Bitcoin Foundation receives cease and desist order from California

[cryptoanarchist]

can somebody tell me why a foundation that is meant to represent a worldwide monetary movement is based in the United States, when that country is VERY bitcoin hostile?

and why are so many bitcoin conferences held there?

I don't bloody get it.

Because


USA


#1



 

USA is #1 at oppressing its own people.

[erk]

For all the knucklehead who like to post uninformed opinions can I suggest you do (a lot) of research before you post.

http://www.moneytransmitterlaw.com/state-laws/

It doesn't matter what you or I think.  It matters what our laws and regulations state.  Until someone steps up to challenge them and set a new a precedent we are required (a law-abiding citizens) to comply.

 

Look up CA on that link, it virtually tells you nothing about how to tell if your are classified as a money transmitter, it just tells you they want $5,000 and a whole bunch of compliance time consuming costly red tape.

[marcus_of_augustus]

You've just nailed my biggest fear exactly. If, due to lack of understanding, malice or unwillingness to learn, CA legislators found that the client is a basic tool of transmitting electronic funds which have the single purpose of converting to fiat then they could rule that everyone using a client is a money transmitter. Because of the high cost of entry (licensure) Bitcoin would become illegal for all but the wealthy. The EFT subset called ACH itself isn't fiat but it represents fiat as a system of credits and debits transmitted electronically. It only becomes fiat at the end of its journey at the other end of the transaction. What would happen if they look at the system and say, "well you have just invented another version of ACH and you need to be licensed for that. We believe that's stupid because we see the small economy and that we can buy something using only Bitcoin so it's distinct from a fiat transfer system but what will legislators believe. The bad news is that even this community values Bitcoin against the US dollar and is fixated on "what Bitcoin is worth today."

The fact is this may happen.  I personally don't think it will but it might.  We should prepare for it just in case.

Ruling that Bitcoin client is illegal or whatever would result in the same as ruling BitTorrent clients are illegal or whatever. People would just laugh.

Bittorent doesn't transmit money, it transmits files.

If they want to they can rule

* Anyone using bitcoin is a money transmitter

* Anyone who mines a block assists in the transmission of money

Bitcoin doesn't transmit money, just bits. They only turn into money at the other end when we choose to value them as money. For a long time they were worthless. Like PPcoin, Namecoin, BBQcoins ... all of which are transmitted in an exactly identical manner. Are those 'money transmitters' also? Or are you just picking out bitcoin for special attention?

They can rule anything they like. The stupider the rulings the more they lose legitmacy. In fact, I welcome some very stupid bitcoin rulings and I'm positive that the USA 'legal' system will oblige.

[BCB]

marcus_of_augustus  if your bits have no value then please send them all to me.

13a9UjLbc5Su7VigVA9CFfubXqit1A2Ut5


Ah ha.

"No" you say.

Why?  

Because your bits have an equivalent value in real currency or acts as a substitute for real currency which is why the US Government treats digital currencies as "real" currency according to the recent FinCEN guidence.

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

So blather all you want.  It is easy for you to anonymously post unsound arguments on an internet forum.  I

f you believe what you say then by all mean pleases send me all your worthless bits.

[marcus_of_augustus]

marcus_of_augustus  if your bits have no value then please send them all to me.

13a9UjLbc5Su7VigVA9CFfubXqit1A2Ut5


Ah ha.

"No" you say.

Why?  

Because your bits have an equivalent value in real currency or acts as a substitute for real currency which is why the US Government treats digital currencies as "real" currency according to the recent FinCEN guidence.

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

So blather all you want.  It is easy for you to anonymously post unsound arguments on an internet forum.  I

If you believe what you say then by all mean pleases send me all your worthless bits.

You omitted the key word ... "transmission" ... prove to me any valuable bits have been transmitted.

If they were someone would have grabbed them for themselves seeing how they were routed through many third party electronic devices, routers. The bits are demonstrably without value. You probably do not even understand how that number you posted (your bitcoin public address hash) is able to receive value do you? For example, precisely define, in legal terms, how I am meant to transmit valuable bits to that number you posted? Edify us.

Edit: keep the personal attacks and slurs for another forum please.

[erk]

You omitted the key word ... "transmission" ... prove to me any valuable bits have been transmitted.

If they were someone would have grabbed them for themselves seeing how they were routed through many third party electronic devices, routers. The bits are demonstrably without value. You probably do not even understand how that number you posted (your bitcoin public address hash) is able to receive value do you? For example, precisely define, in legal terms, how I am meant to transmit valuable bits to that number you posted? Edify us.

Back in the old days when a Morse code operator in a post office or bank did a long distance transmission of funds, the money didn't go down the wire, it was a simple confirmation of journal entry at each end.

[Rassah]

You omitted the key word ... "transmission" ... prove to me any valuable bits have been transmitted.

