Are bitcoin gambling sites illegal in USA?

[Este Nuno]

Internet gambling is illegal in the US.

Only in some states that have a specific state law saying that gambling is illegal.

As far as I know there is no federal law explicitly outlaw gambling online.

I am pretty sure that there is something that prohibits gambling using interstate communications (the internet)

The FBI ect maintains that it is, but some lawyers argue that it's not exrpessly prohibited. The Wire Act is from 1961 so thre is some grey area here with the internet.

from wikipedia:

"The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled[26] in November 2002 that the Federal Wire Act prohibits electronic transmission of information for sports betting across telecommunications lines but affirmed a lower court ruling[27] that the Wire Act "'in plain language' does not prohibit Internet gambling on a game of chance." But the federal Department of Justice continues, publicly, to take the position that the Wire Act covers all forms of gambling.[28]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_gambling

And the more recent UIGEA law pertains to the transmission of funds and not the act of betting itself.

[1714816020]

1714816020

[1714816020]

1714816020

[1714816020]

1714816020

[LostDutchman]

Internet gambling is illegal in the US.

Only in some states that have a specific state law saying that gambling is illegal.

As far as I know there is no federal law explicitly outlaw gambling online.

I am pretty sure that there is something that prohibits gambling using interstate communications (the internet)

The FBI ect maintains that it is, but some lawyers argue that it's not exrpessly prohibited. The Wire Act is from 1961 so thre is some grey area here with the internet.

from wikipedia:

"The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled[26] in November 2002 that the Federal Wire Act prohibits electronic transmission of information for sports betting across telecommunications lines but affirmed a lower court ruling[27] that the Wire Act "'in plain language' does not prohibit Internet gambling on a game of chance." But the federal Department of Justice continues, publicly, to take the position that the Wire Act covers all forms of gambling.[28]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_gambling

And the more recent UIGEA law pertains to the transmission of funds and not the act of betting itself.

So don;t set up your site in the USA.

DUH!

Use crypto only as your method of making bets and let them stop you if they can.

Would you like to know more?

[Este Nuno]

Internet gambling is illegal in the US.

Only in some states that have a specific state law saying that gambling is illegal.

As far as I know there is no federal law explicitly outlaw gambling online.

I am pretty sure that there is something that prohibits gambling using interstate communications (the internet)

The FBI ect maintains that it is, but some lawyers argue that it's not exrpessly prohibited. The Wire Act is from 1961 so thre is some grey area here with the internet.

from wikipedia:

"The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled[26] in November 2002 that the Federal Wire Act prohibits electronic transmission of information for sports betting across telecommunications lines but affirmed a lower court ruling[27] that the Wire Act "'in plain language' does not prohibit Internet gambling on a game of chance." But the federal Department of Justice continues, publicly, to take the position that the Wire Act covers all forms of gambling.[28]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_gambling

And the more recent UIGEA law pertains to the transmission of funds and not the act of betting itself.

So don;t set up your site in the USA.

DUH!

Use crypto only as your method of making bets and let them stop you if they can.

Would you like to know more?

I don't have a site and I have no plans to open one but if I were to do so I probably would incorporate crypto in to it.

I still wouldn't host it in the US though.

[StockBet.com]

Are bitcoin gambling sites illegal in USA?

(sub-question: Does it make a difference where they're hosted, ie. if they're hosted outside USA?)

Lastly, If an online game involving money and payouts requires skill more than luck, is it considered gambling? And is it illegal?

To USA everything that doesnt involve giving the a part of the cake is illegal, or if its not, they will make it illegal.
So much about your "freedom"

Correct.

According to the Boston University Law Review, U.S. regulations pertaining to online gambling are about how much money the government can make or lose and blocking competition.  You, the consumer, are oppressed, as you have to pay higher prices (higher vigs and rake) and have less choices, when you have to buy from monopolies and oligopolies.

You can get full explanation at http://stockbet.com/#/support/gambling

This is not necessarily true. If a casio can reach an economy of scale then they can charge less from consumers in the form of lower house take.

I'm not sure I understand your point.

That's like saying that if Ford can reach an economy of scale, then the car prices will be low for the consumer and the variety and choices of cars will be enough.  Therefore, there is no need for more competitive car makers, such as Hyundai, to lower price even more for the consumer, and no need for BMW to provide different types of cars.  Is this what you're saying?

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

Are bitcoin gambling sites illegal in USA?

(sub-question: Does it make a difference where they're hosted, ie. if they're hosted outside USA?)

