Not true. The DHS started the investigation last year - long before the merger was discussed.
We know from what people posted after talking to the SEC about pirate that the SEC was asking questions about MtGox. We also know that the email sent by the SEC said that information given to them could be shared with other agencies (which is pretty standard if there's a more appropriate agency to follow something up). It's highly possible that there were multiple different things which put MtGox on the government radar, but it's unlikely that a recent complaint by a competitor would have resulted in such quick action. Unless that complaint by a competitor included confidential information received as part of Coinlabs due dilligence before taking of the gox US/CA customer accounts. |
|
|
|
I tend to agree. They could start with a reply that they have ceased and desisted from all money transfer businesses. (Maybe they were planning some in the future?)
That would put the ball in the other side of the court, and at least let the State define what they are concerned about.
That's completely stupid - Why would you say you've stopped doing something you were never doing in the first place?? Are you on crack, NewLiberty? The burden of proof is on the state, dum-dum. What you're suggesting would actually cause them more trouble. I've gotten threatening letters from the government that didn't pertain to me in the past. I just filed them away and ignored them. I've been working on the assumption that the Foundation is going to respond. That is more or less the Foundation's reason for being. So although ignoring it would also be a sort of message, it doesn't take a foundation to do that. You and me can do that on our own as you wisely observed. Its something you learn in law school in America, how to be stupid in very specific ways. If one doesn't choose to rely on the pervasive government ennui or patriotism and are going to respond, the easiest disinfectant is bright light. Show them what you do and what you don't do. The Sacramentoans don't know the answer either, so if you don't want better funded competition to spend their effort on motivating the regulators to find something wrong, you can show the regulators something right. Invite audits, make them experts on Bitcoin, and teach them how it is good for people like them and us. But just a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Even that has risks. NewLiberty, excellent points. But remember our "real" opponents are outside the bitcoin community. We in the bitcoin community will always have varying opinions, however the energy we expend fighting these internal battles detracts from the "real" opponents which in the US is the currently the recent guidance that threatens the livelihood of everybitcoin business who wants to do business with US customers. |
|
|
|
"... the dollar-based world currency system is close to the end of its tether. America’s manufacturing base is too hollowed out and its current account deficits too high for the dollar to stage a turnaround and, without major remedial measures, will face total collapse. So what comes next? Some people have been pushing the bitcoin. This can be summarily dismissed. As Paul Krugman has pointed, demand for the bitcoin comes almost entirely from speculators rather than commercial users, which does not bode well for the stability of any bitcoin based system. There is also the fact that no serious government has any interest in curtailing its currency-issuing monopoly to accommodate this techie’s pipedream." http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingleton/2013/06/30/dethroning-the-dollar-the-yuan-the-bitcoin-and-other-usurpers/ |
|
|
|
*anarchistic libertard rant*
slikroad is the reason for bitcoin to hit 260/lack of regulations is why its down under 100 again. i don't need regulations directly, PEOPLE need regulations to thrust bitcoin. and if i want bitcoin to succeed i indirectly need regulation too because people need them. +1 Somone who get it! |
|
|
|
|
The foundation's mission:
Standardizing Bitcoin
As a non-political online money, Bitcoin is backed exclusively by code. This means that—ultimately—it is only as good as its software design. By funding the Bitcoin infrastructure, including a core development team, we can make Bitcoin more respected, trusted and useful to people worldwide.
Protecting Bitcoin
Cryptography is the key to Bitcoin’s success. It’s the reason that no one can double spend, counterfeit or steal Bitcoins. If Bitcoin is to be a viable money for both current users and future adopters, we need to maintain, improve and legally protect the integrity of the protocol.
Promoting Bitcoin
In the context of public misunderstandings, misinterpretations and misrepresentations, Bitcoin needs to be clearer about its purpose and technology. Allowing the community to speak through a single source will enable Bitcoin to improve its reputation.
Maybe it is time for them to drop the third effort and focus on the first two. They've not seem to done very well at all on that third issue so far.
|
|
|
|
The Foundation asked for and evidently received an extension to answer. There is currently a debate as to whether or not the foundation should answer the C&D publicly. This would satisfy the community but it could also piss off the regulators. The rumor is that California officials were not happy that it was made public in the first place.
It is hard for me to imagine that a foundation would receive a cease and desist order and not inform their members and constituents of that order and their reply to it, unless it is a monarchy. I agree. Foundation Members were disappointed to read about it in Jon Matonis's column along with the public before being informed of it by the Foundation Leadership. Which begs the question, Does the Foundation serve its members or Jon Matonis's journalism. It seems to me that Jon used his access for his personal benefit. Had Matonis prepared his post and then the foundation released info to the membership first, followed by a brief embargo before allowing Matonis to post I would be less suspect. Hopefully these are growing pains for the Foundation that will be worked out as they learn and understand how to navigate these uncharted waters. Then again, I would think that the Foundation leadership would understand or have in place others who understand how this should work. |
|
|
|
The date on the cease and desist order is 30 May 2013.
TBF was required to answer within 20 days. Deadline for response lapsed 10 days ago.
Do we know the answer TBF sent? I like to read it.
