I did some research:
According to wikipedia, A virtual currency or virtual money has been defined in 2012 by the European Central Bank as "a type of unregulated, digital money, which is issued and usually controlled by its developers, and used and accepted among the members of a specific virtual community". The US Department of Treasury in 2013 defined it more tersely as "a medium of exchange that operates like a currency in some environments, but does not have all the attributes of real currency".
According to the definition, virtual currency is opposite with the real currency released by countries.
On the other hand, digital currency is defined as:
Digital currency is a form of virtual currency or medium of exchange that is electronically created and stored. Some digital currencies, such as Bitcoin, are cryptocurrencies. Like traditional money these currencies may be used to buy physical goods and services but could also be restricted to certain communities such as for example for use inside an on-line game or social network.
As a result, digital currency is defined as the currency which is electronically created and stored, which is opposite with traditional paper based currency.
As a result, maybe there is no controversy because the two have different categories definition
Good find. Interesting. |
|
|
|
|
You are fighting the wrong battle. I personally don't give a shit what anyone calls it as long at they do not criminalize or regulate into the oblivion the ability to cryptographically transfer digital tokens of value from one individual to another.
|
|
|
|
|
FYI:
DiamondCardz is probably one of TradeFortresses alts.
|
|
|
|
Below is my post that made Goat so angry and caused him to offer this fake bounty, for those wanting to know the saga behind this thread. This is like the 4th goat related post I've seen scanning through the unread posts, who is this guy? I mean if he did something this heinous, wouldn't he have been banned from the forums by now? I don't know the full story so excuse me, I have no idea what's going on, but I don't usually make informed decisions until I know all the facts.
He was banned. Not sure why they let him back... Basically the short version of the story is this. Goat made up several businesses to raise a ton of BTC from duped investors. Some of those businesses include a nonexistent arbitrage bot, a mining company that had no mining equipment, and a rice patty field in a 3rd world country (I missed a few but these were the most outrageous)... He then took all the raised BTC and dumped it into a ponzi scheme. He made a small fortune from this, and then when the ponzi collapsed, all of his businesses suddenly stopped and investors ate the loss. He then tried to stir up as much trouble as he could, to try and make it look like the exchange did something wrong. He is still trying to pin this blame on the exchange even after others were able to migrate with no issues whatsoever. No matter that he was selling investments that did not exist... Falsely issuing securities of nonexistent companies to divert investor funds into a ponzi scheme for his own gain while leaving them all the risk. That is Goat.TL;DR 1. Raise Bitcoin from investors pretending to offer multiple safe investments. 2. Invest everything in the riskiest thing possible. 3. Keep all the dividends from risky investment. 4. When investment goes bad, say businesses fail and blame the exchange. 5. Buy a Bugatti  If Goat ever set foot in the US again he'd be arrested and would be in court right next to Trendon Shavers. Nothing else to see here. Move along. |
|
|
|
From at least September 2011 to September 2012 (“relevant period”), Shavers, operating under the Internet name “pirateat40,” offered and sold BTCST investments over the Internet, raising more than 700,000 BTC in principal investments from BTCST investors, or more than $4.5 million based on the daily average price of BTC when the BTCST investors purchased their BTCST investments. http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2013/comp-pr2013-132.pdfDuring the relevant period, Shavers obtained at least 700,467 BTC in principal investments from BTCST investors, or $4,592,806 when converted to U.S. dollars based on the daily average price of BTC when the BTCST investors purchased their BTCST investments. During the relevant period, Shavers returned at least 507,148 BTC to BTCST investors as withdrawals or purported interest payments. During the relevant period, Shavers transferred at least 150,649 BTC to his personal account at an online BTC currency exchange which, among other things, he then sold or used to day-trade (converting BTC to U.S. dollars and vice versa). As a result of this activity, Shavers suffered a net loss from his day-trading, but realized net proceeds of $164,758 from his net sales of 86,202 BTC. During the relevant period, Shavers transferred $147,102 from his personal account at the online BTC currency exchange to accounts he controlled at an online payment processor and his personal checking account, which he then used for, among other things, his personal expenses, including rent, car-related expenses, utilities, retail purchases, casinos, and meals. |
|
|
|
F. J. Seibert guy looks real after a quick google search, and whoever registered secvshavers.com domain used his contact details, but to be sure I've sent him an e-mail.
Seibert is real. Not sure why he picked up the cause. |
|
|
|
|
The kids in his facebook profile where his ex-wife's from a previous relationship. She has since left him and I hear he is now living in his mother's basement. What comes around goes around.
