[LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining)

[lavalampoon]

...but the issue isnt whether the SEC will do it, the issue is the SEC can do it, because they are breaking US security laws.

Interesting, so it is clear then that the security of US citizens is being violated by the SEC and the SEC is willing to violate even national sovereignty to force their will--because they can.
 

[1713562303]

1713562303

[Puppet]

...but the issue isnt whether the SEC will do it, the issue is the SEC can do it, because they are breaking US security laws.

Interesting, so it is clear then that the security of US citizens is being violated by the SEC and the SEC is willing to violate even international sovereignty to force their will--because they can.
 

WTF?

[Ytterbium]

Please explain how the dumb and mighty USA want to enforce their regulations on people sitting in Hongkong or Italy.
I am very interested in that.

Theswede doesnt seem to be sitting in HK, nor does Howard Wang. Those that are abroad could still be charged and found guilty in the US for soliciting funds in the US from US citizens. Whether or not they would demand extradition or if HK or Italy would grant it is a moot point.

When did Howard Wang solicit funds from anyone? As far as TheSwede is concerned, it could be a problem for him, I suppose. But he (obviously) doesn't run labcoin.

Also, you seem to be missing the point that there is a huge legal difference between a scam, which is illegal everywhere, and simply selling unregistered securities.  If the US government were actually going to go out of their way to prosecute people who did that, it would apply equally to ASICMiner, NEOBEE and the rest - and even more so ActM, since it's US based.

Furthermore, those issues have always existed, everyone "investing" in bitcoin stocks should have been aware of it and taken it into consideration.

If the US government wanted too it could try to shut down bitcoin entirely, as well.  They could make bitcoin mining illegal and try to prosecute anyone who does it, since mining technically means certifying transactions as legitimate they could argue that bitcoin mining represents a form of money transfer, which means that you would need to know someone's identity in order to include transactions from them in the block chain.

Again, if Labcoin is a scam and they just ran off with all the money then clearly there could be legal consequences.  If not, there there are no more likely to be legal consequences from them then for every other bitcoin stock, which depends on their local laws.

As for your huge font text about Burnside, you realise his company is registered in Belize, right?  That Belize isnt a city in the US, right ? Hey guess what, it doenst matter any more as where labcoin (isnt) incorporated. They are soliciting funds from US investors in the US, hence they are subject to SEC regulation.

What difference does it make where the company is registered?  If burnside is in the US, then he has to follow US law. However, people who are not in the US do not need to follow US law.

I have no idea why this is so difficult for you to understand.

People in the US, and/or doing business in the US need to follow US law.

People outside the US need to follow the laws of their local jurisdiction.

the issue isnt whether the SEC will do it, the issue is the SEC can do it, because they are breaking US security laws. Doesnt matter where asicminer is incorporated. Doesnt matter what nationality friedcat has.

The SEC doesn't prosecute people, they only issue fines.  It's the DOJ/FBI that actually investigates and prosecutes criminal matters. In some cases the SEC can refer cases to the DOJ, but that's actually extremely rare.

Secondly, it's just as likely that the government will crack down on bitcoin itself as it is they'll crack down on bitcoin shares. If you don't think you should have any money in something that the government theoretically crack down on then you should immediately sell all your bitcoin, as the government could declare it illegal tomorrow, if they wanted.

[BitThink]

There will be a long holiday in China, so basically almost no one is working the next week. Pretty bad timing. I am afraid we could not see the hash rate increase before the closure of btct.

[Ytterbium]

There will be a long holiday in China, so basically almost no one is working the next week. Pretty bad timing. I am afraid we could not see the hash rate increase before the closure of btct.

Which holiday?  There was one like the week before last (the one with the mooncakes), are you sure you're not thinking of that one?

[ronaldlee0917]

There will be a long holiday in China, so basically almost no one is working the next week. Pretty bad timing. I am afraid we could not see the hash rate increase before the closure of btct.

Which holiday?  There was one like the week before last (the one with the mooncakes), are you sure you're not thinking of that one?

