There is an exemption for transacting "infrequently".

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951–1959; 31 U.S.C. 5311–5314, 5316–5332; title III, sec. 314, Pub. L. 107–56, 115 Stat. 307.
Subpart A—General Definitionstop
§ 1010.100 General definitions.
(ff) ( 8 ) (iii)

( 8 ) Limitation. For the purposes of this section, the term "money services business'' shall not include:
(iii) A natural person who engages in an activity identified in paragraphs (ff)(1) through (ff)(5) of this section on an infrequent basis and not for gain or profit.

And the "infrequent basis" threshold in a McGladrey paper shows "fives times or less" per year:
 - http://mcgladrey.com/pdf/review_florida_bankers_aml_conference.pdf

Related

BTC Vault - Secure Bitcoin Live-CD
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=163763.0

I'm not aware of anyone who has viewed the build scripts though to verify that it is safe.

Tangible Cryptography (FastCash4Bitcoins) Receives Notice From State
May 31, 2013
Location: Virginia, USA

Abstract: State of Virginia determines that Tangible Cryptography may be engaging in money transmission under Virginia law.

Tangible Cryptography suspends Bitcoin related transactions
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=224057.0

Well, that's going to be useless for Bitcoin mining (look at the recent rate of increase of difficulty if you aren't convinced).

But maybe for some scrypt-based alt it will still have a use for mining at some level ... at least enough to give you justification for ordering one.

That's because SatoshiDICE has a restriction that any wagers sent from a hosted (shared) E-Wallet are lost (or, more specifically, the winnings will be paid just that they go to someone else and not to the person who sent the wager payment).

This is because the Bitcoin protocol doesn't have the concept of a Sender's address.

Bitcoin has INPUTs and OUTPUTs.

So SatoshiDICE is grabbing from the wager transaction the INPUT (or choosing one of the INPUTs if there are multiple that funded the wager payment) and using that as the Bitcoin address to send the funds to on the payout transaction.

And they'll always use the OUTPUT from the wager transaction as one of the INPUTs in the return payout such that if the wager never confirms (or is double spent) then the payout transaction will never confirm either.

So they don't have payouts that will confirm on wager payments that did not confirm.

On the backend they use a customize version of BitcoinJ to perform the payments, reportedly.

Someone with expertise in this area might want to consider creating a business plan to provide this and pitch it to BitAngels:
 - http://www.bitangels.co

Newbie jail restrictions.

NEWBIE README
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=177133.0

So is this, from a Kévin Forest, not an approved release?  (it is named "Bitcoin Spinner"):
 - http://appworld.blackberry.com/webstore/content/20080938/

Hey, I recognize that!  

Updated:



 - https://docs.google.com/a/digicoast.com/spreadsheet/oimg?key=0AmcTCtjBoRWUdHVRMHpqWUJValI1RlZiaEtCT1RrQmc&oid=10&zx=ptk1wouqji4q

Well new orders that aren't going to ship for weeks months obviously wont have any effect on today's difficulty, but ASICs now being delivered for previous orders are certainly responsible for this:



 - http://bitcoin.sipa.be

[Edit: And that's likely just the beginning of where it begins to rise.]

There was a pretty clear pattern (difficulty rises lagged behind price increases by three to eight weeks) when GPUs were the primary technology used.   Currently the rise thanks to ASICs will rise regardless of the direction and rate of change of the exchange rate.
 
But for sure, there's no reason a higher difficulty yields a higher exchange rate unless for some reason there was not enough hashing occurring where the exchange rate was depressed due to concern that it wasn't high enough to provide sufficient protection.   Dan Kaminsky thinks we might be there again simply because a well-funded single supplier of ASICs can easily reach 51%.   Others think he is blowing smoke as who has five or ten million dollars to blow trying to prove his point.   Who knows.

Depends on whether you are talking GPUs or FPGAs and ASICs.

With ASICs there's a loooonnnnngggg way before the cost of electricity comes back to being a relevant factor as far as profitability (where you'ld consider unplugging).   It was that way with GPUs for a while ( ~ Sept - Jan, 2011), and that will happen again soon thanks to the volume of ASICs now reaching miners.   FPGAs eventually will hit that point but even they are still wildly profitable in terms of generating more revenue than the cost of electricity to power them.  

Also, I just noticed the subject title reads specifically BTC-E.

Sometimes people are asking not whether the tax laws apply to a certain transaction but instead are trying to learn specifically about non-compliance.

BTC-E can be accessed via Tor -- which provides a way to transact without the exchange having your IP in any logs.

BTC-E allows anonymous accounts.

Anonymous accounts (or any account that hasn't had a bank transaction ... as a deposit or as a withdrawal, and hasn't had to verify the account for AML/KYC purposes) can trade digital currencies and the account can be defunded (all funds withdrawn) without providing identity, up to certain limits -- though there are some exceptions.

