Interacting with fiat institutions [such as the SEC], a guide

[MPOE-PR]

Quoth MP:

Bitcoin is a sovereign. Accepting this matter of fact is a sine qua non prerequisite for playing. No exceptions.

[1715211586]

1715211586

[1715211586]

1715211586

[1715211586]

1715211586

[1715211586]

1715211586

[runam0k]

Great, so SatoshiDICE, its shareholders, MPEx and Erik Voorhees are all under investigation by the SEC.

Look forward to seeing how long you can hold them off.

[khersonus]

This is actually quite awesome.

If MP can fend them off, it'll be a huge deal for bitcoin.

[QuestionAuthority]

Well, well Erik. I had you pegged as a profiteer, crook and a runner long ago but just didn't know who you were running from. Now I know. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=82866.msg5740237#msg5740237

Don't drop the soap sweetie.



From Reddit: SatoshiDice Announcement!

[–]CBHash -2 points 10 months ago

This is more like an "oops I didn't know what the law was" rush to save my ass response than a real effort to be compliant. Do you mean you "just" sought the advice of council after running one of the most heavily regulated business types on the planet for a year? Yeah, tell it to the judge Bugsy Siegel!

permalink
save
edit
delete

[–]evoorhees 5 points 10 months ago

Actually I've been consulting with three lawyers since early December, but thanks for being a snarky asshole.

permalink
save
parent
give gold

[–]CBHash -2 points 10 months ago*

Yeah well you didn't open in December! So what tipped you off that you might want to consult with a legal representative? By the way most professionals get legal advise before they open an international business, not after. And calling me an asshole won't keep you safe but it might make others realize that you are nothing but a profiteer spamming the blockchain.

[jimmothy]

Quoth MP:

Bitcoin is a sovereign. Accepting this matter of fact is a sine qua non prerequisite for playing. No exceptions.

Title should be changed to cringe-worthy interaction with financial institutions.

Its about time mpex gets slammed by the SEC.

[Bitcoinpro]

Quoth MP:

Bitcoin is a sovereign. Accepting this matter of fact is a sine qua non prerequisite for playing. No exceptions.

straight out of my playbook, though my institution is in charge, maybe one day it will pass on to individuals

but that will be well after banks are gone

[cryptoanarchist]

Quoth MP:

Bitcoin is a sovereign. Accepting this matter of fact is a sine qua non prerequisite for playing. No exceptions.

Title should be changed to cringe-worthy interaction with financial institutions.

Its about time mpex gets slammed by the SEC.

Wow...what a dick thing to say. Welcome to my personal ignore-land. The SEC hardly seems to be "slamming" them. Looks more like they got told to fuck off if this was indeed the actual exchange of email.

[jimmothy]

Quoth MP:

Bitcoin is a sovereign. Accepting this matter of fact is a sine qua non prerequisite for playing. No exceptions.

Title should be changed to cringe-worthy interaction with financial institutions.

Its about time mpex gets slammed by the SEC.

Wow...what a dick thing to say. Welcome to my personal ignore-land. The SEC hardly seems to be "slamming" them. Looks more like they got told to fuck off if this was indeed the actual exchange of email.

Care to elaborate as to how many times telling the SEC to "fuck off" worked out for the people being investigated?

Fact is mpex is a highly illegal unregistered exchange selling unregistered securities.

Fact is mpex is a pyramid scheme (recruiting someone to pay 30btc registration fee earns you 10btc)

And now that there is no trading of options/futures/stocks other than mpex own stock which profits are entirely derived from recruitment of new investors makes it literally a ponzi.

[MarketNeutral]

What a fascinating exchange of emails. Seriously. I think Mircea Popescu handled it—on many levels—perfectly.

[seriouscoin]

What a fascinating exchange of emails. Seriously. I think Mircea Popescu handled it—on many levels—perfectly.

LOL i would love to take her out and ..... fck her brain off. What a bitch!
 

[MarketNeutral]

What a fascinating exchange of emails. Seriously. I think Mircea Popescu handled it—on many levels—perfectly.

LOL i would love to take her out and ..... fck her brain off. What a bitch!
 

Calm down. Maybe try 'no fap or 'vipassana meditation.'

Or google image search.