1st Oct is the national day of China, there will be a one-week holiday in Mainland China and one-day holiday in Hong Kong.

[bigdude]

Labcoin is back in the top 25 ... Just. But for how long


25   labcoin   658.49 GH/s

[ronaldlee0917]

Labcoin is back in the top 25 ... Just. But for how long


25   labcoin   658.49 GH/s

Gone already

[Puppet]

When did Howard Wang solicit funds from anyone?

We have no idea what his role is. If he was merely an employee, I dont see a problem. But since he is the one who started this, Id be surprised if he didnt have a management role in the company.

As far as TheSwede is concerned, it could be a problem for him, I suppose. But he (obviously) doesn't run labcoin.

Apparently there is no point in arguing with you, because every statement I make and document with links goes in one ear and out the other. Theswede isnt in trouble for running labcoin, he is in trouble for " knowingly or recklessly" providing "substantial assistance" in soliciting these funds.  You could probably also argue he is liable as controlling person through agency
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/77o

Also, you seem to be missing the point that there is a huge legal difference between a scam, which is illegal everywhere, and simply selling unregistered securities.  If the US government were actually going to go out of their way to prosecute people who did that, it would apply equally to ASICMiner, NEOBEE and the rest - and even more so ActM, since it's US based.

I dont miss that at all. My point is that Labcoin is violating US law even if its not a scam. And yes, that applies to pretty much every security on BTCT, Bitfunder and other exchanges that are readily available in the US and accept US investors' funds. As for Active miner, the shares issued are for the Belize company, not the US based sales company,  but indeed that doesnt make it any more legal.

If the US government wanted too it could try to shut down bitcoin entirely, as well.  They could make bitcoin mining illegal and try to prosecute anyone who does it, since mining technically means certifying transactions as legitimate they could argue that bitcoin mining represents a form of money transfer, which means that you would need to know someone's identity in order to include transactions from them in the block chain.

THis is indeed unclear at the present afaik. More info here:
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-law-what-us-businesses-need-to-know/

But that changes nothing about the legality of issuing unregistered company stock and seems far less likely to provoke action by the SEC or other agencies.

Again, if Labcoin is a scam and they just ran off with all the money then clearly there could be legal consequences.  If not, there there are no more likely to be legal consequences from them then for every other bitcoin stock,

I never said anything else, excpt:

which depends on their local laws.

For crying out loud. How can you be this dense?

In general, all securities offered in the U.S. must be registered with the SEC or must qualify for an exemption from the registration requirements

http://www.sec.gov/answers/regis33.htm

Are you saying these securities are not made available in the US? Does it say that securities related to foreign companies are excempt?

People in the US, and/or doing business in the US need to follow US law.

Yes and those offering securities in the US, regardless of their nationality of the issuer or the nature and object of the security.

 

Secondly, it's just as likely that the government will crack down on bitcoin itself as it is they'll crack down on bitcoin shares. If you don't think you should have any money in something that the government theoretically crack down on then you should immediately sell all your bitcoin, as the government could declare it illegal tomorrow, if they wanted.

THey can also make drinking softdrinks illegal if they want, but its not illegal now. However, selling unregulated securities to unsophisticated investors already is beyond a shadow of doubt.

[Pompobit]

Labcoin is back in the top 25 ... Just. But for how long


25   labcoin   658.49 GH/s

oh well, so "about 1 hour" means "about 2 days with lower hashrate"?

[Ytterbium]

When did Howard Wang solicit funds from anyone?

We have no idea what his role is. If he was merely an employee, I dont see a problem. But since he is the one who started this, Id be surprised if he didnt have a management role in the company.

Do you know what the word "solicit" means?  If we didn't see him publicly solicit funding, then he wasn't publicly soliciting funding. I'm not sure where you came up with the idea that Howard Wang "started all this", he seems to be a random developer hired by Alessia Tatti (or whoever)

As far as TheSwede is concerned, it could be a problem for him, I suppose. But he (obviously) doesn't run labcoin.

