"Bitcoin raises untested legal concerns related to securities law, the Stamp Payments Act, tax evasion, consumer protection and money laundering, among others."
No it doesn't. Accepting donations in Bitcoins is no different than accepting cash yen or euro or Zimbabwean dollars. You value them at the market's dollar rate for tax purposes. The other objections are thorough nonsense as far as I can tell.
The EFF is full of lawyers who, presumably, have studies these parts of law at least a little, even if none of them have specialized in it. What's your justification for calling their concerns "thorough nonsense"?
>What's your justification for calling their concerns "thorough nonsense"?
1) Currencies are not securities, and this is plain in definitions of the Securities Act of 1933 and following;
2) The Stamp Payments Act was enacted at the end of the wildcat banking period to end the circulation of small-denomination (less than one dollar) money by bank issuers. It clearly relates to dollar-denominated coins and notes. Bitcoin is a separate currency and has no physical form and no fixed denominations; regardless, the law applies no more to the use of Bitcoin than to the use of any other currency in the United States, which is not controversial.
3) I already explained the tax situation;
4) How is 'consumer protection' a legal issue related to the currency of denomination of a charitable donation?
5) Bitcoin could certainly abet money laundering, but the anti-money-laundering laws of the United States, in addition to regulating the conduct of financial institutions, apply almost exclusively to those who knowingly engage or intend to engage in transactions involving the proceeds of illegal activity.
Bitcoin raises a couple of interesting questions related to its fundamental electronic form, but the objections given are just nonsense.
No it doesn't. Accepting donations in Bitcoins is no different than accepting cash yen or euro or Zimbabwean dollars. You value them at the market's dollar rate for tax purposes. The other objections are thorough nonsense as far as I can tell.
The EFF is full of lawyers who, presumably, have studies these parts of law at least a little, even if none of them have specialized in it. What's your justification for calling their concerns "thorough nonsense"?