Lastly, If an online game involving money and payouts requires skill more than luck, is it considered gambling? And is it illegal?

To USA everything that doesnt involve giving the a part of the cake is illegal, or if its not, they will make it illegal.
So much about your "freedom"

Correct.

According to the Boston University Law Review, U.S. regulations pertaining to online gambling are about how much money the government can make or lose and blocking competition.  You, the consumer, are oppressed, as you have to pay higher prices (higher vigs and rake) and have less choices, when you have to buy from monopolies and oligopolies.

You can get full explanation at http://stockbet.com/#/support/gambling

This is not necessarily true. If a casio can reach an economy of scale then they can charge less from consumers in the form of lower house take.

I'm not sure I understand your point.

That's like saying that if Ford can reach an economy of scale, then the car prices will be low for the consumer and the variety and choices of cars will be enough.  Therefore, there is no need for more competitive car makers, such as Hyundai, to lower price even more for the consumer, and no need for BMW to provide different types of cars.  Is this what you're saying?

I am saying that a healthy amount of competition is good.

In places that allow gambling there are a good number of casino operators that compete with each-other.

Your previous post said that consumers are forced to buy from oligopolies that have a lower house take. My point is that by having a concentrated market a casino market can lower their average expenses and that competition is great enough to pass this along to the consumer. 

Looking at your analogy, car makers do not primarily compete on price, they compete mainly on quality.

[Harley997]

Internet gambling is illegal in the US.

Only in some states that have a specific state law saying that gambling is illegal.

As far as I know there is no federal law explicitly outlaw gambling online.

I am pretty sure that there is something that prohibits gambling using interstate communications (the internet)

The FBI ect maintains that it is, but some lawyers argue that it's not exrpessly prohibited. The Wire Act is from 1961 so thre is some grey area here with the internet.

from wikipedia:

"The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled[26] in November 2002 that the Federal Wire Act prohibits electronic transmission of information for sports betting across telecommunications lines but affirmed a lower court ruling[27] that the Wire Act "'in plain language' does not prohibit Internet gambling on a game of chance." But the federal Department of Justice continues, publicly, to take the position that the Wire Act covers all forms of gambling.[28]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_gambling

And the more recent UIGEA law pertains to the transmission of funds and not the act of betting itself.

The appellate courts are often reversed. There was an article the other day in the WSJ that talked about how one circuit had 10 of 11 cases overturned in the last session by the supreme court.

Until the supreme court makes a ruling on the issue it is extremely risky to try to operate any kind of gambling operation on the internet in the US. The risks are simply not worth the rewards.

[StockBet.com]

Are bitcoin gambling sites illegal in USA?

(sub-question: Does it make a difference where they're hosted, ie. if they're hosted outside USA?)

Lastly, If an online game involving money and payouts requires skill more than luck, is it considered gambling? And is it illegal?

To USA everything that doesnt involve giving the a part of the cake is illegal, or if its not, they will make it illegal.
So much about your "freedom"

Correct.

According to the Boston University Law Review, U.S. regulations pertaining to online gambling are about how much money the government can make or lose and blocking competition.  You, the consumer, are oppressed, as you have to pay higher prices (higher vigs and rake) and have less choices, when you have to buy from monopolies and oligopolies.

You can get full explanation at http://stockbet.com/#/support/gambling

This is not necessarily true. If a casio can reach an economy of scale then they can charge less from consumers in the form of lower house take.

I'm not sure I understand your point.

That's like saying that if Ford can reach an economy of scale, then the car prices will be low for the consumer and the variety and choices of cars will be enough.  Therefore, there is no need for more competitive car makers, such as Hyundai, to lower price even more for the consumer, and no need for BMW to provide different types of cars.  Is this what you're saying?

I am saying that a healthy amount of competition is good.

In places that allow gambling there are a good number of casino operators that compete with each-other.

Your previous post said that consumers are forced to buy from oligopolies that have a lower house take. My point is that by having a concentrated market a casino market can lower their average expenses and that competition is great enough to pass this along to the consumer.  

Looking at your analogy, car makers do not primarily compete on price, they compete mainly on quality.

The internet has provided serious competition to land-based businesses, such as newspapers, Barnes and Noble, video rentals, entertainment, etc.  The government makes tons of money off of land-based casinos, but far less from online operators.  According to Boston University Law review, this is why the government tries to block online gambling.  

The rich usually shapes the laws.  Sheldon Adelson, 5th richest American and CEO of Las Vegas Sands, has hired a team of lobbyists to ban online gambling.  You might have heard some of his puppets on the media bashing online gambling.  The benefit of doing this, is it blocks off competition from his land-based casinos.

