Bitcoin Foundation receives cease and desist order from California

[AliceWonder]

I doubt it, it would be in Paypal's interest to offer Bitcoin as one of their currencies. and I am sure they are aware of that, they just don't know how to deal with it logistically and politically. They would have pressure from central banks.

PayPal wants bitcoin dead because there is no way they can control it (e.g. force payment reversals) and if bitcoin goes mainstream, it will kill PayPal's business model.

What PayPal wants is a centralized cyber-currency. Don't be surprised to see them investing in Ripple or something like Ripple.

[erk]

I doubt it, it would be in Paypal's interest to offer Bitcoin as one of their currencies. and I am sure they are aware of that, they just don't know how to deal with it logistically and politically. They would have pressure from central banks.

PayPal wants bitcoin dead because there is no way they can control it (e.g. force payment reversals) and if bitcoin goes mainstream, it will kill PayPal's business model.

What PayPal wants is a centralized cyber-currency. Don't be surprised to see them investing in Ripple or something like Ripple.

That would be a plus for Paypal, do you think they actually like reversals? You can actually get your merchant account with Visa or Mastercard cancelled if you put through more than a certain percentage of reversals each month.

[AliceWonder]

I doubt it, it would be in Paypal's interest to offer Bitcoin as one of their currencies. and I am sure they are aware of that, they just don't know how to deal with it logistically and politically. They would have pressure from central banks.

PayPal wants bitcoin dead because there is no way they can control it (e.g. force payment reversals) and if bitcoin goes mainstream, it will kill PayPal's business model.

What PayPal wants is a centralized cyber-currency. Don't be surprised to see them investing in Ripple or something like Ripple.

That would be a plus for Paypal, do you think they actually like reversals? You can actually get your merchant account with Visa or Mastercard cancelled if you put through more than a certain percentage of reversals each month.

No it would not be a plus for PayPal because they use transaction reversal to badger customers into doing things their way, as has happened to me on several occassions before I just stopped using them.

[AliceWonder]

Control the money flow and you control the power.

Bitcoin and other open P2P currencies gives that power to the people, the opposite of what PayPal wants.

[EndTheFed321]

fight the power with BTC

[Loozik]

The date on the cease and desist order is 30 May 2013.

TBF was required to answer within 20 days. Deadline for response lapsed 10 days ago.

Do we know the answer TBF sent? I like to read it.

[BCB]

The date on the cease and desist order is 30 May 2013.

TBF was required to answer within 20 days. Deadline for response lapsed 10 days ago.

Do we know the answer TBF sent? I like to read it.

The Foundation asked for and evidently received an extension to answer. There is currently a debate as to whether or not the foundation should answer the C&D publicly. This would satisfy the community but it could also piss off the regulators.  The rumor is that California officials were not happy that it was made public in the first place. 

Maybe it is time for the foundation to remove advocacy and lobbying from its mission and focus on supporting the maintenance of the protocol and running the annual US conference.

They are clearly a target and that can't be good for them or the bitcoin community.

[ProfMac]

The date on the cease and desist order is 30 May 2013.

TBF was required to answer within 20 days. Deadline for response lapsed 10 days ago.

Do we know the answer TBF sent? I like to read it.

The Foundation asked for and evidently received an extension to answer. There is currently a debate as to whether or not the foundation should answer the C&D publicly. This would satisfy the community but it could also piss off the regulators.  The rumor is that California officials were not happy that it was made public in the first place. 

We have this strong and important tradition of openness.  Murder trials are open.  Is there any precedent that the regulators can work in secrecy?

[TippingPoint]

The Foundation asked for and evidently received an extension to answer. There is currently a debate as to whether or not the foundation should answer the C&D publicly. This would satisfy the community but it could also piss off the regulators.  The rumor is that California officials were not happy that it was made public in the first place.  

It is hard for me to imagine that a foundation would receive a cease and desist order and not inform their members and constituents of that order and their reply to it ... unless it is a monarchy.




Your highness, the peasants are revolting.

I know.

[BurtW]

Your highness, the peasants are revolting.

I had forgotten that one.  Thanks for my belly laugh for the day!

[BCB]

The Foundation asked for and evidently received an extension to answer. There is currently a debate as to whether or not the foundation should answer the C&D publicly. This would satisfy the community but it could also piss off the regulators.  The rumor is that California officials were not happy that it was made public in the first place.  

It is hard for me to imagine that a foundation would receive a cease and desist order and not inform their members and constituents of that order and their reply to it, unless it is a monarchy.

I agree. Foundation Members were disappointed to read about it in Jon Matonis's column along with the public before being informed of it by the Foundation Leadership.  

Which begs the question, Does the Foundation serve its members or Jon Matonis's journalism.  It seems to me that Jon used his access for his personal benefit.  

Had Matonis prepared his post and then the foundation released info to the membership first, followed by a brief embargo before allowing Matonis to post I would be less suspect.

Hopefully these are growing pains for the Foundation that will be worked out as they learn and understand how to navigate these uncharted waters.

Then again, I would think that the Foundation leadership would understand or have in place others who understand how this should work.

[BCB]

The foundation's mission:

Standardizing Bitcoin
As a non-political online money, Bitcoin is backed exclusively by code. This means that—ultimately—it is only as good as its software design. By funding the Bitcoin infrastructure, including a core development team, we can make Bitcoin more respected, trusted and useful to people worldwide.

Protecting Bitcoin
Cryptography is the key to Bitcoin’s success. It’s the reason that no one can double spend, counterfeit or steal Bitcoins. If Bitcoin is to be a viable money for both current users and future adopters, we need to maintain, improve and legally protect the integrity of the protocol.

