Form 28 (See Rule 40 Notice Of Demand For Payment Of Tax: Fill & Download for Free

It’s impossible to spend much time in the cryptocurrency and blockchain world without hearing about Ethereum, or ETH for short. In this article, you’ll learn what Ethereum is, what makes it different and why it’s better than Bitcoin, at least for certain purposes.Guess the price directionBitcoin/TetherBTCUSDT33,743.81−2.71337493372733743.81UpDownWhat is the Ethereum cryptocurrency?Strictly speaking, Ethereum refers to an open-source software platform that is based on blockchain technology, enabling developers to create decentralised applications, or dApps. However, Ethereum is also used to refer to the Ether coin (ETH), a cryptocurrency built on the Ethereum platform. When someone talks about buying, trading or paying with Ethereum, they mean the Ether currency.Ethereum’s historyEthereum’s story starts with Vitalik Buterin, who became involved with Bitcoin as a 17-year-old programmer in 2011. Buterin became aware of Bitcoin’s shortcomings and created Ethereum as superior blockchain technology.I thought [people in the Bitcoin community] weren’t approaching the problem in the right way. I thought they were going after individual applications; they were trying to kind of explicitly support each [use case] in a sort of Swiss Army knife protocol.— Vitalik Buterin, Ethereum co-founder.A timeline of Ethereum’s early history:2013: Buterin released a white paper describing the basis for Ethereum.2014: Buterin and the other co-founders crowdfunded Ethereum through an ICO that raised more than $18 million.2015: The first live release of Ethereum, known as Frontier, was launched.What is Ethereum’s purpose?Ethereum is a blockchain technology platform designed to enable a large variety of functions. A popular comparison is if Bitcoin is e-mail, then Ethereum is the whole Internet.Ethereum is used for computer services that are based on dApps and smart contracts, which saves time and money by eliminating intermediaries, third-party brokers and inefficient monopolies like big companies or even government authorities.In essence, it follows the decentralised philosophy of Bitcoin but is applied to much more than just money.What is Ethereum written in?Given that the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) functions as a ‘world computer’ with many nodes, it uses multiple programming languages, including C++, Python, Ruby, Go and Java. A specialised language called Solidity is used to write smart contracts in the Ethereum Virtual Machine.ETH’s hard forkIn 2016, $50 million worth of Ether was stolen by a hacker, an act that raised concerns about the platform’s security. The resulting controversy split the community, and Ethereum forked into two blockchains: Ethereum (ETH) and Ethereum Classic (ETC).ETH tokensEthereum has both the Ether (ETH) crypto coin and Ether tokens. The latter can function as a currency within the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM). ETH tokens are transferred within the EVM to execute smart contracts.What is a smart contract in Ethereum?A smart contract is a computer program that functions as a contract, i.e., it binds individuals and/or businesses to meet obligations.The smart contract’s code automatically executes the terms when tokens are deposited. The benefits include:Digital format: There’s no need to print or post paper, and it’s easily shareable.Autonomous operation: It cuts out intermediaries, there’s no back-and-forth.Trust: Information on a smart contract is encrypted and backed up on a shared ledger.Security: Encryption makes contract information incredibly difficult to steal.Speed: Automatic execution makes smart contracts faster.Cost: It saves on paper costs, lawyer fees, etc.Smart contracts act as multi-signature accounts, only executing if the specified percentage of parties agree.Smart contracts can be encoded on any blockchain, but developers working on Ethereum can programme smart contracts with a much broader range of instructions than what’s possible on Bitcoin. It allows Ethereum smart contracts to be more complex and versatile. They can serve as the base for a decentralised application or other autonomous functions on the blockchain.Why is Ethereum better than Bitcoin?ETH has several advantages over Bitcoin. It isn’t limited in the same way that BTC is. Ethereum uses the Ethash method for its mining algorithm. As a result, the block processing speed is faster.What is the difference between Bitcoin and Ethereum?BTCETHCoin Limit21 MillionNoneAlgorithmSHA-256EthashAvg block time10 minutes12 secondsHowever, Ethereum’s main advantage over Bitcoin is its functionality. Bitcoin can only record transactions. Ethereum powers apps that can be used for almost anything a programmer desires.What is an ETH wallet?An Ethereum wallet is where the private keys to access the cryptocurrency are stored. The StormGain crypto trading platform comes with a built-in ETH wallet, in which you can earn up to 10% annual interest on your currency.Cryptocurrency tradingEthereum is the crypto coin with the second-largest market share after Bitcoin. Ethereum also has the second-highest trading volume among cryptocurrencies. By using StormGain, traders can earn significant bonuses and rewards for trading Ethereum.The price history of ETH, in USD and BitcoinEthereum miningEthereum is currently mined via a proof-of-work algorithm. Much like Bitcoin, Ethereum miners dedicate their computing hardware to solving tasks that support the blockchain and receive ETH in return.What is a good hashrate for Ethereum mining?The frequency with which the ETH mining hardware can process hashes determines how likely it is to earn a reward.A hashrate of around 45.0 MH/s is considered suitable for a consumer GPU. However, the whole mining system may soon become irrelevant for Ethereum.What is Ethereum’s future?Ethereum will upgrade soon to version 2.0, a move planned for 2020. The main feature is a change from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake validation.Ethereum 1.0 is a couple of people’s scrappy attempt to build the world computer; Ethereum 2.0 [with PoS] will actually be the world computer — Vitalik ButerinThe current system is notoriously wasteful of energy. A proof-of-stake protocol will mean that users stake their ETH as collateral to verify a transaction (and claim the reward).On 18 August 2008, the domain name bitcoin.org was registered.[11] Later that year, on 31 October, a link to a paper authored by Satoshi Nakamoto titled Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System[12] was posted to a cryptography mailing list.[13] This paper detailed methods of using a peer-to-peer network to generate what was described as "a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust".[14][15][16] On 3 January 2009, the bitcoin network came into existence with Satoshi Nakamoto mining the genesis block of bitcoin (block number 0), which had a reward of 50 bitcoins.[14][17] Embedded in the coinbase of this block was the text:The Times Jan/03/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks.[18]The text refers to a headline in The Times published on 3 January 2009.[19] This note has been interpreted as both a timestamp of the genesis date and a derisive comment on the instability caused by fractional-reserve banking.[20]:18The first open source bitcoin client was released on 9 January 2009, hosted at SourceForge.[21][22]One of the first supporters, adopters, contributors to bitcoin and receiver of the first bitcoin transaction was programmer Hal Finney. Finney downloaded the bitcoin software the day it was released, and received 10 bitcoins from Nakamoto in the world's first bitcoin transaction on 12 January 2009 (bloc 170).[23][24] Other early supporters were Wei Dai, creator of bitcoin predecessor b-money, and Nick Szabo, creator of bitcoin predecessor bit gold.[14]In the early days, Nakamoto is estimated to have mined 1 million bitcoins.[25] Before disappearing from any involvement in bitcoin, Nakamoto in a sense handed over the reins to developer Gavin Andresen, who then became the bitcoin lead developer at the Bitcoin Foundation, the 'anarchic' bitcoin community's closest thing to an official public face.[26]The value of the first bitcoin transactions were negotiated by individuals on the bitcoin forum with one notable transaction of 10,000 BTC used to indirectly purchase two pizzas delivered by Papa John's.[14]On 6 August 2010, a major vulnerability in the bitcoin protocol was spotted. Transactions weren't properly verified before they were included in the transaction log or blockchain, which let users bypass bitcoin's economic restrictions and create an indefinite number of bitcoins.[27][28] On 15 August, the vulnerability was exploited; over 184 billion bitcoins were generated in a transaction, and sent to two addresses on the network. Within hours, the transaction was spotted and erased from the transaction log after the bug was fixed and the network forked to an updated version of the bitcoin protocol.[29] This was the only major security flaw found and exploited in bitcoin's history.[27][28][30]Satoshi Nakamoto[edit]Main article: Satoshi Nakamoto"Satoshi Nakamoto" is presumed to be a pseudonym for the person or people who designed the original bitcoin protocol in 2008 and launched the network in 2009. Nakamoto was responsible for creating the majority of the official bitcoin software and was active in making modifications and posting technical information on the bitcoin forum.