I believe the important functional difference that is relevant to a legal analysis is that if you have a prepaid card denominated in dollars, you do not have actual dollars.  You have the value of dollars that you can reclaim at some later date.  If you have BTC in a wallet on your system, you have the ACTUAL BITCOINS.  Nobody is guaranteeing to let you pay in the future for some unidentified product.  No third party is required to have a quantity of currency on hand to guarantee that. 

The purpose of regulating "stored value" in the legal sense is to prevent some dishonest or incompetent outlet from selling a bunch of prepaid cards for their services, then going belly-up and leaving people holding a bunch of worthless prepaid cards.  This is why companies usually do not manage the prepaid cards themselves, but some large entity that specializes in meeting all the regulatory requirements does it on contract.

I think if someone actually does start selling prepaid cards that just happen to be denominated in BTC, those cards will be subject to "stored value" regulations.  (I doubt the Casascius "physical Bitcoins" would qualify for this because, again, you are getting the actual Bitcoins themselves, albeit on a different physical medium.)

I believe FinCEN is right on this and any regulators saying otherwise are blowing smoke, or simply don't know what they're talking about.  BTC has no guaranteed cash value.  It is a thing that has value because people will pay for it or accept it as payment, but unlike a prepaid card, sort of the definitive example, no corporation or government backs up the value.

Not to say that it's beyond regulation, but stored value is a particularly poor fit.

That specific problem doesn't happen to me.  My main objection is the browser client disconnects, is too dumb to even notice this, and doesn't even attempt to reconnect.  So you don't notice you're disconnected until you've just folded fucking pocket aces under the fucking button.

But yes, I'd like a native Mac client, too.  I understand the lack of effort to improve this evil piece of garbage that is the web client, but we're kind of dying out here.  This is why I don't play on the site for real money.  Seriously, losing money just because the client is too stupid to notice when it gets disconnected precludes real money play.

Created in the Newbies forum because, well, I CAN.  Also to see if some humorless fuck of a nadless, neckbeard mod in his mom's basement (whose dick is orange from jerking it with Cheeto fingers) deletes it for no goddamn reason at all.

Hypothesis:  the grumpiness of posts in this forum increases as a linear function of the decrease of the price of Bitcoin, especially when there is no readily obvious reason for the latter.

Moore's Law isn't magic.  It reflects that people push back against wastes of CPU time, disk storage, and other limitations to push technology to its physical limits.  Processor speeds don't just magically increase.  Disk storage doesn't just magically increase.  The assumptions underlying Moore's Law (which isn't a real law) involve bean-counters identifying and eliminating wastes of resources that slow down systems and break them, just as much as they involve people inventing new technologies.

The threat from dust transactions may be on the un-glamorous, bean-counting side of technological improvement, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

All blanket statements are complete bullshit.

Short answer:  probably not, if you're talking about the United States. 

Long answer:  it's complicated.

To the extent they were previously doing business in Delaware and had "sufficient minimum contacts" with the state, they could have been sued previously.  Having a registered agent just makes it easier to accomplish service and establish personal jurisdiction.  It seems they will probably have to register in other states as well if they want to do business, though I am not certain what penalties they face in each jurisdiction if they don't.

But generally, if a corporation is doing business with the people of a state, those people are generally going to be able to argue "specific jurisdiction," that is, they can take that corporation to court at least over their own business transactions, even if Joe Random who had an unrelated beef with the corporation couldn't.  That's a good general rule, even though it is possible to imagine exceptions:  i.e. you sign up with Gox in Delaware, give a Delaware bank account info, then move to Wyoming, where you are their only customer, and don't update your address.  (Of course if they run afoul of "Know Your Customer" rules by not keeping track of them there might be an issue there.)

Yep, a year after your KFC order they delivered a load of months-old long-rotted chicken.

Stupid-ass motherfucker.

By the same "reasoning," I could say if you don't like the thread about BFL being a scam, don't post in it.

I don't like scammers.  If you love scammers, start your own thread about how scamming is great.

Lloyd's of London will underwrite pretty much anything.  I'd imagine the transactions would have to be pretty large before it would be efficient to insure them, though.

For literally decades, I have seen rigtard after rigtard make the same tired claims, never ever present anything resembling data, and you think that every time some new goddamn rigtard shows up I should bother with reasoned arguments when they don't?  Why?  They're deserving of nothing but ridicule.  If you want to waste your time, knock yourself out.  I'll stick to pointing out that here's yet another boring-ass rigtard doing the same rigtard things every other one has done, and I'll laugh at them.

Reasoned discussion of what?  Like every rigtard, this assclown makes a wild-ass claim and presents zero evidence whatsoever for it.  Why should I waste time taking it seriously when obviously the whiny-ass cocksucker who made the claim didn't take it seriously enough to back it up?

LOL rigtards.

Indeed.  And the escrow should definitely make sure the login information is correct (and change it) before doing the transaction.  Someone selling a high krill account obviously no longer cares about any reputation the account has.

That's pretty much what I predicted, that PLO would be the richest ground for collusion.  With even three accounts, the cheater(s) know 12 of the cards that are out there, and the pot-limit structure is very well-suited to whipsawing the sucker in between.  About the only good thing is most cheaters are also lousy players, but if you have a good player (or players) cheating in PLO, it's utterly deadly.

Show no mercy to these fucks.

Sure teppy will be along to answer, but no.  It's a playthrough.  You have to play through 6 BTC worth of raked wagers, just like with a bonus.

Inaba is again a brainless troll.  Making a promise in return for nothing can't possibly be a scam because nobody is deprived of anything.

This is as compared to running a business where you take hundreds of thousands of dollars of money in "preorders" and then don't deliver for about a year.  That, by comparison, would be an example of a scam.

The subforum mod posted to the thread.  I think he'll do whatever is appropriate.  Locking this shit would be a nice start.

Is this a troll or do you honestly not know?  Flooding the market with chips while not delivering preorders will drastically increase the difficulty level, especially if sold to people who can actually use them to make miners in the near term.  This makes those preordered products increasingly worthless, to the point people other than the earliest who get them will be lucky to break even.