Bitcoin: Tax Evasion Currency

Our editor-in-chief was this old-school guy in his fifties, with quite a few years of journalistic experience and with a ferocious attention to details and exigence. When he was brought in, the first thing he did was mail us a list of things that were unacceptable and would promptly result in ending collaboration if they were repeated.

I kept it for future reference, and this article meets about one third of the points there, including:

1. Not talking about anything that happened, but instead talking about a lot of things that could happen. Go write for a SF magazine if you want that.

2. Mention every possible debate on the subject, without attempting to either offer a conclusion or a new set of arguments for any of them. People who do that after they're twenty were too busy being teacher's pets in college to get drunk, smoke weed and rant. Go get high or something.

3. Bringing a lot of arguments for something that you do not explicitly mention. If your material is argumentative in nature, state what you are arguing for in the first few phrases, in a coherent form. Don't let people guess what you're arguing for and especially don't imply it in the title. That's for wimps who want to make noise, but are too afraid to clearly express their opinions.

4. Excessive use of terms that are reserved for probability or possibility. It's tempting to write these off as a stylistic device, but they are rarely actually needed; excessive use betrays lack of serious research, of which the author is unconsciously aware, but he is too haughty to admit it. Go check your sources, make a list of things you're sure of and things you aren't sure of, and see #1 for what to do with those that you aren't sure of.

(This is a true gem, there's a whole paragraph of things that may or may not be true, but who knows: "With no banking or government involvement, Bitcoin may be anonymous. It may even be ideal for someone who intentionally tries not to pay tax. That may be a small piece of the Bitcoin payment universe. But for most people who file tax returns and report their income whether or not it shows up on a Form W-2 or 1099, it probably isn’t the tax haven some are suggesting it is.")

5. Lack of a conclusion that either proves or disproves your original argument. If your conclusion is not about your point, you're sticking it in the wrong article and you just screwed up two of them.

This is tabloid material.

What would you expect from a media "company" run by people afraid of bitcoin ?

Imagine if government requires merchants to register their addresses with IRS. Now all the amounts can be traced and taxes calculated perfectly. Employers will also have to register addresses of the employees where the wages are paid. Now you'll have "white coins" that can be sent from one registered address to another without questions asked and "black coins" that exist outside the eyes of IRS. Obviously, it'll be hard+expensive to transfer black coins to white addresses and vice versa. Sounds very creepy, but there could be a nice outcome: government couldn't print money out of thin air and fund wars, DEA, NSA etc via "budget deficit", "bonds" and other names for never-to-be-paid debts.

So, until the volatility of bitcoin's exchange rate against the world's major currencies calms down and stays calm for a significant period of time, this really isn't something to worry about.

I agree with the sentiments of weland, even though I have not read this specific article because 7 of 8 articles I have read on Forbes.com, I regret having done so.