Wait...Does the March 18th finCen legislation make it illegal to trade bitcoins?

[leopard2]

Hey read again. If you mine and sell for goods (say gold) you are fine. You just cannot mine and sell into USD directly. You could also mine and convert into LTC, for example. Then sell the LTC or the gold.

No, you cannot. If you convert BTC to LTC in the US, then you are considered a 'money exchanger'. From now on, only centralized companies are allowed to handle Bitcoin exchanges. Such a company does not exist in the US. Or perhaps only CoinLab?

The exchanges converting BTC to whatever, are not in the US.

[Gabi]

Satoshi created bitcoin

Miners are just paid for their work, they do not create bitcoins 

[ihsotas]

Hey read again. If you mine and sell for goods (say gold) you are fine. You just cannot mine and sell into USD directly. You could also mine and convert into LTC, for example. Then sell the LTC or the gold.

No, you cannot. If you convert BTC to LTC to USD in the US, then you are considered a 'money exchanger'. From now on, only centralized companies are allowed to handle Bitcoin exchanges. Such a company does not exist in the US. Or perhaps only CoinLab?

No, he's right. BTC to LTC is not virtual to real, but virtual to virtual. In fact, I think the BTC-to-gold is more risky, since gold could be considered a 'real currency or equivalent' since it's a commodity with highly liquid markets to/from USD. BTC-to-USD is clearly in violation here, though.

[mjsbuddha]

Hey read again. If you mine and sell for goods (say gold) you are fine. You just cannot mine and sell into USD directly. You could also mine and convert into LTC, for example. Then sell the LTC or the gold.

No, you cannot. If you convert BTC to LTC to USD in the US, then you are considered a 'money exchanger'. From now on, only centralized companies are allowed to handle Bitcoin exchanges. Such a company does not exist in the US. Or perhaps only CoinLab?

No, he's right. BTC to LTC is not virtual to real, but virtual to virtual. In fact, I think the BTC-to-gold is more risky, since gold could be considered a 'real currency or equivalent' since it's a commodity with highly liquid markets to/from USD. BTC-to-USD is clearly in violation here, though.

but upon selling the ltc it becomes virtual to real. yeah if you just hold the ltc forever your fine but what good is that?

[Timzim103]

still. even if it only applies to miners in the united states, isn't that a big deal? Am I the only one that thinks so? I almost fell out of my seat when I read that.

You're not the only one who thinks this is a big deal. Something like this never occurred to me. Now I have homework to do.

[ihsotas]

Hey read again. If you mine and sell for goods (say gold) you are fine. You just cannot mine and sell into USD directly. You could also mine and convert into LTC, for example. Then sell the LTC or the gold.

No, you cannot. If you convert BTC to LTC to USD in the US, then you are considered a 'money exchanger'. From now on, only centralized companies are allowed to handle Bitcoin exchanges. Such a company does not exist in the US. Or perhaps only CoinLab?

No, he's right. BTC to LTC is not virtual to real, but virtual to virtual. In fact, I think the BTC-to-gold is more risky, since gold could be considered a 'real currency or equivalent' since it's a commodity with highly liquid markets to/from USD. BTC-to-USD is clearly in violation here, though.

but upon selling the ltc it becomes virtual to real. yeah if you just hold the ltc forever your fine but what good is that?

Yeah, you'd need to spend the LTC with a merchant who took it. If you exchange it, as a US citizen (even on a foreign-hosted exchange), I think you are in trouble here.

[Gabi]

Hey read again. If you mine and sell for goods (say gold) you are fine. You just cannot mine and sell into USD directly. You could also mine and convert into LTC, for example. Then sell the LTC or the gold.

No, you cannot. If you convert BTC to LTC to USD in the US, then you are considered a 'money exchanger'. From now on, only centralized companies are allowed to handle Bitcoin exchanges. Such a company does not exist in the US. Or perhaps only CoinLab?

No, he's right. BTC to LTC is not virtual to real, but virtual to virtual. In fact, I think the BTC-to-gold is more risky, since gold could be considered a 'real currency or equivalent' since it's a commodity with highly liquid markets to/from USD. BTC-to-USD is clearly in violation here, though.

Gold is not money, so it is not currency

[jackjack]

And this is why scrypt coins are way safer than SHA256 coins, since the govt goons could control dedicated Asic hashers, but never GPUs.

Please don't talk when you don't know shit about what you're saying

[crazy_rabbit]

And this is why scrypt coins are way safer than SHA256 coins, since the govt goons could control dedicated Asic hashers, but never GPUs.

yeah...um...whatever...

[mjsbuddha]

Hey read again. If you mine and sell for goods (say gold) you are fine. You just cannot mine and sell into USD directly. You could also mine and convert into LTC, for example. Then sell the LTC or the gold.

No, you cannot. If you convert BTC to LTC to USD in the US, then you are considered a 'money exchanger'. From now on, only centralized companies are allowed to handle Bitcoin exchanges. Such a company does not exist in the US. Or perhaps only CoinLab?

No, he's right. BTC to LTC is not virtual to real, but virtual to virtual. In fact, I think the BTC-to-gold is more risky, since gold could be considered a 'real currency or equivalent' since it's a commodity with highly liquid markets to/from USD. BTC-to-USD is clearly in violation here, though.

Gold is not money, so it is not currency

In this example I think gold could be considered EITHER an alternative to currency or a currency... either way you would have to register with finCen like thos 'cash for your gold' places.

[leopard2]

Splendid, in order to charge you, the government would have to admit that gold is money. Neat  

[Mastergerund]

Satoshi created bitcoin

Miners are just paid for their work, they do not create bitcoins 

It could also be argued that the persons owning the addresses that receive originated bitcoins are money transmitters. Since most miners now use pools, their addresses aren't origination addresses, but transaction addresses. If you mine with a pool, you are receiving bitcoins from the pool operator, in exchange for leased computer cycles, not originating coins.

