[enhancement] accept donations and "Mitgliedsbeitrag" in bitcoins.
I am asking for this because this would enable anonymous donations, and in case of the "Mitgliedsbeitrag" for the .e.V. it could make life easy, because my projects/repositories could accept bitcoins (as doantions) and pay the coeberg e.V. from it without converting everything into EURO in between. Acepting bitcoins is best made use of if you do not have to convert/sell it, but instead pay someone in bitcoin.
How to handle volatility risk? (mark-up for immediate exchange cost?)
Yes, this is an important question to be solved first. But as far as I know, bitcoins are treated as assets in germany. And so you need not immediately sell the bitcoins received. This is a matter of bookkeeping. I am sure there are experts in Berlin, which can give advice on that topic. This is of course just an idea and not an urgent matter, bitcins are not much used today. But I see advantages here (Standortvorteil).
Hey there, if someone can answer us one of the following questions, feel free to do so (ideally with providing sources or even a complete guideline for associations):
- what about taxes (German law!)?
- do we have to pay taxes for transfers within a cryptocurrency?
- do we have to pax taxes if we transfer the funds to Euro?
- which cryptocurrencies should we try to support? Bitcoin is well-known but far from perfect, using a lot of energy (environmental issue), still somewhat high transaction fees ... only support that one or are there others that might be even better?
- is there a convenient way for handling this, a payment provider with faciliates managing bitcoin (or even handles automatic transfer to our bank), which is not a privacy nightmare?
- do you know of other associations or projects that used cryptocurrencies and shared their positive or negative experiences?
Our resources are limited of course, so we cannot put too much effort in this. We'd really appreciate if you come up with your findings. Thank you.
The environmental impact of BTC is another huge question for me - can we support a currency that consumes that much energy (Digiconomist estimates 0,9 MWh and 0.4 tonnes of CO2 per transaction, although I can't really tell how much the site is biased), if we on the other hand put a priority on power-saving servers running fully on renewable energy?
Other more efficient cryptocurrencies like nano.org might be better to endorse regarding that factor if we want to accept cryptocurrencies in general.
Maybe I can throw some thoughts into the discussion:
As far as I know, you only need to pay taxes, if you sell the crypto-coins within a year after you got it, and then you would pay taxes on the gain only (difference of worth EURO when sold minus worth EURO when got). If you immediately/instantly sell them, this should not be a problem.
For bookeeping it is most easy if you immedeately sell them and book only EURO. But you could also keep the Bitcoins and only book them worth in EURO (If you sell them later, probably you will have to pay taxes). See 1.
Power consumption: Well: Have you asked yourself, how much power the other Fiat currecies need to be operated? (Sum of all power needed by ATM machines, Banks, etc..., even encount for the gas all the employees need to get from home to the banks and back every day.)
Probably this can put this in relation. However, The electricity Bitcoin needs to exist, should be reused in form of heat. E.g. in France many households heat their flats with electricity. They could to the same thing + operate Bitcoin infrastructure without additional enery usage and environmental pollution. So, yes, there is much space for improvement. At the moment the incentive set by the Bitcoin Network is to use the cheapest electricity, not the cleanest. Its all a matter of perspective.
It is enought to support a single crypto-currency, because they are all inter-exchangable on the fly without much effort. You should chouse the one with the least conversion costs. And that is (to my knowledge) Bitcoin. (Avoid discussions about any other Crypto currencies beeing a ponzi-scheme, which might well be in particular).
Transaction fees of Bitcoin: That they would be rather high is a fact from the past. The transaction fee problem has been solved with the so-called "lightening network", which is an extension to bitcoin. Reuccuring transactions would have a marginal transaction cost. It would be possible and not costly to pay for every single day or even minute of Codeberg membership for the same transaction fee than one would if payed only once (without the lightening network). (I have been a bit draft on the details here but you might just want to get the idea.) Also for central services (which receive payment) this extension is beneficial and cuts down transactions costs in any case. However supportes of codeberg in Europe or even Germany would choose the regular bank transfer (which is usually free for them). But what about receiving money from other parts of the world? Bank transfer rates are very high here, up to 25 Dollars.
All of this is -- highly experimental -- but very much related to software and designing the future (with decentralizing services). In this aspect it well fits codeberg.