[AnonyMint]

Quoth MP:

Bitcoin is a sovereign. Accepting this matter of fact is a sine qua non prerequisite for playing. No exceptions.

Please tell me why the next G20 meeting can't address this email exchange as a serious threat to their collective authority and resolve to make necessary decrees from the EU to provide the necessary legal authority to prosecute MPOE.

Also MPOE you are taking a huge personal risk here. You better not have the slightest mistake as they might find it easier to take you down with a trumped up charge.

If all else fails, a fiery car accident.

I admire people with balls but combined with some basic common sense. It does me no good to associate with people who are so careless so as to actively seek their own destruction.

You seem to feel very indignant about this and have the sort of Paul Revere attitude of "give me liberty or give me death".

I just think there are much smarter ways of fighting than out in the open. The quality of ones weapons and strategy determines if they are the victor, not the quality of resolve alone.

The Apaches were never defeated because they didn't fight in the open:

http://www.starfishandspider.com/preview/02.html

I think you would have been much better served to have replied that you need to be legally indemnified before releasing private data. That is all you needed to say. You talk too much. Although you are articulate, you are clearly not an attorney and you should hire one immediately and STFU.

Note I was banned from tortilla's new forum cryptocrypt.org for essentially stating the prior paragraph.

Edit: essentially you are doing political grandstanding. You can't beat society at its own game. Politics is not the successful strategy.

[electerium]

vorhees never actually sold SD.

if he did, the site would still be running.


he sold it to cover his ass because he was making a boatload of USD and that he was running something that was illegal.

[MPOE-PR]

Please tell me why the next G20 meeting can't address this email exchange as a serious threat to their collective authority and resolve to make necessary decrees from the EU to provide the necessary legal authority to prosecute MPOE.

Also MPOE you are taking a huge personal risk here. You better not have the slightest mistake as they might find it easier to take you down with a trumped up charge.

If all else fails, a fiery car accident.

I admire people with balls but combined with some basic common sense. It does me no good to associate with people who are so careless so as to actively seek their own destruction.

You seem to feel very indignant about this and have the sort of Paul Revere attitude of "give me liberty or give me death".

I just think there are much smarter ways of fighting than out in the open. The quality of ones weapons and strategy determines if they are the victor, not the quality of resolve alone.

The Apaches were never defeated because they didn't fight in the open:

http://www.starfishandspider.com/preview/02.html

I think you would have been much better served to have replied that you need to be legally indemnified before releasing private data. That is all you needed to say. You talk too much. Although you are articulate, you are clearly not an attorney and you should hire one immediately and STFU.

Note I was banned from tortilla's new forum cryptocrypt.org for essentially stating the prior paragraph.

Edit: essentially you are doing political grandstanding. You can't beat society at its own game. Politics is not the successful strategy.

Dude, you're all over the place. Apaches, G20, fiery car accidents, you sound like a B movie. Which, incidentally, is why all the portentous Internet typing you do fails to matter in any sense.

Anyway, instructive contrast between the 2011 accounts and the last week accounts this thread displays.

[MarketNeutral]

Classic 'cui bono?'

The SEC ostensibly protects against this or that financial threat—and I'm sure they actually believe and mean well per their directives and directors—yet in practice their results speak for themselves, and they don't speak of virtue. I would never dismiss their good work, but to dismiss the vast majority of their work is folly. It doesn't take a 'rocket surgeon' to observe their intentions. They've well mastered the master/slave dichotomy, and it seems they're also mastering hubris.

[MPOE-PR]

MPOE-PR you are (your paradigm or modus operandi is) a dinosaur so of course you would view information about your imminent demise as noise.

I say this not as a casual observer, rather an active implementer.

MP's back yard is full of you idiots. Here:

[17:55:38] shareholder2 you don’t stand a chance against mpex
[17:55:41] shareholder3_ makes sense
[17:55:44] shareholder2 with its low overhead
[17:56:01] da2ce796 shareholder2 we will be competing in a completely differnt market to mpex
[17:56:04] shareholder2 IF it is even possible to do legally
[17:56:07] shareholder4 shareholder2: actually it’a dofferent target
[17:56:19] shareholder4 if it’s not wishful thinking
[17:56:20] da2ce796 as in, mpex will stop being our compittion.
[17:56:26] shareholder1 mpex will be classified as money launderers and terrorists

[Nagle]

The SEC is doing what it's supposed to be doing - investigating stock trading of unregistered investments.