Do you agree with the government and Adelson?  Do you think the consumer is sufficiently served by land-based casinos and don't need additional choices (quality based or not) via the internet?  Do you think the government should be allowed to arbitrarily decide which industries have sufficient competition and therefore block competitors from entering?

Retailers compete on price.  There were already millions of highly competitive retailers, with thousands of areas of highly concentrated retailers.  Their prices and margins have always been lower than most industries.  Should the government limit the number of competitors allowed to go into retail?  Should the government have banned Amazon and eBay?

What about lotteries?  Are you in favor of monopolies?

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

Are bitcoin gambling sites illegal in USA?

(sub-question: Does it make a difference where they're hosted, ie. if they're hosted outside USA?)

Lastly, If an online game involving money and payouts requires skill more than luck, is it considered gambling? And is it illegal?

To USA everything that doesnt involve giving the a part of the cake is illegal, or if its not, they will make it illegal.
So much about your "freedom"

Correct.

According to the Boston University Law Review, U.S. regulations pertaining to online gambling are about how much money the government can make or lose and blocking competition.  You, the consumer, are oppressed, as you have to pay higher prices (higher vigs and rake) and have less choices, when you have to buy from monopolies and oligopolies.

You can get full explanation at http://stockbet.com/#/support/gambling

This is not necessarily true. If a casio can reach an economy of scale then they can charge less from consumers in the form of lower house take.

I'm not sure I understand your point.

That's like saying that if Ford can reach an economy of scale, then the car prices will be low for the consumer and the variety and choices of cars will be enough.  Therefore, there is no need for more competitive car makers, such as Hyundai, to lower price even more for the consumer, and no need for BMW to provide different types of cars.  Is this what you're saying?

I am saying that a healthy amount of competition is good.

In places that allow gambling there are a good number of casino operators that compete with each-other.

Your previous post said that consumers are forced to buy from oligopolies that have a lower house take. My point is that by having a concentrated market a casino market can lower their average expenses and that competition is great enough to pass this along to the consumer.  

Looking at your analogy, car makers do not primarily compete on price, they compete mainly on quality.

The internet has provided serious competition to land-based businesses, such as newspapers, Barnes and Noble, video rentals, entertainment, etc.  The government makes tons of money off of land-based casinos, but far less from online operators.  According to Boston University Law review, this is why the government tries to block online gambling.  

The rich usually shapes the laws.  Sheldon Adelson, 5th richest American and CEO of Las Vegas Sands, has hired a team of lobbyists to ban online gambling.  You might have heard some of his puppets on the media bashing online gambling.  The benefit of doing this, is it blocks off competition from his land-based casinos.

Do you agree with the government and Adelson?  Do you think the consumer is sufficiently served by land-based casinos and don't need additional choices (quality based or not) via the internet?  Do you think the government should be allowed to arbitrarily decide which industries have sufficient competition and therefore block competitors from entering?

Retailers compete on price.  There were already millions of highly competitive retailers, with thousands of areas of highly concentrated retailers.  Their prices and margins have always been lower than most industries.  Should the government limit the number of competitors allowed to go into retail?  Should the government have banned Amazon and eBay?

What about lotteries?  Are you in favor of monopolies?

I think that the reason the government has attempted to limit/ban internet casinos is because it is very hard to identify and stop people who are addicted to gambling.

In a land based casino you are watched a tracked fairly closely. If you lose your entire bankroll several times while visiting a casino they may wish to not allow you to gamble there anymore.

I am not sure, but in theory casinos could share this kind of data with eachtoher.

On the other hand it is much less difficult to hide your identity when you have a gambling problem. A person could easily lose much more then they can afford to lose.

I understand that this is essentially protecting you from your self, but it does serve some kind of purpose.

[StockBet.com]

I think that the reason the government has attempted to limit/ban internet casinos is because it is very hard to identify and stop people who are addicted to gambling.

In a land based casino you are watched a tracked fairly closely. If you lose your entire bankroll several times while visiting a casino they may wish to not allow you to gamble there anymore.

I am not sure, but in theory casinos could share this kind of data with eachtoher.

On the other hand it is much less difficult to hide your identity when you have a gambling problem. A person could easily lose much more then they can afford to lose.

I understand that this is essentially protecting you from your self, but it does serve some kind of purpose.

Not according to the Boston University Law Review paper:  http://stockbet.com/#/support/gambling  Did you read it?