[14] There has been much speculation as to the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto with suspects including Dai, Szabo, and Finney – and accompanying denials.[31][32] The possibility that Satoshi Nakamoto was a computer collective in the European financial sector has also been discussed.[33]Investigations into the real identity of Satoshi Nakamoto were attempted by The New Yorker and Fast Company. The New Yorker's investigation brought up at least two possible candidates: Michael Clear and Vili Lehdonvirta. Fast Company's investigation brought up circumstantial evidence linking an encryption patent application filed by Neal King, Vladimir Oksman and Charles Bry on 15 August 2008, and the bitcoin.org domain name which was registered 72 hours later. The patent application (#20100042841) contained networking and encryption technologies similar to bitcoin's, and textual analysis revealed that the phrase "... computationally impractical to reverse" appeared in both the patent application and bitcoin's whitepaper.[12] All three inventors explicitly denied being Satoshi Nakamoto.[34][35]In May 2013, Ted Nelson speculated that Japanese mathematician Shinichi Mochizuki is Satoshi Nakamoto.[36] Later in 2013 the Israeli researchers Dorit Ron and Adi Shamir pointed to Silk Road-linked Ross William Ulbricht as the possible person behind the cover. The two researchers based their suspicion on an analysis of the network of bitcoin transactions.[37] These allegations were contested[38] and Ron and Shamir later retracted their claim.[39]Nakamoto's involvement with bitcoin does not appear to extend past mid-2010.[14] In April 2011, Nakamoto communicated with a bitcoin contributor, saying that he had "moved on to other things".[18]Stefan Thomas, a Swiss coder and active community member, graphed the time stamps for each of Nakamoto's 500-plus bitcoin forum posts; the resulting chart showed a steep decline to almost no posts between the hours of 5 a.m. and 11 a.m. Greenwich Mean Time. Because this pattern held true even on Saturdays and Sundays, it suggested that Nakamoto was asleep at this time, and the hours of 5 a.m. to 11 a.m. GMT are midnight to 6 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (North American Eastern Standard Time). Other clues suggested that Nakamoto was British: A newspaper headline he had encoded in the genesis block came from the UK-published newspaper The Times, and both his forum posts and his comments in the bitcoin source code used British English spellings, such as "optimise" and "colour".[14]An Internet search by an anonymous blogger of texts similar in writing to the bitcoin whitepaper suggests Nick Szabo's "bit gold" articles as having a similar author.[31] Nick denied being Satoshi, and stated his official opinion on Satoshi and bitcoin in a May 2011 article.[40]In a March 2014 article in Newsweek, journalist Leah McGrath Goodman doxed Dorian S. Nakamoto of Temple City, California, saying that Satoshi Nakamoto is the man's birth name. Her methods and conclusion drew widespread criticism.[41][42]In June 2016, the London Review of Books published a piece by Andrew O'Hagan about Nakamoto.[43] The real identity of Satoshi Nakamoto still remains a matter of dispute.Growth[edit]2011[edit]Based on bitcoin's open-source code, other cryptocurrencies started to emerge.[44]The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit group, started accepting bitcoins in January 2011,[45] then stopped accepting them in June 2011, citing concerns about a lack of legal precedent about new currency systems.[46] The EFF's decision was reversed on 17 May 2013 when they resumed accepting bitcoin.[47]In June 2011, WikiLeaks[48] and other organizations began to accept bitcoins for donations.2012[edit]In January 2012, bitcoin was featured as the main subject within a fictionalized trial on the CBS legal drama The Good Wife in the third-season episode "Bitcoin for Dummies". The host of CNBC's Mad Money, Jim Cramer, played himself in a courtroom scene where he testifies that he doesn't consider bitcoin a true currency, saying, "There's no central bank to regulate it; it's digital and functions completely peer to peer".[49]In September 2012, the Bitcoin Foundation was launched to "accelerate the global growth of bitcoin through standardization, protection, and promotion of the open source protocol". The founders were Gavin Andresen, Jon Matonis, Patrick Murck, Charlie Shrem, and Peter Vessenes.[50]In October 2012, BitPay reported having over 1,000 merchants accepting bitcoin under its payment processing service.[51] In November 2012, WordPress started accepting bitcoins.[52]2013[edit]In February 2013, the bitcoin-based payment processor Coinbase reported selling US$1 million worth of bitcoins in a single month at over $22 per bitcoin.[53] The Internet Archive announced that it was ready to accept donations as bitcoins and that it intends to give employees the option to receive portions of their salaries in bitcoin currency.[54]In March, the bitcoin transaction log, called the blockchain, temporarily split into two independent chains with differing rules on how transactions were accepted. For six hours two bitcoin networks operated at the same time, each with its own version of the transaction history. The core developers called for a temporary halt to transactions, sparking a sharp sell-off.[55] Normal operation was restored when the majority of the network downgraded to version 0.7 of the bitcoin software.[55] The Mt. Gox exchange briefly halted bitcoin deposits and the exchange rate briefly dipped by 23% to $37 as the event occurred[56][57] before recovering to previous level of approximately $48 in the following hours.[58] In the US, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) established regulatory guidelines for "decentralized virtual currencies" such as bitcoin, classifying American bitcoin miners who sell their generated bitcoins as Money Service Businesses (or MSBs), that may be subject to registration and other legal obligations.[59][60][61]In April, payment processors BitInstant and Mt. Gox experienced processing delays due to insufficient capacity[62] resulting in the bitcoin exchange rate dropping from $266 to $76 before returning to $160 within six hours.[63] Bitcoin gained greater recognition when services such as OkCupid and Foodler began accepting it for payment.[64]On 15 May 2013, the US authorities seized accounts associated with Mt. Gox after discovering that it had not registered as a money transmitter with FinCEN in the US.[65][66]On 17 May 2013, it was reported that BitInstant processed approximately 30 percent of the money going into and out of bitcoin, and in April alone facilitated 30,000 transactions,[67]On 23 June 2013, it was reported that the US Drug Enforcement Administration listed 11.02 bitcoins as a seized asset in a United States Department of Justice seizure notice pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881.[68] This marked the first time a government agency claimed to have seized bitcoin.[69][70]In July 2013, a project began in Kenya linking bitcoin with M-Pesa, a popular mobile payments system, in an experiment designed to spur innovative payments in Africa.[71] During the same month the Foreign Exchange Administration and Policy Department in Thailand stated that bitcoin lacks any legal framework and would therefore be illegal, which effectively banned trading on bitcoin exchanges in the country.[72][73]On 6 August 2013, Federal Judge Amos Mazzant of the Eastern District of Texas of the Fifth Circuit ruled that bitcoins are "a currency or a form of money" (specifically securities as defined by Federal Securities Laws), and as such were subject to the court's jurisdiction,[74][75] and Germany's Finance Ministry subsumed bitcoins under the term "unit of account" – a financial instrument – though not as e-money or a functional currency, a classification nonetheless having legal and tax implications.[76]In October 2013, the FBI seized roughly 26,000 BTC from website Silk Road during the arrest of alleged owner Ross William Ulbricht.[77][78][79] Two companies, Robocoin and Bitcoiniacs launched the world's first bitcoin ATM on 29 October 2013 in Vancouver, BC, Canada, allowing clients to sell or purchase bitcoin currency at a downtown coffee shop.[80][81][82] Chinese internet giant Baidu had allowed clients of website security services to pay with bitcoins.[83]In November 2013, the University of Nicosia announced that it would be accepting bitcoin as payment for tuition fees, with the university's chief financial officer calling it the "gold of tomorrow".[84] During November 2013, the China-based bitcoin exchange BTC China overtook the Japan-based Mt. Gox and the Europe-based Bitstamp to become the largest bitcoin trading exchange by trade volume.[85]In December 2013, Overstock.com[86] announced plans to accept bitcoin in the second half of 2014. On 5 December 2013, the People's Bank of China prohibited Chinese financial institutions from using bitcoins.[87] After the announcement, the value of bitcoins dropped,[88] and Baidu no longer accepted bitcoins for certain services.[89] Buying real-world goods with any virtual currency had been illegal in China since at least 2009.[90]2014[edit]In January 2014, Zynga[91] announced it was testing bitcoin for purchasing in-game assets in seven of its games. That same month, The D Las Vegas Casino Hotel and Golden Gate Hotel & Casino properties in downtown Las Vegas announced they would also begin accepting bitcoin, according to an article by USA Today. The article also stated the currency would be accepted in five locations, including the front desk and certain restaurants.