Promoting Bitcoin
In the context of public misunderstandings, misinterpretations and misrepresentations, Bitcoin needs to be clearer about its purpose and technology. Allowing the community to speak through a single source will enable Bitcoin to improve its reputation.


Maybe it is time for them to drop the third effort and focus on the first two.  They've not seem to done very well at all on that third issue so far.

[Minor Miner]

Im truly sorry for all Americans and all the spying and regulating they have to endure.

As long as we can still go to Starbucks and get a Grande Latte with the little college Mary Moon were tutoring and screwing after class - it's all good.

I thought you were married with kids?

[QuestionAuthority]

Im truly sorry for all Americans and all the spying and regulating they have to endure.

As long as we can still go to Starbucks and get a Grande Latte with the little college Mary Moon were tutoring and screwing after class - it's all good.

I thought you were married with kids?

And your point is? lol

[NewLiberty]

I tend to agree.  They could start with a reply that they have ceased and desisted from all money transfer businesses.  (Maybe they were planning some in the future?)
That would put the ball in the other side of the court, and at least let the State define what they are concerned about.

That's completely stupid - Why would you say you've stopped doing something you were never doing in the first place?? Are you on crack, NewLiberty? The burden of proof is on the state, dum-dum. What you're suggesting would actually cause them more trouble.

I've gotten threatening letters from the government that didn't pertain to me in the past. I just filed them away and ignored them.

I've been working on the assumption that the Foundation is going to respond.  That is more or less the Foundation's reason for being.  So although ignoring it would also be a sort of message, it doesn't take a foundation to do that.  You and me can do that on our own as you wisely observed.

Its something you learn in law school in America, how to be stupid in very specific ways.
If one doesn't choose to rely on the pervasive government ennui or patriotism and are going to respond, the easiest disinfectant is bright light. Show them what you do and what you don't do.  The Sacramentoans don't know the answer either, so if you don't want better funded competition to spend their effort on motivating the regulators to find something wrong, you can show the regulators something right.
Invite audits, make them experts on Bitcoin, and teach them how it is good for people like them and us.

But just a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.  Even that has risks.

[BCB]

I tend to agree.  They could start with a reply that they have ceased and desisted from all money transfer businesses.  (Maybe they were planning some in the future?)
That would put the ball in the other side of the court, and at least let the State define what they are concerned about.

That's completely stupid - Why would you say you've stopped doing something you were never doing in the first place?? Are you on crack, NewLiberty? The burden of proof is on the state, dum-dum. What you're suggesting would actually cause them more trouble.

I've gotten threatening letters from the government that didn't pertain to me in the past. I just filed them away and ignored them.

I've been working on the assumption that the Foundation is going to respond.  That is more or less the Foundation's reason for being.  So although ignoring it would also be a sort of message, it doesn't take a foundation to do that.  You and me can do that on our own as you wisely observed.

Its something you learn in law school in America, how to be stupid in very specific ways.
If one doesn't choose to rely on the pervasive government ennui or patriotism and are going to respond, the easiest disinfectant is bright light. Show them what you do and what you don't do.  The Sacramentoans don't know the answer either, so if you don't want better funded competition to spend their effort on motivating the regulators to find something wrong, you can show the regulators something right.
Invite audits, make them experts on Bitcoin, and teach them how it is good for people like them and us.

But just a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.  Even that has risks.

NewLiberty, excellent points.  But remember our "real" opponents are outside the bitcoin community.  We in the bitcoin community will always have varying opinions,  however  the energy we expend fighting these internal battles detracts from the "real" opponents which in the US is the currently the recent guidance that threatens the livelihood of everybitcoin business who wants to do business with US customers. 

[Loozik]

I've been working on the assumption that the Foundation is going to respond.  That is more or less the Foundation's reason for being.  So although ignoring it would also be a sort of message, it doesn't take a foundation to do that.  You and me can do that on our own as you wisely observed.

TBF could have simply answered with a list of questions aimed for making sure the burden of proof is on California bureaucrats for the accusation they maybe making, e.g.:

- what evidence (if any) you rely on to prove California laws apply to TBF?

- what evidence (if any) you rely on to prove that what you call ''Bitcoin'' is money?

- what evidence (if any) you rely on to prove ....

If you ask bureaucrats for facts and evidence they normally freak out and shut up. Cause they have no facts relating to the theorem they want to prove, not to mention evidences.

[Stephen Gornick]

released info to the membership first,

What purpose would releasing it to Bitcoin Foundation members in advance of the public provide?  (other than a trading advantage ..., letting members digest the information and possibly make a decision to trade on it).

[NewLiberty]

NewLiberty, excellent points.  But remember our "real" opponents are outside the bitcoin community.  We in the bitcoin community will always have varying opinions,  however  the energy we expend fighting these internal battles detracts from the "real" opponents which in the US is the currently the recent guidance that threatens the livelihood of everybitcoin business who wants to do business with US customers. 

The opponents to bitcoin most real to me are those that fear it.  Yes, outside the community.
Understanding their fears, and helping to resolve any which are resolvable, by illuminating the darkness. 
I've no interest in fighting any internal or external battles at all.  Just improving understanding. 

Your regulator is a person too.  Many are more sympathetic to the notion of economic resilience than you might imagine, but they are going to fear that which they don't understand.  One thing the C&D makes clear, this lack of understanding.

[QuestionAuthority]

released info to the membership first,

What purpose would releasing it to Bitcoin Foundation members in advance of the public provide?  (other than a trading advantage ..., letting members digest the information and possibly make a decision to trade on it).

I hate how you're always so logical and rational. Can't you just screw up a response once. lol