Bitcoin Forum

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2013/06/23/bitcoin-foundation-receives-cease-and-desist-order-from-california/


... Then, they fight us ...

They don't fight "us". They fight a despicable scam, in this case.

It's just some idiot government critter thinking the foundation is something like "Bitcoin Corporation".
It would be fun watching the foundation be disbanded anyway.

So if the foundation does file, pays the US$5K, and gets this license.  Do we all become "agents" or "affiliates" acting under this license?
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fin&group=01001-02000&file=2000-2003

Ill be honest, they are really starting to clamp down hard in the U.S and is making me nervous.

This is big. Why is this news only leaking out now  ???

Oh! Good. Let them kill the bitcoin corp... Right?
Hey! Right?

That'd be just the point where the scam unravels.

No, MPEx does not recognize any relation between Bitcoin and this so called "foundation".

many people gave donations to the bitcoin foundation, perhaps this move by govt is just an idea theyve come up with to "tax" those naughty bitcoin users ...

With this exception of this California action, everything else in the US has been completely consistent with existing US law.

Correct.


Most of the forum idiots here do not seem to realize that the Bitcoin Foundation is taking slings and arrows on behalf of others, fighting for bitcoin acceptance.

When you fight for bitcoin, people fight back.

It would be a loss for all if the Bitcoin Foundation goes away.

I am speaking of the recent developments with the IRS and FinCen along with this as well as the numerous services surrounding bitcoin that have gone down.

I will edit this post with links if you guys need them.

It would be a huge loss IMO as well.

As am I.  Recent developments with the IRS and FinCEN are entirely consistent with US law as it has existed for years.  Ditto Mutum Sigillium seizure warrant. Tax and MSB implications were directly addressed years ago in my State of the Coin 2011 presentation, among others.  If you operate outside the law in your jurisdiction, the obvious result occurs... eventually.

There is no question that US authorities are ramping up enforcement of existing law.

Then I must be confused with the state of things then. I was under the impression that the recent IRS (or was it FinCen??) ruling/statement was that mining bitcoins will/may require an MSB/MT licensure.

I could be wrong and hope I am, I am not trolling I truly want to know.

I was thinking about joining this ... but if they are breaking the law, that's a disincentive. 

Perhaps we should find a way to give donations without going through a third party ...

I posted this is the general thread but will leave this here as well:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/149335233/CA-State-Cease-and-Desist-May-30 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/149335233/CA-State-Cease-and-Desist-May-30)

Why would an association need a license to be a money transmitter?  The association is not doing anything illegal by any standards????    Just crazy....

And so it begins...

Yeah well, not that the bitcoin foundation is related to bitcoin anyway

There's this fabulous new tech thing called Bitcoin. You should check it out sometime.


Not hardly. On the balance of things the pretenders have done marginally more damage than useful things for BTC, and that before the recent nonsense.


Most people here DO realize that the pretend-foundation has a chairman that's also the treasurer.

Most people here DO realize that the pretend-foundation has been swindling the community out of "donations", but it has yet to publish its finances.

Most people here DO realize that the pretend-foundation has no particular relation to Bitcoin, but it is using the pretense of such a relation to sell "credibility" to various scams. Like MtGox, like BFL, like etc.

What some people here do not realize (and yes I mean you) is that by standing up for scammers you end up just as fucked as they are. Find a better hobby.

FinCEN has only recently released their interpretation of the law ... which is a questionable action at best and not tried in any court AFAIK. Law enforcement "rulings", "guidelines" and other edicts only carry as much weight as the guy on the street corner in sandwich boards, until they have legal precedence from court cases. Although over-reach and general throwing weight around of egotistical LE could ruin many lives until a real legal case is settled.

IMHO, USA is definitely going to be an unfriendly place to do bitcoin business. The banksters own the politicians and  the spooks have got the goods on everyone ... why the hell would an innovative monetary/finance system be allowed to flourish?


Is bitcoin transacting expressly forbidden by the law?

You cant possibly make that assertion in an unbiased way as the foundation pay the core development team.

There's pros and cons.  The US conference I thought was fantastic.

But the foundation introduces a central point of failure.

It's way to early to say whether it is a loss or a gain, especially if they are breaking the law.

Very interesting take on the situation.
I wonder how many members are not registered.
Only 14 companies appear to be listed on https://bitcoinfoundation.org/members.
I'm guessing theyre getting a crazy influx of donations atm.

Bit Foundation is to promote the understanding of Bitcoin, what has it got to do with any transactions?

The foundation pays Gavin.  That's it.  All other core devs are employed by other organizations, and (AFAIK) receive zero income from the Bitcoin Foundation.