Concerning the legal implications and tax, this could be a test case where we can learn. Germany (as is Switzerland) is very crypto-currency friendly and the tax-laws are much more easy to follow. However details should maybe discussed with a skilled Steuerberater. But it could be worth it.
However I might add:
- Zahlungsdienstleister (like BitPay): Here we probably have a problem at the moment. The situation was better in 2017. BitPay does not exist anymore, and also any other Zahlungsdienstleister might eventually shut down business. They are all start-ups. However, if you do not want to handle bitcoins yourself, you should probably not offer reception. because privacy would be an issue (third pary involved) and you in effect would only see EURO because everything else is converted (with conversion costs) by that Zahlungsdienstleister. Is no Witz dabei.
It would be best not to have the need to convert Bitcoin into EURO and vice-versa. This could be avoided, if you would be able to pay codebergs expenses (like the Rechenzentrum, cloud service) in Bitcoin. They probably wont accept it. But someone has to start to make that work. If you have a currency which nobody accepts, then in fact it is not a currency. And treating Bitcoin just as an asset would be a (mis-)use of that concept and this is at high risk to completely fail. I know, that bitcoin is mostly in the news for beeing an asset for speculation. But this is not what it is intended to be. So converting forth and back is not a good thing and will destabilize the whole system. You should pay with it and receive it in exchange for your services, benefit from its felxibility, its low(!) transactions costs, its decentralization and independency, censorship-resistance, etc....
can just agree, I would focus on BTC however we could add LTC for funn and hold it and donate it to projects who accept it whitch we use - there are some out there!
If we are able to run a lighning node this woudl be a win win (for us and the btc community)
bountysource also accept BTC if we like to spent back to devs
oh and dont forget ETH - esp if you are concernet about PrufeOfWork alg currencys & enviroment, they are going into stacing - but dont know how long they take to migrate tbh
- Power consumption: Well: Have you asked yourself, how much power the other Fiat currecies need to be operated?
Yes I did, much less. Their systems are not designed to use CPU power to sustain, but use the CPU power that is needed to do their job. Thus, cryptocurrencies will always have an overhead because of their proof-of-work (don't know if there are experimental cryptocurrencies without this concept, but I doubt it).
The question we want to raise is if we want to choose a cryptocurrency that already addresses this, e. g. because they are less competitive etc ...
Oh and I just stumbled upon this article, but it's not the first to explain the energy consumption of cryptocurrencies: https://www.iflscience.com/environment/bitcoin-mining-will-soon-pump-out-more-carbon-than-czech-republic-new-study-says/
If you sum up all the bank offices, their employees etc, you'd soon have to start summing the cpu time your wallet at home needs (replacing the ATM machine), the bitcoin exchange networks etc ... I mean, I'm totally with you, questioning the global finance network and it's power consumption, I mean, there are people being paid without doing much good to the world, but only speculating and earning money with others work. We're soon turning into a philosophical domain, I'd just like to raise some awareness to our environment etc ...
The answer I want to hear is surely not to use conventional fiat because it's more efficient or to store passwords in plaintext again to save the CPU time of the hashing function, but to choose a somewhat efficient version (and cryptocurrency in this case), which is, AFAICt, not Bitcoin.
Disclaimer: I don't understand all of crypto currencies so I might get some things wrong. Feel free to correct me.
The fundamental design of Bitcoin and most other crypto currencies does not allow for anonymous payments. Basically anone who has the blockchain record, so everyone who is part of the Bitcoin system, can trace any transaction which is the root problem of the fungibility (1 BTC != 1 BTC). In fact Amazon is selling those tracing systems to goverments.
There are privacy preserving crypto currencies like Monero however I think its only a question of time before legislation catches on and makes its use illigal because they can actually not be traced.
In case of Bitcoin I think you could use mixing systems (to make tracing harder, not impossible) but I am also pretty sure that that would be considererd money laundering under european law we could say that "we" codeberg don't actually "do" the money landering but then we are basically saying we expect our users to do it if they want to pay us with Bitcoin — I'm sure that is illigal as well.
And then we do have the environmental problem. Bitcoin is not a currency and it is not wihtout legislation what the original purpose appears to have been, that makes it a nice tech to play with but nothing to take serious, yet.
Deleting a branch is permanent. It CANNOT be undone. Continue?