Here are only some excerpts:

"...gambling and investing are identical activities of wagering...both risk-taking activities have been present in the American culture for all of its history. At some point over 100 years ago, public attitudes of the two types of speculation diverged, with investing being labeled as socially desirable and therefore supported by law, and gambling being labeled as socially undesirable and therefore prohibited by law. This divergence was based not on any logical differences in the activities, but instead on the classes of people that participated in these activities and who profited from them. Stock brokers, stock exchanges, and their wealthy clients benefited from this legal distinction; working class gamblers and bookmakers did not."

"...federal government should prohibit, regulate, leave alone, or encourage speculative [gambling] activities based on the utility of the enterprise and the corresponding social cost of that activity, not on whether the lure of the activity can be harnessed for government gain."

"Although morality myths prevail in anti-gambling rhetoric, the abundance of legalized gambling activity in almost all states weakens the authority of those myths as governmental policy."

"...government's incongruous position with respect to online investing, in which its stated concerns for reckless retail investors are quite muted, and online gambling, in which its stated concerns for reckless gamblers are passionate and inconsistent with current policy."

Way more people can lose WAY MORE to stocks and houses than they do to online gambling.  If the government is truly concerned about problem gambling, they should ban stocks and investment properties.  According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's article: "Flip This House": Investor Speculation and the Housing Bubble: "At the peak of the boom in 2006, over a third of all U.S. home purchase lending was made to people who already owned at least one house."

Millions of Americans lost their life savings to houses or more as many of them still have negative net worth.

Here are more excerpts:

"...government's stance against Internet gambling is misguided, its arguments for prohibition are pretextual, and its myopia on this topic is damaging its credibility in the international arena."

"Any attempt to substantively distinguish all types of gambling (from slot machines to poker to sports betting) from all types of investing (from long term ownership to day trading to purchasing derivatives) is illusory."

"...gambling and investing are identical activities of wagering...both risk-taking activities have been present in the American culture for all of its history. At some point over 100 years ago, public attitudes of the two types of speculation diverged, with investing being labeled as socially desirable and therefore supported by law, and gambling being labeled as socially undesirable and therefore prohibited by law. This divergence was based not on any logical differences in the activities, but instead on the classes of people that participated in these activities and who profited from them. Stock brokers, stock exchanges, and their wealthy clients benefited from this legal distinction; working class gamblers and bookmakers did not.

The decision to prohibit an activity should be based on a sound analysis of its costs and benefits, including whether any important freedoms are associated with that activity. Similar activities should be regulated similarly, without regard to traditional labels, pretextual and inconsistent morality arguments, or discriminatory categorizations based on class."

The lower class is discriminated against and have less freedom. Democracy is a myth. Free open markets is a myth. The rich and powerful in the one percent shapes the laws.

Here are more excerpts:

"Although...governments have allowed many types of gambling in the past thirty years, the recent backlash against Internet gambling demonstrates that this liberalization did not reflect a new commitment to regulating gambling similarly to other...identical activities. Instead, gambling liberalization reflects a commitment to legalize gambling that is financially lucrative to state and federal governments. Internet gambling is not profitable to these regulators, and so it has not been legalized. Moreover, to argue that online gambling should not be permitted, regulators have renewed moralistic arguments without acknowledging that these arguments apply equally against the traditional gambling activities that they have voted to legalize.

Notably, although online investing has the same potential for negative externalities as online gambling, online investing has been accepted and even embraced as the newest manner for investing, whether rationally or irrationally, in the capital markets. Predicated upon the notion that online activities should not be regulated differently than physical activities merely because they are performed on the Internet, the SEC has chosen not to restrict online investing. Analogously, the federal government should allow states to regulate online gambling in the same way that those states choose to regulate similar physical gambling activities."

Furthermore, the international community has essentially called the US government hypocritical:

E.U. Online Gambling Operators File Complaint Against U.S. for Discriminatory Practices:

"After the W.T.O. ruled that the U.S. had violated trade rules in barring Antiguan online gaming operators from the U.S. market, the U.S. withdrew its W.T.O. obligations with regard to free trade in the gambling area. Earlier this week, the European Union and several other countries, including Japan, Canada, and Australia, agreed to accept compensation from the U.S. for the withdrawal of market access." "It is time for the U.S. to end its hypocritical practices that discriminate against foreign online gambling operators, while allowing U.S. gambling operators to accept bets for certain forms of gambling.""

EU Commission concludes investigation on US internet gambling laws:

"…US laws on remote gambling and their enforcement against EU companies constitute an obstacle to trade that is inconsistent with WTO rules."