MPEx, "The Bitcoin Securities Exchange" is the problem. It doesn't matter what the stocks are denominated in. They're still investments. People have tried to get around this before. One scheme paid off in oranges. It was still a security.

Remember GBLSE? Any questions?

[samson]

The SEC is doing what it's supposed to be doing - investigating stock trading of unregistered investments.

MPEx, "The Bitcoin Securities Exchange" is the problem. It doesn't matter what the stocks are denominated in. They're still investments. People have tried to get around this before. One scheme paid off in oranges. It was still a security.

Remember GBLSE? Any questions?

So are the 'SEC' in charge of all foreign economies now ?

[jimmothy]

The SEC is doing what it's supposed to be doing - investigating stock trading of unregistered investments.

MPEx, "The Bitcoin Securities Exchange" is the problem. It doesn't matter what the stocks are denominated in. They're still investments. People have tried to get around this before. One scheme paid off in oranges. It was still a security.

Remember GBLSE? Any questions?

So are the 'SEC' are in charge of all foreign economies now ?

Only the ones found here:

http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/oia/oia_cooparrangements.shtml

Don't forget romanian law also requires registration of all securities/exchanges.

[samson]

The SEC is doing what it's supposed to be doing - investigating stock trading of unregistered investments.

MPEx, "The Bitcoin Securities Exchange" is the problem. It doesn't matter what the stocks are denominated in. They're still investments. People have tried to get around this before. One scheme paid off in oranges. It was still a security.

Remember GBLSE? Any questions?

So are the 'SEC' are in charge of all foreign economies now ?

Only the ones found here:

http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/oia/oia_cooparrangements.shtml

Don't forget romanian law also requires registration of all securities/exchanges.

Interesting, there's a whole load of countries not on that list, one of which I live in.

[franky1]

well the emails and the PDF were just voluntary information requests,
not subpoena's or a court order to abide by a subpoena. so i guess until SEC spends some time to get a subpoena to get information properly, this drama will continue for a long while, where so far ignoring information requests is allowed.

and even then when they have the subpoena. you can decline to submit information as you are not Mr Vorheez, you cannot confirm any information about mr vorheez as being accurate, thus you dont want to purger yourself by providing any information that may not be true.

any information about MR vorheez has to be confirmed by Mr vorheez as being accurate and correct, after all anyone can hack a website and change data.

or mr voheez could have sold the service.. to himself(using a different pseudonym) for a variety of reasons. so if any little detail is incorrect. it better to hve Mr vorheez receive the subpoena and then request the information. and mr vorheez verify the information before sending it to SEC.

... speak to a lawyer about this technique ...

[snarlpill]

This sucks for you guys and all of us. Personally, I feel like because the SEC is onto them, that it will become a big story with a sensational Bitcoin-fear mongering headline here in the US mainstream media. I feel like this would lead to trying to get the majority of the public Against BTC and trying to pass more restrictions on it in the U.S.

[Nagle]

This has little to do with Bitcoin. It's just ordinary stuff that's illegal, whether you pay in dollars, Bitcoins, gold, or cabbages.

[Beliathon]

The SEC is doing what it's supposed to be doing - investigating stock trading of unregistered investments.

MPEx, "The Bitcoin Securities Exchange" is the problem. It doesn't matter what the stocks are denominated in. They're still investments. People have tried to get around this before. One scheme paid off in oranges. It was still a security.

Remember GBLSE? Any questions?

So are the 'SEC' in charge of all foreign economies now ?

QFT!!! They're way out of their jurisdiction.

People simply fail to grasp that Bitcoin - and cryptocurrencies generally - absolutely supercede the authority of any single nation state, as cryptocurrencies are the first DECENTRALIZED WORLDWIDE CURRENCIES to EVER EXIST! The financial industry doesn't know how to handle this because it is re-writing the rules!!

Bitcoin is sovereign, the world just hasn't figured it out yet.

All fiat currencies are zombies, waiting to implode and rot away. The world just hasn't figured it out yet.

