Currently the law is such that only humans are held accountable for their actions. This means that other creatures are exempt, notably animals. When dogs bite people, it's their owners that are charged under the relevant dog biting laws. Thus, aigeezer speaks along the right line of thought in that law enforcement will probably be looking to the persons who created or who controls the computer/robot.

However, it is certainly feasible that at some point in the future AI bots will be considered autonomous enough to be held independently accountable for their actions. I'd say this is a likely path considering that Moore's Law has yet to be proved wrong.

Why is everyone so quick to assume that people are trolling?

This is a pretty legit question, especially for marketing purposes for any bitcoin company. If enough women use BTC, then bitcoin companies can and should target appropriately.

yup, if the hardware goes down, then bitcoin goes down: viva la miners!

hardware + agreements, since we agree that we will trade with BTC

And some women marry geeks for their brains...

but if a man has got a bunch of bitcoin, brains and bronze ... woa, then send me a message

Just say:

*Bitcoin for Pearls!*

that'll get our attention

Thanks!

Lol, no trolling intended, just being straight-forward & honest!

Thanks, yeah the landing page is fun

Haha, well, I am single and looking this is me:

BitGo is a startup that hasn't launched yet: http://www.bitgo.com/

Actually in addition to Montana and South Carolina, there's sort of a third state: in New Mexico there is no money transmission regulation unless involving a negotiable instrument.

We have one girl here at BitGo... actually it's me, the author of our bitcointalk posts - and I use BTC 

Did they tell you why they closed your account for accepting Bitcoin? For example, did they think you were a Money Transmitter? Or did they not give a reason other than that you were accepting BTC?

Where you only accepting bitcoins as donations? Or where you exchanging/selling/buying BTC with USD?

This is great. How are you addressing to the public the legal ramifications of business owners dealing in BTC? They will all need federal MSB registrations and Oregon Money Transmitter Licenses. Otherwise they can all be shut down anytime.

Cool thanks, looks like this one is winning.

FinCEN, via Bradley Stevens in 2011, told Bitcoin USA (now dissolved) that BTC is stored value [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=41155.0;all]. But even if the director of FinCEN had made an official statement about it, such statements are not legally binding, so they're only good for guidance. In addition, the Bitcoin community at large generally speculates that the government thinks Bitcoin is more likely to be covered as stored value rather than the other two money transmission subcategories (payment instruments and money received for transmission). It's a bold statement for the Foundation to say that Bitcoin is not stored value when the community has been guessing that our various governmental bodies thinks it is stored value (despite any nuanced differences in their definitions of stored value).

The Bitcoin Foundation does a good job here at addressing all three subcategories under which a Bitcoin operator can be pinned for money transmission. Even though it is striking that they claim Bitcoin is not stored value, it's also important that the Foundation says that Bitcoin is not covered under payment instruments or money received for transmission. Since, they claim, Bitcoin doesn't fall under any of these subcategories, then Bitcoin operators are not subject to money transmission regulation.

It seems the Bitcoin world would explode with huge success if the US & its states eventually decided that Bitcoin operators are not subject to money transmission regulation. Although, if this happens, it is practical to assume that the government would find some other way to regulate Bitcoin since the government holds a significant interest in preventing criminal financial transactions.

[please note this is not legal advice]

The real meat in this letter is under Section C for "stored value." The Bitcoin Foundation says that Bitcoin is not stored value. This directly contradicts U.S. Department of Treasury FinCEN statements which say that the reason why Bitcoin operators need money transmitter licenses (or MSB licenses) is because BTC is stored value.

The interesting thing is that the Foundation didn't need to argue that Bitcoin is not stored value. They could've just said that, even if Bitcoin is stored value, they don't sell or issue it and so they aren't subject to the license. They claim they are a not-for-profit and their activities are more political in nature. Consumers can only donate Bitcoin to the Foundation, not buy or sell Bitcoin to them.

So why are they arguing something seemingly unnecessary to their case? My thoughts are: 1) They actually have done some issuing, selling or transferring of Bitcoin, although probably in a small capacity. The Foundation actually might be giving money to people. They have grant competitions, and whoever wins the grant probably gets resources to bring the grant idea to fruition. What if, for one of those grants, they gave some BTC to someone? Well, then, that might consist of the activity of issuing BTC, which CA claims they need a license for.

