Bitcoin Forum
June 20, 2019, 02:46:24 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: 2013-06-23 Forbes - Bitcoin Foundation Receives Cease And Desist Order From Ca  (Read 9425 times)
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1005


Gerald Davis


View Profile
June 25, 2013, 09:14:22 PM
 #81

Does this mean that guys like opencoin/ripple will be getting the same notice?

Ripple is something I have always wondered about.  Unlike Bitcoin where coins are created in a decentralized manner, Ripple created all the coins initially.  My (non-lawyer) reading of MSB regs and FinCEN guidance is that Ripple is a Money Transmitter as they are an administrator of a virtual currency (just as Linden Dollars, Liberty Reserve, Perfect Money, etc are).  That would require OpenCoin to comply with various KYC and reporting requirements.
1561041984
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1561041984

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1561041984
Reply with quote  #2

1561041984
Report to moderator
COINSWITCH
Trade 300+ coins
No Login
No KYC
Get $5 on 1st order
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1561041984
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1561041984

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1561041984
Reply with quote  #2

1561041984
Report to moderator
BTCLuke
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 524
Merit: 505


My other Avatar is also Scrooge McDuck


View Profile WWW
June 25, 2013, 09:44:34 PM
 #82

I laughed so hard that I peed myself during that hitler vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M2C5ZM6WCs

So true... So damn true it makes me want to join the SS...

Luke Parker
Journalist, BraveNewCoin
MPOE-PR
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500



View Profile
June 25, 2013, 10:06:40 PM
 #83

My point it ultimately what matters is what the STATE (each state independently) defines Bitcoin as.  You can call them anything you want but FinCEN (and other states) is regulated based on what Bitcoin DOES not what you NAME it.  

TL/DR: If Bitcoin is used "as monetary value", FinCEN intends to regulate it, regardless of what you call it.  Their authority (or lack thereof) comes from what Bitcoin DOES not what it is CALLED.

They don't have a prayer in Hell of making these bizarre legal theories you espouse stick, admitting it is in fact what they're contemplating (on an actual read of their guidelines, it is exactly NOT what they're contemplating, but Murck is incompetent and apparently you can't tell the difference between counsel and muck).

Now it's one thing to say "I can't afford to fight my government, right or wrong". That's fine, you're an American which makes you a slave. As long as you can live with that so can we. It's quite a different thing to say "I can't afford to fight my government thus the most awkward contortion of what some noob thinks it might have said is actually what it said".

So, let's have some of that b) there, with the clear understanding that any other choice makes you I. inferior and II. not really a part of Bitcoin. Stop trying to frame things otherwise, it's a waste of effort, as are all the red herrings about the does/is dispute.

I am getting sick of you people getting each other drunk on kool-aid on the grounds that like chickens you just believe whatever nonsense you hear most often. Let's get back to the basics: Bitcoin is a game currency, like any other game currency. The SEC does not have the authority to regulate whatever in-game auction house nor does it claim such authority. FinCEN does not have the authority to regulate WoW gold, nor does it claim such authority. You people ran amok with the entire SEC bullshit six months ago, much to my amusement, you're running amok with the FinCEN bullshit currently, in spite of it being based on an outrageous backwards read of the entire thing.

Just STAHP already, it's getting ridiculous.

(All this notwithstanding: if you trade dollars for anything in the US you're fucked. It has absolutely nothing to do with Bitcoin, it could be raw milk or guns or used Playboy mags or homemade lemonade at a stand or anything else whatsoever - the soviets are trying to move all trade towards state-approved corporations as part of their "silent revolution". Constantly mixing Bitcoin into the internal affairs of that failed state is getting about as old as thinking the US, generally, still matters. Can we move on already?).

My Credentials  | THE BTC Stock Exchange | I have my very own anthology! | Use bitcointa.lk, it's like this one but better.
jgarzik
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554
Merit: 1005


View Profile
June 26, 2013, 02:33:58 AM
 #84

FinCEN does not have the authority to regulate WoW gold, nor does it claim such authority.

Yes, it does.  FinCEN's March guidance makes this clear.

World of Warcraft and Second Life, along with bitcoin, were also mentioned specifically in another report from the GAO.


Jeff Garzik, Bloq CEO, former bitcoin core dev team; opinions are my own.
Visit bloq.com / metronome.io
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2912
Merit: 1150



View Profile
June 26, 2013, 08:27:53 AM
 #85

FinCEN does not have the authority to regulate WoW gold, nor does it claim such authority.

Yes, it does.  FinCEN's March guidance makes this clear.

World of Warcraft and Second Life, along with bitcoin, were also mentioned specifically in another report from the GAO.

FinCEN claims to have the authority ... that claim doesn't have legal precedence as far as I am aware.

oakpacific
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 26, 2013, 10:08:06 AM
 #86

I disagree with how much it matters what it is called.  In the legal landscape what you call it is everything and in terms of regulatory requirements, the difference between a "commodity" and a "currency" can be a pretty large stack of paperwork and a pretty big list of "can's and cannot's".

Your missing the point.  Regulators don't ask YOU what your product is.  They will TELL YOU and then those list of choices above apply.  So if the Bitcoin Foundation called Bitcoins commodities, or virtual property, or holy carrots it would have absolutely no value under the law.  Regulators would say "Bitcoin is monetary value and subject to xzy".  They don't take what you chose to name it into consideration.