And given the political shitstorms coming within the next two decades, this process may happen surprisingly and dangerously quickly.

Bitcoin having to "interact" with the SEC is tantamount to an age 18-24 internet user having to "interact" with a fax machine to get some document to their out-dated, irrelevant government.

In other words, a cringe-worthy, ritual charade.

P.S.
Stop thinking in terms of months and years, start thinking in terms of decades, and realize fiat is already dead, and by comparison crypto is relatively immortal.

[Ruthful]

The SEC is doing what it's supposed to be doing - investigating stock trading of unregistered investments.

MPEx, "The Bitcoin Securities Exchange" is the problem. It doesn't matter what the stocks are denominated in. They're still investments. People have tried to get around this before. One scheme paid off in oranges. It was still a security.

Remember GBLSE? Any questions?

So are the 'SEC' in charge of all foreign economies now ?

QFT!!! They're way out of their jurisdiction.

People simply fail to grasp that Bitcoin - and cryptocurrencies generally - absolutely supercede the authority of any single nation state, as cryptocurrencies are the first DECENTRALIZED WORLDWIDE CURRENCIES to EVER EXIST! The financial industry doesn't know how to handle this because it is re-writing the rules!!

Bitcoin is sovereign, the world just hasn't figured it out yet.

All fiat currencies are zombies, waiting to implode and rot away. The world just hasn't figured it out yet.

And given the political shitstorms coming within the next two decades, this process may happen surprisingly and dangerously quickly.

Bitcoin having to "interact" with the SEC is tantamount to an age 18-24 internet user having to "interact" with a fax machine to get some document to their out-dated, irrelevant government.

In other words, a cringe-worthy, ritual charade.

P.S.
Stop thinking in terms of months and years, start thinking in terms of decades, and realize fiat is already dead, and by comparison crypto is relatively immortal.

Unless you are the ruler of your own nation with Bitcoin as your currency this whole "sovereign " thing won't fly(even then it won't make you immune to international pressure) .They can still pressure cooperation from the governing agencies in your country and only the ones that are openly hostile with the US  won't usually comply.Even if that's the case there is still the risk that they(your countries own authorities) will take action on you themselves regardless of how friendly they are with the US.

The way SEC or any alphabet agencies from the US of A operates is=if you one of your clients/customers/victims are are citizens of the USA then they could and will pursue action against you for your violation, granted that they could spare that time and effort of course(they are only hampered by their lack of resources).Take Profitable Sunrise or Liberty Reserve for example.  There's a very good reason why unregistered securities and scams tend to avoid taking US customers(or refuse to acknowledge that they do).

[MPOE-PR]

The SEC is doing what it's supposed to be doing - investigating stock trading of unregistered investments.

MPEx, "The Bitcoin Securities Exchange" is the problem. It doesn't matter what the stocks are denominated in. They're still investments. People have tried to get around this before. One scheme paid off in oranges. It was still a security.

Remember GBLSE? Any questions?

Question 1: how did you get the idea you had anything worthwhile to add?

Question 2: remember who killed glbse?

MPEx was here before the SEC, MPEx will be here after the SEC. As MP points out what's in question here is whether the SEC ever becomes relevant in this space, not the reverse. Hopefully they have enough sense to not waste this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

This sucks for you guys and all of us. Personally, I feel like because the SEC is onto them, that it will become a big story with a sensational Bitcoin-fear mongering headline here in the US mainstream media. I feel like this would lead to trying to get the majority of the public Against BTC and trying to pass more restrictions on it in the U.S.

Nonsense. They're some people trying to do their job. The idea is to get them to do their job correctly, properly, legally, and well. Rather than lazily, ineffectually, and confusedly (as they have so far). And they will, basically because it's not up to them in any sense. It's the job.

[jbreher]

The idea is to get them to do their job correctly, properly, legally, and well.

Indeed. It is right and proper to request the chains of authority that might (or might not) show the SEC to have a legitimate authority to either request (option) or demand (mandate) MPEx provide them with such information.

Seems to me the record shows that MP responded in a perfectly appropriate manner. He didn't roll over. He didn't refuse outright. He seems to be trying to get them to demonstrate they have such authority - or perhaps more properly, get them to realize for themselves that they have no such authority.