[92] The network rate exceeded 10 petahash/sec. TigerDirect[93] and Overstock.com[94] started accepting bitcoin.In early February 2014, one of the largest bitcoin exchanges, Mt. Gox,[95] suspended withdrawals citing technical issues.[96] By the end of the month, Mt. Gox had filed for bankruptcy protection in Japan amid reports that 744,000 bitcoins had been stolen.[97] Months before the filing, the popularity of Mt. Gox had waned as users experienced difficulties withdrawing funds.[98]In June 2014 the network exceeded 100 petahash/sec.[citation needed] On 18 June 2014, it was announced that bitcoin payment service provider BitPay would become the new sponsor of St. Petersburg Bowl under a two-year deal, renamed the Bitcoin St. Petersburg Bowl. Bitcoin was to be accepted for ticket and concession sales at the game as part of the sponsorship, and the sponsorship itself was also paid for using bitcoin.[99]In July 2014 Newegg and Dell[100] started accepting bitcoin.In September 2014 TeraExchange, LLC, received approval from the U.S.Commodity Futures Trading Commission "CFTC" to begin listing an over-the-counter swap product based on the price of a bitcoin. The CFTC swap product approval marks the first time a U.S. regulatory agency approved a bitcoin financial product.[101]In December 2014 Microsoft began to accept bitcoin to buy Xbox games and Windows software.[102]In 2014, several light-hearted songs celebrating bitcoin such as the "Ode to Satoshi"[103] have been released.[104]A documentary film, The Rise and Rise of Bitcoin, was released in 2014, featuring interviews with bitcoin users, such as a computer programmer and a drug dealer.[105]2015[edit]In January 2015 Coinbase raised US$75 million as part of a Series C funding round, smashing the previous record for a bitcoin company. Less than one year after the collapse of Mt. Gox, United Kingdom-based exchange Bitstamp announced that their exchange would be taken offline while they investigate a hack which resulted in about 19,000 bitcoins (equivalent to roughly US$5 million at that time) being stolen from their hot wallet.[106] The exchange remained offline for several days amid speculation that customers had lost their funds. Bitstamp resumed trading on 9 January after increasing security measures and assuring customers that their account balances would not be impacted.[107]In February 2015, the number of merchants accepting bitcoin exceeded 100,000.[108]In October 2015, a proposal was submitted to the Unicode Consortium to add a code point for the bitcoin symbol.[109]2016[edit]In January 2016, the network rate exceeded 1 exahash/sec.[citation needed]In March 2016, the Cabinet of Japan recognized virtual currencies like bitcoin as having a function similar to real money.[110] Bidorbuy, the largest South African online marketplace, launched bitcoin payments for both buyers and sellers.[111]In July 2016, researchers published a paper showing that by November 2013 bitcoin commerce was no longer driven by "sin" activities but instead by legitimate enterprises.[112]In August 2016, a major bitcoin exchange, Bitfinex, was hacked and nearly 120,000 BTC (around $60m) was stolen.[113]In November 2016, the Swiss Railway operator SBB (CFF) upgraded all their automated ticket machines so that bitcoin could be bought from them using the scanner on the ticket machine to scan the bitcoin address on a phone app.[114]Bitcoin generates more academic interest year after year; the number of Google Scholar articles published mentioning bitcoin grew from 83 in 2009, to 424 in 2012, and 3580 in 2016. Also, the academic journal Ledger published its first issue. It is edited by Peter Rizun.2017[edit]The number of businesses accepting bitcoin continued to increase. In January 2017, NHK reported the number of online stores accepting bitcoin in Japan had increased 4.6 times over the past year.[115] BitPay CEO Stephen Pair declared the company's transaction rate grew 3× from January 2016 to February 2017, and explained usage of bitcoin is growing in B2B supply chain payments.[116]Bitcoin gains more legitimacy among lawmakers and legacy financial companies. For example, Japan passed a law to accept bitcoin as a legal payment method,[117] and Russia has announced that it will legalize the use of cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin.[118]Exchange trading volumes continue to increase. For the 6-month period ending March 2017, Mexican exchange Bitso saw trading volume increase 1500%.[citation needed] Between January and May 2017 Poloniex saw an increase of more than 600% active traders online and regularly processed 640% more transactions.[119]In June 2017, the bitcoin symbol was encoded in Unicode version 10.0 at position U+20BF (₿) in the Currency Symbols block.[120]Up until July 2017, bitcoin users maintained a common set of rules for the cryptocurrency.[121] On 1 August 2017 bitcoin split into two derivative digital currencies, the bitcoin (BTC) chain with 1 MB blocksize limit and the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) chain with 8 MB blocksize limit. The split has been called the Bitcoin Cash hard fork.[122]On 6 December 2017 the software marketplace Steam announced that it would no longer accept bitcoin as payment for its products, citing slow transactions speeds, price volatility, and high fees for transactions.[123]2018[edit]See also: Cryptocurrency bubble § 2018 crashOn 22 January 2018, South Korea brought in a regulation that requires all the bitcoin traders to reveal their identity, thus putting a ban on anonymous trading of bitcoins.[124]On 24 January 2018, the online payment firm Stripe announced that it would phase out its support for bitcoin payments by late April 2018, citing declining demand, rising fees and longer transaction times as the reasons.[125]2019[edit]As of September 2019, there were 5,457 bitcoin ATMs worldwide. In August of that year, the countries with highest number of bitcoin ATMs were the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Austria, and Spain.[citation needed]2020[edit]On 2 July 2020, the Indian company 21Shares started to quote a set of bitcoin exchange-traded products (ETP) on the Xetra trading system of the Deutsche Boerse.[126]On 1 September 2020, the Wiener Börse listed its first 21 titles denominated in cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, including the services of real-time quotation and securities settlement.[127]On 3 September 2020, the Frankfurt Stock Exchange admitted in its Regulated Market the quotation of the first bitcoin exchange-traded note (ETN), centrally cleared via Eurex Clearing.[128][129]In October 2020, PayPal announced that it would allow its users to buy and sell bitcoin on its platform, although not to deposit or withdraw bitcoins

Irregular Work Scheduling and Its ConsequencesExecutive SummaryThe labor market continues to recover, but a stubbornly high rate of underemployment persists as more than five million Americans are working part-time for economic reasons (U.S. BLS 2015a; 2015b). Not only are many of this type of underemployed worker, by definition, scheduled for fewer hours, days, or weeks than they prefer to be working, the daily timing of their work schedules can often be irregular or unpredictable. This both constrain consumer spending and complicates the daily work lives of such workers, particularly those navigating through nonwork responsibilities such as caregiving. This variability of work hours contributes to income instability and thus, adversely affects not only household consumption but general macroeconomic performance.The plight of employees with unstable work schedules is demonstrated here with new findings, using the General Social Survey (GSS) data. These findings (as well as key findings from other research) are highlighted below.Irregular schedulingAbout 10 percent of the workforce is assigned to irregular and on-call work shift times and this figure is likely low.1 Add to this the roughly 7 percent of the employed who work split or rotating shifts and there are about 17 percent of the workforce with unstable work shift schedules.Six percent of hourly workers, 8 percent of salaried workers, and 30 percent of those paid on some other basis work irregular or on-call shifts. Adding in split or rotating shifts, the shares working unstable work schedules are 16 percent (hourly), 12 percent (salaried), and 36 percent (other).By income level, the lowest income workers face the most irregular work schedules.Workers paid under $22,500 per year are more likely to work on irregular schedules than workers in the income bracket above that (workers in the latter bracket who are salaried would be just above the current salary minimum threshold for assured FLSA overtime coverage).Irregular shift work is associated with working longer weekly hours.By occupation type, about 15 percent of sales and related occupations have irregular or on-call schedules.By industry, irregular scheduling is most prevalent in agriculture, personal services, business/repair services, entertainment/recreation, finance/insurance/real estate, retail trade, and transportation communications.Estimates of the proportion of the workforce with “variable hours,” in terms of not being able to specify a “usual” workweek (according to Current Population Survey, not GSS data), are remarkably consistent—almost 10 percent of workers overall. Being part-time more than doubled the likelihood of having hours that vary weekly. The share