Remove "securities" subforum.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Promoting possibly "illegal" securities puts the forum at immense risk. Since glbse shut down it might be prudent to "hide" this section altogether untill the dust settles.

[Atlas]

This forum isn't in 'merica. We really don't have much to fear. If the Euro feds get butthurt, theymos can just move the server somewhere else.

[theymos]

I will not ban a subject of discussion on the forum unless it's very clear that the forum cannot survive while allowing that discussion. I think discussion of securities is pretty safe. If not, it probably wouldn't be too hard to move the forum somewhere where it is safe.

[blakdawg]

I will not ban a subject of discussion on the forum unless it's very clear that the forum cannot survive while allowing that discussion. I think discussion of securities is pretty safe. If not, it probably wouldn't be too hard to move the forum somewhere where it is safe.

The question is not "where is the forum?" but "where are the operators?" and "where are the servers?"

The forum may be in happy libertarian utopia-land, but if the operators are in jail, or the servers are seized, the forum isn't much fun any more.

Also, the problem is not "will bitcointalk.org get busted?" but "will having a forum labelled 'securities' help or hurt people whose activities are discussed in that forum?"

If we had a forum titled "child porn", and some people used it to discuss other people's business ventures, do you suppose it would help, hurt, or have no effect on those ventures, especially if the ventures were under legal/regulatory scrutiny?

[Bitcoin Oz]

I will not ban a subject of discussion on the forum unless it's very clear that the forum cannot survive while allowing that discussion. I think discussion of securities is pretty safe. If not, it probably wouldn't be too hard to move the forum somewhere where it is safe.

Discussing them is fine. Advertising them is not.

Do people know what the difference is ?

[gweedo]

I will not ban a subject of discussion on the forum unless it's very clear that the forum cannot survive while allowing that discussion. I think discussion of securities is pretty safe. If not, it probably wouldn't be too hard to move the forum somewhere where it is safe.

Discussing them is fine. Advertising them is not.

Do people know what the difference is ?

How is the forum going get in trouble for security talk? It isn't like the forum is issuing assets for the securities. Plus securities in bitcoins isn't illegal FYI

[puck2]

It is not illegal to discuss illegal matters.

[repentance]

It is not illegal to discuss illegal matters.

There's a fine line between discussing illegal activity here and allowing it to be promoted here.  It's obviously up to the forum owners to decide what level of risk they're willing to accept in this regard, not the membership.  This isn't a democracy and nor are we shareholders.  No-one's being forced to use this forum, either.  Both more rules and less rules would piss off different parts of the membership here.

[Shadow383]

It is not illegal to discuss illegal matters.

It is in "the land of the free" 

[Bitcoin Oz]

It is not illegal to discuss illegal matters.

It is in "the land of the free" 

That's what it boils down to basically.

[repentance]

It is not illegal to discuss illegal matters.

It is in "the land of the free" 

That's what it boils down to basically.

It doesn't seem to have caused reddit any legal grief.

[elux]

Promoting possibly "illegal" securities puts the forum at immense risk.
Since glbse shut down it might be prudent to "hide" this section altogether untill the dust settles.

The majority of the action in Securities and Lending seems obviously, not just possibly illegal.

I will not ban a subject of discussion on the forum unless it's very clear that the forum cannot survive while allowing that discussion. I think discussion of securities is pretty safe. If not, it probably wouldn't be too hard to move the forum somewhere where it is safe.

So, is this why there is no "Silk Road" subforum? Is there really that much of a difference between Silk Road and Lending / Securities?
I guess 5 million dollars of cocaine is a bit more newsworthy than 5 million dollars of ponzi. But is it any more illegal?

It's probably somewhat more scary to have the DEA come knocking, than having SEC on the door.

But in any case, it would be good to have some contingency plans up, after watching GLBSE go up in flames on short notice.

[Bitcoin Oz]

It is not illegal to discuss illegal matters.

It is in "the land of the free" 

That's what it boils down to basically.

It doesn't seem to have caused reddit any legal grief.

Is there a subreddit where you can post a link to your possibly illegal share offering  and call it an IPO ?

[BitcoinINV]

It is not illegal to discuss illegal matters.

Wrong it is called Conspiracy.

In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future. Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act must also have been undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join the plot later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence.

Two people talking about opening a illegal security is Conspiracy...... at least in U.S. law. This is always a charge used in almost any crime, it a way the gov "Put's it to you"

[gweedo]

It is not illegal to discuss illegal matters.

Wrong it is called Conspiracy.

In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future. Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act must also have been undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join the plot later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence.

Two people talking about opening a illegal security is Conspiracy...... at least in U.S. law. This is always a charge used in almost any crime, it a way the gov "Put's it to you"

But who said that bitcoin only securities are illegal? Cause they are not.

[BitcoinINV]

its not?