I mean do you also think that if you sold gambling products under a different name, say "true random number commodity contracts" it would magically be exempt from regulations/prohibitions on gambling.

Start calling Bitcoins "magical carrots" it won't exempt Bitcoin from anything the state says it is regulated by.  The state is the one with the guns and monopoly on violence.  They TELL (not ASK) you what laws apply.  If you are lucky they don't do it in a carpicious or retroactive fashion.   Once they TELL you then you can decide if you want to play or work around that.

That's interesting cause if the regulators want to bring things to court, there should be at least a slight hint of ambiguity in the legal definition of currency, but there isn't, it looks almost as if the original legislators were so concerned that they can not be clear enough about what's currency, that they go to great length to elaborate, repetitively, exhaustively, that it must be something issued by a government.

Paraphrasing. FinCEN has said virtual currencies are not "real currencies" under the law.  Lucky for them (and not so lucky for everyone else) the law is very broad based and gives them the authority to regulate a lot of "non-currencies" too.

Quote
FinCEN's regulations define currency (also referred to as "real" currency) as "the coin and paper money of the United States or of any other country that is designated as legal tender and that [ii] circulates and [iii] is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the country of issuance."3 In contrast to real currency, "virtual" currency is a medium of exchange that operates like a currency

...

FinCEN's regulations define the term "money transmitter" as a person that provides money transmission services, or any other person engaged in the transfer of funds. The term "money transmission services" means "the acceptance of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency from one person and the transmission of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency to another location or person by any means."

...

The definition of a money transmitter does not differentiate between real currencies and convertible virtual currencies. Accepting and transmitting anything of value that substitutes for currency makes a person a money transmitter under the regulations implementing the BSA.

http://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html

Simple version like I said names don't matter.  FinCEN is saying virtual currencies, or virtual commodities, or virtual holy carrots are "other value that substitutes for currency".  If you disagree well FinCEN is laying out their legal case here so you can expect to eventually see them in court.

Personally I believe their analysis is a little weak but I am not going to risk my livelihood and freedom on their ability to convince a judge they are right.  The point is no matter what you call it FinCEN believes Bitcoin is a "substitute for currency".  Unless you convince a judge they are incorrect it meets they have the ability to regulate Bitcoin exchangers.


Why don't you Americans have this government in-fight thing? I.e., multiple ministries competing for the power to regulate a certain something, so in order to get the greatest support one ministry will sometimes take the best-accepted position deliberately.  Maybe your officials are just so free from corruption that there isn't much to gain from the power to regulate something new?

https://tlsnotary.org/ Fraud proofing decentralized fiat-Bitcoin trading.
MPOE-PR
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500



View Profile
June 26, 2013, 11:57:02 PM
 #87

FinCEN does not have the authority to regulate WoW gold, nor does it claim such authority.

Yes, it does.  FinCEN's March guidance makes this clear.

World of Warcraft and Second Life, along with bitcoin, were also mentioned specifically in another report from the GAO.

When we enter a yes/no type of debate you go in with the serious handicap that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Why do you feel so compelled to add this particular topic to the list of stuff you attempt to do without understanding? Isn't coding quite enough for one person?

My Credentials  | THE BTC Stock Exchange | I have my very own anthology! | Use bitcointa.lk, it's like this one but better.
aigeezer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 1013


Cryptanalyst castrated by his government, 1952


View Profile
June 27, 2013, 12:26:55 AM
 #88

FinCEN does not have the authority to regulate WoW gold, nor does it claim such authority.

Yes, it does.  FinCEN's March guidance makes this clear.

World of Warcraft and Second Life, along with bitcoin, were also mentioned specifically in another report from the GAO.

When we enter a yes/no type of debate you go in with the serious handicap that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Why do you feel so compelled to add this particular topic to the list of stuff you attempt to do without understanding? Isn't coding quite enough for one person?

It's hard to tell which item you are disputing, but if it's the claim that the GAO specifically mentioned WoW and Second Life as potentially taxable, it's apparently true. There is much discussion of it online.
Here's one link that includes an embedded link to the GAO document.

http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2013/06/second-life-income-taxable.html

Weird stuff.
MPOE-PR
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500



View Profile
June 27, 2013, 02:25:14 AM
 #89

FinCEN does not have the authority to regulate WoW gold, nor does it claim such authority.

Yes, it does.  FinCEN's March guidance makes this clear.

World of Warcraft and Second Life, along with bitcoin, were also mentioned specifically in another report from the GAO.

When we enter a yes/no type of debate you go in with the serious handicap that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Why do you feel so compelled to add this particular topic to the list of stuff you attempt to do without understanding? Isn't coding quite enough for one person?

It's hard to tell which item you are disputing, but if it's the claim that the GAO specifically mentioned WoW and Second Life as potentially taxable, it's apparently true. There is much discussion of it online.
Here's one link that includes an embedded link to the GAO document.

http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2013/06/second-life-income-taxable.html

Weird stuff.

How did GAO get involved in this discussion? Are we fishing for multi-layered red herrings or something? Did you read the thread?

My Credentials  | THE BTC Stock Exchange | I have my very own anthology! | Use bitcointa.lk, it's like this one but better.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!