Failure?
From the foundation's site:

Wow someone in California has been misinformed...

This makes about as much sense as sending a letter to the Salvation Army telling them to disband their unauthorized military forces.

Well, technically though the Foundation develops the software...

The Bitcoin Foundation does that.
The BitCoin Foundation does not exist.

Dat C.
Only if you sent the letter to the SalVation Army.

Mining AND THEN SELLING for $ requires a license.

Edit: emphasis

If you ever read that FinCen guidance document, the fact that Bitcoin Foundation develops the software that is used for "making" Bitcoin makes them an administrator of such currency and according to "law" administrators are a subject for money transmitter regulation.

I think people might be making a mistake saying that "State of California has made a mistake somehow".

My understanding is that if you mine bitcoins and then "use" them to purchase goods, no license necessary.

If you mine, and then "sell" them for fiat currency, then you need to be registered as a MSB.  However, if you go to an exchange, then I think that puts the responsibility on the exchange.  At least, let's hope so ;)

So this was posted more than 20 days after the notice was issued... has the foundation responded with their corrective actions yet?

This tweet (https://twitter.com/carnivillain/statuses/348206135909703680) about California's action today was so perfect:

So in order to create a pull request for Bitcoin-qt you now need to register as a money transmitter...? :D

Or if you send money to someone who has created any of the Bitcoin-qt code you also need to register as a money transmitter?

Come to think of it why didn't Github get a cease and desist letter for acting as a money transmitter?  Because obviously they are also money transmitters...   :o

They assist in the development of software.  Plenty of code contributions come from non-BF devs too.

The Foundation is less about direct development and more about Public Relations and community building. The github group is more in line with what you describe.
The only administrators of the software and currency are the miners and nodes.

I am aware of all the things people are saying. I'm just trying to say there are multiple ways to interpret the basis for the memo.

You mean if you have no clue how Bitcoin works, and you have no clue how open source development works....then this memo can be interpreted as having merit?

I've done a bit of research and everywhere I see it defined, legal dictionary or otherwise, Currency (synonym: banknote) seems to directly state, or infer the backing or endorsement of a government.  As such, Bitcoin is a commodity, and until I can walk into Bank of America and trade it for USD, like I can with my Mexican Pesos, Canadian Twoonies, or my British Pounds, I'm not going to consider it any more a currency than Joe Redneck would, my Peer on the Jury.  

Try telling a farmer he has to register as an MSB/MT to sell the carrots (commodity) he grew. (mined)  Or try telling a rancher he has to register as an MSB/MT to sell the calf (commodity) his cow just birthed. (mined)  You have to be pretty confused to think that creating/growing/birthing/mining a commodity then selling it somehow equates to being in the business of Money transmission.  (Money with a capital M, per Joe Redneck, my peer on the Jury.)

Now exchanging it as your sole business, I think that's a different ballgame, but mining it seems pretty cut and dry to me.

What am I missing?  And why does everyone seem to want Bitcoin to be a currency when it's far better off legally with an official definition in the realm of general commodity?  (oil, cattle, tulip bulbs)  No country in the world is going to be particularly receptive legally or otherwise to direct competition with their local Currency.  (with a capital C)

Cheers.

One would also have to have no clue about how cease and desist orders, the USPS, bureaucratic govt in general, and social media, works to interpret it as such.

+1, however I believe FinCen claims jurisdiction over "replacements for money, money-like things" or something to that effect.

Because that's where it is headed eventually (a currency) so I'd prefer that we (society) just concretely define it as a currency and then everyone knows where they stand and can build based on that.

Right now no one knows where Bitcoin stands, it could be a commodity, a currency, a meaningless play thing...?  Once it is clearly defined then you can clearly work within that framework, without building a business and then finding out that the definition has changed on a whim and your business model is no longer viable.

Garzik, every totalitarian government acts totally in the scope of its laws too. Remarkably, the more totalitarian, the vaguer the laws tend to be (http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1gwuql/bitcoin_foundation_gets_cease_an_desist_order_for/caoo8s1).

To a kid, that'd be pokemon cards and M&M's.  To a gamer, WoW gold and GameStop points.  To a woman 25-55, it's facebook credits, starbucks points, and airline miles.  Sounds to me like it's another one of those "three felonies a day" situations.  "We have jurisdiction over anything you care about."  

It's not like it's not definable as a generic commodity.  And you want it defined explicitly by the US Gov't as a Currency *why*?  What are the benefits of that over the current definition?

