conclusion.  If you think otherwise, you are delusional.  In fact, there's no "if" involved, I already know you're delusional.  I'm just hoping you'll finally recognise it.  Acceptance is the first step to recovery, after all.

The very fact that there was a vote, which you have no control over the outcome of, would suggest that you could have been wrong.  Can you comprehend this fact?



Learn to people, plz.  Unless you somehow enjoy being an unrelatable, obnoxious automaton.

Huge tax revenue? Hardly. This bill would raise an estimated $28 billion in taxes from cryptocurrencies. Compare that to the $2.2 trillion COVID relief bill and the $2.3 trillion omnibus spending bill last year. Compare to the $1.2 trillion spending in this very infrastructure bill, and another $3.5 trillion in the next budget bill. And we now have a Fed balance sheet rapidly heading for $9 trillion. $28 billion in taxes is absolutely minuscule in comparison. You could gain multitudes higher than that by simply closing some (not even all!) tax loopholes that multi-national corporations use to avoid taxes. You could gain multitudes higher than that by removing the tax exempt status of religious organizations.

Absolutely. The statement "Land of the Free" is little more than propaganda at this point.

Firstly the new bill may take into account the huge tax revenue .The relevant provisions in the bill may not be completely abolished. Therefore, they will focus on making small improvements as much as possible.
Secondly this bill  may push a large number of participants, companies and individuals involved in the encryption field to go overseas, which will really stifle innovation in the U.S. encryption field.

Most small exchanges are scams anyway. If you are going to use a centralized exchange along with all the disadvantages it brings, complete KYC, give up your privacy, risk the security of your coins, risk having your account locked, and so on, then you might as well stick to a big name exchange who (you would hope) will have somewhat better security procedures and customer support than some tiny no-name exchange.

I'm more interested to see how they are going to apply this legislation to decentralized exchanges, specifically fiat/bitcoin DEXs. At its simplest, a decentralized exchange simply connects two parties. If you want to argue that putting a buyer and seller in contact with each other constitutes "effectuating a transfer", then you also make platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp, and this forum in to brokers. Even if the DEX in question provides an escrow, what if they have no part in the escrow address, such as Bisq's 2-of-2 multisig escrow between buyer and seller? Regardless, Bisq will not comply with this ridiculous legislation and good luck blocking it since it runs locally over Tor.

meanwhile. whilst citizens moan to their representatives about how they feel scared and threatened as a node user and want comforting hugs from representatives telling them they aint going to be part of the group.

actual MSB that are actually going to be pushed into more paperwork and requiring KYC for just atomic swaps and routing(previously unreported). are setting their businesses up outside US jurisdiction. or changing business plan to avoid such services.

the large exchanges love more hurdles and barriers of entry. because they get to be the monopoly of compliance knowing any small business now has even more regulation, so small MSB tend to avoid getting involved and avoid expanding. and end up fizzling out of the custodian sector. meaning less competition for the big boys.

parts of it is about the fact that MSB's need to be compliant. meaning they need a employee thats trained in compliance and pass a regulatory test and also alot of other little bits of bureacratic headache, policy handbooks and licence fee's.

its not a simple 'send an email with a customers name address and value moved'..
its all licences, qualifications, audits. all of which have costs. and if you dont do it the MSB can be liable as a launderer

big business already has this stuff.. but the small businesses just doing crypto-to-crypto are going to see a steep learning curve soon.... very steep
lots of fines and court cases for MSB not walking the thin line of regulation

Not yet.

Here is a section of what Portman said on the floor (emphasis added):


A solution is being worked out (he says), but until it is introduced, voted on, and passed, then nothing is final. It also sounds now like everyone who wrote this bill had no idea what they were proposing, basing the entire bill on what happens for stocks, and are only now starting to realize that there is a lot more to bitcoin, due mostly to the huge numbers of calls and emails they have reportedly been receiving.

