[BitFunder] WTF! BitFunder Restrictions to US Citizens

[jimmothy]

where these sketchy stocks can prosper freely

But see, why would you want sketchy stocks in the first place? This basically devolves into an argument over how to save the Twinkies that were masquerading as real food, made a bunch of people sick, and ended up proving unfeasible for everyone involved.

I like your metaphor so Ill try to explain my reasoning with it. I think that there should be 2 options for people, buy fresh twinkies from a grocery store (that is regulated by FDA) and you can also buy old gross twinkies you found in a back alley if you want to take the risk of it being expired/poisoned. My point is that for centralized exchanges to operate they need to be complying with the regulations in their field. We cant have half-assed grocery stores profiting off the old twinkies that should never have been sold in the first place.

[gogxmagog]

It is also partially restricted to canadian and other users. As they force you to go through weexchange (false volume) they are going to prevent you from doing even this unless you have provided a selection of id documents totalling 100 points, but if you do not posses a drivers license there is NO WAY to get 100 points. I've got credit card (25 points), utility bill (25 points), passport (40 points) but no driver's license. I have epilepsy. Trust me, you DO NOT want me driving on public roads. so this means, due to a medical condition, that is no fault of my own, I am probably unable to use weexchange, and therefore, on nov 1st, totally unable to use bitfunder either.
...

Access for people with disabilities is made possible through the very government regulations we try to avoid.
It is not a right.
Illness, much like poverty and lack of intelligence, hinders your ability to compete in this -- the free market.
Sad but true.
Kindly refrain from calling on the nanny-state to intervene on your behalf to regulate bitcoin entrepreneurs out of existence

they accepted my photo ID, I'm verified now, but your attitude towards people with barriers is still stuck in Nazi Germany circa 1939. I could go get a driver's license, you know. I do not have to disclose my medical condition, and I know epileptics who drive despite the risk, but out of consideration for the rest of the society I live in, and the safety of my fellow citizens I deign not to get behind the wheel, because I never know when a grand mal will come on and I will drive into pedestrians/ on-coming traffic/private properties/pets & animals.

But hey listen, you're obviously a forward thinking guy, how bout I do go get my license and go joyriding around your granny's house or the school where your kids attend. Fuck the rules, eh?

If terrorizing a struggling business into accepting your substandard ID wasn't enough, you now go on to threaten my children and my kindly grandma with your brutish reckless "driving"?

You don't frighten me, buster!  I have dedicated American Patriots guarding my boarders, they'll spot you for the terrorist weapon of mass destruction that you are, and then BAM!  Guantanamo!

Better keep your dangerous self to your God-forsaken backwater foregny, and stay out of my Land of the Free -- we have STANDARDS here.

last couple times I crossed the usa/canada boarder the only dedicated american patriots I saw were obese losers with dead eyes who were so bored that they barely had the energy to wave me through.

but what you say is pretty funny! if you ever want to live where you can express yourself freely, use cryptocurrency or cryptocurrency based securities exchanges without facing the wrath of a quasi-facist "nanny-state" c'mon up to canada. we respect FREEDOM here.

also, if I was actually going to do any of the things I write here... I wouldn't write them here first. The next time you see me...you wont see me. capice?

[jimmothy]

We cant have half-assed grocery stores profiting off the old twinkies that should never have been sold in the first place.

Why not? Why not allow the consumer to decide which twinkie they want to buy? What if someone can't afford a shiny new twinkie, but they are happy to have a stale one?

I strongly object to any government telling me that I can't do something because they believe it is not good for me.

Because the grocery stores know they are doing something illegal by selling bad twinkies its only a matter of time before they get shut down. SEC's standards were put in place to protect the investors and any stock exchange service should comply if operating within its jurisdiction. 

Side note: would it not be possible to create a p2p exchange program?

[jimmothy]

Sec doesn't want businesses parading around as legit companies making a profit selling illegal items and operating in ways that would fuck over its investors. I think its funny that people think just because you use bitcoin as a form of payment the law no longer applies to them.

[crumbs]

It is also partially restricted to canadian and other users. As they force you to go through weexchange (false volume) they are going to prevent you from doing even this unless you have provided a selection of id documents totalling 100 points, but if you do not posses a drivers license there is NO WAY to get 100 points. I've got credit card (25 points), utility bill (25 points), passport (40 points) but no driver's license. I have epilepsy. Trust me, you DO NOT want me driving on public roads. so this means, due to a medical condition, that is no fault of my own, I am probably unable to use weexchange, and therefore, on nov 1st, totally unable to use bitfunder either.
...

