The story of Bold Funding.

[bitrebel]

Bitcoins are not money or currency and could not legally be considered "assets" since "assets" must have determined "value". IMO

Bitcoin is not legal tender, but it is a currency. Also, its an asset with an easily determinable value.

We'll have to disagree on this one. Bitcoins are no more a currency than sea shells. "Value" cannot be determined as it's relative to nothing. It's not tied or pegged to the dollar or any currency, so therefore it carries no determinable "value" for tax or legal purposes.

In other words, if I have a Sand Pail and it's full of sand and sea shells, and the court wants some "value" from me, they are not going to go after the sand and sea shells for seizure. Bitcoins are practically nonexistant in relation to the real physical tangible and LEGAL world.

Mind you Hugolp, i'm talking "legal" terminology. We can all call bitcoins "currency" and agree it's our currency, but whether or not it can be legally defined as a "currency" or that it can have established value in the legal arena is what I am disagreeing with.

[bitrebel]

We'll have to disagree on this one. Bitcoins are no more a currency than sea shells. "Value" cannot be determined as it's relative to nothing. It's not tied or pegged to the dollar or any currency, so therefore it carries no determinable "value" for tax or legal purposes.

By that circular definition only dollars and money pegged to dollars can be currency.

Generally, it would be applied to a government issued and publicly accepted method of payment. If I remember correctly from my past law studies.


....just looked it up in Blacks 4th,

"Coined money and such banknotes or other paper money as are authorized by law and do in fact circulate from hand to hand as the medium of exchange."

[bitrebel]

The most sincere way to look at all this IMO, is that since Bruce is a swindler by nature or has those tendencies, it can also be reasonably assumed he has cause to hide assets. Bitcoin, as admitted by TurboTax is a very good vehicle for Tax Avoidance, which by it's own nature, is not illegal. Only Tax Evasion is. You can structure your life to avoid the necessity to pay a tax, but you cannot legally evade the tax once it has been established. So, it may be reasonable assumed that Bruce got into Bitcoin to avoid this kind of judgement upon his assets.

[wolftaur]

The most sincere way to look at all this IMO, is that since Bruce is a swindler by nature or has those tendencies, it can also be reasonably assumed he has cause to hide assets. Bitcoin, as admitted by TurboTax is a very good vehicle for Tax Avoidance, which by it's own nature, is not illegal. Only Tax Evasion is. You can structure your life to avoid the necessity to pay a tax, but you cannot legally evade the tax once it has been established. So, it may be reasonable assumed that Bruce got into Bitcoin to avoid this kind of judgement upon his assets.

We aren't talking about what Bruce has to tell the IRS. We're talking about what Bruce has to tell the court when they order him to pay up, and what the judge can command Bruce liquidate to repay his victims. Big difference.

And if Bruce has thousands upon thousands of dollars of Bitcoins and is hiding their existence from the court so that he can refuse to comply with a court order then that's heading right back into criminal act territory.

[tasarz]

We'll have to disagree on this one. Bitcoins are no more a currency than sea shells. "Value" cannot be determined as it's relative to nothing. It's not tied or pegged to the dollar or any currency, so therefore it carries no determinable "value" for tax or legal purposes.

This is just 100% wrong.  If I buy 10 mansions and go bankrupt, you can believe that the IRS will assign some 'value' to those mansions and take them.  Likewise if I had a collection of fine art or, in this case, bitcoins.

[bitrebel]

We'll have to disagree on this one. Bitcoins are no more a currency than sea shells. "Value" cannot be determined as it's relative to nothing. It's not tied or pegged to the dollar or any currency, so therefore it carries no determinable "value" for tax or legal purposes.

This is just 100% wrong.  If I buy 10 mansions and go bankrupt, you can believe that the IRS will assign some 'value' to those mansions and take them.  Likewise if I had a collection of fine art or, in this case, bitcoins.

You obviously have zero concept of law or the application of one concept to another that's completely unrelated.

[bitrebel]

The most sincere way to look at all this IMO, is that since Bruce is a swindler by nature or has those tendencies, it can also be reasonably assumed he has cause to hide assets. Bitcoin, as admitted by TurboTax is a very good vehicle for Tax Avoidance, which by it's own nature, is not illegal. Only Tax Evasion is. You can structure your life to avoid the necessity to pay a tax, but you cannot legally evade the tax once it has been established. So, it may be reasonable assumed that Bruce got into Bitcoin to avoid this kind of judgement upon his assets.

We aren't talking about what Bruce has to tell the IRS. We're talking about what Bruce has to tell the court when they order him to pay up, and what the judge can command Bruce liquidate to repay his victims. Big difference.

And if Bruce has thousands upon thousands of dollars of Bitcoins and is hiding their existence from the court so that he can refuse to comply with a court order then that's heading right back into criminal act territory.

Proving he has them, is impossible. He can always say he bluffed. Hiding them is not the same as hiding assets.

[wolftaur]

Proving he has them, is impossible. He can always say he bluffed. Hiding them is not the same as hiding assets.

So you've never heard of a judge sending police officers and specialists to track down and forcibly carry off assets I take it. A judge also isn't going to be terribly to take kindly to the notion that Bruce "bluffed" about how many coins he had while seeking things from the community, like telling people he trusted mybitcoin with THAT MANY COINS while they were sponsoring his show and he was trying to plug them as hard as he could, because then we're back to, um, Bruce is committing fraud and scamming people again, even if all we're talking about is fraudulent advertising.

[bitrebel]

Proving he has them, is impossible. He can always say he bluffed. Hiding them is not the same as hiding assets.