So keep up the pressure! Also, here's a site which will clearly show if your Senator is an enemy of bitcoin: https://didtheyvoteagainst.me/

yawn.. obvious.
when the wording said things like
any person who (for consideration) is responsible for [custodian for a fee]
and regularly provides any service [business]
effectuating transfers of digital assets for another person.[MSB]

it was clear that it was never about software developers, node users, miners or retailers
it was always about MSB's

miners, nodes, and software developers dont take custody of peoples funds.[no responsibility]

anyway, while people think the battle is won even though the obvious was always true from the start

now all exchanges and coinjoins and MSB that only handle crypto-crypto have to KYC.
this can be avoided by just registering the business outside of the US and IP ban US usage. much like the tactics of the bitlicence era

and yes this leaves LN payment route hubs in the new MSB category..
not because of any node handling or software usage. but for regularly offering a payment routing of other peoples value for a fee

We won (I think)




@celsiusworks
Bullish news! Senator Portman said only exchanges will be seen as brokers.
Miners, operators and developers are being excluded from this definition!

https://twitter.com/celsiusworks/status/1424436878623739904?s=21

^MAJOR UPDATE: Yes, Wyden-Lummis-Toomey amendment is being talked down in favor of amendment by the bill's sponsor, Senator Portman. The President is backing Portman's do nothing amendment. This is BAD.

How do you know a politician is lying? Their lips are moving.

Here is how you know they were planning to tax everyone all along and wreck the crypto industry:

Portman's revision:
How could this be interpreted? Well still everyone could be included. Bitcoin miners could potentially be included, because of the lightning network. Any proof of stake coin would be regulated. All crypto software is free so it could be included. Only some wallets give control of private keys. It would seem DeFi and DEX are included in all revisions.

Assume the worst!

This backs up a previous statement by a US Representative hinting that Janet Yellen was behind the original crypto bill.

https://deep-resonance.org/2021/08/06/biden-deals-blow-to-crypto-industry-backs-plan-to-tax-proof-of-stake/

Keep up the pressure...

Update:

Voting on the bill seems to be tomorrow (Saturday).



@CynthiaMLummis
We NEED you. Pls call your Senators. Pls tweet. Pls email. We are facing major headwinds on the Wyden-Lummis-Toomey amendment. Burying financial innovation in red tape & sending devs + miners on info collection wild goose chases for info they don’t know is horrible policy.
https://twitter.com/cynthiamlummis/status/1423477647288328193?s=21



When asked the day voting will take place she replies -



@CynthiaMLummis
Looks like Saturday.
https://twitter.com/cynthiamlummis/status/1423478722640834563?s=21

Good News



@jerrybrito
I’m thrilled to say that @RonWyden @CynthiaMLummis and @SenToomey have introduced an amendment to explicitly exclude validators, hardware and software wallet makers, and protocol devs from the tax reporting provisions. Bravo! Now we have to get this thing passed.

https://twitter.com/jerrybrito/status/1422974253876580355?s=21

I am with o_e_l_e_o and the others on this matter. This is too important to think that nothing is happening and play it down.

If the bill were to be approved as it is, it would lead to an exodus of miners again. But I am confident that good sense will prevail and it will be modified.

Another thing is that I think, over time, there is going to be less and less anonymity in Bitcoin. The powers that be are going to try to identify as many people as they can, how much they own, what transactions they do, etc. The EU is also taking steps in this direction: EU wants to ban crypto anonymous transactions and wallets. And I think they will succeed to a large extent, but hopefully there will always be a space for privacy.

By the way, there seems to be some steps in the right direction:

https://twitter.com/BlockchainAssn/status/1422661028815441925

Right, well perhaps you would like to phone Senator Toomey and explain to him how your interpretation of the bill is the correct one and so he doesn't need to propose any amendments.

The very fact we are having this discussion is proof enough the bill needs amended. The wording shouldn't be open to this much interpretation, as there is absolutely no guarantee that this Senate nor every single successive Senate will interpret the bill in the way you think they should. All it needs is a couple of anti-bitcoin Seantors to be elected, and they can and would use the wording here for their own purposes.

Keep phoning your representatives. Let's get this fixed.