with variable workweeks also is higher in certain occupations and industries, such as sales, and lower in others, such as professional, managerial, and administrative support. Also, the prevalence is reduced for union members, married workers, government employees, whites, men, and workers with a higher level of education.Nearly half of workers (45 percent) surveyed by the International Social Survey Program said that their “employer decides” their work schedule. Only 15 percent perceived that they were “free to decide” their work schedule. The remaining 40 percent felt they could “decide within limits.” This conforms to another study of “early career” workers; just under half of the hourly early-career workers surveyed in the National Longitudinal Study of Youth said they have their daily start and end times of work decided entirely by their employer, without their input.Irregular scheduling and outcomesEmployees who work irregular shift times, in contrast with those with more standard, regular shift times, experience greater work-family conflict, and sometimes experience greater work stress.Less than 11 percent of workers on “regular” work schedules report “often” experiencing work-family conflict in contrast with as many as 26 percent of irregular/on-call shift employees, and 19 percent of rotating/split shift workers. Similar differences appear for reporting that they “never” experience work-family interference.Overtime work that is required by the employer increases the likelihood of having an irregular schedule and particularly of working on rotating/split shifts.Mandatory overtime work is greatest among those who earn at least $22,500 but below $40,000 per year; who work longer weekly hours; who work inflexible daily schedules (they can’t take time off or change their starting and ending times); or who report that there are often too few workers on staff to get all the work done.Determinants of work-family conflict and stressWork-family conflict is worsened not only by longer weekly hours of work but also by having irregular shift work.The association between work-family conflict and irregular shift work is particularly strong for salaried workers, even when controlling for their relatively longer work hours.Working on rotating shift times exacerbates work-family conflict, although slightly less than does working irregular/on-call shifts and split-shift arrangements.Irregular/on-call work is moderately associated with higher work stress, but rotating and split-shift times are not.Hourly workers experience greater work stress if working on irregular shift times and more so than salaried workers.Mandatory overtime work contributes to both work-family conflict and work stress.Being underemployed does not significantly reduce work-family conflict, but part-time workers who prefer that part-time status experience less work-family conflict.On the other hand, being over-employed somewhat exacerbates work-family conflict, no matter what is the level of weekly hours. Because about one in six workers indicate that they are “over employed” (willing to reduce work time by one day per week and receive 20 percent less pay), better matching of work hours with hours preferences would, on balance, likely reduce the extent and incidence of work-family conflict.With work hours controlled for, having a greater ability to set one’s work schedule (start and end times and take time off from work) is significantly associated with reduced work-family conflict.Public policy measuresThe documented associations with work-family conflict and work stress not only reinforce the existing “business case” for limiting work hours fluctuation at the behest of employers only but also underscore the need to adopt preventative public policy measures, such as recent reforms taking place in states and municipalities across the United States. Specifically, community action groups and labor unions that have witnessed the deleterious effects of irregular work schedules on people and their families have spearheaded efforts to propose and adopt legislation at local and federal levels.A legally protected “right to request” changes in work hours, schedules, or location, with protection from retaliation—modeled on the laws in the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Germany—has been implemented in the state of Vermont and San Francisco and Berkeley, California. These measures provide employees with caregiving responsibilities a right to request flexible work schedules or part-time work.Adopting recommendations from the Retail Workers Bill of Rights, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has enacted new protections for hourly workers in retail chain stores, to require employers to provide more advance notice in setting and changing work schedules to make them more predictable. The protections include providing priority access to extra hours of work—if and when available—to those employees who explicitly request such hours, which could be a model way to help alleviate the chronic underemployment in the U.S. labor market.San Francisco requires paying workers who have not received sufficient advance notice of last-minute schedule changes for a portion of their hours lost, for “on-call” hours, for being scheduled on split shifts, and for instances in which they are sent home before completing their assigned shifts.Some employers have adopted various voluntary arrangements that might constitute model practices or minimum standards, including some large companies in the highly competitive retail sector.The experiences in cities could inform elements of reforms of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) at the national level, such as the proposed Schedules that Work Act (H.R. 5159).IntroductionAs the U.S. labor market gradually climbs out of the deep crater left by the Great Recession, one encouraging outcome has been the increased public attention to the stubbornly high rate of underemployment, such as working part-time hours due to either shortened workweeks or unavailability of suitable full-time employment and the daily work-life challenges faced by such underemployed workers. In policy discussions, however, the problems of unstable or irregular (and often insufficient) work hours remain a layer beneath the more surface tragedy of persistent and long-term unemployment. The number of workers in the U.S. working “part-time due to economic reasons” had diminished to about 6.9 million workers as of November 2014, down from a peak of over 9 million following the recession (U.S. BLS 2015a).2 But it remains much greater than the 4 million in 2006, pre-recession. These data suggest that this feature might become the “new normal” of the labor market, reflecting a structural shift.3Facilitated by new software technology, many employers are adopting a human resource strategy of hiring a cadre of part-time employees whose work schedules are modified, often on short notice, to match the employer’s staffing with customer demand at the moment (Lambert, Haley-Lock, and Henly 2012). Such jobs are disproportionately found in the service occupations and the retail and wholesale trade and services industries, such as hospitality and leisure, professional and business services, and health services.4 The costs of underemployment to the economy can be substantial.5 Moreover, because precarious employment is concentrated among relatively lower-income earners, it not only exacerbates growing income inequality (Standing 2011), stifling potential economic expansion and underutilizing potential available labor input but takes a toll on the well-being of working families.One key source of underemployment is that at least periodically, employees are scheduled for fewer hours than they prefer to be working, in days or weeks that are not necessarily regular or predictable. Thus, the consequent experience of involuntary part-time employment not only constrains the incomes of those workers but often makes the daily work lives of those individuals unpredictable and more stressful. It has the indirect effect of restraining or making unpredictable the income that would fuel consumption spending on which the economy depends, and directly affects workers’ daily lives, by complicating the navigation of nonwork responsibilities such as parenting, other forms of caregiving, and schooling.6 At the same time, however, there is a significant segment of the workforce that may have the number of hours they prefer but the timing of their work schedules—including irregular shifts, unwelcome overtime work, and lack of schedule control—makes daily work-life navigation difficult. Interestingly, there is also a nontrivial proportion of workers who actually would prefer to work fewer hours even if it means proportionally less income.This report will inform recently proposed reforms of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) with evidence from recent surveys regarding which workers report being underemployed and which jobs tend to exhibit such irregular work schedules, including on-call schedules, split shifts, rotating shifts, and required overtime work. It then presents evidence regarding the adverse effects on workers who work such irregular and on-call work schedules, in contrast to those with more regular shift times. The outcomes of interest are work-family conflict and work stress. It will also present evidence of the beneficial effects on work-family integration and work stress when employees report having input into the scheduling of their work and/or flexible work schedules. This