The Foundation asked for and evidently received an extension to answer. There is currently a debate as to whether or not the foundation should answer the C&D publicly. This would satisfy the community but it could also piss off the regulators. The rumor is that California officials were not happy that it was made public in the first place. Maybe it is time for the foundation to remove advocacy and lobbying from its mission and focus on supporting the maintenance of the protocol and running the annual US conference. They are clearly a target and that can't be good for them or the bitcoin community. |
|
|
|
|
Viceroy,
Do you have to derail every thread you participate in???!!!
This is about on BITCON regulation. (NOT REGULATING THE PROTOCOL) the but specifically the recent guidance handed down by FinCEN here in the US as it pertains to converting between fiat and bitcoin and transmitting value over the bitcoin network.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
malevolent,
Good points. I'm in the US and while no one is happy about this new "guidance" I'm trying to figure out how to continue to operate my bitcoin business legally here. And any bitcoin business that wants to (legally) deal with US customers will have to figure that out too.
Unfortunately, I feel pretty certain that bitcoin will begin to be more widely adopted and thrive outside of the US in a jurisdiction with less onerous regulation and more intelligence and understanding on how this technology will impact the worlds financial future.
|
|
|
|
Why not have bitcoin regulate the banks that want to do business with bitcoin?
A good project for the bitcoin foundation would be to regulate banks. Maybe start with a set of guidelines for the banks who want to engage in BTC transmitting, making sure that transfers between BTC and fiat are sudo anonymous.
That is a GREAT idea. Unfortunately the Banks and the Regulators currently control the legacy fiat financial system. The Bitcoin Foundation is currently making efforts to engage and education the legislators and regulators so that maybe in the future we can affect what you are suggesting. Bitcoin is still a DEVELOPMENTAL protocol. There is not reason that as the protocol evolves that it can not meet the needs of maintain our financial privacy while assistant governments in keeping illicit funds out of the system. I am not a developer nor a technologist, and I have no idea if or how that could happen but unless we figure out how to legally interface with the fiat banking system, Bitcoin will end up like E-Gold and Liberty Reserve. |
|
|
|
USA is illegal.
What country are you from? |
|
|
|
|
Just to add a point a clairty. The US government doesn't HATE liberty reserve or Bitcoin.
What the US government is concerned about is allowing Liberty Reserve or Bitcoin to be a conduit for illicit funds used for things like Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Kiddie Porn.
Another case in point. The US government will also hold YOU responsible if you allow these type of funds into the system.
Just ask the guys who ran Liberty Reserve or E-Gold. Kim Dotcom is a similar situation. The US Goverment's complaint was that he was allowing his system to be used for illegal activity.
Now the fact of whether these actions were excessive or over-reach are another point to be discussed.
But the fundamental issues is that if you trade in illicit funds whether as a user or an exchanger etc, The US government considers you just as guilty as the perpetrators of those crimes that generated those illicit funds.
Financial Privacy is understandable and acceptable and should be everyone's right. Total anonymity is the financial system and even in bitcoin is the problem. Turning a blind eye to it still doesn't make it acceptable.
|
|
|
|
|
Please also VOTE above.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Please vote and state your home country, and your opinion "for" or "against" US bitcoin regulation here.
|
|
|
|
Remember, for FinCEN you have to know your customer as well.
How are you going to verify and ensure the guy buying $20 worth of bitcoin is who he says he is?
I long thought about BTC-ATMs and KYC regulations and indeed it looks like a great obstacle to their adoption. But then I thought about a recent trip I did to US and here I have my question.. Go to any Walmart and you find hundreds of "prepaid cards": I mean open loop prepaid cards, those that have the Visa or Mastercard logo. They also call them "gift cards". I watched people buying them and no ID was required, no identification of the customer, no questions. I asked and they told me they are ready to use, no after purchase online registration or similar. That's what I cannot grasp: where is the difference? Why I can buy anonymously a prepaid card that I can use almost everywhere but they want to put all this limitations if I want to buy bitcoins? As I said before, talking to literally hundreds of people about Bitcoin I noticed the biggest obstacle for many is the acquisition of bitcoins and I believe something like an ATM is the "missing link". kik1977, Good point. 1. This is an example of selective enforcement of regulation. 2. This industry (the Prepaid-Industry) is much larger and more organized then the bitcoin community is and as such is better able to help lead the conversation with regulates and law makers in this space. Many major US banks and corporations are involved in this space and rely on income from these fees which generate significant revenue. http://www.nerdwallet.com/prepaid/ 3. This still doesn't mean there is not great concern that this is an entry point for laundering money and authorities are certainly looking at this. http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/pending-regs/290875-regulators-target-money-laundering-with-prepaid-cards |
|
|
|
|
How do you know the drug dealer doesn't have 20 mules each with 1000 20 dollar bills lining up at your machine to purchase bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
marcus_of_augustus if your bits have no value then please send them all to me. 13a9UjLbc5Su7VigVA9CFfubXqit1A2Ut5 Ah ha. "No" you say. Why? Because your bits have an equivalent value in real currency or acts as a substitute for real currency which is why the US Government treats digital currencies as "real" currency according to the recent FinCEN guidence. http://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.htmlSo blather all you want. It is easy for you to anonymously post unsound arguments on an internet forum. I f you believe what you say then by all mean pleases send me all your worthless bits. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