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/unregistered-securities.asp#ixzz28PML2jew

A security is not defined by how its bought or what its bought with. You could trade someone 1000 pounds of feathers for 4 shares in a company if the seller will take it. Guess what still makes it a security, the whole thing behind it being bitcoin is going to get lots of people screwed in the long run. A security is not defined by how it's purchased I hope people understand that. If someone was to sell a share of Google for 5 goats it does not matter he is still a shareholder. Buy 1 share of illegalstocks inc with 5 goats its still a illegal security. So tell me how its is in the gray area or legal. A security is a security no matter if you trade people goats, $ or Bitcoins. Its just the tender you used to buy it.

[gweedo]

its not?

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/unregistered-securities.asp#ixzz28PML2jew

A security is not defined by how its bought or what its bought with. You could trade someone 1000 pounds of feathers for 4 shares in a company if the seller will take it. Guess what still makes it a security, the whole thing behind it being bitcoin is going to get lots of people screwed in the long run. A security is not defined by how it's purchased I hope people understand that. If someone was to sell a share of Google for 5 goats it does not matter he is still a shareholder. Buy 1 share of illegalstocks inc with 5 goats its still a illegal security. So tell me how its is in the gray area or legal. A security is a security no matter if you trade people goats, $ or Bitcoins. Its just the tender you used to buy it.

First off investopedia assumes you talking about USD and the public stock exchange which we are not. So right there your whole argue would not hold up. Plus bitcoin is not recognized as a global currency so it is unregulated, meaning that I can basically do what I want. Since pure bitcoin companies operate with no regulations they can sell stocks without being threaten by any agency or government pressure. Go back to economics school and ask your S.E.C friends they will tell you they can't touch bitcoins.

[BitcoinINV]

I'm not an expert, but I would think a "security" is selling what is ultimately a promise of some sort, whereas goats, feathers, chickens, and Bitcoins are all commodities at best - they are what they are.

I would think the problem isn't so much selling securities, it's in the issuing them.  If I print securities (promises) out of my butt and offer them to the public at large, knowing full well there's a dozen ways I can cut and run with the money without any accountability, there's something wrong with that.

I never bought or touched any Bitcoin "securities" because I believe that securities require a framework of law and accountability in order to have any value.  You can't have a public company insulated from the law, because it would also have to be just as insulated from its shareholders.  If shareholders have no means to protect their interests and must simply rely on the goodness of others' anonymous hearts to maintain their value, well they're asking to get screwed.

The premise of a new decentralized stock exchange that operates like Silk Road or like the Bitcoin network itself is fundamentally flawed as well, and would only be an asset to scammers in my opinion.  Sure, it's technologically possible to start one up,  but without any accountability I doubt it'll be possible for an anonymous entity to issue securities that will have any lasting value above zero.

I agree with you, the tender is not the issue here. I think gweedo fails to see this.

[gweedo]

I'm not an expert, but I would think a "security" is selling what is ultimately a promise of some sort, whereas goats, feathers, chickens, and Bitcoins are all commodities at best - they are what they are.

I would think the problem isn't so much selling securities, it's in the issuing them.  If I print securities (promises) out of my butt and offer them to the public at large, knowing full well there's a dozen ways I can cut and run with the money without any accountability, there's something wrong with that.

I never bought or touched any Bitcoin "securities" because I believe that securities require a framework of law and accountability in order to have any value.  You can't have a public company insulated from the law, because it would also have to be just as insulated from its shareholders.  If shareholders have no means to protect their interests and must simply rely on the goodness of others' anonymous hearts to maintain their value, well they're asking to get screwed.

The premise of a new decentralized stock exchange that operates like Silk Road or like the Bitcoin network itself is fundamentally flawed as well, and would only be an asset to scammers in my opinion.  Sure, it's technologically possible to start one up,  but without any accountability I doubt it'll be possible for an anonymous entity to issue securities that will have any lasting value above zero.

I agree with you, the tender is not the issue here. I think gweedo fails to see this.

Then explain second life stock market? If bitcoin stocks markets get shutdown by the government agencies, then second life stock market would have to get shutdown, and every other virtual currency stock market would be shutdown. Plus your thinking of this as more the Public stock exchange, which this more of the second market exchange which we know is all SEC registered but since no bitcoin company is public, it would be the best stock market to "copy". Plus that statement isn't agreeing with you, he is stating how he thinks that securities can't exist with out some type of laws. I would have to disagree, the beautiful thing about bitcoins, you don't like the stock market or what the social laws are, you don't use it, plain and simple.

[BitcoinINV]

I do not know second life, but I assume the stock market does not go to real world purchases? The fact of if you don't like it do not use it I love, and I hope the gov does to. Don't bother me and I won't bother you is great, but Uncle Sam says if you don't bother to pay me I will come bother you.