FTFY

that does not mean bitcoin nodes.. because nodes dont get any 'consideration' (fee) nodes are not even custodians of other peoples assets.

also the "regularly provides any service effectuating transfers"
this does not mean just handling money(retail).. nor does it mean handling data records of transfers(accountants)(databackup)
nor software developers making software for brokers/MSB

and no.. mining pools are not custodians on behalf to 2 parties. they dont take responsibility of peoples funds.
so dont fall down that rabbit hole


it actually then comes back to the common sense of what a broker is. and what a MSB is

it means actually operating a service for the purpose of transfering assets for another person
average joe with a node is not offering a service
a grocery store accepting payment is not offering a money transfer service

businesses classed as MSB are affected
this again is the realm of the big exchanges and coinjoin, escrow services. not a thing to scare bitcoin node users over.


if people poke their senator about irrational 'worse case' stuff. the senator will just think the person poking is irrational and ignore their plea
however if you act rational and poke your senator about rational pleas regarding over reach of laws on MSB's. then you will have a point worth listening to.

in short
if you phone a senator and say 'im just a node user i dont want to report anyone' they will say fine bye.
because thats not what the proposed law is about,

if your an MSB and phone a senator. then yea the conversation will be a bit longer and more worthy

Once again, here is the proposed wording:


So no, neither a banana nor a grapefruit would qualify as being a broker, but any person who provides a service which helps you make a transaction, any transaction, could be. Does a wallet help you make a transaction? Undoubtedly. Does a node help you make a transaction? Unless you mine your own transactions, absolutely. Does a miner help you make a transaction? Well, good luck making a transaction without a miner.

Looks like Toomey has seen some sense, as per LFC above. Here's another quote from him:

I guess any time you're present in a topic, I have to add the qualifier "within the realms of reality" after "assume the worst".  Most people would take that as a given, though.   

im gonna keep this quote for future reference for other topics. i think doomad can already realise why his words can be used against him. especially when he social dramatises how others that think the worst should just f**k off


in this case, thinking the worse has its limits. because although it does not define what a broker is not. it does define what a broker is. and makes no mention of a broker being a software developer or a customer of a investment company.
leaning on the side of 'if it doesnt mention it assume the worse that its included'. means a banana and a grapefruit can be a broker too.. (famepalm)
its where common sense needs to be added to the context of the document. to then understand it. . and not just pick something thats not mentioned in it and then try to twist it into suggesting that it includes it

in short its about MSB(money service businesses) not the contracted software developer of MSB. not the delivery guy delivering to a MSB, not a customer of a MSB

so again defining what is an MSB would include businesses and associations and organisation that perform transfer, exchange, transact as a service business. not lil old joe paying for a bottle of beer at the local 7-11

its actually about MSB that are brokers.. not grocery stores accepting money for goods.
brokers(companies being custodians and performing trades of investment that require its employees doing the trades to pass the series 7 exam)

now can people stop trying to twist it to make it sound like grocery stores, and grocery store customers are brokers.. because they are not. and the draft bill does not even assume or suggest or hint any such thing that retailers and customers are

so again. dont worry about normal users having to report every time they accept a block(like some are trying to FUD above)

its about services like coinjoin. exchanges, altcoin swaps. (actual businesses offering the service)
so yea try contacting your local reps to get the draft dropped for its real purpose. just dont go running down rabbit holes thinking it actually affects everyone receiving a block of data or buying a coffee

So what, exactly? Since the government have your KYC data, that's justification enough for literally every node operator to collect your KYC data and share it with every other node operator? After all, a node can't accept a transaction from another node unless the KYC data for that transaction is sent alongside it. What about every miner, since again, they cant mine transactions unless they know the accompanying KYC data. You trust the security of every single one of those users? Hell, all I have to do is fire up a node and immediately receive thousands of users' KYC data, complete with passport scans and selfies. A scammer's dream come true! Your identity would be stolen before you could even put a credit freeze on your details.

Nonsense. The US can still ban bitcoin anytime they like. There is nothing good about this legislation.

I don't think that it's going to stop people from using bitcoin, unless their die hard fans of privacy that doesn't know that their personal information is already on the records of the government. It's actually a good move for US to do this because I think that even if it looks bad for now, we at the least don't have to worry of a total ban on a federal level.

