would it also be possible that the file isn't matching something else contained in my Bitcoin data directory? I noticed that your program is reading the DB files and you should probably know that the wallet.dat file is not my own, its someone else's that I just plopped down into my data directory.

[/quote]
I have no idea. There is a symlink, so I didn't have to put in the datadir param. But if I do the same thing setting datadir to go "around" the symlink, same thing is happening.

Well there is Fidor Bank.

By "it" I meant the government, not FinCen specifically. Also, to be fair, one of the primary purposes of FinCen is to enforce AML laws, and the main purpose of AML laws is to ensure that taxation happens, so yea.

EDIT: No, not a permissions problem. For some reason it refuses to use any wallet but my own. Can that error also happen because of a corrupted wallet or something? Here's what i'm getting, now that I've made the target file the wallet.dat file:


Bitcoin isn't running. I have full 777 permissions in that directory. If I rename wallet.dat to otherwallet.dat, and then run Bitcoin (to generate new wallet.dat file), then stop Bitcoin, then execute the exact same command, then it will work. Does this indicate a corrupted wallet.dat file?

Also, you may want to tell the user something before changing his wallet selection. When I went pywallet.py --walletdump --wallet=otherwallet.dat (the file I then renamed to wallet.dat) it just walletdumped wallet.dat because it couldn't read otherwallet.dat or something. That managed to confuse me a bit.

Figured out problem, I was specifying a different wallet file, but for some reason () it was failing to open that file, so (I think?) it defaulted back to the normal wallet.dat file, and since my own wallet.dat file is significantly weird I managed to confuse myself. It appears to have just been a fancy permissions problem. Fixed now, sorry to waste your time.

Sorry if this is a dumb question which makes me look like an idiot, but I have been unable to extract the private keys from the wallet.dat file. I've been trying to use pywallet.py, but each time I do, I get the following:

        {
            "addr": "1ktfy4LrHRQ2bmLauCdstbgGJEpPa8Qm6",
            "n": 101,
            "nTime": 1378059316,
            "nVersion": 80300,
            "public_key_hex": "03e9795fcadcba658da6550517bc239c8bcd86d00741c527533ffb22ac4474eb2c"
        }

There is no privkey section. When I try to go through the web interface to do keydump, I get "File not written". In fact all I can get to work is wallet dump. All of the other commands cause errors.

Any idea what might be causing this?

The thing that makes sense and is actually enforceable and reasonable is for FinCen to regulate transactions at the same time its taxing them: When fiat becomes involved. Furthermore, doing an exchange within a regulated exchange should prevent you from needing to become a regulated exchange. That doesn't seem that hard.

This deal about miners needing to become regulated just to exchange is sorta dumb, especially if they are going through something that actually needs to be regulated (like Mt Gox). Also, how the fuck are you going to tell I mined the coins myself? Mine 'em, stick 'em through a mixer, oh look I no longer have new coins time to exchange.

Everything other than the regulation of exchangers to me seems like a load of bollocks.

Another thing that is stupid is that the exchanger has to be registered 51 goddamn times, making the barrier to entry several hundred thousand dollars, which serves no purpose other than stifling competition, its not as if Mt. Gox needs to collect each client's ID 51 times over or something. But thats a different subject. 

Why not just encrypt the emails?

Average people buy drugs?

What about EUR.

What? I don't run any lending business at all?

EDIT: Wait, you need a license to lend? Holy crap, thats news to me. What don't you need a license to do anymore?

Yes. Interest rates for military personnel are hard-capped by the US Federal Government at 36% APR, anything above that is criminal usury. Everyone else can write a contract for whatever APR they agree upon, however it still must comply with your state's usury laws.

Now here comes the fun part:

Say theoretically I'm based in one state, where there is a higher usury cap, than in your state. I loan to you, at an interest rate, which happens to be higher than the usury cap in your state, but not higher than the usury cap in my own state. Also, say I were to put a section in the contract, like google does:


Does this work? If so, I should probably tell Bitfinex to stick that somewhere in their terms, as they are out of the USA entirely and thus don't have any usury cap (at least, not that I'm aware of) entirely. 

Thats the biggest joke of all time.

haha

Wow, that one's new. Now, if that were to go to court, it would make a really interesting news story, lol. I don't think that would work in this scenario as I'd actually accept cheques which obviously aren't demo, and if they were to bounce obviously I'd have to take legal action.

So yea, I opened this thread to see what people think, not because I actually intended to start a business doing this. I mean, it would sorta be cool if I could, but I can't now, so I won't. Vaguely in the vague future I want to, though.

Holdup: But I can borrow USD from Bitfinex.

Are they arguing that they are out-of-state and thus don't have to follow state's usury laws? Even if they argue that, they are still violating the 36% interest rate cap for members of the US Army.

What does this mean?

I am aware that companies like Blockchain.info aren't MSBs because they are 'users' under FinCen's definition. However, what seems like a potential grey area is something like Instawallet that functions like Blockchain.info, but actually holds your funds. Also there is Blockchain.info's Coin Mixer, and inputs.io.


"a person that creates units of convertible virtual currency and sells those units to another person for real currency or its equivalent is engaged in transmission to another location and is a money transmitter."

This is already sort of dubious as implies that all miners that "cash out" are exchangers and need to be licensed, which I can't believe to possibly be true. But there is also this:

"The second form involves a de facto sale of convertible virtual currency that is not completely transparent. The exchanger accepts currency or its equivalent from a user and privately credits the user with an appropriate portion of the exchanger's own convertible virtual currency held with the administrator of the repository. The exchanger then transmits that internally credited value to third parties at the user's direction. This constitutes transmission to another person, namely each third party to which transmissions are made at the user's direction. To the extent that the convertible virtual currency is generally understood as a substitute for real currencies, transmitting the convertible virtual currency at the direction and for the benefit of the user constitutes money transmission on the part of the exchanger."

The 'exchanger' (i.e, potentially, Instawallet or Blockchain.info) is receiving currency (Bitcoin) from a user and privately credits the user with an appropriate portion of the exchanger's own convertible virtual currency (money inside instawallet, or, the promise by Blockchain.info to give you your coins after mixing) held with the administrator of the repository (i.e, instawallets wallet.dat file). The exchanger then transmits that internally credited value to third parties at the user's discresion (you use your instawallet to pay somebody).

It seems sort of dumb and nonsensical that Blockchain.info wouldn't be regulated and something like inputs.io would considering they serve basically the exact same purpose (an online Bitcoin wallet). Do you think that Fincen would really want to enforce this rule in such a way, or is it just another one of those bad wordings such as the one that implies miners are exchangers?

That is 'recurring' expense. Perhaps you are looking for option 2?

Sure, the only problem is, the $trade volume to date divided by the current block reward is approaching infinity.

Hint: The problem with this logic is that the price will GO UP.