2) The other possibility is that they are making a political/legal move in trying to get a case in court. Just because FinCEN or a CA Department says something, doesn't mean its statement is legally binding. If they could get a judge to adjudicate whether Bitcoin is stored value, then this would bring great clarity to the field. The Foundation argues that Bitcoin is not stored value, or any other definition under money transfer laws, and therefore no Bitcoin operator needs a money transmitter license. This is a bold argument that directly contradicts FinCEN. It's also highly appropriate for the Foundation to make this move since it's their mission to advocate Bitcoin in general.

The Foundation might be on to something. In fact, at the recent conference in DC, the European Central Bank declared that they don't think Bitcoin fits any of the three functions of money: Medium of Exchange, Unit of Account, or Store of Value (http://www.thebitcoinchannel.com/archives/13169). If they mean Store of Value in the same way that the US Department of Treasury means Stored Value, then it's possible that one day the U.S. will give into the notion that Bitcoin is not stored value and thus Bitcoin operators would not need a money transmitter license.

The Bitcoin Foundation's response to CA's cease and desist here is really exciting. The Foundation is officially requesting here for CA to make an official statement that "the sale of bitcoin is not regulated under the California Money Transmitter Act." Of course it might take a couple of years for this case to get through the court system in order to produce a final answer.

In addition, the Foundation says, "It is important, and a core aspect of the Foundation's mission, to ensure that State regulators understand the bitcoin industry, and that the bitcoin industry participants receive clarity regarding and achieve understanding of their obligations under state law." The Foundation here is suggesting that perhaps our government bodies don't quite understand the nuances of Bitcoin, and so consulting with the Foundation should help.

[please note this is not legal advice]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/151346841/Bitcoin-Foundation-Response-to-California-DFI

The real meat in this letter is under Section C for "stored value." The Bitcoin Foundation says that Bitcoin is not stored value. This directly contradicts U.S. Department of Treasury FinCEN statements which say that the reason why Bitcoin operators need money transmitter licenses (or MSB licenses) is because BTC is stored value.

The interesting thing is that the Foundation didn't need to argue that Bitcoin is not stored value. They could've just said that, even if Bitcoin is stored value, they don't sell or issue it and so they aren't subject to the license. They claim they are a not-for-profit and their activities are more political in nature. Consumers can only donate Bitcoin to the Foundation, not buy or sell Bitcoin to them.

So why are they arguing something seemingly unnecessary to their case? My thoughts are: 1) They actually have done some issuing, selling or transferring of Bitcoin, although probably in a small capacity. The Foundation actually might be giving money to people. They have grant competitions, and whoever wins the grant probably gets resources to bring the grant idea to fruition. What if, for one of those grants, they gave some BTC to someone? Well, then, that might consist of the activity of issuing BTC, which CA claims they need a license for.

2) The other possibility is that they are making a political/legal move in trying to get a case in court. Just because FinCEN or a CA Department says something, doesn't mean its statement is legally binding. If they could get a judge to adjudicate whether Bitcoin is stored value, then this would bring great clarity to the field. The Foundation argues that Bitcoin is not stored value, or any other definition under money transfer laws, and therefore no Bitcoin operator needs a money transmitter license. This is a bold argument that directly contradicts FinCEN. It's also highly appropriate for the Foundation to make this move since it's their mission to advocate Bitcoin in general.

The Foundation might be on to something. In fact, at the recent conference in DC, the European Central Bank declared that they don't think Bitcoin fits any of the three functions of money: Medium of Exchange, Unit of Account, or Store of Value (http://www.thebitcoinchannel.com/archives/13169). If they mean Store of Value in the same way that the US Department of Treasury means Stored Value, then it's possible that one day the U.S. will give into the notion that Bitcoin is not stored value and thus Bitcoin operators would not need a money transmitter license.

The Bitcoin Foundation's response to CA's cease and desist here is really exciting. The Foundation is officially requesting here for CA to make an official statement that "the sale of bitcoin is not regulated under the California Money Transmitter Act." Of course it might take a couple of years for this case to get through the court system in order to produce a final answer.

In addition, the Foundation says, "It is important, and a core aspect of the Foundation's mission, to ensure that State regulators understand the bitcoin industry, and that the bitcoin industry participants receive clarity regarding and achieve understanding of their obligations under state law." The Foundation here is suggesting that perhaps our government bodies don't quite understand the nuances of Bitcoin, and so consulting with the Foundation should help.

[please note this is not legal advice]

This is interesting, in what why do you think it matches how different the currency works?

Thanks

It's a little weird to be seeing a box, Ƀ is a unicode character and so it should be cross-compliant.

Hmmm, interesting. The first one is supposed to be this symbol: Ƀ
Does it look like a box here?