[drrussellshane]

MP, dammit, you are starting to grow on me.

Oh to hell with it; I like the guy.

[Gives *internet nod* in MP's direction.]

[franky1]

and to make a summary of this topics discussions.

if dollar was involved in trades then the american government that owns the patent and copyright to the dollar, can control who or how the dollar is used.
but to control who and how, the individual employee's of the government have to prove that the requests the individuals make are that of government order, and not of the individuals opinion/choice.

EG a cashier of a retail store does not have the same power as the CEO of a retail store.
government employee's do not have the same power as government.
employees of both need permission from higher up the chain of command before doing anything that affects others.

now back to the first part of the summary.

if dollars were not involved then it is not in the governments jurisdiction because bitcoin does not belong to them.

the PDF and emails do not prove jurisdiction or an official order by government, which has to be authorized by the courts, as it goes against a human right to silence and freedom.

so the email responses to the requests in my eyes, are adequate

[jbreher]

employees of both need permission from higher up the chain of command before doing anything that affects others.

To put this in sharper relief, the "permission from higher up the chain of command" need be traceable all the way to Fundamental Law - i.e. either Common Law or the Constitution.

[jimmothy]

if dollars were not involved then it is not in the governments jurisdiction because bitcoin does not belong to them.

I have to fully disagree and so does the SEC.

Pirate40, charlie shrem, btct.co, bitfunder, and many more "companies" slammed by the SEC have made it clear that the excuse "I was using imaginary digital money so all existing laws don't apply to me" does not work out so well.

It's about time us bitcoiners learn that existing laws actually still apply to us

[Beliathon]

The idea is to get them to do their job correctly, properly, legally, and well. Rather than lazily, ineffectually, and confusedly (as they have so far). And they will, basically because it's not up to them in any sense. It's the job.

I haven't been here very long, but you are rapidly becoming my favorite posters on these forums. This indicates a high probability of you being (one of) the most intelligent person(s) on these forums, FYI.

[jbreher]

employees of both need permission from higher up the chain of command before doing anything that affects others.

To put this in sharper relief, the "permission from higher up the chain of command" need be traceable all the way to Fundamental Law - i.e. either Common Law or the Constitution.

jbreher, incorrect. franky1 was correct.

franky1 was literally correct, but incomplete. I disagree with your assertion that I am incorrect. I merely qualified franky1's assertion.

In the USA, the Supreme Court has consistently adopted that doctrine that any law or regulation not authorized to the federal government under the Constitution is null and void. End of story.

Sure, they'll twist case law in an incremental fashion to lead to conclusions that seem to violate the Constitution. But it must be traceable in some manner to be valid.

[Beliathon]

There's a very good reason why unregistered securities and scams tend to avoid taking US customers(or refuse to acknowledge that they do).

I'm assuming you mean scams OTHER than the federal reserve and the US banking industry, here?

[jbreher]

Agreed franky1's comment was not specific enough.

But yours is more incomplete, because the authority must have the power to indemnify against all laws and jurisdictions to which MPOE is subject to, not just the law and jurisdiction from which that authority derives.

That is why the rest of my post flew right over your illogical head.

What authority needs to 'indemnify against all laws and jurisdictions'? You are turning the entire legal structure since the Magna Carta upside down. The 'authority' must demonstrate proper jurisdiction and venue in order to be any 'authority' in the matter whatsoever.

Thanks for the childish insult, jerk.

[riekinho]

SEC let Bernie run a 50 billion $ Ponzi with 1 and a half employee for decades, but feels obliged to protect customers from an alleged Romanian con-artist trading in something that isn't even defined yet.

Hipocrisy of government institution can only be matched by religious hypocrisy of zaelots.

I admire your courage and articulate responses Mircea!

The US$ is entering its sunset. The idea that SEC could make someone half a globe away crap one's pants will seem very distant soon.

[karlmarxxx]

Seems like this is the equivalent of a LE officer asking to search your car or house looking for evidence. It's often a very effective technique to use your authority as a threat, most people will back down instantly and allow a search, thinking "Well I didn't do anything wrong, so I might as well let them, they're going to do it anyway, Right?"