will reinforce the existing “business case” for employers to provide more predictable, stable work schedules for employees for firm performance.7 Based on the research reviewed here that worker earnings insecurity has risen and is detrimental to macroeconomic stability, it provides support for adopting policy measures that would temper fluctuations in the daily and weekly work hours of hourly paid employees.It will then describe several recently passed or proposed reform measures, including state and local efforts, to provide a legal, protected “right to request,” modeled on the laws in the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Germany, and their largely positive experiences for employees, without harm to employers.8Finally, it will close by surveying various voluntary arrangements that might constitute model practices or minimum standards including the advance notice for setting and changing work schedules; payment for reporting time and split-shifting if not in line with a minimum advance-notice time; and in special cases, a preference for adding work hours for those employees who explicitly request such hours, reducing the incidence and extent of underemployment (and in the process, perhaps the incidence and extent of over employment) among other workers.The plight of employees with unstable or unpredictable work schedules has become increasingly well-documented in the media (Cauthen 2011; Kantor 2014; Covert 2014; González 2014; Aarons-Mele 2014) and academic literature. There are drawbacks of erratic and uncontrollable work schedules for any employee, particularly those on nonstandard work times (Askenazy 2004; Costa, Sartori, and Akerstedt 2006; Heisz and LaRochelle-Côté 2006; Bohle, et al. 2011; McNamara, Bohle, and Quinlan 2011; Golden et al. 2011; Fagan et al. 2012; Glauber 2013; Wood, Michaelides, and Totterdell 2013; Kelly et al. 2014; Jacobs and Padavic 2015). They can be particularly acute among hourly-paid workers, especially with lower incomes (Henly and Lambert 2014; Correll, Trimble-O’Connor, and Williams 2014; Swanberg, Watson, and Eastman 2014; Alexander and Haley-Lock 2013; Watson and Swanberg 2013; Carré and Tilly 2012; McCrate 2012; Lambert, Haley-Lock, and Henly 2012; Martin et al. 2012; Scott et al. 2004). Work times are most irregular for those hourly workers on part-time employment arrangements (Zeytinoglu et al. 2004; Henly, Shaefer, and Waxman 2006; Yildirim and Aycan 2008; Kalleberg 2011). Moreover, it is becoming recognized that when work hours and schedules generally are variable, it undermines elements of well-being, such as sleep time.9Researchers and advocates are calling for laws and regulations that could help ease the incidence, frequency, or consequences of having too few or unpredictable work hours. Recent reports and articles include: Tackling Unstable and Unpredictable Work Schedules: A Policy Brief on Guaranteed Minimum Hours and Reporting Pay Policies (Center for Law and Social Policy, Retail Action Project, and Women Employed 2014); “State-by-State Reporting Time Pay Laws” (Starosciak 2013); The Schedules That Work Act: Section-by-Section (National Partnership for Women & Families and National Women’s Law Center 2014); Short-Shifted (Luce, Hammad, and Sipe 2014); Underwriting Bad Jobs: How Our Tax Dollars Are Funding Low-Wage Work and Fueling Inequality (Demos 2013); Worth Working For (Peck and Traub 2011); Families and Flexibility: Reshaping the Workplace for the 21st Century (Stringer 2014); Nonstandard Work Schedules and the Well-Being of Low-Income Families (Enchautegui 2013).10Underemployment and variability in work hours and earnings: Findings from recent researchThis section summarizes evidence from the literature regarding which workers report being underemployed and which workers tend to experience fluctuating work schedules and their economic impacts.Worker underemployment—involuntary part-time and beyondMuch of the attention on underemployed workers has focused on data from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS) of household employment, which computes the monthly number of “involuntary part-time” workers. Such workers have less income than other workers (Glauber 2013). The median income for families in which women were working part-time for involuntary reasons ($36,000) was far lower than that for women working part-time voluntarily ($68,000)—fewer of the former are married—and the size of the relative disparity is similar among men.Regarding the voluntariness of part-time work, Pew Research periodically tracks people’s preferences for part-time work, in contrast to alternatives. It asks respondents, “Considering everything, what would be the ideal situation for you — working full-time, working part-time, or not working at all outside the home?” Among women with at least one child under the age of 18, part-time has consistently been the top preference. Among mothers who currently work full-time, many (44 percent) would rather be working part-time. However, interestingly, an almost equally high proportion of mothers who are not at all employed currently would prefer to be working part-time (plus another 22 percent who regard working full-time as ideal). This suggests a kind of hidden underemployment, in addition to those who work part-time but desire full-time workweeks. Also, interestingly, the share of mothers preferring full-time work increased sharply between 2007 and 2012 (from 20 percent to 32 percent). This likely reflects a response to the Great Recession and consequent stagnation in household income.11 Most pertinent, mothers in the bottom half of the income scale are far more likely than more affluent mothers to prefer working full-time—40 percent of mothers with annual family incomes of less than $50,000 said full-time work would be ideal, compared with 25 percent of mothers with incomes of $50,000 or higher (Wang 2013).Furthermore, another recent survey, by Working Mother magazine, of only men, found that almost 60 percent of working fathers would choose part-time work if they could still have a meaningful and productive career, only slightly higher than men without children at home.12A recent poll of 1,000 U.S. adults by the Huffington Post and YouGov poll documents the extent and incidence of underemployment, by considering a broader scope than just working part-time hours or not working at all. It asked, “If you had the opportunity to work one more day per week, and receive 20 percent more pay, would you take that opportunity?” (Delaney and Swanson 2014). Over half the sample, 52 percent, would (see Appendix Table A-1 at the end of this report).13 There were no real gender differences in this regard. By age, the rate was almost 60 percent in the 18 to 29 age bracket, then progressively lower by age, but still at a high 48 percent among those age 45 to 64 (then rising again among those 65+). By family income level, not surprisingly, the underemployment rate is higher among those reporting less than $40,000 per year (57 percent). The rate becomes progressively lower up to $100,000, but remains at 43 percent among those families with incomes over $100,000 per year. By race, a preference for more work hours and proportionately more pay is more prevalent among blacks (60 percent) and Hispanics (74 percent), though it is still a high 47 percent among whites. Most pertinently, by employment status—it is 60 percent among part-time workers. Nevertheless, the rate is still a high 50 percent among full-time workers. Interestingly, not unlike the Pew poll, half of those outside the workforce—retirees and homemakers, would prefer to work at least one more day per week, and among students, this was 65 percent. The persistence of all these various forms of underemployment is at least partly responsible for the inability to achieve full economic recovery and expansion. Household earnings are constrained not only by stagnant wage rates,14 and the lack of any (let alone premium) pay for extra hours of work,15 but by workers not able to find or get additional, preferred hours of work.While a notably and surprisingly high percentage of the workforce maintains a desire for more income even if it means proportionately more work hours, nearly one in five workers are “over employed”—15 percent (down from 18 percent last year) say they would take the opportunity to reduce work time by one day per week and receive 20 percent less pay (see Appendix Table A-2 at the end of this report).16 This suggests that the labor market still not only suffers from a lack of work but also from a substantial maldistribution of work. While underemployment cannot be simply eradicated by shifting work from the over-employed to the underemployed, because much of such work is not directly transferable between employees, it is possible that at least some could be shifted, to the benefit of both groups. For example, low-level supervisors and managers, whose extra work hours are not usually covered by overtime pay rules (if their salary exceeds $23,660 per year), often perform nonmanagerial tasks as part of their job and frequently work longer than 40 hours a week (without any extra pay required for those additional hours) (See Golden 2014; Lambert, Fugiel, and Henly 2014; Lambert, Haley-Lock and Henly 2012).Fluctuating work hours and incomeThe great majority of hourly part-time workers (83 percent) report having unstable work schedules (Ruan and Reichman 2014). Generally, fluctuation in workloads or job demands tends to negatively affect workers’ well-being, all else constant, both when it is routine