[uncomputation]

Did you read the article? This is just about exempting non-exchanges from “broker” status i.e. keeping track of users’ personal information, transaction history, and data. The representatives said they agree people not paying taxes on crypto is a problem, but classifying them as brokers is not the solution.

[skybrian]

Why isn’t it part of the solution? It seems like keeping track of who buys mining equipment (at least at large scale) would be a pretty important component in making sure that they pay taxes? Just like it’s important that brokerages report your stock transactions to the IRS.

[freeone3000]

This is not what broker requirements are.

If you are under broker requirements, and you wish to mine a new block, you must have, for every transaction you include in the block, the legal name of the person whose transaction it is, their address, and whether they are a politically compromised individual (ex, a general or politician of a nation that is not the US).

For every transaction you're going to include in the block.

This information is reasonable to expect from brokerages and exchanges, but not from miners, who are merely transaction processors.

[RandomLensman]

Payment facilitators and processor would normally fall under some sort of KYC regime, I think (let's say when onboarding a merchant). Arguably, there isn't really a one-to-one correspondence with a miner, but to completely exempt miners here is an interesting twist.

[cwkoss]

This isn't about buying mining equipment either.

It's whether bitcoin miners need to KYC the other boxes they communicate with. It'd be like requiring bittorrent clients to have a copy of drivers license on file for every other node they make connections to.