
Swiss to vote on proposals to treat bitcoin as foreign currency - baazaar
http://www.finextra.com/news/fullstory.aspx?newsitemid=25521
======
CaptainZapp
The title is super misleading and needs to be changed.

It implies that this is a referendum, which is supposed to be voted on by the
public. However:

    
    
      Politicians in Switzerland are set to vote on proposals submitted by 45 members of the Swiss Parliament for bitcoins to be legally recognised as a legitimate foreign currency, like the euro or dollar. 
    

It is a _proposal_ by a group of 45 MPs towards the two houses of parliament.

my personal take is that chances are slim that this goes anywhere. Let alone
towards a popular referendum.

~~~
jwilliams
You're right that the title overstates the situation, but I wouldn't rule our
a referendum.

The Swiss have a lot and they're easy(ish) to trigger - it's an intrinsic part
of their voting system. e.g.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_referendums,_2013](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_referendums,_2013)

~~~
chmars
You can absolutely rule out a referendum:

In the Swiss political system, a referendum is a mean against a new law.
However, a new law on or against e-currencies is not even on the horizon in
Switzerland.

In a nutshell: No new law, no possibility for a referendum.

~~~
jwilliams
Not true, the mechanism allows for constitutional change. This includes:

\- Same-sex marriage \- A ban on building new minarets \- Phasing out Nuclear
Power (defeated) \- Limitations on Executive pay and payouts \- Abolishing
compulsory military service

Frankly. I have limited insight into what the average Swiss person thinks of
crypto-currencies.

However, I did find the average citizen has (relatively) strong views on
finance, cash and the integrity of their financial system.

~~~
CaptainZapp
He's right.

A referendum is _always_ called against a law enacted by parliament.

What you are referring to is called an initiative. Those are popular requests
to change the constitution to (for example) allow same sex marriage.

even though the outcome may be the same (a popular vote) the mechanisms are
quite different. (In German: Referendum vs Verfassungsinitiative).

A referendum on federal level requires 50'000 valid signatures, an initiative
double as much.

~~~
jwilliams
I was just using the term you used in your first post - which seemed
representative enough for me.

If your point was to argue that mechanism can't be used (but another can) then
that seems unusually specific/technical.

------
marme
I think it is actually a bad idea for bitcoin to be treated like a currency.
People should not push for it to be treated like a currency because then that
only leads to regulation. It should be treated like a financial vehicle or
commodity because that is what it is. Just like people openly trade Treasury
bills or other bonds on the open market, people now openly trade bitcoins. I
can take T-bill certificates anywhere in the world and they will most likely
be able to find someone to trade with for real currency just like I could take
bitcoins and trade them for other currency. The difference is that T-bills can
be freely traded without being controlled banking regulations. There are
already problems brewing in china from the government rulings about banks
rejecting bitcoins as a currency

~~~
downer87
Not only that, why should bitcoin be enshrined as the only special crypto-
currency worthy of recognition?

Not until we know who Satoshi Nakamoto is. Until then, bitcoin is just another
internet clusterfuck.

Don't tell me it's not relevant who he/she is. It _is_ relevant. It's a clear
demonstration of our own incompetence. Without that information in hand, we're
nothing more than rats following a pied piper.

~~~
algorias
> why should bitcoin be enshrined as the only special crypto-currency worthy
> of recognition?

I agree, but the reason you state has nothing to do with it. Who the fuck
cares who Satoshi is? Why does it matter, given that the protocol operates
independently from its original author and research can be done on it without
his/her permission? Finally, who is this _we_ you keep talking about?

~~~
robryk
The point here is that Satoshi is believed to have access to wallets with a
great number of early-mined bitcoins. The wallets were unused since a few
years and can be used to suddenly increase the amount of bitcoin in
circulation, which'd devalue it significantly.

------
notatoad
This seems like a good time to point out that the Swiss government really
likes to vote on things, and they vote on all kinds of crazy things. Simply
coming to a vote in the swiss parliament doesn't mean a whole lot. If it
passes, then it becomes something interesting.

~~~
CaptainZapp
You got that quite backwards.

The Swiss government does usually not put things to a vote. Like any other
government the parliament legislates and the executive proposes laws and
executes.

If parliament enacts a law that parts of the population doesn't like they can
call for a referendum. If they gather 50k signatures within a specific
timeframe then there will be a popular vote about th law.

The other way issues can come to a vote is by an initiative. This is usually
how the "crazy" issues come to a vote.

Note, however, that most issues are not crazy at all. The crazy ones are the
ones that you hear about in the international press.

An initiative on federal level requires 100k valid signatures.

------
kbar13
[https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=370709.0](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=370709.0)

------
salient
Why are countries in such a hurry to decide one way or the other, when
Bitcoin's market cap is still very small in many of these countries? Can't
they wait a year or two longer, and see where it goes and pass more
appropriate laws after they've had a while to think about it? I imagine most
people in Parliaments didn't even hear about Bitcoin until last month. So why
rush to a decision _now_ then?

