For The Love Of Bitcoin

[Thomas Troesch]

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Derek Atkins <warlord at mit.edu> wrote:

>
> So, adding bitcoin as a fund/commodity is still a workable workaround.
> It provides most everything you need.  The one exception is that you
> cannot set up Income or Expense accounts denoted in a stock or fund.  So
> you would need to translate your bitcoin sandwich price back into
> e.g. USD.
>
> -derek
>
>

 .
Wouldn't a workaround suitable for most be to just 'overload' an existing
currency for the purpose, using perhaps the  Thailand Baht ฿.  The symbols
are very similar.  The cynical among us may suggest using the Venezuela
Bolivia Fuerte.

But I think what is really being asked for is the GnuCash imprimatur for
Bitcoin.

Since I am hopelessly curious, I ran across this legal article from a US
perspective.

Grinberg, Reuben, Bitcoin: An Innovative Alternative Digital Currency
(December 9, 2011). Hastings Science & Technology Law Journal, Vol. 4, p.160
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1817857

quoting from the conclusions of the article:

"Most importantly, Bitcoin currently operates in a legal grey area.
The federal government’s supposed monopoly on issuing currency is
somewhat narrow and statutes that impose that monopoly do not
seem to apply to Bitcoin due to its digital nature. However, a bitcoin
may be a “security” within the meaning of the federal securities laws,
subjecting bitcoins to a vast regime of regulations, including general
antifraud rules. Although the best argument is that a bitcoin is not a
security, Bitcoin’s proponents will have to await an SEC or court
interpretation for certainty. Furthermore, other legal issues that have
not been analyzed in this Article are probably significant, including
tax evasion, banking without a charter, state escheat statutes, and
money laundering."

Thomas