Could start a petition to remove the Bitcoin foundation all together I doubt many people want this though as there is good potential there.
[/quote]


there's no need for a petition, just start a new foundation, that's it

there's no need to demolish the current foundation, just simply start a new one,

there's no need to complain about the current foundation, just start a new foundation,

I can say it a million different ways but it will all boil down to -- start a new one.

... if all the big players started to denounce the foundation then they would lose all credibility.
[/quote]

wow, it's not like they are the enemy, just start a new foundation

 

they are the leaders of the industry,
they are the one's that set the example,
they are the one who set the tone,
they are bitcoin in corporate flesh

if you want to start a new board it can start today, but unless you are willing to give time and money to take heat from the world your best bet is to work with what you got.


Remember, the foundation isn't paying you, you are playing for the opportunity to serve the foundation and get disrespected on an international lever from everyone with a bitcoin as soon as the value drops, or a board member reveals that he's human.

all of that is totally unnecessary, btc is far too young and the whole cryptocurrency industry is far too young to feel so aligned with any coin to think the industry can't do without it.

if you don't like the bitcoin foundation, start a new bitcoin foundation one -- the BBB (bigger, better, and brighter) Bitcoin foundation,
if you don't like bitcoin make a new coin; oh, yeah there over 300 other coins, most of which have improved on the original btc model
if you don't like an exchange start a new one,  there is PLENTY of room for more service providers in the CC universe

If you have integrity, safety, transparency, and good customer service you stand to make billions in the space

personally I'm working on several projects with that in mind

On Monday you were promised progress and an unpdate of that progress by the Thursday (today) well today's update is that Mt. Gox had to move the office location because of security concerns.


Here's their OFFICIAL announcement:

Tokyo, Japan, February 20th, 2014!
"
"
Dear MtGox Customers,"
"
Thank you for your patience this week while we are working on re-initiating bitcoin
withdrawals. In addition to the technical issue, this week we have experienced some
security problems, and as a result we had to relocate MtGox to our previous office building
in Shibuya (details can be found here https://support.mtgox.com/home). The move,
combined with some other security and technical challenges, pushed back our progress."
"
As much as we didn’t want to only provide an “update on an update”, this is the current
status. We are committed to solving this issue and will provide more information as soon
as possible to keep everyone in the loop."
"
We are very sorry for the delays and deeply appreciate your kind understanding and
continuous support."
 "
Best regards,"
"
"
MtGox Team




With that news btc went from $220 to $138 (although the day's low is $137), you could expect MG btc to drop below $100 today.
All other markets are keeping their distance from MG and only showing a slight sympathatic reaction to MG, their BTC rates have moved from $620 to $590 on the news by 9am.  Some are speculating that rates will easily see $540 today, my thought is if it gets to $550 I'm in, but I'm hoping for $500 as a low for the day.


 

hahaha @ feels dirty about $630


I too purchased at about that but not for btc, I just wanted to trade other cryptocurrency

I think $630 is a good number post MtGox issue, but it might take the rest of the month to see a profit on that. 

Graphs look like Bitcoin, Litcoin, and peercoin are dancing to the same music.  

 interesting

BTC is dancing around $600 as I write this, but heading towards the $500+ side of the divide, I happen to like btc to buy at $550 or less.  What's your comfort level at this stage of the game?

not everyone comes to awareness at the same time


perfect example, some people are STILL buying btc at MG

Thanks for that, such a position goes to my larger supposition that they were probably taken down more so because they chronically ripped people off. 

Just because you have runners doesn't make you big-time, it just makes the runners smaller-time.  In many countries housekeepers have their own housekeepers. 

As for them being able to handle $25K to $30K easily there is no reasonable evidence of that, however there is evidence to suggest the contrary.  Primarily they refused the $30K deal, but more importantly after the arrest they failed to post bail and availed themselves of a public defender.  None, of that is indicative of anyone operating a business of anything larger than nano size business.   The feds caught serous worker-bees.

Let's be reasonable here, you don't spend time in jail when bail is offered to you, similarly you don't accept a public defender if you could afford to get someone who knows you to defend you in court.   

Those guys were nobodies before the transactions and became less after it.

Please provide more evidence of wrong doing to justify the effort going into this matter, the money laundering charge is nonsense; what else is going on here?

govt regulation should only be instituted after self regulation has failed,

the cryptocurrency community is only 5 years old, it needs time to get it's act together, if anything govts should only seek to help or guide the CC community to self-regulation


The point of regulation  is security, accountability, and reliability, the CC community needs all of those things in order to make it more stable and relevant. 

