US IRS notices don't have much weight in Japan. :-)

For many, one with underbody LEDs. :-)

Each and every ledger entry has a cost basis. For incoming coins the new coins have a value based on the time they were received. The old coins returning to you based on when they were new. For outgoing coins (not including those coming back) it would probably be like other accounting practices where a first in first out (FIFO) system or a last in first out (LIFO) system is used. In either case the basis of the outgoing coins are known.

The odd thing would seem to be that as the outgoing coins are spent its necessary to determine if a gain (coins being paid at a price higher than basis) or a loss (coins being paid at a price lower than basis) is being recognized.

Ex. You buy one coin at $500 and another at $600. Coins are priced at $800 at the time of a future purchase. You buy something for $1,200, 1.5 coins. Using FIFO your basis for the outgoing 1.5 coins is $500 + $300 = $800, and the basis for the returning 0.5 coins is still $300. You experienced a gain of $400 on the 1.5 coins at the time of the sale and that $400 would seem to be taxable income. Apologies if I botched the math, its late, hopefully the point gets across.

Is all this a royal pain in the ass, yes. But basis, gains and losses seem perfectly calculable.

And until changes are made they will fine you and apply penalties if you deviate from their guidance. Their interpretation is not optional, it carries weight until a court or congress says otherwise.

I'm not an accountant, this is not tax advice.

It seems that miners need a daily log of the coins mined and the closing prices on an acceptable exchange. Each day's coins may have their own basis, the number mined multiplied by the closing price on the exchange. This basic seems to be counted as income.

Equipment and electricity are probably not factored into the basis. They are most likely a separate deduction.

The LAPD would only need to state that the images were captured with the intent of validating registration tags. Police have the right to look at a plate's registration tag when the vehicle is on a public road, and even stop you and ticket you if it is out of date. This could be automated and a ticket sent in the mail.

Computer viruses predated the internet and worked across sneaker nets. Code on a floppy can be infected. A floppy can contain data crafted to overrun buffers and execute code, etc. The internet just simplifies the process, automates it.

Not really. Merchants can out you.

According to the article Apple is asking for court documents. Although its not clear if they have been doing so from the initial contact. This probably had to work it way up a few levels of customer support to get to someone who knew what should be done. Lower levels probably only know to tell people to reset their password and check their email.

"off the market" and "legally own" are two different things. There is no "I forgot my password" link for bitcoins.

So in your opinion the probate court system for executing a will is optional? Businesses are free to transfer accounts to people without court approval, including accounts that have monetary value or are linked to credit cards?

Also, do you not understand the security vulnerability if Apple just starts taking people's word for it with respect to resetting passwords on Apple IDs?

From wiki:

"A representative example of a complete probate clause, from the 14th century (or earlier) onwards ...
"This will was proved at London before the worshipful Sir Richard Raines, knight, Doctor of Laws, Master Keeper or Commissary of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, lawfully constituted, on the twenty third day of the month of June in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred and ninety seven, by the oath of Mary Bathurst, relict and executrix named in the said will, to whom administration was granted of all and singular the goods, rights and credits of the said deceased, sworn on the holy Gospel of God to well and faithfully administer the same. It has been examined"."

Probate. From wiki:

"Probate is a legal document. Receipt of probate is the first step in the legal process of administering the estate of a deceased person, resolving all claims and distributing the deceased person's property under a will. A probate court (surrogate court) decides the legal validity of a testator's will and grants its approval by granting probate to the executor."

In short, Apple seems to want to see the court document stating that the person contacting Apple is indeed the executor of the will.

I don't think the will itself has any authority to transfer ownership. Rather it is the probate court that has such authority and the will is the instructions to the probate court on how such transfers are to be made.

Apple may be complying with the law by requiring instructions from a probate court.

Or maybe Apple is complying with the law? They have not said no, they have said show us something from a judge. In the US we have probate courts that handle transferring owner of property as stated in a will.

Frankly, it would be more of a security vulnerability to reset a password because you got a letter from a lawyer than instructions from a judge. A letter from a lawyer is social engineering (persuasion), even when real. It lacks legal authority, unlike instructions from a judge. Plus judges orders can be verified.