Problem is if you go the "Hard Route" it's often a more effective strategy for your defense. If any case is brought against MP or EV, the legal team can try to over turn the evidence gathering techniques as unlawful.

Also one should point out that anything the prosecution says is not fact, until it has been reviewed by a judge, a jury, and the appellate courts. Until that happens, it isn't law. The prosecution can lie and create fiction in the media, then never bring charges on their claims, whilst smearing the reputation of the accused.

Case in point, Ross Ulbricht was never charged with the whole hitman thing, but it was, and continues to be given as a fact that they did. In the case of Charlie Shrem, a similar circumstance is happening. Just because someone says you did something and they have a position of authority doesn't mean that it is so. It also doesn't mean that the legal system has verified that the charges break any laws. All of these people could have the entire case thrown out of court if the judge rules that the case was an improper interpretation of the laws.

Lets also not forget that the SEC has a terrible record at actually prosecuting financial crimes. They had a mountain of evidence against SAC and couldn't get the job done. No one has gone to jail for the mortgage meltdown. Bernie Madoff ran a $50b ponzi scheme for over 20 years, and was in a position of power(Chairman of NASDAQ) that should have assured SEC scrutiny.

I would rather the SEC look at wall street for billion dollar crimes then look at a Romanian bitcoin exchange. Seriously how many people do they have on this case? For what a few million dollars in Bitcoin? Hardly seems worth the effort and manpower at this point. The SEC is already not very well staffed, and they are putting what percentage of the NY SEC resources into this case?

[seriouscoin]

Agreed franky1's comment was not specific enough.

But yours is more incomplete, because the authority must have the power to indemnify against all laws and jurisdictions to which MPOE is subject to, not just the law and jurisdiction from which that authority derives.

That is why the rest of my post flew right over your illogical head.

What authority needs to 'indemnify against all laws and jurisdictions'? You are turning the entire legal structure since the Magna Carta upside down. The 'authority' must demonstrate proper jurisdiction and venue in order to be any 'authority' in the matter whatsoever.

Thanks for the childish insult, jerk.

Can you stop quoting the troll for once? 90% members on this forum has ignored AnonyMint, but quoting him makes it useless.

[franky1]

if dollars were not involved then it is not in the governments jurisdiction because bitcoin does not belong to them.

I have to fully disagree and so does the SEC.

Pirate40, charlie shrem, btct.co, bitfunder, and many more "companies" slammed by the SEC have made it clear that the excuse "I was using imaginary digital money so all existing laws don't apply to me" does not work out so well.

It's about time us bitcoiners learn that existing laws actually still apply to us

lets reword my point.
if i, an english person were to sell a house in spain using euro's to a guy in australia... which authority would be involved.... i certainly know the UK government cannot just jump in without showing they have jurisdiction on spanish property..

[TakeTheSkyRoad]

Having had a dig this does seem to be pretty well covered in the agreement :
http://mpex.co/?mpsic=S.MPOE

2. INDEMNIFICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY ; REMEDIES.

2.1. Neither Mircea Popescu, MPOE or MPEx nor their respective Owners, Directors, Agents or Partners assume any liability for any losses suffered or alleged to have been suffered by any third party as a result of the execution of this Agreement. All third parties are to make their own determinations, satisfy their own due dilligence policies and assume for themselves any and all risks involved. In particular compliance with any laws, rules or regulations in effect in any jurisdiction where a third party may find itself is entirely the responsibility of that third party -- neither party to this Agreement makes any guarantees or representation as to the legal status of this Agreement in any third party's jurisdiction.

2.2. BUYER BEWARE. MPOE/MPEx shall be considered a high-risk speculative investment. Past performance of the site is no guarantee of future performance. Past profitability is no guarantee of future profitability. Value of S.MPOE shares may rise or fall over time and the entire venture may become worthless for any number of reasons. Neither Mircea Popescu nor any other person or entity shall be liable or responsible for compensating any shareholder for any value lost by a depreciation in the value of shares of MPOE/MPEx.

2.3 At no point shall the obligations Mircea Popescu arising from the execution of this contract exceed the value of his interest in MPOE/MPEx. The liability of any person or entity party to this contract, either direct, indirect, incidental, tortious, punitive, exemplary or otherwise shall in no case exceed such sums as may be proven that person or entity has in fact received through the working of this contract. Signatories and investors agree to indemnify and hold harmless any party from any claims that may exceed such sums.