Access for people with disabilities is made possible through the very government regulations we try to avoid.
It is not a right.
Illness, much like poverty and lack of intelligence, hinders your ability to compete in this -- the free market.
Sad but true.
Kindly refrain from calling on the nanny-state to intervene on your behalf to regulate bitcoin entrepreneurs out of existence

they accepted my photo ID, I'm verified now, but your attitude towards people with barriers is still stuck in Nazi Germany circa 1939. I could go get a driver's license, you know. I do not have to disclose my medical condition, and I know epileptics who drive despite the risk, but out of consideration for the rest of the society I live in, and the safety of my fellow citizens I deign not to get behind the wheel, because I never know when a grand mal will come on and I will drive into pedestrians/ on-coming traffic/private properties/pets & animals.

But hey listen, you're obviously a forward thinking guy, how bout I do go get my license and go joyriding around your granny's house or the school where your kids attend. Fuck the rules, eh?

If terrorizing a struggling business into accepting your substandard ID wasn't enough, you now go on to threaten my children and my kindly grandma with your brutish reckless "driving"?

You don't frighten me, buster!  I have dedicated American Patriots guarding my boarders, they'll spot you for the terrorist weapon of mass destruction that you are, and then BAM!  Guantanamo!

Better keep your dangerous self to your God-forsaken backwater foregny, and stay out of my Land of the Free -- we have STANDARDS here.

last couple times I crossed the usa/canada boarder the only dedicated american patriots I saw were obese losers with dead eyes who were so bored that they barely had the energy to wave me through.

but what you say is pretty funny! if you ever want to live where you can express yourself freely, use cryptocurrency or cryptocurrency based securities exchanges without facing the wrath of a quasi-facist "nanny-state" c'mon up to canada. we respect FREEDOM here.

also, if I was actually going to do any of the things I write here... I wouldn't write them here first. The next time you see me...you wont see me. capice?

Jacque Shellacque:  You brag about sneaking into my America, hidden in the back of your mule's Deux Chevaux.  I know you weren't driving -- our Brave Boarder Guardsmen would have spotted a sicko like you in an instant, and you said you can't drive due to your so-called "illness."  It is not an illness, it's a lifestyle choice!  Acknowledge this, and stop sneaking into my country to spread your filthy vices!
Now my country will have to check the trunks of every Canadian shitbox trying to cross the border.  Just to keep sickos like you from infecting American Children with your perverted ideas about epilepsy.  
Epilepsy is not "normal" and it is not "natural," read the Bible, you sicko!

*As far as my not seeing you coming?  I probably won't if ur mom won't drive u 2 America.

[crumbs]

Because the grocery stores know they are doing something illegal by selling bad twinkies its only a matter of time before they get shut down. SEC's standards were put in place to protect the investors and any stock exchange service should comply if operating within its jurisdiction.  

Side note: would it not be possible to create a p2p exchange program?

I don't think it should be illegal to buy bad twinkies. I don't think investors should be "protected" from buying stocks that the SEC doesn't approve.
...

I know what you mean -- if we don't speak up for our right to bear Twinkies, they'll take away our rotten beef rights next, and when they come for our salmonella-infested poultry, there'l be no one left to speak up

(Twinkies?)

[SOSLOVE868]

It is absolutely unhappy time because of BTCT and BITFUNDER...... those two exchanges just diminishing the confidence of investors within BTC securities...

[cowandtea]

I believe this is the reason Bitcoin price is stagnant...

[MPOE-PR]

where these sketchy stocks can prosper freely

But see, why would you want sketchy stocks in the first place? This basically devolves into an argument over how to save the Twinkies that were masquerading as real food, made a bunch of people sick, and ended up proving unfeasible for everyone involved.

I like your metaphor so Ill try to explain my reasoning with it. I think that there should be 2 options for people, buy fresh twinkies from a grocery store (that is regulated by FDA) and you can also buy old gross twinkies you found in a back alley if you want to take the risk of it being expired/poisoned. My point is that for centralized exchanges to operate they need to be complying with the regulations in their field. We cant have half-assed grocery stores profiting off the old twinkies that should never have been sold in the first place.