Apparently there is no point in arguing with you, because every statement I make and document with links goes in one ear and out the other. Theswede isnt in trouble for running labcoin, he is in trouble for " knowingly or recklessly" providing "substantial assistance" in soliciting these funds.  You could probably also argue he is liable as controlling person through agency
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/77o

I don't understand how you think any of that disagrees with what I said.

Also, you seem to be missing the point that there is a huge legal difference between a scam, which is illegal everywhere, and simply selling unregistered securities.  If the US government were actually going to go out of their way to prosecute people who did that, it would apply equally to ASICMiner, NEOBEE and the rest - and even more so ActM, since it's US based.

I dont miss that at all. My point is that Labcoin is violating US law even if its not a scam. And yes, that applies to pretty much every security on BTCT, Bitfunder and other exchanges that are readily available in the US and accept US investors' funds. As for Active miner, the shares issued are for the Belize company, not the US based sales company,  but indeed that doesnt make it any more legal.

Yes, it applies equally to every fund. It's not exclusive to labcoin or any more of a risk for them then for ASICMiner, NEOBEE and the like, and in turn there's no extra risk in investing in Labcoin over any other bitcoin stock. They could all be shut down tomorrow.

When you "invest" in a bitcoin stock, you have to take that risk.

If the US government wanted too it could try to shut down bitcoin entirely, as well.  They could make bitcoin mining illegal and try to prosecute anyone who does it, since mining technically means certifying transactions as legitimate they could argue that bitcoin mining represents a form of money transfer, which means that you would need to know someone's identity in order to include transactions from them in the block chain.

THis is indeed unclear at the present afaik. More info here:
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-law-what-us-businesses-need-to-know/

But that changes nothing about the legality of issuing unregistered company stock and seems far less likely to provoke action by the SEC or other agencies.

Are you kidding?  The government is going to be a lot more concerned about drug dealers, terrorists, and rouge governments being able to send money anonymously and freely without any controls. Bitcoin routs around anti money-laundering laws and that's much more of a concern for the parts of the government that actually arrest people (i.e. not the SEC)

Again, if Labcoin is a scam and they just ran off with all the money then clearly there could be legal consequences.  If not, there there are no more likely to be legal consequences from them then for every other bitcoin stock,

I never said anything else, excpt:

which depends on their local laws.

For crying out loud. How can you be this dense?

In general, all securities offered in the U.S. must be registered with the SEC or must qualify for an exemption from the registration requirements

http://www.sec.gov/answers/regis33.htm

Are you saying these securities are not made available in the US? Does it say that securities related to foreign companies are excempt?

How were the shares offered "in" the U.S? If the shares are offered overseas then you don't need to comply with US laws, even if Americans are buying them over the internet. If I were to open a brokerage account in Cyprus or Belize or somewhere, I could buy stock in companies that aren't registered in the US with real money. How would that be a problem for the issuer?

Secondly, it's just as likely that the government will crack down on bitcoin itself as it is they'll crack down on bitcoin shares. If you don't think you should have any money in something that the government theoretically crack down on then you should immediately sell all your bitcoin, as the government could declare it illegal tomorrow, if they wanted.

THey can also make drinking softdrinks illegal if they want, but its not illegal now. However, selling unregulated securities to unsophisticated investors already is beyond a shadow of doubt.

There are already laws against money laundering, and against transferring money without a license, etc.  The government wouldn't any new laws to go after bitcoin. They recently put out some guidance saying they weren't planning on doing that, but they can change their mind whenever they want.

While there is certainly a legal risk for people, like Burnside inside the US issuing securities due to US law, again, US law does not apply to people who aren't in the US.

There is also the question of whether or not BTCT.co "securities" were actually legally securities, given the disclaimer.  A security typically means a contract, whereas btct.co shares were not contracts and in fact you had to sign away any legal rights in order to use the exchange. Technically there was no promise of anything at all.

