There is no ANY update about bitcoinica? We just got fucked and that's it?

[guruvan]

sure. Pirate's under investigation by a regulatory body that will insist on returning money to investors (presuming pirate still has some, and I suspect he's got something) as soon as possible upon the close of their investigation. I kinda think there's probably not all that much to investigate - I could be wrong, and it could take forever. Of course, the SEC could find pirate guilty of some kind of wrong doing, order restitution, and pirate tie that up on appeal. Still, I think this present a far more likely scenario for people to see some funds returned than Bitcoinica.

By my guess, Bitcoinica is likely to be tied up in courts until all the money is spent on attorneys and court costs. Most of it has been stolen already, and after a multi-national legal battle, I can hardly imagine that there'll be dime one for creditors of any sort.

[1713867634]

1713867634

[1713867634]

1713867634

[ElectricMucus]

You have a point.

Although I fail to see a significant difference, except maybe the nation barriers which are not really that of an issue now a days when it comes to curt proceedings.
The problem with bitcoin always is: How do you prove somebody has them?

[repentance]

In fact, it would shock me if they decided to be the U.S. department that started precedent setting on the nature of Bitcoin for fear of a favorable ruling that could uphold other cases the evil empire wants to bring against this community.

They don't really have to address "the nature of Bitcoin" in order to deem it to have value.  In order to regulate and tax it, they need to deem it to have value.  If people want to recover what they're owed by the various Bitcoin entities which have imploded, they need Bitcoin to be deemed to have value, but they don't need its specific nature defined.  People could have been lending pirate beanie babies or pogs and the underlying principal would still be the same.

[repentance]

All I’m getting at is if other agencies are already involved in an investigation (CIA, FBI, other US gestapo force) then the SEC may “back off” and let the other agencies set precedent instead.

I presume that if the SEC regulates securities, it also regulates stock and currency exchanges.  It's probably the agency which could have the biggest impact on Bitcoin at this time.  If the process of converting USD/BTC is forced to become largely OTC, it's likely that a lot of users will abandon Bitcoin in the short term, that many speculators will leave the game and that newbies will decide that it's just too cumbersome at this time.

Facebook abandoned FB credits primarily because of anticipated legal and regulatory hurdles, despite projections for a massive amount of income coming from FB credits - and FB was much better placed to fight those battles than Bitcoin.  PayPal tried to fight regulation for years and ultimately lost despite having the resources of e-Bay at its disposal.  Dwolla quickly capitulated to regulatory requirements.

Without involving the CIA, the FBI, the NHS, the NSA, etc, Bitcoin can be forced into a niche just by "standard" regulation.

[repentance]

Tihan's posted another update, by the way.  First hearing before the High Court of NZ on 1 November.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=109316.msg1243849#msg1243849

[MPOE-PR]

If the process of converting USD/BTC is forced to become largely OTC, it's likely that a lot of users will abandon Bitcoin in the short term, that many speculators will leave the game and that newbies will decide that it's just too cumbersome at this time.

This would actually be a net gain. Way too many idiots running around, requiring valuable time to be supported/educated and otherwise creating absolutely stupid drama which ends up draining even more time/resources. People like Usagi or Kludge or so forth have already done individually more damage to Bitcoin than all the benefit brought about by all the silent-but-clueless new users. If all the hours spent by the intelligent/educated interacting with them were spent half fishing, a third sexting and the rest actually working on bitcoin the net result would be positive for bitcoin.

Bitcoin is too open currently, the best thing anyone could do for it is raise the barriers a little bit.

[LoupGaroux]

Could we keep a few minutes out of that hypothetical day to punish the criminals, like those you mention? I believe we could still have a serious net gain in utility if we whipped the prisoners as required to keep them motivated.

[MPOE-PR]

Could we keep a few minutes out of that hypothetical day to punish the criminals, like those you mention? I believe we could still have a serious net gain in utility if we whipped the prisoners as required to keep them motivated.

MPEx will pay for the whips if you publish videos of the whippings.

[repentance]

Tihan's posted another update, by the way.  First hearing before the High Court of NZ on 1 November.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=109316.msg1243849#msg1243849

That brings up another thought about the SEC. Maybe they aren’t waiting for another department to act but waiting to see a ruling from another country before acting.

The US doesn't usually acknowledge international precedents, especially from Commonwealth countries.  I'm not really seeing how the liquidation of Bitcoinica LP would bring extra to the table regarding the SEC.  The SEC may well decide that all Bitcoin services which have offered securities, derivatives or exchange services to US customers have acted in violation of US law, but the liquidation itself wouldn't be central to any such finding.

[repentance]

I don't think it would bring extra to the table regarding the SEC’s case. They simply could be waiting to see the outcome before deciding on further action. Or, like you said, they aren’t acting right now because Bitcoinica LP is not the real goal. All Bitcoin services are the goal so why just act on this one entity. It will be interesting in the long run to see if all the complaints to the SEC, including mine, fall on “deaf ears.”

It also makes sense to go after the more clear-cut cases first.  There's no doubt the pirate was operating from the US.  While Bitcoinica always offered its services to US customers, it's not clear-cut that it was ever operating from the US.  The US could no doubt exert jurisdiction if it really wanted to, but it makes more sense to establish precedents with the more clear-cut cases first as Bitcoinica doesn't really fit into the categories of "scam" or "ponzi".

[shad0wbitz]

Sorry in advance, but I kinda had to drop this here

[Blinken]

Never give your money to anybody unless you know where they live and are quite sure about that information.

Let me put this way, in case that statement is not clear enough for you: when I give cash to a new teller at my bank I look at their name tag, and say, "Hi Todd, how are you? You look new." Todd: "Yes, I started working for ABC Bank last week." Then, I say, "Great, nice to meet you. What's your last name?" Then Todd tells me his last name. Then later on I find out where he lives.

[iamapi]

still no update?

[repentance]

As Tihan already posted, the liquidation proceedings are listed for hearing before the High Court of NZ on 1 November.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=109316.msg1243849#msg1243849

The only other Bitcoinica related news is that Intersango have filed a motion to dismiss the Cartmell lawsuit in California - the first case management conference was set for January next year, the motion to stay/dismiss will be hear in mid-November.