But if that contract is not in your name... You really don't get it, do you? The contract IS in my name. Everytime I get something in exchange for bitcoins I sign it with my name. My name is represented by the unique string called private key. Thus, unique alphanumerical string is generated representing ME and ONLY ME. This is my signature. And the message I send signed with this signature is concerning only ME and the other person I sending it to. It is none of your business or government's business to regulate MY PRIVATE relations! |
|
|
|
This wasn't about possession, but it was about issuing and creating a market. Issuing what? Paying with what? Paying with alphanumerical text strings representing what? To have a market you must have money circulating on it! Because this is the definition for market - buying and selling against money. Bitcoin is not money. Money === legal tender. Bitcoin != legal tender. If government changes tax laws and allows individuals to pay taxes with bitcoins only then they will have the right to interfere in private relations based on bitcoin! |
|
|
|
If the future of Bitcoin is illegal, Bitcoin will become worthless in the future. That is very funny statement. The worthiness of something doesn't depend on its legal status. You can outlaw the Moon or the Sun but they still will be used by humans. |
|
|
|
Lawyers have told me that if it represents an interest in something else and is easily traded, it would generally be considered a security. Then every digital asset is a security, because it represents an interest in something else and can be easily traded due to its digital form... By definition: A digital asset is any object of text or media that has been formatted into a binary source that includes the right to use it. A digital file without the right to use it is not an asset. What your lawyer basically told you is that you have no right to possess digital assets without government permission and regulation by respective government agencies? Why would anyone need blessing from the government to use THEIR OWN digital assets if those assets include the right to use them? And you say the law is clear?! |
|
|
|
The regulation comes from issuing and trading securities. Right. And how do you know what I'm issuing is a security? Your wish to classify some bitcoin assets as securities is simply not enough. You have to point out exactly where the existing law applies to bitcoin assets? Stored value?!... What is that? I'm having really hard time trying to figure out just one value that is NOT stored. Every bitcoin transaction is a private digital message where any third party has no place. This is a private message between 2 people. If this transaction does not include any government property (like fiat money) and does not use any government infrastructure then the government has no place there. Privacy is privacy is privacy. You either have privacy or you don't. Simple as that. If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy. - Phil Zimmermann on PGP If zeros and ones are outlawed, only outlaws will use zeros and ones. - Jon Matonis In the current form applying the existing regulatory framework to bitcoin is counter productive. This only generates more outlaws. There is no point for the bitcoin community to spend time and money for lawyers. The legal guardians of the status quo do not care about the laws, because all monetary and financial laws are coined with one goal - to preserve the status quo at any rate. |
|
|
|
A judge would clearly believe Bitcoins have value, as would any reasonable man after seeing MtGox, so securities laws would apply if you issued shares denominated in BTC. End of story. Did I say bitcoin has no value? Where? Of course, they have value. So does everything that is surrounding us has value for somebody. Does that mean security laws apply for everything that is surrounding us? So does my email signed with my private key has value. But... not for the judge! As the judge doesn't have the public key to unlock it! End of story. |
|
|
|
You are an idiot;
Yeah, this is a solid argument. Good luck SEC regulating every server in every jurisdiction on this planet that transfers messages signed with private keys! |
|
|
|
The law itself doesnt even mention money. It doesnt appear anywhere in the definition of a security. The law itself doesn't even mention bitcoin. Bitcoin assets do not appear in the definition of a security. Case closed. As for selling securities, it doesnt mention money in that definition either, It mentions trading the security for VALUE. I even bolded it for you. Is your point that bitcoins have no value?
Look around you and tell me at least one thing that has no value? Why is bitcoin value so special to you? |
|
|
|
Essentially, if the purchaser will be a passive owner―relying on someone else’s efforts or conduct in order to make money on the investment―the instrument is probably a security.” Investors on a bitcoin stock exchange DO NOT MAKE MONEY! They make bitcoins. Bitcoin is not money! ONLY if they sell their bitcoin assets against dollars will they make money. |
|
|
|
If cash is outlawed, cash will become worthless.
