Topic: Harris campaign now accepts Bitcoin - page 2. (Read 1133 times)

What do you think we should do? Should we rebel and overthrow the current government? Or should we stay out and not vote, but does that make any difference when one of the two candidates still becomes president?

The nature of politics is to lie and do whatever it takes to get what they want and everyone knows it. But the harsh truth is that whether we like it or not, we cannot change the fact that they are still the ones who lead the country and control us. So what we can do is vote for the person we think is the lesser evil. Same with crypto, vote for the candidate you think will do the least harm to it.

There's a very big difference between something being the "future of money" and... somebody's retirement nest egg.

The real future of money will be... very very stable, not a lottery ticket like Bitcoin has proven to be. Bitcoin's price instability absolutely precludes it from being used as a mainstream means of payment.

But if Bitcoin ever stabilized in price then... nobody would care about it anymore, politically speaking. You don't see voters voting for the candidate that will make the USD go up higher in value like you do for BTC right now. Bitcoin is a speculation instrument to most people, which is why voters (insofar as there are any) want Bitcoin to go up. The minute it became a "real" currency people could really use as a currency, it would cease to be a political issue because it would necessarily become... boring.

Not yet. But it will be in the future. Especially when new generations are quite fond of "digitalization". Like it or not, digital currencies are the future of money. Bitcoin will play a huge role in global politics. Just you wait and see. When you notice that only a small portion of the global population holds Bitcoin, you know that the cryptocurrency is still in its infancy. We're still early to the game.

Regardless of whoever wins the US presidential race, we can feel confident that nothing will stop Bitcoin in achieving its purpose. It will ultimately defeat banks and usher a new era in the decentralization of the economy. The key to fixing the world is separating the money from the state. Hopefully, Bitcoin fulfills its mission before it's too late. Fingers crossed America will embrace the revolution to stay ahead of the game.

There are tons of write-offs here as well, and most rich people in the US pay far less as a percentage of their income than the typical household staff they employ. Harris is seizing on that in order to gain votes, but I actually don't see here doing much about it either.

I highly agree, politician are liars.  They will come into terms to anyone even criminals as long as they can win the election.  Harris accepting donation in Bitcoin is not for Bitcoin's advantage, this is a ploy the make them Bitcoin friendly while amassing amount of money in Bitcoin from the Bitcoin enthusiasts/users that were made to believe and supports them.


Yes they do but did they tell the truth when they publicly announce their gain or file their annual tax?  Here in the Philippines wealthy people tends to evade tax by providing scholarships where they spend way lower amounts than what they should pay.

Yes, for people who have over $100 million in gains in a year. Most people like that are pretty public about their wealth since they are billionaires.

Now, do I expect this to pass Congress? I doubt it. Why? Because such a tax actually wouldn't raise very much money since there are only a few hundred people in the US like this.

But the only reason you've been lead to care about this is that the people controlling the media you ingest on a daily basis are... among those hundreds.



I suspect that any laws that pass Congress will roughly mirror the physical cash controls we have in the US: reporting is only required for very large sums, i.e. amounts that would very likely involve criminal activity. The threshold for cash today is $10,000, but that was passed in the early 1970s, so even the equivalent would be about $100k. This is common sense: the government is after big-time criminals and money launderers, not some average American with $50k in their crypto wallet--it's not worth their time to even check.

And the partisan thing is ridiculous: the law for cash was signed by Republican president Richard Nixon. This is about national security, and every week there's another children's hospital that is crippled in the USA by criminals using crypto for cyberextortion, or another murder-for-hire paid for that way, etc. etc. This Ayn Rand stuff only works on another planet (call it "Atlantis" if you like) where there are no bad people in existence. Here on planet earth there are criminals who steal and hurt people, and we all have to compromise because of that.

Most people aren't criminals, and as such do not care if the government could theoretically scrutinize their holdings. This is why Monero is not more popular than Bitcoin for instance.

I don't think you understand what I said. They don't want to tax your gains. They can easily tax gains when you sell your coins because you get fiat money that they control.
What they want is that you reveal your holdings so they can tax unrealized gains. Thankfully US politicians are smarter than her and did not allow this to pass... yet.


What are you talking about? How is there no evidence?
They wanted to make wallet providers ask users for KYC so they can assign wallets to IDs! This was a real legislative act they wanted to push through Congress.
How is that not an attempt to deprive people of privacy?

The Democrats see self hosted wallets as aiding tax evaders, money launderers, drug traffickers and other criminals. Republicans believe self custody preserves basic freedoms in a digital world.
Representative Sherman (Democrat) compared self hosted wallets to bearer bonds which were banned in the U.S. in the 1980s.
https://www.ledgerinsights.com/self-hosted-wallet-congress-privacy-freedom/

Agreed that there is no evidence, however, the government always wants to inquire very much closely on the people and invade their privacy if they want this. There are also these occurrences where they will use force. I am not saying that they do this because they want this, however. They do this because there are threats that might make this necessary. But this is also certainly available for abuse for some government officials.