or transient (Wood, Michaelides, and Totterdell 2013). This is mainly because fluctuation creates interference of work with nonwork activity and undermines the effort-recovery process, the time needed for rest in between shifts to perform effectively. Even when work hours are positively related to indicators of well-being, the variability of work diminishes well-being significantly (Wood, Michaelides, and Totterdell 2013; Golden et al. 2013; Golden and Okulicz-Kozaryn 2015). Thus, reducing or minimizing instability in work hours, schedules, and workloads may improve workers’ well-being, for a given level of daily or weekly hours and income.17Work schedules or shifts that are irregular are consistently found to be associated with assorted adverse outcomes for workers (Askenazy 2004; Costa, Sartori, Akerstedt 2006; Heisz and LaRochelle-Cote 2006; Camerino et al., 2010; Tucker and Folkard 2012; Olsen and Dahl 2010; Haley-Lock and Ewert 2011). One such study examined the extent to which work demands, including irregular work schedules, are related to work-family conflict as well as life and job satisfaction among nurses. Irregular work schedules (along with work overload) are the predictors of work-family conflict, and that work-family conflict is in turn associated with the lower job and life satisfaction (Yildirim and Aycan 2008). Generally, having to be constantly available for work, not just long hours per se, creates a daily struggle for workers to reconcile competing caregiving and workplace demands (Correll et al. 2014).Earnings volatilityThe fact that household income has become more volatile in the most recent four decades, through the late 2000s, is a key labor market development. It is also surprising, given the relatively higher stability in the macroeconomy until 2007. The higher volatility is attributable mainly to men’s volatile earnings pattern (which presumably does not reflect preferences for greater variability), which in turn reflects in no small part instability in their hours worked (Dynan, Elmendorf, and Sichel 2012).18 A close examination of two (of the three main, reliable) national panel data sets confirms that in the 2000s, men’s earnings volatility has risen (Shin 2012; Ziliak, Hardy, and Bollinger 2011; Dahl, DeLeire, and Schwabish 2011; Gottschalk and Moffitt 2009).19 Most recently, a one-time survey in 2013, which focused on low- and moderate-income families (Federal Reserve Board 2014) suggests a clear upward trend in income volatility, worsening during the 2009–2013 recovery period. A surprisingly high share (over 30 percent) of Americans report experiencing significant spikes and dips in their incomes. Most important here, among such workers, 42 percent attribute the variability to an irregular work schedule (while an additional 27 percent cite seasonality of work or an unemployment spell, and the rest being paid by bonuses or commissions). This reason for income volatility, an (irregular work schedule), constitutes almost as much as all other work reasons put together. Of the 42 percent whose work hours change from week to week, 58 percent work full-time, 30 percent work part-time, and 11 percent are self-employed. Moreover, 10 percent say that their income varies substantially from month to month while another 21 percent say that they occasionally experience a work month with unusually high or low incomes.20 Another study, of 235 household time diaries, found that nearly all such sampled households experience a drop in a monthly income of at least 25 percent during the course of a single year. Reduced work hours are one of three main culprits (along with health problems and an unexpected increase in household member size). Tellingly, over 3 in 4 workers stated a preference simply for financial stability, over “moving up” (Murdoch and Schneider 2014).Work hour schedules are not uncommonly posted no more than a week in advance for employees, sometimes even less, for work the following week. A common consequence is that such practices limit employees’ opportunities to balance work, social, and family responsibilities (Zeytinoglu et al. 2004; McNamara, Bohle, and Quinlan 2011). Among workers without indefinite employment contracts (“casual workers”), workers reporting more variable working hours were more dissatisfied with their hours (in Australia, Bohle et al. 2011). Employees’ dissatisfaction with their work hours, not too surprisingly, is intensified by the interaction of want of schedule control and the variability of their hours.To wit, a recent, comprehensive examination of National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY)panel data (of relatively younger workers) uncovers which specific workers’ characteristics, industry, and occupation, are associated with the most advance notice of schedule, schedule control, and fluctuations in weekly hours (Lambert, Fugiel, and Henly 2014). Little advance notice of the posting of work schedules, daily scheduling changes, and overtime work can lead to increased work-family time conflict, but also work stress, child care difficulties, and variable earnings (e.g., Shin and Solon 2011). How far in advance do employees know what days and hours they will need to work? Almost 4 in 10 now (38 percent) of such “early-career” employees know their work schedule one week or less in advance. Having such short notice is more common among workers paid by the hour (41 percent) than by other means (33 percent) and also among part-time (48 percent) workers, but not uncommon among full-time workers (35 percent). While 41 percent of hourly workers report knowing their work schedule only one week or less in advance, an almost identical proportion (39 percent) report knowing their work schedule four or more weeks in advance. Thus, many employers are certainly capable of informing hourly employees well in advance. Also, 29 percent of non-hourly workers (20 percent of nonhourly women; 38 percent of nonhourly men) said they “know when they will need to work” one week or less in advance. Workers’ hours varied on average by 47 percent.Advance notice of schedules is distributed quite differently among occupational groups. Among service workers, production workers, and skilled trades, most employees know their schedule only one week or less in advance. Service and production supervisors, however, are among those with the shortest and the longest advance notice categories. In contrast, the majority of professionals, business staff, and providers of social services (for example, school teachers, social workers, and nurses) know their work schedule four or more weeks in advance. Furthermore, approximately 74 percent of employees in both hourly and nonhourly jobs experience at least some fluctuation in weekly hours over the course of a month. Among workers with children, 40 percent report one week or less advance notice and 50 percent say they have no input into their schedule. Employers determine the work schedules of about half of young adults without employee input, which results in part-time schedules that fluctuate between 17 and 28 hours per week. For the majority of employees who work fewer than 40, as well as those with more than 44 hours in a normal week, hour fluctuation is the norm. So, among workers with the longest hours, the 40-hour workweek seems not to be the norm but rather, just a lower bound. The mean variation in the length of the workweek is 10 hours among hourly workers as compared with nearly 12 hours among nonhourly workers. Among the 74 percent of hourly workers who report having fluctuations in the last month, hours vary by a whopping 50 percent of their usual work hours, on average.A sampling (nonrepresentative) of retail sector workers in and around New York City finds that only 40 percent of such employees have a minimum number of hours set per week (Luce, Hammad, and Sipe 2014). Moreover, a quarter of them works “on-call” shifts, with most not finding out if they are needed at work until two hours before the start of the shift. For workers with significant caregiving or financial commitments, having weeks with as few as zero hours and days when there may be either no work or short notice to arrive at work, may make balancing work with life stressful, intolerable, or even impossible, forcing them to choose between participating in the paid labor force, unemployment, or withdrawal from the labor force.Work scheduling flexibility, control, and inputThe last time employees’ perceived control over their work schedules was measured directly (by the ISSP, 2005–06), by asking, “Who sets your work schedule?” 