So it's not a Currency... and per most accepted definitions it isn't one until it gets some official gov't backing somewhere...  That's not a bad thing.  Blindly marching toward a confrontation with the US Gov't because you want it to be a Currency (banknote, legal tender, physical coin) is only going to get you "Liberty Dollar'd".  Unlike Pinocchio who so badly wanted to be a real boy, there's no fairy godmother guaranteeing Bitcoin it's happy ending.

The government is confused, nothing to see here.

After reading the C and D letter, I am actually convinced that it's more of the boilerplate type that orgs like RIAA/MPAA throws at everybody "just in case", no substantial evidence of breaking any law/regulation is provided in the letter, neither any particular activity involving the Foundation that is considered illegal.

I agree. I have a feeling someone saw footage of the Bitcoin ATM at the conference and proceeded to mail these letters to anyone they could find with "Bitcoin" in their name.

Could be any number of reasons, let's not jump to conclusions.

One thing that came up in a previous thread is the the foundation lists Satoshi as one of the founders, whereas it seems to be misleading.

The foundation could easily have been engaged in activity that it should not. 

I'm not saying California is correct either tho...

Let's find out the details of the case.

According to Patrick Murck, the Bitcoin Foundation only received the letter last week.

Did anyone consider that 'transmitting' money to their employees without the correct paperwork could trigger a cease and desist?

Had it really been the case that the foundation was engaged in unauthorized activities, I would expect the wording of the letter to be more along the line of"Hey there, don't move, gotcha!" Instead it has nothing specific/of substance in it, how can you ask someone to "cease and desist", without telling him what to stop doing?

Strong words coming from a scammer who just hasn't pulled the plug yet.

First of all "paying wage" to own employees (in fiat/bitcoin/bananas/oranges) is not "money transmitting service".

Proper paperwork is a must of course even with bananas payment to prove that its wage.

OK thanks ... some comment in reddit:

Who, precisely, wrote that comment?  And is that author presently suing a bunch of bitcoin companies?

What you want, or I want, or even the Bitcoin Foundation wants is utterly irrelivent.  You can call Bitcoin anything you want but governments around the world aren't that stupid.  If it "acts like a currency" and is "used like a currency" and has "currency like properties" what do you think THEY are going to classify it as.

I mean it would be like saying this Marijuana.  Take "bath salts" as an example.  It wasn't marketed as a drug, wasn't sold as a drug, it didn't provide instructions on how to use it as a drug however people started using it like a drug and what did various governments classify it as?  A controlled substance or a household product?

The only way xCoin doesn't get classified as a currency by various governments is if it lacks the properties of currency.  So something which isn't fungible, liquid, accepted as a medium or exchange, and doesn't store value probably won't be classified as a currency, then again why would you want to use that?

The joys of governmental interference and regulatory overhead.  It is highly improbable that the foundation meets any regulatory requirements for oversight as a MSB anymore than a trade organization for prepaid credit cards does.  In case it isn't clear they don't. 

Still the state has unalateral power to take everything you own, everything you will own, your good name, and even your freedom and/or life so stupid, pointless, massively overreaching it doesn't matter you need to drop everything and respond.

Of course there is no consequence for the state getting it wrong.  If the state had to pay costs + 20% + $5,000 punitive penalty for any improper notice there would be a lot less improper notices.  Then again it costs the state absolutely nothing.  Hell they could send a cease and desist to every human being in the country and all it would cost is the taxpayers of CA slightly more taxes.

Compliance regulation is also a way of creating barriers to entry to a market.  If releasing an alt-coin invites a bunch of letters such as this from all over, there might be a few less alt-coins.  One of the ways to slow innovation.

I posted the full text in a new thread...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=242113.0

The people pay the costs.  Now we need to decide whether that's a good use of our funds ... and have that view represented.  That's how democracy works.

They bark, thus we ride.

1) I'm thinking farmers get a different definition

2) Bitcoin is something new, we're just trying to shove it into our existing definitions first b/c that will be easier... otherwise, we need new rules for this new thing...

Hah, receiving a letter marked May 30th last week... sounds about right Post office!

And yet, pointedly, the question was not answered.

Generalizations like "acts/used/properties like a currency" can apply to any commodity.  What does not apply to any commodity are the things that make a currency a Currency.  Per the Australian legal system, that'd be something tangible backing it.  Per most legal definitions I've come across, (synonym: banknote) that'd be a government's central bank.

So yeah, it's most certainly lacking what many would consider key properties of Currency.

We can't deny that as foolish as it is, that letter is a nicely crafted piece of FUD

America is a specialist on that. I guess we can just react with laugher, irony and contempt.