Nodes would be providing a service to other people which means that they would require KYC from those connecting to it. This is the USA trying to ban Bitcoin without actually banning it instead bringing in legislation that they know would stop most people from using the currency.

That's the healthy approach.  Assume the worst and prepare accordingly.  If I were telling people to remain calm, it's not because I'd be making assumptions that these proposals won't affect people.  It's because legislation changes as the times do.  Take the early automotive industry and Red Flag laws as an example.  If the technology is robust enough, it will outlive any silly and overly encumbering laws. 

However, if people can intervene and stop the lawmakers repeating past mistakes, that's clearly the better way to go.  Even short-term disruption is better to avoid if possible.

Are you a lawyer? I am not, but what I have learned is that if legal language can be applied to something, eventually it will be applied to something - especially when it is the government deciding against you. It doesn't matter what the original intent was or what people think it means. The current language can be interpreted to apply to every average joe.

Latest discussion:


Thanks, LFC_Bitcoin. Toomey is proposing an amendment. People's voices are being heard. Keep up the pressure! His full press release:

Little update on this guys -

Jake Chervinsky
@jchervinsky
Monday mid-day infra bill update:

We're moving in a good direction. We may reach a point today (or later this week) where our fate rests in the hands of a few Senators, & we need to light up their phones with 1,000s of calls in support.

I'll let you know if & when. Stay frosty.
https://twitter.com/jchervinsky/status/1422255785195749387?s=21





Edit -

May as well add this too -


@jimmysong
There's bipartisan support to change the crypto language in the infrastructure bill. @PatToomey (R-PA) and @RonWyden (D-OR) both think the bill's crypto tax language doesn't make any sense.

Maybe this pleb thing works outside of #Bitcoin  as well.




Edit -

@NeilJacobs

For those who say contacting Congress doesn’t matter:

Senator Pat Toomey: “The bipartisan infrastructure package includes a hastily-designed tax reporting regime for cryptocurrency. Simply put, the text is unworkable. I plan to offer an amendment to fix it.”

#bitcoin

https://twitter.com/neiljacobs/status/1422301936326520834?s=21

calm down folks

its about MSB that act as brokers.. its not about every average joe.
your not a MSB if you take money out of an ATM or as for a withdrawal from a bank. so relax.

developers are not MSB. even the developers that created the mastercard software/network were not themselves treated as MSB.

but if you are a service(business) doing transfers on behalf of others.
for instance:
escrows
coinjoins/coin swaps
exchanges..

then watch out
if your a customer of those businesses relax you will not be asked to become a MSB. but expect many services you use to change funds into different currencies. to kyc you.

if your a software developer,(blockchain dev) your not a MSB

the most that i can see happening is coinjoin/escrow's that have offices in america, pull out of america and set up in another country and then IP ban US citizens. much like the days of the bitlicence
(by which most MSB's done that already so not much to happen)

From the article you linked to:

This is another very good point. If you want to use bitcoin, then everyone you interact with, from wallet developers to nodes to miners to exchanges could be required to collect your KYC. How long do you think it will be before a massive hack or leak of this information? The Ledger database hack, for example, has led to large number of successful scams and an absolutely massive number of attempted scams, including some fairly sophisticated attacks and threats of physical violence. And that's just based on the knowledge that people own a hardware wallet, with no knowledge about how much bitcoin they own. Do you really want your KYC details attached to the fact that you just moved a significant amount of bitcoin, or attached to your cold storage wallet addresses? Say goodbye to plausible deniability or any sort of privacy.

Thing is, this doesn't just affect US citizens, but will affect everyone who interacts with any US based service, company, entity, or individual. I can't verify that you are not a US citizen and don't require me to send you a 1099 unless you complete KYC to prove it.

I usually don't care about regulations being passed forcing centralized exchanges to do certain things, because if you value your privacy or security at all then you are already steering well clear of centralized exchanges. But this bill is an absolute mess and will affect the entire bitcoin ecosystem. Contact your representatives and tell them to stop this now.

Exactly!