While there I found this bit interesting :

4. MISCELLANEA

4.1. DISCUSSION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST. The named individual is in fact at the time of this agreement the sole proprietor and operator of both named corporations, and they were represented in this agreement by him. Consequently the dispositions of this agreement may be regarded as declaratory rather than contractual in their substance. Nevertheless, inasmuch as they are publicly made and verifiable their execution or breach can in fact be verified.

4.2. This contract is the sole and complete agreement between the parties and to the subject matter. This contract supersedes and replaces any other agreements, communicated in any other way at any point in time. This contract stands as it is, and may not be modified by third parties, irrespective if said parties should style themselves "court of law", "judge" or otherwise.

4.3. This contract is protected as copyrighted material. It may not be reused by different parties without the express permission of MPEx.

So is this contract (and "this contract" is used many times) is really a declaration ? I take from this that effectively if you involve yourself then you agree to the declaration and the obligations for MPOE/MPEX/MP are not contractually binding.

As for the wider SEC issue I expect that they might be looking to track BTC from the US.  At a guess they might be looking for BTC linked to the Silk Road or any other of the busts/scams that have gone down.  Also if they are increasingly treating BTC as money (a wider good thing) then BTC "leaving" the US might (in their view) be subject to the reporting regulations etc.

Finally I think they were doing their job in asking.... sending an email to ask costs nothing and you never know what people will do if you just ask nicely. They might give you more than you wanted or asked for. I'm not saying that's *right* though, legally or morally.
Of course now they need to go through channels so unless they prepared in advance then it'll be a week or few while lawyers are consulted.

[jimmothy]

if dollars were not involved then it is not in the governments jurisdiction because bitcoin does not belong to them.

I have to fully disagree and so does the SEC.

Pirate40, charlie shrem, btct.co, bitfunder, and many more "companies" slammed by the SEC have made it clear that the excuse "I was using imaginary digital money so all existing laws don't apply to me" does not work out so well.

It's about time us bitcoiners learn that existing laws actually still apply to us

lets reword my point.
if i, an english person were to sell a house in spain using euro's to a guy in australia... which authority would be involved.... i certainly know the UK government cannot just jump in without showing they have jurisdiction on spanish property..

There is a huge difference between your example and the case with sdice/mpex.

Satoshi Dice is(was?) run by an american citizen, with nearly all american customers and thus falls within SEC jurisdiction.

Mpex is hosted in romania but products are denominated in USD and many if not a majority of mpex users are american.

Additionally the SEC co-op gives them jurisdiction even outside of the US.

Lastly both satoshidice and mpex are breaking laws within their own countries of operation. Both the UK and romania have strict security laws requiring registration of both exchanges and securities.

[jimmothy]

Why not run MPEX as a completely anonymous service, then the SEC can send their legal communications to the ether.

That is essentially my entire point.

But we can't do that today. Bitcoin does not have this capability.

It is trolling to want to make it possible to completely ignore the SEC and never hear from them? Come on seriouscoin, you are not serious.

Please do stop quoting my entire posts, in case I want to delete them all someday.

As dpr found out, anonymity only works for so long until you become a big enough problem for the feds.

My solution would be decentralized trading via colored coins or something similar.

[pontiacg5]

Dread Pirate Roberts, the manager of silk road, Ross Ulbricht, if you believe the government.

[ThickAsThieves]

Why not run MPEX as a completely anonymous service, then the SEC can send their legal communications to the ether.

MPEX is a perfect example, because it can be 100% anonymous as there is no storefront, no shipped goods, and no fiat accounts involved. It is a perfect example of the Knowledge Age economy I am writing about.

That is essentially my entire point over the past several months (as well as a few other points such as cpu-only mining to make decentralization work).

But we can't do that today. Bitcoin does not have this capability.

It is trolling to want to make it possible to completely ignore the SEC and never hear from them? Come on seriouscoin, you are not serious.

Please do stop quoting my entire posts, in case I want to delete them all someday.

If MPEx ran anonymously, it wouldn't be MPEx anymore, now would it?

How does nothingness build trust?