So basically, as far as you're concerned it's either pretend you're investing with shitty non-stocks you're aware are shitty, or else nothing at all (seeing as US Gov't regulated BTC is no longer BTC). This is a good way to go through life being sick (and/or being poor), and a fine way to starve.

That you imagine these are the options reveals the sorry state that newcomers and otherwise uniformed or emotionally clusterfucked parties alike have gotten themselves into.

Allow me to shed some light on the matter. Bullshit non-companies imagining they're "involved in BTC" have been taking advantage of bullshit non-exchanges imagining they're "innovating in BTC finance" even before MPEx was established. Unlike MPEx, those non-exchanges and a fair amount of non-businesses have crumbled. Spectacularly, and with about as much fallout as you'd expect from the implosion of bullshit scaffolding built ever and ever higher around the coins of those who don't know better or simply don't care 'til the money's gone.

I've been here, pointing this out, repeatedly.

Nefario: You are obviously unqualified to be anywhere near a project of the complexity of an exchange, even for play money (which I suspect BTC are, for most of you here, at least judging on behavior records). I will make you precisely one offer to buy the thing from you, so you get to actually make some money for all your effort over the past year, as misguided and mismanaged as it may have been, rather than have to walk away from a worthless wreck (like Zou Thong/Amir&co have with Bitcoinica). If you have half the maturity you should have to be involved in all this you will take this offer seriously, and consider your options carefully. Feel free to make contact via pm or in #bitcoin-otc-eu.

It was said before, it will need (apparently) to be said again: GLBSE is a bad choice for security and other reasons.

We were hearing rumours for months that Pirate has in fact defaulted but the dummies that he had for "investors" were just letting it slide. We were hearing rumous for months that the passthroughs are only a convenient way to allow the scammer to pay some of the "inner circle" interest with fresh money from small timers who will never be repaid and can never do anything about it.

By puncturing the circle of bullshit Bitlane did the community a big favour. The perpetrators of the passthrough scams however have a lot to answer for. And so does the Global Scam Exchange that allowed all this to happen.

Comparing yourself to shit does not make yourself look more attractive. Maybe you want to consider how to compare yourself to your current competitors instead of a failed operation from the past?

There are no current competitors. There's MPEx, and there's various attempts to recreate GLBSE. These compete among themselves for the "most-GLBSE alike" title, and when they don't do that they negotiate to reunite into one single unity of fail, thus actually recreating their model.

Outside of that pretend competition (as you can't really compete when there's no actual difference) there's no such thing as competition going on in BTC finance land: the play exchanges and MPEx couldn't compete if they wanted to, as they serve entirely disjunct markets. The random noob that started this thread for his literary-financial & fiducial new media etc project being a convenient point in case.

I suppose at most you could say the competition is cultural, in the sense of sanity trying to compete with firm conviction. That's hardly any sort of competition either.

Every time a play exchange folds, or it's no longer possible to cover one's ears and pretend their major, gaping flaws aren't flaws, forumites and others who haven't yet realized that actual BTC finance happens on IRC panic in search of some easily recognizable replacement, whether it's another bullshit non-exchange, or whether it's a similarly broken idea riding on the wings of some dev concept.

As you somehow might not expect, though you should, these palliative measures aimed at making everything okay again for bullshit non-companies only ever repeat the cycle.

What the hell happened?

Was GLBSE the biggest ponzi scheme of all?

https://glbse.com/

GLBSE has been closed

I'm sorry to inform all our users that GLBSE is no longer able to continue operating, and has now closed.

Q: What does this mean if I'm an issuer?

We will do everything in our power to make the process of moving off GLBSE as smooth as possible, we are currently working on a simple, safe, and easy to use method that will allow you to continue your relationship with your asset holders

Q:I'm a GLBSE user, what about my assets and my bitcoin?

You will be able to get back your bitcoin, and if you want to reveal your username, email, and a bitcoin address to accept payments with, you can continue your relationship with the issuer of any assets you hold.

We will begin retuning bitcoin once we have recieved all coins from the GLBSE treasurer that manages the GLBSE cash reserves. BitcoinGlobal (GLBSE's partent company) shareholders and board voted for them to be returned immediately, we are awaiting compliance with this order.

Wow. Who saw this coming? Think we will get all of our BTC back?

Somewhat shocked that's it's just shutting down like this.

I don't understand what happens to existing assets? I'm holding some that are not on any other exchanges..?  Fuck what a shit-show.

