Bank of Korea: Cryptocurrency Costs Unlikely to Crowd Out Fiat Currencies Blockchain NewsNewsRegulation Nevada Senate Votes to Recognize Blockchain Tax Ban Bill Rebecca Campbell Advertisement: Senators in the state of Nevada have fully supported a blockchain bill that would prevent a local government from taxing or imposing restrictions upon the use of a blockchain.SB 398 was first filed by Ben Kieckhefer on March 20, the bill was introduced to ensure that the State keeps up with the advancements of technology in addition to establishing a legal framework for people utilizing a blockchain and not to do so in a legal gray area.Over a month since the bill was first introduced, senators in the state of Nevada advanced the bill with full backing with a 21-0 vote.During the Senate Committee on Judiciary [PDF] last month, Kieckhefer explained to those present that the SB 398 bill was an offshoot of several efforts he had worked on during the 2015-2016 Interim to ensure that Nevada provided a welcoming and inclusive environment for startups.

He said: Entrepreneurs have been working on a package of legislation to ensure that, instead of just incentivizing large companies to relocate to the State, we have policies incentivizing them and smaller companies to start and grow here.According to public records, the bill [PDF] states: This bill prohibit[s] a local government from: (1) imposing a tax or fee on the use of a blockchain; (2) requiring a certificate, license or permit to use a blockchain; and (3) imposing any other requirement relating to the use of a blockchain.how much litecoin can i mineThe bill will now move to the state’s Assembly for further consideration.coin floor bitcoinBlockchain Bills Nevada is not the only state that is pushing the blockchain agenda, which could essentially pave the way for smart contracts too in the state.bitcoin mining crime

Last month, the Senate of the state of Arizona passed a blockchain bill that would give smart contracts and blockchain signatures legal binding status after passing a vote of 28-1.With more companies experimenting with smart contracts, this is welcome news for many companies and neighboring states following progress, as it means that smart contracts must be upheld and enforced under Arizona law.Such a move could help Nevada as SB 398 progresses and may help the bill being signed into law.bitcoin data breachHowever, while Arizona appears keen to push the blockchain agenda, it doesn’t feel its use can be used for everything.bitcoin trader macSo much so, that earlier this month, the state’s governor signed into law a blockchain bill that would prohibit the blockchain technology from being used to track firearm information.titan bitcoin review

Featured image from Wikimedia.Washington state has introduced a measure to ban the use of Bitcoin in transactions with its burgeoning legal marijuana industry.According to GeekWire, a state senator has introduced the bill claiming that the cryptocurrency is not transparent enough for marijuana sales.Marijuana businesses have flocked to Bitcoin as an alternative to holding on to large sums of cash, since many banks will not service the pot industry as marijuana is still classified as an illegal substance at the federal level, despite being legal for medicinal and recreational use in many states.The ban on Bitcoin would force marijuana entrepreneurs back to square one when it comes to holding on to cash, which brings with it security risks and expenses.(For more, see: Is Legal Pot a Boon for Bitcoin?)Lawmarkers Want Bitcoin Out of Pot Shops Coindesk reports that, "under the proposed rule, businesses that work in the local marijuana industry would not be allowed to either pay for goods with digital currency or accept those kinds of payments from customers.

The bill also includes a definition of "virtual currency" that explicitly targets "digital representation[s] of value used as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, or a store of value", but excludes the "the software or protocols governing the transfer".Bitcoin is a digital, borderless form of money that is controlled by a decentralized network of computers and not by any government or central bank.(See also: The 5 Most Bitcoin Friendly States) Ironically, some users of online black markets for drugs have been shying away from Bitcoin and towards alternatives such a Zcash, Dash or Monero, for fear that Bitcoin is too transparent.The open nature of Bitcoin's blockchain allows for forensic data analysis that can identify users and follow their transaction patterns.In some ways, Bitcoin may be even more auditable than cash.Some have speculated that the Silk Road, one of the largest online black markets, was brought down by the FBI by following the trail of Bitcoin transactions of its founder.

Want to learn how to invest?Get a free 10 week email series that will teach you how to start investing.Delivered twice a week, straight to your inbox.No thanks, I prefer not making money.During his confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Jeff Sessions promised that as attorney general he would "revisit" a 2011 Justice Department memo that interpreted the Wire Act of 1961 as applying only to sports betting, which opened the door to state-regulated online gambling.The implication was that Sessions might revert to the department's earlier position on the statute, which implausibly read it as banning all forms of internet-assisted betting, even those permitted by state law.Although Sessions' comments set off alarm bells among online poker fans and other supporters of legalization, it's not clear how serious he is about reversing the DOJ's position.The Alabama senator said he was "shocked" by the 2011 memo and "criticized it."But it was obvious he had not read it, and there seems to be no public record of his opposition to it.