 

what?  ... I had to look that up, and was shocked out of my mind; wow.


nevertheless, regardless of what happens to MG Japan will have to act legislatively, clearly they are taking more of a responsible position, and less of a knee-jerk reaction, to the matter but considering that this is the second time billiions in equity ($s) was flushed down the toilet it won't likely be viewed as intruding or overstepping the cryptocurrency  community at large.   

oh, well

Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency, cryptocurrencies are virtual currencies, the business of transmitting virtual currencies for a fee are regulated in two ways: 1) money transmitter, and/or 2) Money Services Business.  The above shows you the law and an interpretation of the law by the agency charged with enforcement of the law. 

The Miami arrests are valid if the men in question were not licensed to do the transactions they performed and charged a fee to do.

Domain Name For Sale ---> www.CRYPTOCURRENCYINDUSTRY.COM

I will consider all offers, including but not limited to trade, a partnership arrangement with the domain being my equity contribution. or good old (or new) fashion currency
 
I have no minimum or maximum, I like doing the type of deals that result in two happy principals --  WIN-WIN  deals




Yes, I have other domains available for sale and am willing to bundle.

Here is the law:

) Money transmitter—(i) In general. Money transmitter:

(A) Any person, whether or not licensed or required to be licensed, who engages as a business in accepting currency, or funds denominated in currency, and transmits the currency or funds, or the value of the currency or funds, by any means through a financial agency or institution, a Federal Reserve Bank or other facility of one or more Federal Reserve Banks, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or both, or an electronic funds transfer network; or

(B) Any other person engaged as a business in the transfer of funds.

(ii) Facts and circumstances; Limitation. Whether a person “engages as a business” in the activities described in paragraph (uu)(5)(i) of this section is a matter of facts and circumstances. Generally, the acceptance and transmission of funds as an integral part of the execution and settlement of a transaction other than the funds transmission itself (for example, in connection with a bona fide sale of securities or other property), will not cause a person to be a money transmitter within the meaning of paragraph (uu)(5)(i) of this section.



and here is an interpretation of that law by the law enforcement agency charged with upholding that law:




FinCEN Ruling 2003-8 – Definition of Money Transmitter (Merchant Payment Processor)

November 19, 2003

Dear [ ]:

This letter responds to your letter dated February 5, 2003, requesting an administrative ruling with respect to whether [ ] is required to register with FinCEN as a Money Services Business in accordance with 31 CFR 103.41 by virtue of operating [ ]. Based on the representations contained in your letter, FinCEN has determined that [ ] is not a Money Services Business as defined in 31 CFR 103.11(uu), by virtue of the ACH processing services provided by [ ], and is therefore not required to register with FinCEN.

According to your letter, [ ] operates a service called [ ] that provides third-party origination services for Automated Clearing House (“ACH”) transactions on behalf of merchants. Through [ ], merchants can accept customer payments for purchases made through a merchant’s web site, or by telephone, in the form of a checking account debit. [ ]’s merchant customers obtain payment instructions to debit a customer’s checking account and submit these payment instructions to [ ] through [ ]. [ ] batches and submits the debit information to [ ]’s bank for processing through the ACH system. Once [ ]’s bank initiates the ACH, the depository institution at which the merchant’s customer maintains a checking account debits the account of the customer, and sends a credit instruction through ACH to [ ]’s bank, which then credits the amount to an operating account maintained at the bank by [ ]. After a temporary holding period to ensure that the transaction initiated by the merchant is not returned, [ ] remits the funds to the merchant. Through [ ], merchants are also able to initiate credits to provide refunds to customers. You have asked whether [ ] would be deemed a money transmitter in accordance with 31 CFR 103.11(uu)(5) by virtue of providing this service.

The definition of money transmitter for purposes of BSA regulations found at 31 CFR 103.11(uu)(5) includes:

(A) [a]ny person, whether or not licensed or required to be licensed, who engages as a business in accepting currency, or funds denominated in currency, and transmits the currency or funds, or the value of the currency or funds, by any means through a financial agency or institution, a Federal Reserve Bank or other facility of one or more Federal Reserve Banks, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or both, or an electronic funds transfer network; or

(B) [a]ny other person engaged as a business in the transfer of funds.

FinCEN does not currently interpret the definition of money transmitter to include the third-party origination service that is described in your letter. The nature of the transactions you describe is the transfer of funds through the ACH system from a customer to a merchant as payment for goods and services. [ ]’s role in the transactions is to provide merchants with a portal to a financial institution that has access to the ACH system. [ ] acts on behalf of merchants receiving payments rather than on behalf of customers making payments. For these reasons, the service that [ ] provides through [ ] more closely resembles payment processing/settlement than money transmission. Therefore, to the extent that the role of [ ] in such transactions is limited to submitting payment instructions obtained from a merchant to a bank for ACH processing, and remitting the funds received through the ACH process to the merchant (or in some cases, refunding money to the merchant’s customer through an ACH transaction), FinCEN would not deem [ ] a money transmitter for purposes of 31 CFR 103.11(uu)(5).