The solution to all of this is not packaging up "the community"'s collective cluelessness and sending it off to Nanny Gov so that a hand much harder, meaner, and indiscriminate than mine can smack people every time they put money and thoughtless cheering into bullshit.

GPG contracts. Security that isn't based on the limitations of a "slick" website. Actual IPOs from actually planned out, accountable entities. Yes, there's a fee. You're paying for that which works, which in the end is all that's worth paying for. No, I'm not especially nice in that In-N-Out Burger sort of way (though I'm just PR, you don't have to deal with me at all to use the exchange). The lies, the sugar-coating, the beating around the bush, is exactly for cheap food service and has no place in BTC finance. Plenty of people have thrown a fit over these facts, I'm sure plenty of people will continue to do so, and will continue to lose their money. MPEx will be right here.

[jimmothy]

So basically, as far as you're concerned it's either pretend you're investing with shitty non-stocks you're aware are shitty, or else nothing at all (seeing as US Gov't regulated BTC is no longer BTC). This is a good way to go through life being sick (and/or being poor), and a fine way to starve.

That you imagine these are the options reveals the sorry state that newcomers and otherwise uniformed or emotionally clusterfucked parties alike have gotten themselves into.

I think that you should be able to buy with a centralized exchange you know will have legit securities, and a decentralized option that would save you money. You could easily list your security on both the decentralized/centralized exchanges offering both options while knowing that the security has met the regulations set in place to protect investors.

Im not 100% sure I understand what you mean but I think you are saying that it is impossible for bitcoin securities/exchanges to get registered with SEC. And the gov is not regulating BTC in that case they are regulating SECURITIES. They don't give a shit how you pay for your investments, they just want to make sure they comply with the laws that have been in place for 50+ years.

And is it impossible to register with SEC or is it that nobody has even tried because they like to pretend that by saying bitcoin is "virtual currency" they can get away with illegal activities.

[MPOE-PR]

I think that you should be able to buy with a centralized exchange you know will have legit securities, and a decentralized option that would save you money.

Sure, you can use the exchange with the legit securities. It neither needs nor wants governmental interference. This alternative "option" you speak of that can "save you money" will never achieve said goal in the sense that so long as something is a play exchange that hosts play securities, you're no longer in the realm of finance, but of playing pretend. You can represent some pittance you managed to snatch for yourself before some poor guy got left holding the hot potato as "having saved money", but again, this is playing pretend. Taking it seriously and involving it in discussions about the actual exchange silly at best and very, very dangerous for your wallet (and I suppose your overall well-being, etc) at the worst.

You could easily list your security on both the decentralized/centralized exchanges offering both options while knowing that the security has met the regulations set in place to protect investors.

Stuff doesn't really work this way. Have a look at a real IPO, specifically section 3.2 (a). This, by the way, is (part of) what makes a legitimate security; not some scammer "creating buzz" about it, not some earnest but sadly unproficient guy supposing it looks okay, not a few determined but incapable people "voting it in", and not Nanny Gov saying it's okay.

Im not 100% sure I understand what you mean but I think you are saying that it is impossible for bitcoin securities/exchanges to get registered with SEC. And the gov is not regulating BTC in that case they are regulating SECURITIES. They don't give a shit how you pay for your investments, they just want to make sure they comply with the laws that have been in place for 50+ years.

And is it impossible to register with SEC or is it that nobody has even tried because they like to pretend that by saying bitcoin is "virtual currency" they can get away with illegal activities.

I tried to select a specific chunk to quote for you, but you'll have to read the whole thing: The reasons why Bitcoin securities can’t be regulated by the SEC.

[QuiveringGibbage]

http://bitbet.us/bet/554/bitfunder-will-close-before-july-of-2014/

Bet: BitFunder will close before July of 2014 -

The bet resolves as YES if BitFunder discontinues operation (stops allowing signup for new members altogether and/or disables BTC withdrawal either explicitly or as sufficiently reported by at least five community members) before July 1st 2014

QG

[jimmothy]

I think that you should be able to buy with a centralized exchange you know will have legit securities, and a decentralized option that would save you money.

Sure, you can use the exchange with the legit securities. It neither needs nor wants governmental interference. This alternative "option" you speak of that can "save you money" will never achieve said goal in the sense that so long as something is a play exchange that hosts play securities, you're no longer in the realm of finance, but of playing pretend. You can represent some pittance you managed to snatch for yourself before some poor guy got left holding the hot potato as "having saved money", but again, this is playing pretend. Taking it seriously and involving it in discussions about the actual exchange silly at best and very, very dangerous for your wallet (and I suppose your overall well-being, etc) at the worst.

