On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Derek Atkins <warl...@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 _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