Sessions was responding to a question from Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), sponsor of a bill that would amend the Wire Act to ban all online gambling.The bill, which is backed by Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson, who is keen to wipe out online competition with his casinos, is called the Restoration of America's Wire Act.But it does not "restore" anything; it rewrites the 1961 law by excising its reference to sports betting and inserting language about the internet.To give you an idea of how big a loon Graham is on the subject of online gambling, he tried to justify his bill on national security grounds during the 2015 confirmation hearings for Attorney General Loretta Lynch."Would you agree with me that one of the best ways for a terrorist organization or criminal enterprise to be able to enrich themselves is to have online gaming?"Lynch allowed that "those who provide the material support and financing to terrorist organizations...will use any means to finance those organizations."She declined to offer an opinion on the DOJ memo, saying she was familiar with its conclusion but had not read it.

Although Sessions clearly had not read the memo either, he was eager to appease Graham."I was shocked at the memorandum...that the Department of Justice issued with regard to the Wire Act and criticized it," he said."Apparently there is some justification or argument that can be made to support the Department of Justice's position, but I did oppose it when it happened."Apparently there is some justification?Wouldn't you want to consider the DOJ's reasoning before criticizing its conclusion?It seems that's not necessary when you're a senator, but Sessions promised to do so after taking charge of the Justice Department."I would revisit it," he assured Graham, "and I would make a decision about it based on careful study."If Sessions really does study the issue carefully, he will find that the DOJ's current interpretation of the Wire Act is much more faithful to the text and history of the law than the interpretation the department repudiated.The Wire Act, which was a response to the involvement of organized crime in sports betting, made it a felony to use "a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest."

Prior to 2011, the DOJ implausibly insisted that the phrase "on any sporting event or contest" does not modify "bets or wagers" and therefore does not restrict the law's scope to that kind of gambling.But the 2011 memo, a 13-page document prepared by the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in response to questions about online sales of state lottery tickets, concluded that "the Wire Act prohibits only the transmission of communications related to bets or wagers on sporting events or contests."There is nothing at all "shocking" about that position, which was endorsed by the U.S.Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in a 2002 ruling that rejected Wire Act charges against the operators of websites offering casino-style games.The 5th Circuit matter-of-factly observed that "the Wire Act does not prohibit non-sports internet gambling."In a letter responding to Sessions' comments, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and six other organizations note that "the OLC memo was not a 'reinterpretation' of the Wire Act's intent; it merely restored the law to its original meaning."

It is not clear on what grounds Sessions "criticized" and "oppose[d]" the DOJ memo, or even that he did so.A search of his office's website turns up zero references to the Wire Act, and a Nexis search of news stories and transcripts since December 2011, when the memo was posted, finds no comments about it by Sessions.Sessions, a social conservative, is no fan of online gambling but has not said much about it since he was elected to the Senate in 1996."With the exception of his first two years as a United States senator," the Online Poker Report noted in November, "by and large, Sessions has avoided gambling issues."In 1997 Sessions announced that he was cosponsoring the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, saying, "I am troubled by how easy it is for children to pick up their parents' credit cards and gamble on the Internet."But he never actually got around to cosponsoring the bill that year or in 1999.Nor was he listed as a cosponsor of Graham's bill in 2013-14 or last session.Notably, Sessions said the 1997 bill would "update the law by extending existing prohibitions against gambling to the Internet," which contradicts Graham's premise that the Wire Act already bans online gambling, so that his bill merely "restores" the law's original meaning.

That premise is pretty hard to swallow, since Congress passed the law decades before the internet existed and expressly limited its scope to sports betting.Sessions may not approve of online gambling, but his job as attorney general will be to enforce the law as written, regardless of his personal policy preferences."We appreciate nominee Sessions' pledge to give the issue 'careful study,'" says the Poker Players Alliance, "and we also have no doubt that such careful study will reaffirm what OLC, the courts and Congress already agree on: the Wire Act is limited to sports betting and states may regulate other forms of internet gaming."Supporters of Graham's bill claim it would protect the prerogatives of states that refuse to let their residents play games for money, when in fact it would blatantly violate federalist principles by overriding the decisions of states that choose to legalize internet gambling.CEI warns that reading the Wire Act the way Graham prefers "would severely injure one of our nation's founding principles: the idea that the federal government's power should be limited and states should be free to regulate intrastate commerce as they see fit."