If they were someone would have grabbed them for themselves seeing how they were routed through many third party electronic devices, routers. The bits are demonstrably without value. You probably do not even understand how that number you posted (your bitcoin public address hash) is able to receive value do you? For example, precisely define, in legal terms, how I am meant to transmit valuable bits to that number you posted? Edify us.

Back in the old days when a Morse code operator in a post office or bank did a long distance transmission of funds, the money didn't go down the wire, it was a simple confirmation of journal entry at each end.

Not, uh, not exactly. It was a confirmation of a journal entry, with the assumption that the money would be stuck on a truck and delivered eventually, or that the other post office or bank would be borrowing money too, thus negating the outstanding bank journal entry (like Ripple is supposed to work). There is no expectation that you will be sent the blockchain once you pay someone in bitcoins, but there is expectation that the receiving person will "borrow" against it, too. So, it's just different enough to be convoluted as hell 

[NewLiberty]

can somebody tell me why a foundation that is meant to represent a worldwide monetary movement is based in the United States, when that country is VERY bitcoin hostile?

1. Regulators released guidance indicating that bitcoin buying/selling within the bitcoin economy is affirmatively OK, and would not require every user registering with the government, as many conspiracy theorists had direly predicted.
2. Many bitcoin users are in the US.
3. Many bitcoin investors are in the US.

The sum of that != bitcoin hostile.  Just the opposite.

It's also silly to loudly complain when people are standing up and volunteering to take slings and arrows on behalf of others.

+1
Yes.  The complaining seems misplaced.
The Foundation is the target here, they can handle this.
Keep doing what you do best.

[TheFootMan]

The Foundation is the target here, they can handle this.

They can? Let's see how well it goes when they start referring to the state officials as 'haters'.

[RodeoX]

The Foundation is the target here, they can handle this.

They can? Let's see how well it goes when they start referring to the state officials as 'haters'.

At least it was a soft ball. I think that demonstrating that the foundation is a money transmitter will be hard for CA. It could even be a good fight to get into.

[AliceWonder]

The Foundation is the target here, they can handle this.

They can? Let's see how well it goes when they start referring to the state officials as 'haters'.

At least it was a soft ball. I think that demonstrating that the foundation is a money transmitter will be hard for CA. It could even be a good fight to get into.

In Politics, often times the right hand doesn't know (or care) what the left hand is doing.

In all honesty, I think what happened is that PayPal, a California based company, filed a complaint naming the bitcoin foundation and using local sellers as evidence. The state didn't even bother to see if there was a connection and sent the scary looking letter. No actual discovery was performed.

That's my suspicion.

[NewLiberty]

The Foundation is the target here, they can handle this.

They can? Let's see how well it goes when they start referring to the state officials as 'haters'.

At least it was a soft ball. I think that demonstrating that the foundation is a money transmitter will be hard for CA. It could even be a good fight to get into.

In Politics, often times the right hand doesn't know (or care) what the left hand is doing.

In all honesty, I think what happened is that PayPal, a California based company, filed a complaint naming the bitcoin foundation and using local sellers as evidence. The state didn't even bother to see if there was a connection and sent the scary looking letter. No actual discovery was performed.

That's my suspicion.

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.

[erk]

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 reply admits guilt in the first line.

[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 reply admits guilt in the first line.

No, it doesn't.  Compliance on first notice is not evidence of non-compliance. 
And if it is alleged, the burden shifts, and we should doubt they have probable cause for more than the C&D, so no indictment, or summary dismissal.
Unless there is a witness to the contrary.

But their lawyers have the whole range from which to formulate the whole reply.

"We have never done money transfer business."
"We have no plans on doing any money transfer business"
"If we did plan to do money transfer business, we would fully intend to comply with the relevant structures."
"If we did any money transfer business, it is beneath the scope of the regulation."
"If we did any money transfer business it was not intentional."
"All money transfer business, if there were any, have ceased."
"We are engaging in an audit from xxx auditor to assess whether we are engaging in any MTB, and we expect this report on yyy."
"Go jump in a lake to cool your jets."

The catch is you have to not lie, because then you have fraud, tax evasion, and jail.  So only council under a-c privilege really has the details on what to do.  Out here in the peanut gallery, we can only speculate...

[erk]

The Foundation is the target here, they can handle this.

They can? Let's see how well it goes when they start referring to the state officials as 'haters'.

At least it was a soft ball. I think that demonstrating that the foundation is a money transmitter will be hard for CA. It could even be a good fight to get into.

In Politics, often times the right hand doesn't know (or care) what the left hand is doing.

In all honesty, I think what happened is that PayPal, a California based company, filed a complaint naming the bitcoin foundation and using local sellers as evidence. The state didn't even bother to see if there was a connection and sent the scary looking letter. No actual discovery was performed.

That's my suspicion.

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.

[cryptoanarchist]

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.

[bernard75]

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

[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.

[cbeast]

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.

You can get a Starbucks in almost every country and Mary has probably been to most of them.

[edd]

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.

You can get a Starbucks in almost every country and Mary has probably been to most of them.

Not my Mary!