leopard2
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1014
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 15, 2013, 08:16:48 PM |
|
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.
|
Truth is the new hatespeech.
|
|
|
Gabi
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1008
If you want to walk on water, get out of the boat
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 15, 2013, 08:17:42 PM |
|
Satoshi created bitcoin Miners are just paid for their work, they do not create bitcoins ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
|
|
|
|
ihsotas
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 15, 2013, 08:18:06 PM |
|
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 (OP)
Sr. Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
yung lean
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 15, 2013, 08:19:41 PM |
|
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
Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 91
Merit: 15
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 15, 2013, 08:20:27 PM |
|
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
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 15, 2013, 08:21:44 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1008
If you want to walk on water, get out of the boat
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 15, 2013, 08:21:56 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1257
May Bitcoin be touched by his Noodly Appendage
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 15, 2013, 08:24:28 PM |
|
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
|
Own address: 19QkqAza7BHFTuoz9N8UQkryP4E9jHo4N3 - Pywallet support: 1AQDfx22pKGgXnUZFL1e4UKos3QqvRzNh5 - Bitcointalk++ script support: 1Pxeccscj1ygseTdSV1qUqQCanp2B2NMM2 Pywallet: instructions. Encrypted wallet support, export/import keys/addresses, backup wallets, export/import CSV data from/into wallet, merge wallets, delete/import addresses and transactions, recover altcoins sent to bitcoin addresses, sign/verify messages and files with Bitcoin addresses, recover deleted wallets, etc.
|
|
|
crazy_rabbit
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
RUM AND CARROTS: A PIRATE LIFE FOR ME
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 15, 2013, 08:25:31 PM |
|
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...
|
more or less retired.
|
|
|
mjsbuddha (OP)
Sr. Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
yung lean
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 15, 2013, 08:25:48 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1014
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 15, 2013, 08:26:42 PM |
|
Splendid, in order to charge you, the government would have to admit that gold is money. Neat ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif)
|
Truth is the new hatespeech.
|
|
|
Mastergerund
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 15, 2013, 08:31:36 PM |
|
Satoshi created bitcoin Miners are just paid for their work, they do not create bitcoins ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif) 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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1393
You lead and I'll watch you walk away.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 15, 2013, 08:40:38 PM |
|
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
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 11
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 15, 2013, 08:45:58 PM |
|
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
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 15, 2013, 08:53:33 PM |
|
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-bitcoinIt 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
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 15, 2013, 08:54:31 PM |
|
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
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 15, 2013, 09:01:15 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1222
brb keeping up with the Kardashians
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 15, 2013, 09:01:27 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1014
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 15, 2013, 09:12:15 PM |
|
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.
|
Truth is the new hatespeech.
|
|
|
mjsbuddha (OP)
Sr. Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
yung lean
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 15, 2013, 09:23:02 PM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|