45 percent of workers said their “employer decides.” Only 15 percent perceived that they were “free to decide” their work schedule. The remaining 40 percent felt they could “decide within limits.”21 Brand new evidence finds that among the NLSY sample “early-career” workers, when it comes to who decides start and end times, roughly half of hourly workers (46 percent of women; 55 percent of men) plus another 31 percent of non-hourly workers (36 percent of women; 29 percent of men) have their work schedules decided entirely by their employer, without their input (Lambert, Fugiel, and Henly 2014).22 Generally, two broad trends in the provision of flexible work options are apparent since 2008—at least a slight increase in employers’ purported provision of options that would allow many employees to better manage the times in which they work, but a decline in the time provided away from work. Among relatively large employers (50 or more employees), in 2014 “at least some employees” were allowed to have “control over break times” (from 84 percent up to 92 percent); “control over overtime hours” (from 27 percent up to 45 percent) and time off during the workday when important needs arise (from 73 percent up to 82 percent) (Matos and Galinsky 2014).23 However, the flexibility that involves time away from full-time work is declining—employers reduced their provision of options that involve employees spending amounts of time away from full-time work, such as job sharing (29 percent to 18 percent) and working part-year on an annual basis (27 percent to 18 percent) (Matos and Galinsky 2014).24Irregular shift work, required overtime work, and extent of schedule control—findings using the GSS and its supplementsWhich workers are more prone to have variable workweeks? What is the apparent association of having irregular or unpredictable shift times with adverse outcomes for workers (of all ages, not just the “early career” employed in the NLSY panel data)? This section analyzes data from the three most recent General Social Survey (GSS) Quality of Work Life (QWL) modules, data years 2010, 2006, and 2002, and also the latest available International Social Survey Program Work Orientations III (WO) 2005-06 module. First, it identifies the proportions of workers who work on regular day shifts and contrasts their characteristics to those on “irregular or on-call” or “split or rotating” shift times. Then, it identifies the work (and personal) characteristics associated with working irregular/on-call shift times and mandatory overtime. It contrasts the degrees of work-family interference, work stress, and fatigue reported by those on irregular vs. regular shifts. It distinguishes this by hourly vs. salaried employees, while importantly, controlling for the duration of their weekly work hours and they're full-time vs. part-time job status. It also contrasts the outcomes to experiences among the (smaller proportion) of workers who work either a “split shift” or “rotating shifts.” The QWL is used to compare these same three outcomes among those who work voluntary overtime or involuntary overtime, or work no overtime, run with similar control variables. The WO data are used to reveal the three outcomes among those with and without “schedule control.” The latter also contrasts the outcomes associated with hours mismatches, both over employment and underemployment. The results are intended to estimate the possible improvement of worker well-being if FLSA reform were to include a legal right to request flexible, shorter, or more stable work hours with more advance notice.25In the QWL, a key question is asked of the employed, “Which of the following best describes your usual work schedule?” Respondents may check one of the following: day shift, afternoon shift, night shift, split shift, irregular shift/on-call, or rotating shifts. Table 1 shows that about 10 percent of the employed work on irregular shift times, including those that work on an on-call basis. Adding in those who work on other types of shifts that are not fixed—rotating shifts or split-shift times—the proportion rises to about 17 percent of the employed. More specifically, those who work irregular or on-call shift times are about 6 percent of hourly workers, 8 percent of salaried workers, and 30 percent of those paid on some other basis (such as contract work).

Argentina– Bitcoins are not legal currency strictly speaking, since they are not issued by the government monetary authority and are not legal tender. Therefore, they may be considered money but not legal currency, since they are not a mandatory means of cancelling debts or obligations.Australia – Removing Bitcoins from double taxation policies, the government also legalized Bitcoin and said it can be used just like money.Austria – Austria has not regulated virtual currencies and has not issued a cohesive policy on how to treat virtual currency.Bangladesh – Bangladesh Bank issued a warning against conducting transactions in cryptocurrency, and reportedly stated that such use is punishable by up to 12 years in jail.Belgium – It has refused to issue any stance regarding Bitcoin and along with a whole host of other countries is waiting for European wide guidance. They have issued a public warning that there is no Government oversight.Bolivia – The Bolivian government has banned the use of Bitcoin in the belief that it will allow tax evasion and monetary instability.Brazil – The Brazilian government has declared that Bitcoin is not a currency but an asset and therefore subject to 15 percent capital gains taxes above a threshold.Bulgaria – Bulgaria has accepted the digital currency. Its National Revenue Agency had issued new taxation guidelines stating that income from the sale of digital currencies such as Bitcoin will be treated as income from the sale of financial assets and taxed at a rate of 10 percent.Canada – In November 2013, the Canada Revenue Agency declared that Bitcoin payments should be treated as barter transactions. The Canadian federal government also announced its intention to regulate Bitcoin through its anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing legislation.Chile – The first Bitcoin exchange in Chile, where citizens can buy Bitcoin with pesos, launched in 2015 with funding from the Chilean government. This would appear to be in line with the Chilean government’s ambition to transform itself into an innovation and entrepreneurial hub for Latin America. The government has also committed to providing regulation and oversight in the form of financial audits and anti-money laundering regulation.China – In late 2013, China’s Central Bank (the People’s Bank of China) barred financial institutions from partaking in digital currency and Bitcoin transactions, but individuals are free to trade as they wish – Chinese yuan to Bitcoin is the most traded daily fiat to Bitcoin pair.Colombia – It has decreed that cryptocurrency is not illegal, but at the same time it won’t be getting legal recognition any time soon.Croatia – On December 6, 2013, the Croatian National Bank (CNB) reportedly conducted a discussion on the circulation of digital currencies and concluded that the Bitcoin is not illegal in Croatia.Cyprus -The use of Bitcoins is not regulated in Cyprus. On December 11, 2013, the Central Bank of Cyprus issued a statement on Bitcoins, stating that “it considers the use of any kind of virtual money as particularly dangerous, given that it is not under any regulatory system and its operation is unchecked.”Czech Republic – The Czech government recently introduced a law requiring virtual currency exchanges determine the identity of customers. Alongside this, the country’s authorities will also soon add a Value Added Tax (VAT) to virtual currencies in the near future.Denmark – The Danish government and Financial Supervisory Authority have announced that Bitcoin businesses will be taxed in a normal manner, and individuals will not be subject to taxation from trading. “The Danish central bank is considering a digital-only e-krone.”Ecuador – The Ecuadorian government has banned all Bitcoin use in the hope of promulgating its own digital currency based on the principles of Bitcoin.Estonia – Bitcoins and digital currencies could be declared as an alternative payment means, subjecting them to capital gains liabilities and VAT.Finland – The Finnish regulatory body has declared that Bitcoin should be treated as an asset and be subject to VAT and capital gains, although the capital gains losses would not be deductible.France – The French government has shown some interest in the technology, but according to pundits has yet to launch major initiatives in the field.Germany – The German government released a report in August 2013 saying that Bitcoins should be treated as a trading activity and therefore be subject to capital gains taxes unless they were held for a year or more. The German Federal Ministry of Finance further clarified its position by saying that Bitcoin should be treated as a unit of account and private money and should therefore be subject to sales taxes and VAT.Greece – No specific legislation on Bitcoins exists in Greece, nor has the National Bank of Greece issued any statement on Bitcoins. A private company has listed a few businesses that accept Bitcoins as a form of payment, however.Hong Kong – Hong Kong Money Authority doesn’t formally ban a bank from trading Bitcoin, but no bank has asked for permission, and it’s pretty clear that no bank has asked for permission because the answer is likely to be “no.”Hungary – The National Bank of Hungary (MNB) has issued a public statement warning citizens who use or invest in cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, citing their unregulated nature amid increasing instances of high-return investment schemes abusing the cryptocurrency.Iceland – The government, worried about capital flight, has banned Bitcoin.India – While Bitcoin is already being widely used in India, there is still “no clear law stating whether Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are legal in India.”Indonesia – Bitcoin has penetrated deeper into the Indonesian market even though there is currently no legal umbrella for the currency’s use in the country.Iran – The Iranian Central Bank has adopted a “wait-and-see” policy toward cryptocurrencies. While trading cryptocurrencies is illegal, the police have no legal mandate to stop it and a study by a group of 15 official bodies started to work on a framework for regulating digital currencies in the country back in 