You could easily list your security on both the decentralized/centralized exchanges offering both options while knowing that the security has met the regulations set in place to protect investors.

Stuff doesn't really work this way. Have a look at a real IPO, specifically section 3.2 (a). This, by the way, is (part of) what makes a legitimate security; not some scammer "creating buzz" about it, not some earnest but sadly unproficient guy supposing it looks okay, not a few determined but incapable people "voting it in", and not Nanny Gov saying it's okay.

Im not 100% sure I understand what you mean but I think you are saying that it is impossible for bitcoin securities/exchanges to get registered with SEC. And the gov is not regulating BTC in that case they are regulating SECURITIES. They don't give a shit how you pay for your investments, they just want to make sure they comply with the laws that have been in place for 50+ years.

And is it impossible to register with SEC or is it that nobody has even tried because they like to pretend that by saying bitcoin is "virtual currency" they can get away with illegal activities.

I tried to select a specific chunk to quote for you, but you'll have to read the whole thing: The reasons why Bitcoin securities can’t be regulated by the SEC.

The article you linked said that because bitcoin is virtual it should not be considered money. I think this is a hilarious defense of bitcoin. The gov doesnt care what currency you use to invest in securities. You could use goats or chickens to invest in securities that doesnt make you above the laws in place. Bitcoins sole function is to be a form of currency so why are people pretending its not that.

Is there any reason that an existing stock exchange that already complies with SEC, can not start accepting bitcoins as a form of payment?

Also its not impossible to register with SEC as try bitcoin inc have successfully done so

[MPOE-PR]

The article you linked said that because bitcoin is virtual it should not be considered money.

Nope. Not at all. I imagine the problem here is you're seeking to confirm your notion of what the argument is rather than diligently, freely reading. That latter is absolutely required in order to understand more advanced topics (of which this is certainly one, and developing said understanding may take some time).

[jimmothy]

The article you linked said that because bitcoin is virtual it should not be considered money.

Nope. Not at all. I imagine the problem here is you're seeking to confirm your notion of what the argument is rather than diligently, freely reading. That latter is absolutely required in order to understand more advanced topics (of which this is certainly one, and developing said understanding may take some time).

I read the entire article and found the arguments weak at best. I dont think we are on the same page or at least im not. What is it exactly you are trying to say?

I just want to know why a company like e-trade couldn't begin accepting bitcoin as a payment option legally.

[MPOE-PR]

I read the entire article and found the arguments weak at best.

You can bring an actual argument or else not bring anything; vaguely alluding to what you imagine are weak arguments without identifying them or your reasoning achieves exactly nothing.

I dont think we are on the same page or at least im not. What is it exactly you are trying to say?

Me? What I'm saying is exactly in my posts above you.

I just want to know why a company like e-trade couldn't begin accepting bitcoin as a payment option legally.

This discussion isn't about companies accepting BTC for services rendered.

Im not 100% sure I understand what you mean but I think you are saying that it is impossible for bitcoin securities/exchanges to get registered with SEC.

This is what you said. The complete and seminal discussion of the matter is in MP's article.

[Deprived]

The article you linked said that because bitcoin is virtual it should not be considered money.

Nope. Not at all. I imagine the problem here is you're seeking to confirm your notion of what the argument is rather than diligently, freely reading. That latter is absolutely required in order to understand more advanced topics (of which this is certainly one, and developing said understanding may take some time).

I read the entire article and found the arguments weak at best. I dont think we are on the same page or at least im not. What is it exactly you are trying to say?

I just want to know why a company like e-trade couldn't begin accepting bitcoin as a payment option legally.

The argument isn't that Bitcoin is virtual, rather that it doesn't LEGALLY have a value of the type (monetary/financial) necessary for it be a valid consideration offered by contract for that contract to be considered a security.  Securities have to offer a specific type of consideration - and the core of the argument is that they don't meet that definition.  It increasingly looks like the US authorities are now intent on changing their mind on that - which luckily isn't of too much relevance to those of us in other countries where a different view is taken.