The exchange still likely has a log showing which Bitcoin addresses were used to add funds to the account, and which alt-coin addresses those funds were withdrawn to so there's the possibility of tracing your deposit to your withdrawal even though no bank account or identity had ever been used.  Mixing services might lessen the traceability.    I've no idea if that level of tracing happens but you should know it is possible.

Generally the taxable event occurs when you close a position.  So if you are selling bitcoins it won't matter if the exhange is to dollars or another virtual currency, you have a gain (or loss) on the original position.

Disclaimer: I'm not a tax accountant.

Some more info:
 - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tax_compliance

Financial privacy is NOT A CRIME!

The Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind client does not handle a situation where you've double spent very well at all.   If you were, for instance, to spend from one client while a second was offline, then launched the second right after making the transaction then the second client wouldn't know of the transaction until either the first client re-broadcasts the transaction (perhaps not until an hour later) or else if the transaction gets included in a block.       So then let's say you make another spend transaction from the second client and if it uses the same coin as was already spent then that transaction will be invalid and will never confirm.

It gets worse, ... the Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind client doesn't have any easy way to remove that invalid transaction that you've made.   So that transaction and any coins it used will be locked in a 0/unconfirmed status on the second client.

Additionally, the key pool will start to diverge between the two wallets.  So your balance on one client will eventually show different from the wallet on another.   And both will need to be backed up and kept separate.

So, in other words .. for most people, sharing a Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind wallet among multiple computers ends up going badly.  

That's the question I had, since the guidance states:

I was thinking about the need for a Tor Tablet, with a bitcoin wallet, on a secure O/S or at least configured to be as secure as you can get on a consumer-level device.   This would be for the person who simply wants a device for use with Tor that is completely separate from anything else ... i.e., so they don't need to install Tor on a laptop or desktop or other mobile / tablet / etc.

Additionally, how about an online gaming tablet for shared use.    Essentially this would be something that a bar or club could hand out to a customer, already loaded with some funds for the customer to use for play (e.g., on bitZino or some other site, depending on what the customer wanted to play. ... there's plenty http://betwithbtc.com ), and then when the customer wants to cash out they can do it themselves or the club could do it for the customer.

[This could be tightly controlled by the club by setting up the account on bitZino requiring two-factor auth on withdrawals only)]

But then when the customer is done the tablet gets reset to a specific image (e.g., re-loaded) so there's no risk of malware / etc.

Of course, in the U.S., each state has gambling statutes and offering this device in this manner would not likely be allowed (some states don't have a problem with you gambling in a bar, just as long as the state gets its huge cut of the action - http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-12-18/electronic-pulltabs-coming-to-twin-cities-airport ).   But there are other parts of the world where it wouldn't be a problem.

You presume those cashing out bitcoins for fiat then store that value in fiat.   We don't know where those funds land.   If they stay as fiat then they are available to buy back some coins should the exchange rate drop again in the future.     Other times they are going into other forms of value, such as precious metals, or investment, etc.

The reason it isn't a problem that people will sell some bitcoins after there are gains in the purchasing power is because with Bitcoin the system isn't set up to enrich the money changers.   In the U.S. there are many tens of billions in banking fees (monthly account fees, NSF fees, etc.) and that fiat banking system enriches the bankers.   Bitcoin has transaction fees but they are tiny fraction of the amount the banks get and they go to those who openly compete to earn those fees.

In other words, fiat money goes back to the bankers a fraction at a time with each transaction.   With Bitcoin this isn't the case -- so if there are parties who want to acquire bitcoins they are paying market prices for them and gaining them that way.

But once they have them they have no advantage over anyone else anyway.   It isn't just those who hold bitcoins that have ultimate power, it is those who are willing to buy the miner's proceeds ... they, the economic majority, are what will remain decentralized.
 - http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/8435/153

With all the retail locations in that area who take Dwolla thanks to Des Moines being home to Dwolla's HQ (and there being an easy way to cash out from BTC to Dwolla USD, through Camp BX) and also the ability to get fast (same-day) transfers of USD funds from a bank account to an exchange (thanks to Dwolla's FiSync transfer gateway from Verdian credit union), Bitcoiners in the area have it easy!

It makes for an easy way to plug bitcoin too.  Each merchant you visit and pay using Dwolla you could then suggest to the merchant that if they also accepted Bitcoin for payment they'ld receive some additional business from Bitcoiners who have a much lower number of merchants they can buy from and pay directly with bitcoin.   And since the merchant accepts Dwolla they already have the equipment (e.g., iPad tablet, or desktop system, etc.) to accept Bitcoin for payment as well.