2013.Ireland – Cryptocurrency is still unregulated in Ireland, but the Bank of Ireland’s innovation team has overseen experiments with Deloitte that showed blockchain technology could be used to automatically trace transactions in line with forthcoming EU finance rules.Israel – Israel’s government is set to apply capital gains tax to Bitcoin sales, categorizing digital currencies as a type of property.Italy – Tax authorities appear to be treating Bitcoin as a form of currency. They have clarified purchases and sales made with Bitcoin remain exempt from VAT. However, Italian tax officials appear to be applying income tax to speculative uses of Bitcoin, or events in which money is made during a sale or purchase. Those buying Bitcoins outside of the scope of speculative activity, it indicates, aren’t required to pay income tax.Japan – Japan has eliminated the consumption tax on Bitcoin trading on April 1, 2017, when it officially declared Bitcoin as a legal tender. Japan also eliminated the possibility of double taxation on trading of Bitcoins.Kazakhstan – Seeking to become the regional hub for cryptocurrencies. In June 2017, Kazakhstan announced plans to begin selling blockchain based bonds, and the country’s President announced that, “It is high time to look into the possibility of launching the international payment unit. It will help the world get rid of monetary wars, black marketeering and decrease volatility at markets.”Kenya – The Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) has warned that virtual currency is insecure and could fund terrorism.Kyrgyzstan – The Kyrgyzstan government has completely banned the use of Bitcoin within its national borders.Latvia – The government issued a warning about Bitcoins and other digital currencies a day after the national airline carrier announced that it would accept Bitcoin as an alternative payment method for flights.Lebanon – Lebanon’s Central Bank issued a Bitcoin warning in 2013, raising a number of risks associated with digital currencies, and pointing out that issuance and use of “e-money” is prohibited under a decree issued in 2000. The warning prohibited the use of Bitcoin by financial institutions in the country, but left the situation for private citizens unclear.Lithuania – The Lithuanian government has declared a wait and see policy as the regulatory landscape evolves across Europe.Luxembourg – In April 2016, it granted a payment institution license to a Bitcoin exchange, making the company the first nationally licensed Bitcoin exchange in the world.Malaysia – Bitcoin is not recognized as legal tender, and Bank Negara Malaysia does not regulate the operations of Bitcoin. The central bank has advised the public to be cautious of the risks associated with the use of such digital currency.Mexico – The Mexican government has not banned the use of alternative digital currencies outright but instead is in talks with government regulators to try and introduce their own form of Bitcoin and their own blockchain specific to Mexico.The Netherlands – In June 2013, the Dutch Finance Minister released a report that gave Bitcoin the status of an item of barter, meaning it needed no specific licensing or compliance requirements. He said, “Bitcoin is not a financial product as defined by law; purchase or sale of Bitcoins is not a financial service either, so the financial services act does not apply.”New Zealand – The Reserve Bank regards cryptocurrencies as a “vulnerability” and considers cryptocurrency as a payment system rather than a currency.Nigeria – On January 19, 2017, the Central Bank of Nigeria “officially outlawed digital currencies.” The CBN cited reasons like money laundering and terror financing to prohibit banks to use, hold or transact virtual currencies, and they should ensure “existing customers that are virtual currency traders have effective AML/CFT controls.”Norway – The Norwegian tax authorities declared at the end of 2013 that “Bitcoins don’t fall under the usual definition of money or currency” and therefore making them subject to the usual capital gains tax laws, but Norway’s largest online-only bank, Skandiabanken, recently announced plans to offer clients the ability to link their regular bank accounts with their Coinbase account.Pakistan – The Pakistani government hasn’t taken any stance on Bitcoin as yet; it believes that Bitcoin is a commodity and not a currency.Philippines – In February 2017, BSP the Philippine Central Bank said it plans to officially regulate local Philippine Bitcoin exchanges as remittance companies and recognize Bitcoin as a legitimate payment method, while issuing a proper regulatory framework for Bitcoin users, exchanges and companies.Poland – It has officially recognized the trading and mining of virtual currencies as an “official economic activity” but has said that regulation should come from the EU.Portugal – Taxable, but unregulated.Russia – The Russian Deputy Finance Minister has stated that regulators will be looking to recognize Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies legally next year. The government is eager to tackle money laundering, which certainly incentivizes greater oversight and regulation, ultimately leading to its legitimacy.Singapore – In early 2014, the Singapore government declared Bitcoin as a good purchased to purchase goods and therefore subject to a specific tax. The Monetary Authority of Singapore then required exchanges and ATM providers to Green-list, or de-anonymize their users to allow while simultaneously declaring that virtual currencies such as Bitcoin are not securities and not subject to regulation.Slovenia – Slovenia took a middle road in December 2013 in declaring that Bitcoin was neither a financial asset nor a currency and should be taxed based on the circumstance it was used, whether it was via trading profits or through mining.South Africa – The South African Revenue Service has stated that any transaction or speculation in Bitcoin is subject to general tax rules; it has added that it is the responsibility of both citizens and residents of South Africa to report each and every Bitcoin transaction detail to the South African Revenue Service.South Korea – There are currently no laws in South Korea regulating the use of Bitcoin, where people are able to buy Bitcoin in 7-Elevens.Spain – Notable among EU members, Spain is lobbying to establish a cryptocurrency regulatory framework. The Spanish government has confirmed that cryptocurrencies are exempt from Value Added Tax, and Spain has whole streets full with Bitcoin-friendly stores. Plus, many Bitcoin companies call Spain their home, and Spanish banks BBVA and Bankinter now invest in Bitcoin companies.Sweden ­– Looking to shift to digital currency, the central bank’s decision to cut interest rates into negative territory has led to an increase in demand, supporting appetite for Bitcoins and alternatives to protect capital. Unlike neighboring Denmark, the Swedish regulator has publicly declared Bitcoin as a legal currency.Switzerland – Switzerland’s financial markets regulator has approved the first Swiss private bank for Bitcoin asset management, potentially paving the way for other global banks to offer digital currency products.Taiwan –Taiwan’s Financial Supervisory Commission has indicated its stance on Bitcoin remains neutral despite recent speculation it was moving toward more restrictive policies.Thailand – In 2013, the Thai central bank declared the use of Bitcoin illegal in Thailand, but changed its opinion in early 2014 to make it not illegal. However, buying Bitcoin in Thailand and then selling it outside the country was still strictly prohibited.Turkey – The Turkish authorities have issued guidance saying that Bitcoin does not meet the standards of electronic money and that the volatility leaves users with a high level of risk; a major Bitcoin exchange has ceased operations after local banks closed the main accounts of the company without prior notice.Uganda – Unregulated but not illegal; the Bank of Uganda has asked Ugandans to stay away from Bitcoin and other digital currencies.Ukraine – Despite vague Government regulations and political uncertainty in some areas, a major bank announced the ability to purchase Bitcoins in any of its nationwide ATM terminals.United Arab Emirates – The exact status of cryptocurrencies is currently under review.United Kingdom– The Bank of England continues to monitor Bitcoin technology, while it continues to be classified as private money, with VAT applied and also subject to capital gains tax, where there P&Ls are involved.United States – The U.S. has the highest number of cryptocurrency users, the highest number of Bitcoin ATMs and also the highest Bitcoin trading volumes globally. However, there is a differing picture state by state: Texas, Kansas, Tennessee, South Carolina and Montana appear to be the friendliest based on state regulation, whereas New York, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Hawaii, Georgia, North Carolina, Washington and New Mexico have regulations not favorable to virtual currency. The other 37 states/territories are gray areas currently.Venezuela – Government crackdown arrests and torture of those found using Bitcoin, despite growing popularity of use by the people.Vietnam – The government has moved from banning Bitcoin in 2014 to now wanting to streamline the industry so as to be able to tax, monitor and eliminate any so-called negative impacts.Zimbabwe – The country is not yet ready for regulation, says a government regulator.Source: Cryptocurrencies by countries