Yes, this is draft legislation and it is up to citizens to make sure it does not become final. This is not the time to be resting on people's heels or attacking the source. Multiple crypto news outlets are trying to make people aware of this potentially devastating law. "Any person who ... effectuates digital asset transfers" could refer to anyone sending crypto.

Senators are currently rushing this legislation through and attempting to sneak crypto legislation in and finalize the bill THIS WEEKEND, while many are not paying attention. They will likely vote on it Sunday or Monday.

Senators will be pressured to accept the final version, which very likely will include this amendment, because the bill is "infrastructure." The bill is already likely filibuster proof.
https://crypto.co/technology/us-senate-550b-infrastructure-bill-will-kill-the-crypto-industry/

Front page on Coindesk:
https://www.coindesk.com/fundamentally-incompatible-how-the-proposed-crypto-tax-rules-miss-the-mark

Another excellent episode on Coindesk on how majorly flawed this legislation is.

Speak up! Contact your representatives.

oh grow up you trolling drama queen
i said DRAFT and SUGGEST


maybe you just dont understand the subtlety of my yawn. or my calm down hint of nothing important..
maybe you didnt get where i said 'they want' instead of your thinking that i said 'they will'

well yet again you jump to social drama trolling to try to poke the bear.. but you are just making it too easy
to put you back in your toddlers crib.

i know you took one line, out of context that avoided the words DRAFT/ SUGGEST to then go on a social drama ramble about how you think my one line you did quote must be some committed conclusion..

but like always you never understand context or content. you just want to be a drama queen
take your drama else where.

There is a great Twitter thread about this here: https://twitter.com/jchervinsky/status/1421150344051048451

Essentially, the definition they are applying is so broad as to encompass pretty much anyone they want it to encompass:


It could be argued that everyone from node operators and miners to software developers are providing a service which effectuates transfers of bitcoin. This bill would require them all to collect KYC from all their users so they could issue them all with a Form 1099. This isn't just a huge threat to your privacy, but to bitcoin itself. If they get what they want, then best case scenario we have nodes KYCing users before accepting their transactions to be relayed and refusing transactions from nodes which don't enforce KYC. Worst case scenario they simply ban bitcoin since it is completely impossible for miners to collect KYC for every transaction they mine or wallet devs to collect KYC for everyone who downloads their wallet.

Call your member of the House and Senate directly. Or use the phone number and advice here: https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/stop-the-senate-from-sneaking-through-total-surveillance-of-the-crypto-economy-call-517-200-9518/

If you don't want to call, then email them. You can also contact senators Kyrsten Sinema and Rob Portman directly at the following links:
https://www.sinema.senate.gov/contact-kyrsten
https://www.portman.senate.gov/meet/contact?office=37

Clearly the people drafting the legislation don't even know for sure what it is or isn't yet.  And governments have a habit of attempting to draft legislation that isn't remotely feasible because they often lack the understanding to see the consequences of their ill-considered plans.  It's right that people are challenging this to make sure it's done correctly. 

It looks as though you've once again treated something as a foregone conclusion just because you've imagined the outcome being a certain way.  You should work on that.  Reality will bite you again if you're not careful.  Then you'll be in denial about yet another thing for the rest of your life. 

quoting breitbart.. that links to coindesk.. that says 'we received a draft'.. but doesnt disclose it..

yawn
but from what it does suggest:
is not users making transactions
is not users depositing into services/custodians

its, if people on licenced exchanges trade $10k coin for other currencies whether it be cash or other cryptocurrencies, file a report the same way the exchange files reports of cash over $10k

so calm down they just want to enhance the standard aml rules of exchange/MSB regulations that already exist.

its nothing to do with all businesses, all users
it highlights exchanges and market places as brokers. not users. not retail stores

i think this is less about taxing users. and more about defining exchanges and market places(even decentralised ones) as things that require having a MSB licence and then be required to follow rules, where they can make money on licences and fines for not reporting

The US looks about to pass this infrastructure bill, which will have devastating impacts across all of crypto, if it passes:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/07/29/cryptocurrency-tax-threatens-to-put-bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-in-upheaval/

Contact your representatives!