Personally, I put the entire state of California on "Ignore" a long time ago.  I suggest everyone strive to do likewise.  Migratory trends evidence that the whole place is a lost cause, and there will be no return to sanity before its inevitable death by suicide.  We live on a large planet: move somewhere else, don't travel there, don't do business there.  Let the bureaucats suffer the full consequences of their greed and stupidity.

Did you try following the link?  thinkcomp @ reddit ...

It is up to each country.  In the US, FinCEN laid their rational on how the regs that give them oversight over monetary value cover Bitcoin.  Now you can disagree but simply not calling Bitcoin a currency doesn't really have any merit.

If the state believes your activity is regulated (regardless of if you call Bitcoin "virtual carrots") you can:
a) ignore them and hope you can avoid legal action
b) ignore them and intentionally try to cause legal action to force a precedent
c) bypass them (write off the united state and focus on non-US clients)
d) comply

My point it ultimately what matters is what the STATE (each state independently) defines Bitcoin as.  You can call them anything you want but FinCEN (and other states) is regulated based on what Bitcoin DOES not what you NAME it. 

TL/DR: If Bitcoin is used "as monetary value", FinCEN intends to regulate it, regardless of what you call it.  Their authority (or lack thereof) comes from what Bitcoin DOES not what it is CALLED.

Totally agree with most of what you said.  It basically boils down to C or D if you value your time/livelihood.  I think the point I was trying to make earlier was that it doesn't make any sense to poke the giant just because we want to have a certain name on things.

I disagree with how much it matters what it is called.  In the legal landscape what you call it is everything and in terms of regulatory requirements, the difference between a "commodity" and a "currency" can be a pretty large stack of paperwork and a pretty big list of "can's and cannot's".

Your missing the point.  Regulators don't ask YOU what your product is.  They will TELL YOU and then those list of choices above apply.  So if the Bitcoin Foundation called Bitcoins commodities, or virtual property, or holy carrots it would have absolutely no value under the law.  Regulators would say "Bitcoin is monetary value and subject to xzy".  They don't take what you chose to name it into consideration.

I mean do you also think that if you sold gambling products under a different name, say "true random number commodity contracts" it would magically be exempt from regulations/prohibitions on gambling.

Start calling Bitcoins "magical carrots" if you helps you sleep better at night, it won't exempt Bitcoin from anything the state says it is regulated by, and it wouldn't even if you did it from day one.  If Bitcoin was NOT designed to be a currency, say it was designed to "fight spam" however defacto people realized it made a good currency and started using it as such the same regs would apply.  The state is the one with the guns and monopoly on violence.  They TELL (not ASK) you what laws apply.  If you are lucky they don't do it in a carpicious or retroactive fashion.

That's interesting cause if the regulators want to bring things to court, there should be at least a slight hint of ambiguity in the legal definition of currency, but there isn't, it looks almost as if the original legislators were so concerned that they can not be clear enough about what's currency, that they go to great length to elaborate, repetitively, exhaustively, that it must be something issued by a government.

Question answered.  Inform the government.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

How you market your "product" can have a HUGE impact on how it gets regulated.  (*cough*  *cough*  syrup.)  Go ahead slap a label on it "meth4U" and tell those guys to market it to the meth addicts and see how far they get.  And what do you think is going to happen when Ruger starts a new ad campaign "A kill a day keeps the good guys at bay"?  Seriously.  How you pitch your product says everything about how you intend for it to be used, and when it has unintended uses, how you pitched it is going to make a huge difference in how you're dealt with.

Cheers.

Paraphrasing. FinCEN has said virtual currencies are not "real currencies" under the law.  Lucky for them (and not so lucky for everyone else) the law is very broad based and gives them the authority to regulate a lot of "non-currencies" too.


http://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html

Simple version like I said names don't matter.  FinCEN is saying virtual currencies, or virtual commodities, or virtual holy carrots are "other value that substitutes for currency".  If you disagree well FinCEN is laying out their legal case here so you can expect to eventually see them in court.

Personally I believe their analysis is a little weak but I am not going to risk my livelihood and freedom on their ability to convince a judge they are right.  The point is no matter what you call it FinCEN believes Bitcoin is a "substitute for currency".  Unless you convince a judge they are incorrect it meets they have the ability to regulate Bitcoin exchangers.

I completely agree.  I just don't think it makes much sense to provoke 'em or give them ammo.  If you force a confrontation it won't be long before bitcoin is branded a tool only criminals use and they'll be out to make examples of a few randomly selected public bitcoin users.