In arriving at our decision in this matter, FinCEN relied upon the accuracy and completeness of the representations made in your February 5, 2003 letter. Nothing precludes FinCEN from seeking further action should any of this information prove inaccurate or incomplete. Finally, we note that you have requested that certain information contained in your letter be held in confidence and exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. FinCEN reserves the right to publish this letter as guidance to financial institutions with all identifying information about you, [ ], [ ], and [ ], redacted. You will have 14 days after the date of this letter to identify any other information you believe should be redacted and the legal basis for the redaction. Should you have any questions, please telephone Christine Del Toro of my staff at (703) 905-3590.



Sincerely,


//Signed//


Judith R. Starr
Chief Counsel



cc: David M. Vogt, Executive Associate Director, Office of Regulatory Programs Deborah Silberman, Chief, MSB/Casinos/IRS Programs

if you read the writing on the wall, if you read between the line, if you read the body language, if you read the charts, if you read btc forum posts, if you read media message it alllllll says the same thing -- Mt. Gox is in trouble.

Only Mt. Gox loyalist ask, and want you to be patient because they know that with time and a sharp surge in the market $800+ they will be able to kick start Mt Gox back into action.

People are STILL (TODAY) buying btc at Mt.Gox because the temptation is too great, the prospect of a $300 btc, that you can "soon" squeeze $600 - $800 out of is just too much to pass up regardless of all of the clear indications that it won't happen, much less anytime "soon".

the cryptocurrency industry is still in it's infancy, when Mt. Gox started the btc were worth LESS then many of his most prized cards

It's a matter of perspective, vision, and recognition of opportunity.  Mt Gox and everyone else that got involved prior to April 2013 basically got in with little to no risk, however EVERYONE who entered the space since have done so with some risk.   

For a better perspective on the potentiality of the matter Mt Gox grew at an expansion level that blew the like of facebook and google out of the water, instead of being a multi-million dollar company they would have been a multi-trillion dollar company by now if they knew what the F they were doing.  But NO ONE knew what they were doing, everything was hype, hype, hype (still today too).  If you extract the hype btc is worth only about $400 which would position Mt Gox as a billion dollar company.   

Keep in mind that 99% of the world still doesn't know what Bitcoin is, or they see it as a bad thing.     

I was looking at a video where cryptocurrency professional were testifying as EXPERTS in the field but the COMBINED total years for all of them in the CC industry was about 4.   There is probably 100 people on his site that have more knowledge about btc than 2 of the 3 of them yet they are not the ones representing the industry.

Domain Name For Sale ---> www.CRYPTOCURRENCYMARKETING.COM

I will consider all offers, including but not limited to trade, a partnership arrangement with the domain being my equity contribution. or good old (or new) fashion currency
 
I have no minimum or maximum, I like doing the type of deals that result in two happy principals --  WIN-WIN  deals




Yes, I have other domains available for sale and am willing to bundle.

If you are dead set against all premines that is your prerogative, nevertheless it's unreasonable to expect that to be the industry norm.   

I'm seeing a ton of coins going down primarily because of a lack of interest. 

Who do you expect to talk up the coin -- the miners?   Everyone reasonably expects that whoever created the coin take on some level of leadership role to guide the ship when it needs guiding, to motivate the team when the team needs motivating, and to do what he must do to move that exchange value up -- when no leader exists or when the leader sees that x, y, and z miners literally have 2 or 3x what he has he figures heck you have more coins than me you go and talk to the exchanges, you make a faucet, you make the website, you talk to the media, you create the giveaways, you take the technical questions, let me do some mining ...





 

you are trying to make a case for money laundering and it won't happen, those guys probably fought hard, really hard to get the first order completed ($25K), I'm guessing they borrowed from friends and family and were physically and mentally spent by the time the second big deal came around, THAT proved they were not bigtime anything, they were not even connected wannabeees,

The feds think doing a trade in btc is as easy as doing a drug deal, farrrrrrrr from the case, there are so many scams for buying selling, viruses, hackers, and even "legitimate" exchanges playing with your btc.   This doesn't happen with cash or drugs. 

All of the finCEN officers should own btc and learn about it intimately before assuming it's so easy to handle -- it's fantastically complex, far more complex than stocks, bonds, commodities, or any other financial instrument.   

Them going after the bottom feeders of the market doesn't make sense on it's face, there must be another reason for fed efforts.   Is there any update on this matter?