Bitcoin might be a currency but since it's only numbers in a computer and not a physical object can it even be said to exist? Anyway, surely it wouldn't be a crime for someone in the US to pay someone else in Euros or Stirling if they were both happy about it. If the US government start using a clause like that then it's obviously only because they're miffed about not getting to tax it, but they'd probably use some BS excuse like counter-terrorism, protecting kids, etc like they always do for things they don't like.
See these are all the questions no one really has answers to. There is all this grey area because of the internet. But if the government is not getting it's cut, they are not going to let that ride. Crypto certainly has it's challenges ahead. This online tax bill in congress is alot bigger than I think some people understand. The USG is looking to remove that grey area. I'm not saying any of this is right or fair...I'm just saying it is what it is.
There's no "gray area" if you consider fiat currency to be a sound system. Bitcoin dilutes the fiat economy, without introducing any value. Just like printing more money. If you are holding $$$, it's certainly not in your benefit for Bitcoin to succeed.
I'm not talking personal ideology, I'm talking grey area from a legal standpoint. The USG is coming for their taxes. You can bet with 100% certainty this will be the case. But the USG will want to have solid legal footing to do so. Because of the internet, it requiring updated rules, regulations and policies to deal with it.

My apologies. This forum has obviously made me hypersensitive.