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like a lawyer trying to make a name for himself. (Not a very good name, mind you.)
|
|
|
|
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=cea81012-6bb1-478f-b392-9df355d994ecNational Money Transmitters Association, Inc. 12 Welwyn Road, Suite C Great Neck, New York 11021 (516) 829-2742 May 14, 2014 Dear Colleague, We are excited to announce the 2nd annual Virtual Currencies Compliance Conference ("VC3-2014") to be held on August 13th 2014. The setting once again will be the beautiful New York City Bar Association building, located in Midtown Manhattan, so please mark your calendar! VC3 was created last year to provide an overview of the US regulatory landscape for those virtual currency firms FinCEN had recently dubbed "money transmitters." We thought those firms might have a lot of questions about the new legal environment they had just entered. In the time that has passed since then, the large number of regulatory inquiries that we receive almost daily, confirm how true that conjecture turned out to be. This year, VC3-2014 will drill down further, focusing on getting practical advice to those who need it. We will explore ways start-ups can succeed, in spite of the many compliance challenges they face. We will look at: Doing "Remote KYC" - Most virtual currencies firms will be doing business on the web, and so will have to get to know their customers with no face-to-face, in-person interaction. We will examine the methods available, the choices that firms must make, and analyze the trade-offs involved. Designing the Operation - All money transmitters must create and administer compliance programs that are reasonably designed to detect, prevent and report money laundering. We will look at exactly what that entails for virtual currency firms, and the systems and controls they must build. Complying With Legal and Regulatory Requirements - There is sometime confusion and concern - even for regulators - when money transmitter requirements are applied to the virtual currency realm. Selling virtual currencies is a unique form of money transmission, radically unlike any other. It demands that we implement - and sometimes invent - procedures that adapt to existing norms, with as little friction as possible. The importance of a knowledgeable compliance officer who knows how to automate compliance Best practices for setting and enforcing dollar thresholds How software and transaction monitoring should be set up for virtual currencies How regulatory compliance can bring trust and legitimacy to the industry An investor's perspective on the importance of compliance Prepaid access regulations and compliance as they relate to virtual currency operations We are getting an earlier start than we did last year, so we want to hear from you: we want to know what topics you think are most pressing, where you believe the most danger - and the most opportunity - will come from. If you are interested in participating, or if you have any thoughts or ideas you would like to share, please contact me or VC3's Event Coordinator, Brian Nelson, at bnelson@nmta.us. Speaking and sponsorship opportunities are available. As a completely separate event, I will be giving an all-day class on general AML compliance topics on August 12, 2014, the day before VC3. Sign-up forms for both events will be up next week. I look forward to greeting you at VC3-2014, in August! Regards, -David
|
|
|
|
bitcoin foundation is only a slogan, if they dont do good for bitcoin, they doesn't matter
That is naive and short sited. |
|
|
|
Because in the eyes of Government and the broader public, The Bitcoin Foundation speaks for all bitcoiners.
According to who? Almost every major US regulatory decision has been made with input from "The Bitcoin Foundation." There are some good people involved. Unfortunately the Organization is rotten to the core. |
|
|
|
If some kind of "bitcoin foundation" existed it should be anonymous, decentralized and apolitical with the only goal to collect funds for bitcoin protocol development. But for this purpose no foundation is needed. Developers could just post a donation address.
This has been my opinion for a while. The developers could at least provide this as an alternative option to paying for Bitcoin Foundation stuff. A single multi-sig address, with a key from each full time core developer, would be ideal. Then they could come up with the number of minimum number of signatures to spend for themselves, and decide who gets what money and why for themselves. I suspect spending on things like permanent offices and full-time secretaries would get little consensus until they were sitting on a huge war chest. I like this idea. We should explore it more. Maybe a separate thread? A github? This is after all an open source community. |
|
|
|
I was there that day of the recording of the video. Guys need to give him a break. Its flooding the boards already pretty bad.
So you "where there." That makes it all OK? |
|
|
|
I wonder why the Bitcoin Foundation always has some bad members?
"A fish rots from the head." |
|
|
|
|
Steve Beauregard seems like a good guy. Maybe he should weight in and defend Pierce.
|
|
|
|
|
Please take a position on the Brock Pierce issue.
|
|
|
|
Foolishly thought some people here were rational humans capable of thought. Sorry, I was in the wrong place. Go back to your virtual worlds. Don't bother posting me. Out of this going back to real life and rational beings who don't live life speculating on things they really don't know about. Have a nice day folks.
You do that Brock. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