I agree with a lot of the article - but by no means all of it.  Specifically I disagree that contracts where payment is in BTC are contracts without consideration (and hence null and void and unenforcable).  Whilst it's necessary for consideration to be offered to form a contract, such consideration doesn't need to have a monetary value - valid consideration can exist at any time where the parties agree that what is being exchanged has value (that's a gross over-simplification).  Further, for something to be consideration it is only requisite that it must move from the Promisee - it doesn't have to move to the Promisor.  So unless the parties are able to obtain BTC for free (meaning no cost in money OR expenditure of effort) there is a cost to them in fulfilling their part of the contract - that what they then provide (BTC) may have no recognisable (monetary) value doesn't invalidate it as a consideration.  Put another way - receipt of any measurable benefit is NOT a pre-requisite for something to be a consideration : it is sufficient for there to be a cost (not necessarily a financial one) in fulfilling the promise.  In short, the article conflated 'monetary consideration' with 'consideration'.

That line of thought is akin to the "it's all just pretend" theory adopted by BTC-TC and (aside from being wrong) isn't particularly helpful as it's a charter for scammers : by attempting to pretend that a promise to supply someone with BTC is not a consideration.

It may help to consider a simple contract here.  

Consider a scenario where the issuer sells shares for 1 BTC then promises to spend $10 each month on buying BTC and send them to you.

IF BTC are not considered money or currency in your jurisdiction then there is no exchange of monetary value - as neither the 1 BTC you send to the issuer or the smaller amounts of BTC you receive back each month have recognised monetary value.  That it costs the issuer $10 to BUY the BTC he sends you is not relevant - as legally that value vanishes when he purchases the BTC (i.e. before any transmission to you).  You're only promised to be sent BTC - not that they'll be worth $10 (or anything at all) to you.  The article argues that in US law BTC don't meet the criteria for having monetary value (being money) - which unfortunately isn't relevant if the US decide to change the way they interpret things, but is still a valid argument in other jurisdictions.

Where I disagree with the article is over its apparent assertion that there is no consideration in such a contract.  As the purchaser I only need to demonstrate that it cost me time and/or money to purchase the 1 BTC I sent for it to plainly be consideraton.  And the issuer very clearly is offering consideration - as he is committed to spending $10 (regardless of whether or not the BTC are worth anything to me when I receive them).  So at the point at which I send the 1 BTC a bilateral contract is formed.  The same applies if the calculation of payments didn't mention USD - I only put that in to try to also address the issue of how a contract that mentioned USD could still arguably not be a security (subject to the relevant jurisdiction treating BTC as having no monetary value).

[jimmothy]

You can bring an actual argument or else not bring anything; vaguely alluding to what you imagine are weak arguments without identifying them or your reasoning achieves exactly nothing.

Arguments I found weak:
 

I. The Securities and Exchange Comission is governed principally by the Securities Act of 1933, which gives a definition of a security as follows :

1. Investment of Money towards a 2. Common Enterprise which 3. Depends on the Efforts of Others

As far as I'm understanding the argument of the entire article revolves around the fact that bitcoin may not be considered money under the current definition. Not only is bitcoin considered money by a majority of the people who use it, many people exchange bitcoins for USD/other currencies eventually, so using btc is like a proxy. Either way thinking that a definition alone is going to make anything bitcoin related immune to laws is silly and its only a matter of time before the definition is changed.

II. It is our considered opinion that Bitcoin does not constitute either “Money” as discussed in the second reference nor does a purchase of a Bitcoin denominated virtual security such as offered on MPEx constitute “the placing of capital or laying out of money” as discussed in the first reference.

Why does bitcoin not constitute money/capital? It is clear that bitcoins do hold a monetary value or they wouldn't be constantly selling for $100+ USD.

III.3. While it is true that some people spend money or other capital to acquire such in-game currency, it is not true that :

    a) Any authority exists which could issue Bitcoins, promise to issue Bitcoins, or make any representations as to Bitcoins whatsoever ;

    b) Any state, government or organisation issues Bitcoins or could conceivably issue Bitcoins either as legal tender, for the payment of taxable income, as a currency of account or to be used in local or international trade.

Because of these reasons it can not be said that anyone holds any title in either law or equity to any Bitcoin. Since there is no first owner of the Bitcoin that could then pass title as part of a contract, all purported Bitcoin “purchases” are contracts for no consideration and as such legally without merit.