No. Bitcoin is a tool. You can outlaw a certain usage of this tool not the tool itself! You can not outlaw knifes just because they can be used by criminals! Money in the form of cash is money not based on debt! If you remove cash you setup a monetary system that is entirely based on debt. That means every member of such a society must be indebted first if they want to be part of this society and use such money. And then, who would be the master creditor? How debtors would control their creditors? They can't. This is where capitalism transforms to neofeudalism and this is exactly what you'll do if you outlaw cash! |
|
|
|
Becoin, you should start another silk road, perhaps one that doesnt require tor. Since payments will be processed with bitcoin and not "money", you wouldnt be selling anything and surely regulations wont apply, right? Puppet, silk road must apply regulation because they sell drugs, not because they sell what they sell against bitcoins! Bitcoin is just a tool! You can regulate the usage of a tool, not the tool itself! Knifes are dangerous because they are very useful to criminals if they kill people. Does that mean we should apply extra regulation to all knife manufacturers? The bureaucrat's dream - Regulation after regulation after regulation after regulation after regulation... Swapping assets on GLBSE, a transaction that doesnt even involve bitcoins (let alone fiat) would be subject to regulation, because the assets are securities, and therefore subject to regulation. Transactions on GLBSE DO involve bitcoins! Would you care to explain why every asset priced in bitcoins is a security? |
|
|
|
The only sane course is to assume that all Bitcoin-based businesses are illegal whether they appear to be so or not. I'm afraid, all boils down to that at the end of the day. All goes as I've predicted 1 year ago. First they will try to put you in the existing legal framework and label all your tools and activities under already well established labels. Then they will try to create new laws and regulations. Don't allow them to label you under existing labels that are grossly misleading. Let them create new regulations if they can! |
|
|
|
Even if it was just a payment processing protocol, payment processing is subject to regulation. So are commodities. So is stored value.
Wrong. Let me address point by point. Every object in this Universe is a stored value. Because every object that exists has some value. Stored value concept is flawed. If they treat bitcoin as commodity then they should treat bitcoin stock exchange as barter exchange! Bitcoin is not a payment processing protocol. If it is then every message or email sent is a payment and is subject to monetary regulation!? Bitcoin is not money. Bitcoin network is a system for announcing trust relations between people. One bitcoin is a standard measure for trust on this network. By assigning 2 standard measures of trust to Bob's public key and 1 standard measure of trust to Carol's public key, via the block chain Alice announces to the world that in this particular moment she trusts Bob twice as much than Carol. Nowhere in the world to my best knowledge trust relations between people are taxable or subject to monetary regulations! |
|
|
|
followed by a single line post showing drop dead stupidity, ignorance and even inability to read whats been written already. You'll grow someday, puppy. Then you'll understand. Patience. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin doesn't "magic" away laws simply because ... Bitcoin. It does! Bitcoin is not money. A stock exchange that doesn't deal with money shouldn't be regulated by the government. |
|
|
|
It's a simple declarative statement backed up by a mere glance at material reality. So... what reality is more material: paperbugs, cryptobugs, or goldbugs? |
|
|
|
I'm not sure what you're arguing anymore. Or why.
Now I'm not sure what did you mean by saying: A growing number of goldbugs are parting with their metal for bitcoins. |
|
|
|
The point is, a growing list of PM dealers are trading their metal for bitcoins. They see it as a viable trading option. Trading means today they'll buy bitcoins and sell gold, and tomorrow they'll buy gold and sell bitcoins. This is just a profit opportunity and is different to "parting with their metal for bitcoins". |
|
|
|
So yes, it's a growing list. It's a growing list of people trying to profit from bitcoin, Severian. People that purchase bitcoins instead of gold believe that bitcoin will appreciate faster to fiat money than gold. That doesn't mean they will ditch their gold and silver for bitcoins! |
|
|
|
A growing number of goldbugs are parting with their metal for bitcoins. Actually this is not true, Severian. Goldbugs are people that have very strong common sense compared to paperbugs or cryptobugs. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