The state of California has no excuse of being ignorant of the law
 According to the constitution only gold and silver are money, and that's the law anything else is an scam.
Most Bitcoin businesses should ban together as sue the government for violating the constitution, harrasment, and corruption on behalf the banking industry.
The Bitcoin foundation in crearly not a money transmitter business and claiming otherwiseit is a clear case of harassment.
Having a competing currency is perfecly legal but since the dollar has a debt of 17 trillian vs 0 for Btc, and based on the market the BTC is killing the dollar, the gov is acting as a bully by intimidation and force on behalf of the Banks.
I would recommend for now to support the foundation, and the creation of p2p exchanges,  and to evaluate if zerocoin is a good idea or not. Finally support businesses that accept Bitcoins. For some of us Bitcoin represents more that just a currency it represents freedom.

Problem is laws are man made and man defined.   I guess Bitcoins stepped on the wrong toes.

Does this mean that guys like opencoin/ripple will be getting the same notice?

Ripple is something I have always wondered about.  Unlike Bitcoin where coins are created in a decentralized manner, Ripple created all the coins initially.  My (non-lawyer) reading of MSB regs and FinCEN guidance is that Ripple is a Money Transmitter as they are an administrator of a virtual currency (just as Linden Dollars, Liberty Reserve, Perfect Money, etc are).  That would require OpenCoin to comply with various KYC and reporting requirements.

I laughed so hard that I peed myself during that hitler vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M2C5ZM6WCs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M2C5ZM6WCs)

So true... So damn true it makes me want to join the SS...

They don't have a prayer in Hell of making these bizarre legal theories you espouse stick, admitting it is in fact what they're contemplating (on an actual read of their guidelines, it is exactly NOT what they're contemplating, but Murck is incompetent and apparently you can't tell the difference between counsel and muck).

Now it's one thing to say "I can't afford to fight my government, right or wrong". That's fine, you're an American which makes you a slave. As long as you can live with that so can we. It's quite a different thing to say "I can't afford to fight my government thus the most awkward contortion of what some noob thinks it might have said is actually what it said".

So, let's have some of that b) there, with the clear understanding that any other choice makes you I. inferior and II. not really a part of Bitcoin. Stop trying to frame things otherwise, it's a waste of effort, as are all the red herrings about the does/is dispute.

I am getting sick of you people getting each other drunk on kool-aid on the grounds that like chickens you just believe whatever nonsense you hear most often. Let's get back to the basics: Bitcoin is a game currency, like any other game currency (http://polimedia.us/trilema/2012/the-reasons-why-bitcoin-securities-cant-be-regulated-by-the-sec/). The SEC does not have the authority to regulate whatever in-game auction house nor does it claim such authority. FinCEN does not have the authority to regulate WoW gold, nor does it claim such authority. You people ran amok with the entire SEC bullshit six months ago, much to my amusement (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115693.0), you're running amok with the FinCEN bullshit currently, in spite of it being based on an outrageous backwards read of the entire thing.

Just STAHP already, it's getting ridiculous.

(All this notwithstanding: if you trade dollars for anything in the US you're fucked. It has absolutely nothing to do with Bitcoin, it could be raw milk or guns or used Playboy mags or homemade lemonade at a stand or anything else whatsoever - the soviets are trying to move all trade towards state-approved corporations as part of their "silent revolution". Constantly mixing Bitcoin into the internal affairs of that failed state is getting about as old as thinking the US, generally, still matters (http://polimedia.us/trilema/2013/the-future-of-bitcoin-regulation/). Can we move on already?).

Yes, it does.  FinCEN's March guidance makes this clear.

World of Warcraft and Second Life, along with bitcoin, were also mentioned specifically in another report from the GAO.

FinCEN claims to have the authority ... that claim doesn't have legal precedence as far as I am aware.

Why don't you Americans have this government in-fight thing? I.e., multiple ministries competing for the power to regulate a certain something, so in order to get the greatest support one ministry will sometimes take the best-accepted position deliberately.  Maybe your officials are just so free from corruption that there isn't much to gain from the power to regulate something new?

When we enter a yes/no type of debate you go in with the serious handicap that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Why do you feel so compelled to add this particular topic to the list of stuff you attempt to do without understanding? Isn't coding quite enough for one person?

It's hard to tell which item you are disputing, but if it's the claim that the GAO specifically mentioned WoW and Second Life as potentially taxable, it's apparently true. There is much discussion of it online.
Here's one link that includes an embedded link to the GAO document.

http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2013/06/second-life-income-taxable.html

Weird stuff.

How did GAO get involved in this discussion? Are we fishing for multi-layered red herrings or something? Did you read the thread?