Furthermore, while it is true that Bitcoin may be regarded as an item of value by one or more people, this also is true of the in-game currency of each and every single one game ever released to this date and to be released for the conceivable future. Ruling that indeed Bitcoin constitutes in itself either money or capital in the sense of the Securities Act of 1933 would both retroactively expose all game developers and game players to extensive and burdensome reporting and compliance requirements as well as burden the SEC with an enormous task.

"Bitcoin may be an item of value by one or more people" really?? This article pretends that the sole purpose of bitcoin isn't to store value. And the day that people begin using runescape cash/microsoft points to exchange securities I'm sure that SEC will be on their ass too.

[Deprived]

"Bitcoin may be an item of value by one or more people" really?? This article pretends that the sole purpose of bitcoin isn't to store value. And the day that people begin using runescape cash/microsoft points to exchange securities I'm sure that SEC will be on their ass too.

You should look at Eve online then - there have been securities issued there for years in their currency ISK.  Or second-life for that matter.  Not seen the SEC making a fuss about either.  And both of those can be traded for USD (very openly in the case of second-life currency).

The fact that something CAN be used as money/currency isn't sufficient for it to be legally considered as BEING money or currency.  That's what you're missing.  It doesn't matter what your intention, my intention, Satoshi's intention or MPOE-PR's intention is when we hold/buy/sell/trade BTC.  What matters is how your jurisdiction defines BTC.  In the US that's now tending towards it being treated as being money/currency - in at least some situations.  In other jurisdictions (e.g. the UK) at present it is NOT considered as being a currency or money and we have none of the regulatory limitations that the US are attempting to impose (though, of course, that's always subject to change).

[crumbs]

You can bring an actual argument or else not bring anything; vaguely alluding to what you imagine are weak arguments without identifying them or your reasoning achieves exactly nothing.

Arguments I found weak:
 

I. The Securities and Exchange Comission is governed principally by the Securities Act of 1933, which gives a definition of a security as follows :

1. Investment of Money towards a 2. Common Enterprise which 3. Depends on the Efforts of Others

As far as I'm understanding the argument of the entire article revolves around the fact that bitcoin may not be considered money under the current definition. Not only is bitcoin considered money by a majority of the people who use it, many people exchange bitcoins for USD/other currencies eventually, so using btc is like a proxy. Either way thinking that a definition alone is going to make anything bitcoin related immune to laws is silly and its only a matter of time before the definition is changed.

II. It is our considered opinion that Bitcoin does not constitute either “Money” as discussed in the second reference nor does a purchase of a Bitcoin denominated virtual security such as offered on MPEx constitute “the placing of capital or laying out of money” as discussed in the first reference.

Why does bitcoin not constitute money/capital? It is clear that bitcoins do hold a monetary value or they wouldn't be constantly selling for $100+ USD.

III.3. While it is true that some people spend money or other capital to acquire such in-game currency, it is not true that :

    a) Any authority exists which could issue Bitcoins, promise to issue Bitcoins, or make any representations as to Bitcoins whatsoever ;

    b) Any state, government or organisation issues Bitcoins or could conceivably issue Bitcoins either as legal tender, for the payment of taxable income, as a currency of account or to be used in local or international trade.

Because of these reasons it can not be said that anyone holds any title in either law or equity to any Bitcoin. Since there is no first owner of the Bitcoin that could then pass title as part of a contract, all purported Bitcoin “purchases” are contracts for no consideration and as such legally without merit.

Furthermore, while it is true that Bitcoin may be regarded as an item of value by one or more people, this also is true of the in-game currency of each and every single one game ever released to this date and to be released for the conceivable future. Ruling that indeed Bitcoin constitutes in itself either money or capital in the sense of the Securities Act of 1933 would both retroactively expose all game developers and game players to extensive and burdensome reporting and compliance requirements as well as burden the SEC with an enormous task.

"Bitcoin may be an item of value by one or more people" really?? This article pretends that the sole purpose of bitcoin isn't to store value. And the day that people begin using runescape cash/microsoft points to exchange securities I'm sure that SEC will be on their ass too.

Talking about Securities Act of 1933 again? Oh, ma, do we haveta?
The MPOE Interpretation was meh when it was first written, but now it's simply lulzy.
The Pirateat40 case, Texas judge sez bitcoin's money, summarily dismissing the very same argument raised by Pirate's attorney.

But who the f is that hick judge?  Do his opinions carry weight with modern international financiers, which petty bitcoin scammers imagine themselves to be?

Well, let's say they should carry more weight than those of some guy on the interwebz who may-or-may-not-have passed the bar.