In any case, it appears that Ripple cofounder Chris Larsen has also endorsed Kamala Harris. This might stop uncle Gary from doing regulation through enforcement on Ripple if she is victorious hehehehehh.



Eighty-eight corporate leaders signed a new letter Friday endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris for president.

Signers include former 21st Century Fox CEO James Murdoch, Snap Chairman Michael Lynton, Yelp boss Jeremy Stoppelman and Ripple co-founder Chris Larsen.

Source https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/06/harris-endorsed-trump-murdoch-yelp-snap-ripple.html

Do not be fooled by politician, folks. They are the absolute devils and will do anything to win an election, but once you hand them the power, that is when you will see their true colors. I know of countries whose Governments would suddenly accept donations via cryptocurrencies after years of FUD just because they are at war and want to win it at all costs. Once things get better, they just continue with the same FUD and demonization of cryptocurrencies.

There's absolutely no evidence Harris or Warren or anybody else in the US government wants to "deprive you of your privacy".

The US has has capital gains taxes since the 1930s, under every president of every party. The US will have capital gains taxes forever, regardless of who is elected.

She's in the same league as Elizabeth Warren who wanted wallet providers to enforce KYC and wanted all bitcoin holders to be asked to declare their holdings by the IRS.
She wants to delegalize privacy!
Harris only wants donations because she believes people are dumb enough to finance the campaign of someone who wants to later tax their holdings and deprive them of their privacy.
Give me money you dumb animals and if I win I'll take the rest of it. 

Yet another US politics related thread. There isn’t much need to having all these thread here and there on the forum. I mean, I like how both candidates are having to project Bitcoin in all this but, it on the other hand, shows just the length they both are going for support by patronizing the cryptocurrency community. Am tired of seeing it already and hope the polls just come and be done with. Let’s know where all this is headed and the role of politics in cryptocurrency.

I don't think it indicates a candidate "loves" Bitcoin, but it surely dispels the myth that Harris is somehow "against Bitcoin".

The US has the majority of the worldwide hashrate, we have most of the holders here, Bitcoin has gone up hugely in the last few years, and it's absolutely legal to buy, sell, hold, and basically do almost anything you want that doesn't involve shutting down a children's hospital for ransom.

In other words, the US government is as friendly as it can reasonably be expected to be toward Bitcoin. The ones saying otherwise are just partisans shilling for their party: they are using Bitcoin as an excuse to campaign for the candidate they already want.

This was my view too. For now at least, the presumption has to be that any Bitcoin donations received will be converted to USD$ at the earliest stage and will be banked ready to use at any moment the respective campaigns feel they need funds. Just because any presidential hopeful might be accepting Bitcoin donations now does not mean they will be a crypto friendly president.

Of course the two things are not connected but some people love to convince themselves that certain things could be great for the crypto environment. I prefer to stick to the reality of facts, and the facts say that the Democratic Party is extremely against cryptocurrencies, their decisions over the last 4 years should be pretty clear to everyone at this point. And the fact that Harris never mentioned bitcoin once it's another indication that they don't intend changing their view. Probably she doesn't want to expose herself openly telling she's against cryptos because it could backfire so instead she prefers avoiding the topic.

What does accepting Bitcoin donations have to do with accepting Bitcoin? Because there is no guarantee that when she accepts Bitcoin donations it will change her policy in a more positive direction on Bitcoin in the future when she becomes president - it could be worse - because it is not only up to her but also Congress. So there is no need to overstate this because it does not matter at all whether she accepts Bitcoin, gold, or even garbage.

For sure I understand, makes sense why people might be quick to draw conclusions. I'm not from the USA but I became familiar with PACs after Elon Musk announced he was forming one to support Donald Trump with that $45m per month or whatever it was.

I agree with this because both nominees will use any means available to them as they try to become president but after they are actually in office, we will probably see many changes from they way they conducted themselves as presidential hopefuls. At present their statements have little value.

One other thing to consider is no matter what Gensler is planning with the SEC, it was reported Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse stated Gensler was going to replaced therefore circumstances seem to be changing all the time.

If a nominee only say lies to buy votes from us, that nominee will let his or her promise goes to void when he or she becomes an Elected President. Who is such nominee, you can decide with information you have and information extrapolation by yourself.

Politicians are liars because they break many promises but some politicians will do something from their promises for their citizens. It's the main point why you pick one nominee for your vote and refuse to vote for another.

I strongly disagree that both nominee will help Bitcoin adoption and if you saw what SEC. and Gensler did recent years or even last year to this cryptocurrency market, you can pick a good nominee for your vote.

If you are the USA citizen, use your vote; if you are not, you can consider it as your thinking only.

Well, nothing surprising because: LINK
And we know that in an election, every vote counts. This might be posted last year, but at least you got the point that there are many people in the US that are involved into Bitcoin, and joining them could give her an edge and might get some votes coming from them if she will also accepts Bitcoin for donations. Another political strategy coming from a politician which isn't rare.

Whatever these 2 candidates will be doing that's related to Bitcoin, the winners will be us because what they're doing will just increase the adoption of Bitcoin in the long run. I wonder if they will make something significant with regards to Bitcoin when one of them become the president.