That doesn't mean burnside was wrong to be concerned, but the reason he shut down the exchange seems to be due to concerns, not any government action (that we know of).  Seems unlikely they'd let him keep running it for two weeks if it was.

[Mabsark]

I dont miss that at all. My point is that Labcoin is violating US law even if its not a scam. And yes, that applies to pretty much every security on BTCT, Bitfunder and other exchanges that are readily available in the US and accept US investors' funds. As for Active miner, the shares issued are for the Belize company, not the US based sales company,  but indeed that doesnt make it any more legal.

You are clearly missing the point.

In the US, it's illegal to sell alcohol to people under 21. In most countries, the legal age is 18. If an 18 year old American went on holiday to the UK and bought a pint at a pub, the pub hasn't done anything illegal despite a violation of US law occurring because it's in the UK and abiding by UK law. If anyone could be said to have committed a crime, it would be the 18 year old American.

US laws are irrelevant outside the US. The laws that are relevant are those of the country you are in.

[saveawedge]

We are promising another update very soon.

Thank god for that, I was starting to panic!

[lavalampoon]

People in the US, and/or doing business in the US need to follow US law.

Yes and those offering securities in the US, regardless of their nationality of the issuer or the nature and object of the security.

 

Secondly, it's just as likely that the government will crack down on bitcoin itself as it is they'll crack down on bitcoin shares. If you don't think you should have any money in something that the government theoretically crack down on then you should immediately sell all your bitcoin, as the government could declare it illegal tomorrow, if they wanted.

THey can also make drinking softdrinks illegal if they want, but its not illegal now. However, selling unregulated securities to unsophisticated investors already is beyond a shadow of doubt.

So it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that the government is responsible for defining who is a sophisticated investor? I question if there is a clear definition of what constitutes a security that government assumed the authority to regulate. Video game credits would probably fit their definition. It invites a question of why regulations are not being equally enforced. The consent of the governed authorizes government to apply force to provide for the defense of their rights. Read the third sentence of the Declaration of Independence to understand the rights that people retain and how to address grievances.

Much of government authority comes from defining the game. If you trade USD then you must... If you want to be listed as a security then you must... If you want X then you must Y... Bitcoin is special because it is an entirely new game.

[Zubilica]

Labcoin is back in the top 25 ... Just. But for how long


25   labcoin   658.49 GH/s

Gone already

They better switch to a minor Pool like Bitminter where we can see them hashing.

https://bitminter.com/livestats/big looks clean

[Bitcycle]

Last chance for Cheap Shares ^(TM)

[crumbs]

Newsflash:  Photo of Labcoin's revolutionary new BTCitcoin Miner!!11!

[Duffer1]

Labcoin is back in the top 25 ... Just. But for how long


25   labcoin   658.49 GH/s

Gone already

They better switch to a minor Pool like Bitminter where we can see them hashing.

https://bitminter.com/livestats/big looks clean

We could see their hash regardless of rank if Labcoin would publicize their api key.

[iCEBREAKER]

Let me remind everyone about MF Global, Too Big To Fail, Central Banking (from the Fed to the BIS), TARP, NAFTA, Government Motors, and the rest of the Great Bailout.

I said diehard libertarians.You dont have to be a diehard libertarian to oppose that.  In fact, you will find many people from the opposite extreme of the political spectrum opposing most of the  things you mention at least as vehemently. Ask dennis kucinich what he thinks of Nafta, Too big too fail, IMF, the Fed, TARP. Are we counting kucinich among die hard libertarians now? Obivously not. So the issues you raise arent libertarian issues, most of them are just about common sense.

It's easy here in the present, with the benefit of hindsight, for genuine progressives like DK to see the evils their dreams of regulating the market to perfection inadvertently caused.

But at the time the hyper-regulatory state was being constructed, only the libertarians warned of the dangers of deep capture and told the progressives their path paved with good intentions would lead us nowhere desirable.

[BitThink]

The public LC wallet address still gets 0.05BTC per hour consistently. Shouldn't we see more if the hash rate has increased to more than 600G?