(Some of my terminology might be not quite right. If you see errors, feel free to correct me and I will update with the correct terminology to make my intent as clear as possible.)

[QuestionAuthority]

Here's the deal - you can masturbate this subject all day and it won't change a thing - chances are govts don't give a shit about the little guy trading mined btc for a couple of bucks and if any of the political dildos in office decide they want to get in your panties they will just write up a new law that let's them do it. If not this law then the next one could get you.

[tampa3]

Here's the deal - you can masturbate this subject all day and it won't change a thing - chances are govts don't give a shit about the little guy trading mined btc for a couple of bucks and if any of the political dildos in office decide they want to get in your panties they will just write up a new law that let's them do it. If not this law then the next one could get you.

yep,  just like paying taxes.  They don't care about the small fish.

[joesmoe2012]

It doesn't make it illegal, but you have to comply with the regulations.

According to this article, mtgox spent $25 mil in first year to become financially compliant in the USA...

http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/1/4154500/mt-gox-barons-of-bitcoin

It doesn't make it illegal, but you have to comply with the regulations.

Correct, but no individual is allowed to exchange Bitcoin in the US anymore. You have to be a registered Money Service Business. Currently there are none?

According to us law you need the license even in your not a us based company but are doing transactions with people in the USA.

 

It doesn't make it illegal, but you have to comply with the regulations.

Correct, but no individual is allowed to exchange Bitcoin in the US anymore. You have to be a registered Money Service Business. Currently there are none?

Hey read again. If you mine and sell for goods (say gold) you are fine. You just cannot mine and sell into USD directly. You could also mine and convert into LTC, for example. Then sell the LTC or the gold.

Again, litecoin counts under this legislation just as much as bitcoin

Also mining isn't for everyone, and conferring fiat to ltc isn't any easier than fiat to btc.

[joesmoe2012]

And this is why scrypt coins are way safer than SHA256 coins, since the govt goons could control dedicated Asic hashers, but never GPUs.

Please don't talk when you don't know shit about what you're saying

Agreed

[ihsotas]

According to this article, mtgox spent $25 mil in first year to become financially compliant in the USA...

http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/1/4154500/mt-gox-barons-of-bitcoin

No, it says that it costs 25M to be fully compliant, and that they partnered with a compliant company in the US (that presumably paid that 25M, not MtGox). I'd read the linked press release, but it's hosted on mtgox.com which is down as usual.

[Tomatocage]

While researching the whole Mt.Gox warrant thing I started reading the actual legislation that they are alleging Mt.Gox has violated. http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/nr/pdf/20130318.pdf

A final type of convertible virtual currency activity involves a de-centralized convertible virtual currency (1) that has no central repository and no single administrator, and (2) that persons may obtain by their own computing or manufacturing effort.
A person that creates units of this convertible virtual currency and uses it to purchase real or virtual goods and services is a user of the convertible virtual currency and not subject to regulation as a money transmitter. By contrast, 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. In addition, a person is an exchanger and a money transmitter if the person accepts such de-centralized convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person as part of the acceptance and transfer of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency.

Does that mean anyone trading Bitcoins for USD is now breaking the law if they are not registered as a Money Service Business?!

Geez man, you should probably take a few minutes to read the warrant before making threads. Short answer: MtGox lied about being a transmitter of money on the "MSB Accounts, Identification of an MSB Customer" form.  That's the reason for the warrant.

[leopard2]

And this is why scrypt coins are way safer than SHA256 coins, since the govt goons could control dedicated Asic hashers, but never GPUs.

Please don't talk when you don't know shit about what you're saying

Agreed

Sorry if you have a truth allergy, I didn't realize.

Fact is, any US customer of BFL is a potential perpetrator and the goons could easily search their property, by just using the BFL customer list. Since Asics are not used for anything else than BTC mining, owning an Asic miner could be seen as probable cause. This threat would probably deter anyone in the US from owning Asics. If the rest of the world mines on Asic, this development would eventually put US miners out of business, if international Asic ownership is high. Even worse, the government could accumulate enough Asics for a 51% attack, if international Asic ownership is low.

With LTC or YAC, this scenario is impossible because it would be impossible to chase anyone owning a GPU or CPU. Not only are there too many GPUs and CPUs, but also these can be plausibly used for other purposes.

Generic hardware cryptos are much less vulnerable than dedicated hw cryptos.

Not sure why you react like this.

[mjsbuddha]

While researching the whole Mt.Gox warrant thing I started reading the actual legislation that they are alleging Mt.Gox has violated. http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/nr/pdf/20130318.pdf

A final type of convertible virtual currency activity involves a de-centralized convertible virtual currency (1) that has no central repository and no single administrator, and (2) that persons may obtain by their own computing or manufacturing effort.
A person that creates units of this convertible virtual currency and uses it to purchase real or virtual goods and services is a user of the convertible virtual currency and not subject to regulation as a money transmitter. By contrast, 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. In addition, a person is an exchanger and a money transmitter if the person accepts such de-centralized convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person as part of the acceptance and transfer of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency.

Does that mean anyone trading Bitcoins for USD is now breaking the law if they are not registered as a Money Service Business?!

Geez man, you should probably take a few minutes to read the warrant before making threads. Short answer: MtGox lied about being a transmitter of money on the "MSB Accounts, Identification of an MSB Customer" form.  That's the reason for the warrant.

I read the warrant. I'm not debating Mt.Gox at all here. Im trying to figure out exactly what portion of the bitcoin community is now legally obligated to register, like Mt.Gox tried (and apparently failed) to.