So you've never heard of a judge sending police officers and specialists to track down and forcibly carry off assets I take it. A judge also isn't going to be terribly to take kindly to the notion that Bruce "bluffed" about how many coins he had while seeking things from the community, like telling people he trusted mybitcoin with THAT MANY COINS while they were sponsoring his show and he was trying to plug them as hard as he could, because then we're back to, um, Bruce is committing fraud and scamming people again, even if all we're talking about is fraudulent advertising.

Whatever.....blah blah blah. You're intent on making your point, irregardless of rationality. No judge will care that much about this, and Bruce's imaginary bitcoins, whether he owns them or not, or where they are etc etc. If the courts even deal with the bitcoins issue will be a miracle to see. Are you one of the numerous cops, narcs or piggies that came over here from somethingsmellsawful? You seem to think law enforcement is king. Law enforcement works for the people, and they have no personal authority. They have NOTHING, not even a claim to go on, ever, in any case in the country. They act under "color of law" and the people are so stupid the piggies get away with it. In addition to that, they are corporate actors, not even genuine state police officers.

[wolftaur]

Are you one of the numerous cops, narcs or piggies that came over here from somethingsmellsawful?

Nope. I've been here since Bitcoins were under $2. As far as I can tell, the "Hey, let's slander Bruce with the pedophile label!!" influx is pretty recent. And if you were watching those threads you'd notice I spoke up in Bruce's defense against that multiple times even though I already had a number of legitimate misgivings with his image, none of which had anything to do with his sexuality (either that which he acknowledged or that which people claimed), or for that matter, anything that wasn't clearly documented in his own posts and public statements.

[bitrebel]

Are you one of the numerous cops, narcs or piggies that came over here from somethingsmellsawful?

Nope. I've been here since Bitcoins were under $2. As far as I can tell, the "Hey, let's slander Bruce with the pedophile label!!" influx is pretty recent. And if you were watching those threads you'd notice I spoke up in Bruce's defense against that multiple times even though I already had a number of legitimate misgivings with his image, none of which had anything to do with his sexuality (either that which he acknowledged or that which people claimed), or for that matter, anything that wasn't clearly documented in his own posts and public statements.

Cool, just checking. I tried to push your buttons just to see, and you passed the test nicely. 

[wolftaur]

Cool, just checking. I tried to push your buttons just to see, and you passed the test nicely. 

Heh. I ain't perfect, but I at least try to bear in mind that people have rights whether I like them or not.

[Stalin-chan]

All of the questions asked in this thread seem pretty reasonable. It's only character assassination because Bruce wont respond to any of them, which seems pretty suspicious.

[wolftaur]

All of the questions asked in this thread seem pretty reasonable. It's only character assassination because Bruce wont respond to any of them, which seems pretty suspicious.

It's ten times as suspicious when you remember that Bruce posted this thread locked.

He wanted to be able to make his statement without anyone being able to ask any questions, or post any evidence that contradicted his statement. The only reason this post has grown to multiple pages is because a moderator decided to disagree with Bruce's wish to speak to a silent audience, and unlocked the thread.

[Stalin-chan]

Honestly if the points being brought up were so dismissible then why didn't Bruce just tell us this information to begin with, why did people have to dig and find it for him. A man with so much to hide should hold no position of authority or be a promoter of any kind.

[wolftaur]

Honestly if the points being brought up were so dismissible then why didn't Bruce just tell us this information to begin with, why did people have to dig and find it for him. A man with so much to hide should hold no position of authority or be a promoter of any kind.

Well, I never wanted him to be a promoter. But, hey, can't scam the people if you don't have their attention, right? That's why we get people like this in this sort of position in the first place.

[bitrebel]

Honestly if the points being brought up were so dismissible then why didn't Bruce just tell us this information to begin with, why did people have to dig and find it for him. A man with so much to hide should hold no position of authority or be a promoter of any kind.

That's funny, I was about to post the same thing. I think it's harsh to judge someone for their past actions, unless they are still committing them, unless we are talking about a serious crime. But in this case, I think Bruce is hiding things, and being evasive. He deserves the public lashing he's getting. He gained trust, caused others to trust to their detriment and could possibly be behind the greatest theft in bitcoin history.

[helloworld]

Honestly if the points being brought up were so dismissible then why didn't Bruce just tell us this information to begin with, why did people have to dig and find it for him. A man with so much to hide should hold no position of authority or be a promoter of any kind.

Well, I never wanted him to be a promoter. But, hey, can't scam the people if you don't have their attention, right? That's why we get people like this in this sort of position in the first place.

People 'in this position' don't get voted there though, it's more gradual.

[hashman]

There was a saying in ancient Greece, "E pluribus unum", which means, "Let the buyer beware".

I think you mean "Caveat emptor".  "E pluribus unum" means "from many, one".

Face-palm..   and the language is "latin" as spoken e.g. in the Roman empire. 

[wolftaur]

That's funny, I was about to post the same thing. I think it's harsh to judge someone for their past actions, unless they are still committing them, unless we are talking about a serious crime. But in this case, I think Bruce is hiding things, and being evasive. He deserves the public lashing he's getting. He gained trust, caused others to trust to their detriment and could possibly be behind the greatest theft in bitcoin history.

And remember, he's still committing them. The Cook County case may be "ancient history", 2004, but the proceedings in New York are current.

That and until he compensates everyone he ripped off he hasn't actually come clean. Publicly speaking about having at least 25,000 bitcoins but keeping quiet about the fact that he's not using a bitcent of it to compensate victims even though he was commanded to by a judge is very much a current action and not a past one.