"EU...: "It is for the US to decide how best to regulate Internet gambling in its market, but this must be done in a way that fully respects WTO obligations. I am hopeful that we can find a swift, negotiated solution to this issue.""

EU tells the US to allow online gambling:

"EU says it might seek compensation from the World Trade Organisation"

 Antigua demands trade sanctions [against U.S.]:

"Antigua has asked the WTO to impose sanctions on the United States for ignoring a ruling that it has breached trade rules by effectively banning online gambling."

"The government of the island nation said it was seeking compensation from the World Trade organisation worth US$3.4 billion a year."

[Kprawn]

If they go without legislation, who would protect the gamblers?

If they pay no taxes, what government will allow them? 

The fact that you internet based, and still a citizen of a specific country, do not exempt you from their laws.

I figure, pay the damn tax and they will leave you alone. And protect your gamblers, from themselves, or they will become the governments problem, and a tax burden to you.

When these people loose all their money, they go onto grants, you have to pay. Or they end up in jails, where you have to pay again.

Just the right thing to do, i guess.

[StockBet.com]

If they go without legislation, who would protect the gamblers?

If they pay no taxes, what government will allow them?  

The fact that you internet based, and still a citizen of a specific country, do not exempt you from their laws.

I figure, pay the damn tax and they will leave you alone. And protect your gamblers, from themselves, or they will become the governments problem, and a tax burden to you.

When these people loose all their money, they go onto grants, you have to pay. Or they end up in jails, where you have to pay again.

Just the right thing to do, i guess.

Who is your post directed to?

If it's directed to me, I'm not sure if I understand the point you're trying to make.  

Did you read the previous comments?  Did you read http://stockbet.com/#/support/gambling  ?

Nobody is talking about going without legislation or without taxation.  Who is arguing that online operators should pay no taxes?

There is already lots of laws to protect consumers.  If Amazon, eBay or Microsoft cheats or defrauds you, there are laws to protect you.  Who is arguing that online gambling operators should be exempt from these laws?

Many gambling online operators try to protect their users from themselves.  However, TD Ameritrade, eTrade, Charles Schwab or Re/Max do not.  The Boston University Law Review explains in detail that investing is "identical" to gambling and MILLIONS lost way more to stocks and houses than to any online gambling operator.  Comparison is not even close.  Everyone knows one or more people who lost their life savings to houses, but few can say they know people who lost that much to an online operator.  I know two people who lost their life savings to investment properties, and are starting from scratch in their 50's.  I know a third who owns three houses.  Two of them are underwater.  Why doesn't the government force stock brokerages and real estate brokers to protect their users from themselves?  Why don't we ban stocks and investment properties?

Wall Street firms also lost BILLIONS by betting on the housing bubble and have become a government problem and tax burden.  How many online gamblers do you know who have lost this much?  Why don't we ban all Wall Street firms?

Currently there are millions of day traders losing money as we type.  Why don't we ban day trading?

If problem gamblers end up in jail, that's better than the numerous Wall Street executives and professionals who gambled big, lost big, lost other people's money in bets, defrauded and did not go to jail.  Watch the documentary called "Too Big to Jail".

Yes, there are problem gamblers, just like there are problem online investors.  However, you've bought into the government spin that online gambling laws are mainly there to prevent problem gamblers or to protect consumers.  They're not.  They're there to block competition.  Read http://stockbet.com/#/support/gambling.  Remember, the government brainwashed 70% of Americans into believing that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11.

The laws that we are talking about is banning an industry sector.  Let me give you a hypothetical analogy, though not perfect.  Let's say the UK has a lot of land-based book stores but the UK doesn't have a strong online book seller.  So, it bans online book sellers such as Amazon and gives some bogus reason for doing so, such as "we must protect British consumers from all of those sex related books that will pollute our culture".  The real reason for the ban is to protect their land-based businesses.  Read http://stockbet.com/#/support/gambling

[acs267]

It depends more on the state you're in, then the U.S itself. Some states have taken actions, but in states were it's lesser known i.e middle of the Southern region, it's like 'meh'.

[LostDutchman]

It depends more on the state you're in, then the U.S itself. Some states have taken actions, but in states were it's lesser known i.e middle of the Southern region, it's like 'meh'.

US federal law will still apply but there are ways around it.

Would you like to know more?

[beetcoin]

as long as sheldon adelson is around, it will probably be very illegal to gamble online. instead, he wants you to gamble at his casinos, so he can make more money off of it. http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml