This.  Despite what people say they know, MtGox has filed bankruptcy in Japanese courts.   It is in the hands of the courts now.   If we assume MtGox will be liquidated and not saved by new investors injecting capital a lot will depend on exactly how the Japanese courts decide to treat MtGox.

They may treat the USD deposits as a bailor/bailee arrangement.  In that case USD (and other fiat) holders would get all of it back.  That assumes it is all there and MtGox didn't dip into that as well to pay costs once they were insolvent (that is fraud BTW).  The BTC holders would get whatever is left over (probably bitcents on the bitcoin).

The courts however may decide to treat both BTC & USD depositors as unsecured creditors.  In that case both groups would get a partial payment based on MtGox liquidated assets.  This would be better for BTC holders (they still only get part back but it would be more) an worse for USD holders (they get some but less than the first scenario).

Vietnam is a dead end state with a dead end economy.  It is a non event.  The success of Bitcoin on the global stage is going to be defined by the actions of the major economies and Vietnam isn't even in the top 50. 

automatic and cold storage can't be used in the same sentence unless you have some sort of semi-aware robot involved.

Anything is possible.  Someone genuinely interested should be getting counsel from a lawyer with experience in international securities.

That is the purpose of bankruptcy.  If MtGox can pay creditors 20% of what they owe then they are all paid 20% not some 100% and some 0%.  The big unknown is how the Japanese courts will treat bitcoin. 

Except when the exchange rate continued to explode upward for the better part of two years.  Suddenly a $2M liability became a $1B liability (at the peak price).  It wouldn't be a problem unless something happened that cause everyone to flood to the door at the same time.

Existing bearer bonds and shares are not illegal but it is no longer legal to issue new bearer shares and bonds in virtually all countries.  Maybe somolia allows it but even many offshore locations revised their statutes in the last couple decades.    There are a lot of outstanding US treasury bearer bonds.  They no longer pay interest but they are normally used as a "reallllly" big cash note so they probably will never be redeemed.

BTW: Nevada prohibited the issuance of bearer shares in 2007.
http://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2010/title7/chapter78/nrs78-235.html


Sure if the blockchain can verify the identity of all shareholders, collect and store required information, ensure shareholders are accredited before issuing shares, enforce restrictions on transfers for private placements as required by securities laws, and file all necessary documents with regulators in a timely manner.

The same reason you like it, is the same reason just about every nation on earth has banned bearer shares a couple decades ago.  Most off shore locations no longer allow bearer shares.   Securities laws are generally speaking insanely complex, but they (almost?) never allow unregistered securities to be sold to the public or publicly traded.

Bitcoin doesn't need saving.  I made a transaction today and yup it still worked even though MtGox was offline.

It depends. If it was "frapachino123" not much.  If it was a truly random 256 bit encryption key we are talking heat death of the universe before that happens.  Then again maybe the cipher will be broken sometime in the next century. 

and be immediately shutdown and seized by Japanese regulators for securities violations.

There is no chain of title from the depositor to the current owner of a coin.  MtGox being off blockchain and pooled funds makes sure of that. You can trace a particular "coin" back to MtGox, but the trace stops there.  You can't trace back further than that.

The depositors didn't have any "coins" directly and thus have no claim with the actual thief (if one exists).  MtGox had its coins stolen (or embezzled).  The depositors traded Bitcoins for IOUs payable by MtGox.  Much like a bank there is no individual depositor's money.   The bank has a liability to the depositor.  If a bank is robbed it is the bank's money that is being stolen.  Now in the US we have deposit insurance but even if we didn't the bank couldn't just say "sorry that was your particular $100 bill stolen is last weeks robbery).  The banks funds were stolen and the liability the bank owes the depositor still exists.  Now in this case when MtGox lost their coins, they lost the ability to repay those IOUs.  In the size of the theft was smaller MtGox couldn't just say "sorry that was your coins stolen" the liability (IOU) would remain and depositors could seek damages against MtGox.  I know we went a long way round but while MtGox may have a claim against any coins that can be traced back to MtGox, no depositor would.

Still the application of demo dat rule is not a forgone conclusion when it comes to bitcoins.  It doesn't apply to legal tender and it also doesn't apply to bearer instruments (i.e. casino chip), or negotiable instruments (i.e. a check).  It is at least plausible a judge would rule that bitcoins are more like those exceptions than real property.  Until we see a court case we won't know for sure.  I am not a judge so what I think matters little but a bitcoin has more in common with a casino chip (a bearer instrument) then it does with a car (which is a unique specific piece of real property).

Note: to be clear I am not saying I have the answer just pointing out the law is pretty slow to react to technological changes.  This and countless other questions will eventually be decided but the timescale is measured in decades.

Oh you can dispute them but a dispute isn't like a court of law.  The judge is the customers credit card company and they just rubber stamp the dispute in favor of the customer.  Many have tried they all have gone bankrupt but don't let that dissuade you.

zneww,

Since the support account is tied up in noob timeout (360 second theymos really?) I will take a shot at it.   I think many of our users value their privacy and we have solid support on site including customer support chat from 8AM to 8PM EST.  That means most problems are resolved quickly on site and there is no need for someone to come to a third party forum looking for help.  That is the way I want to keep it but the downside of that is it is a little silent.  I am sure someone will post some feedback eventually.

BitSimple isn't going anywhere, it is well capitalized ( http://www.coindesk.com/tangible-cryptography-raises-600000-for-bitcoin-sales-portal/ ), and things are just getting interesting.

Have a good bankruptcy lawyer on speed dial.  Saying "working on a site" instead of launching a company implies to me you are focused on the nuts and bolts.  The site won't be the problem, the rubber stamp chargebacks will. 

Quotes were also not working but they appear to be now.  I think they changed something in the matrix.

They just bought a three letter domain name (and those tend to go for six figures) with depositor funds.  I guarantee you he isn't going by coach.  It isn't like it is his or the company's money he is spending.

You won't like it .... testing, more testing, and even more testing.

Bitcoin is complex and even small changes to the codebase need to be extensively tested.

Well the power of good software is that it makes complicated, difficulty things easy.  Bitcoin is incredibly complicated, hell the protocols bitcoin relies upon TCP/IP are also complicated.

No.

If your church says it is ok to manufacture and sell heroin ....