How does anonymity get a reputation and maintain it?

How does no one vet listings?

[jimmothy]

If MPEx ran anonymously, it wouldn't be MPEx anymore, now would it?

How does nothingness build trust?

How does anonymity get a reputation and maintain it?

How does no one vet listings?

Performance builds trust. The (digitally signed) name remains constant. Knowing who is providing the performance is irrelevant. I don't trust people any way. People are very unreliable, even your wife can be unreliable.

I trust math and code. They are reproducible and deterministic in so far as what has been proved and unit tested.

This is much more forgiving, because people can start again if they screw up one reputation, e.g. AnonyMint can be reborn as a nice guy.

I think what TaT is trying to say is that without a name to attach trust to, there is nobody to go after should the company decide to pull a fast one.

For example btc-e could shut down right now and run with all their users coins and nobody would know who to go after (besides the NSA of course).

[ThickAsThieves]

If MPEx ran anonymously, it wouldn't be MPEx anymore, now would it?

How does nothingness build trust?

How does anonymity get a reputation and maintain it?

How does no one vet listings?

Performance builds trust. The (digitally signed) name remains constant. Knowing who is providing the performance is irrelevant. I don't trust people any way. People are very unreliable, even your wife can be unreliable.

I trust math and code. They are reproducible and deterministic in so far as what has been proved and unit tested.

This is much more forgiving, because people can start again if they screw up one reputation, e.g. AnonyMint can be reborn as a nice guy.

My dream is to make all attorneys unemployed. I have always preferred paradigm shift over never-ending morass (especially the legal variety).

How is anonympex more trustworthy than the current one?

[jimmothy]

You want to get the government out of your money, then you ask them to get involved when there is theft. We can't have it both ways

I never said I want the government doing anything with my money. I simply want to know who I am giving my money to so that in the case it is stolen from me, I can attempt to find who is responsible and let others know.

One thing very prevalent in the bitcoin world is running a decent business for a certain amount of time and then simply disappearing with the money. Happens just about every few weeks in this community.

Proof-of-work was a way to have consensus without requiring trust. It was an algorithmic solution. I bet there is an algorithm for MPEX that can be verified, e.g. perhaps run it using Microsoft's Pinocchio.

It is not possible to prove trust mathematically. The point of bitcoin was to be trustless. We still need to trust who we are sending the coins to but we no longer have to trust the entities transferring the coins.

Exchanges can be eliminated with decentralized exchanges and third party escrow agents. Then at least the failures are per escrow agent in real-time, not the entire exchange monolithically failing over a long-term.

This is another idea I disagree with. As many have pointed out there are many thing about colored coins that would make them bad for exchanging including slow transfer times. We will still need centralized exchanges just like we have bitcoin exchanges but with colored coins implemented for security/standardization.

[jimmothy]

jimmothy, I am sorry but you've not understood my prior post. No offense intended.

I was tempted to respond point-by-point, but I've learned my lesson already in this forum, don't try to discuss something with someone who doesn't understand the basic tech points of it. Because invariably they accuse me of being a troll or a n00b, because they don't understand what I am explaining. Some things are just over the head of some levels of technical background.

Please do explain your idea point-by-point. Because I believe I am understanding you fully and it is you who is not understanding the concepts behind verifiable trust.

You cannot mathematically prove trust. Simple as that.

[jimmothy]

I wrote that analogous to how Satoshi eliminated the need to trust untrustable nodes (i.e. people) on the internet by employing an algorithm, we can also eliminate the need to trust to people and place our trust in algorithm which proves to us the business model is being followed.

And I never advocated offchain nor colored coins. I advocated everything to be onchain.

And it is too easy for you to pigeon-hole one of my statements as I try to unravel your multiple conflations. And if I say that you will get offended. So I wanted to just say nothing. But if I say nothing, you challenge me that I haven't made a point.

Sigh, now I understand it is better to code and shut up. And that is what I am going to do.

So you are telling me you currently attempting to write code that can replace the need for centralized exchanges with things like mpex along with anonymity and no need for trust.

You sir are talking shit.

Are you going to tell me next you are working on a functional warp drive and time machine?

Here is an example of why a hacker can't talk to a non-hacker, it is as if we are writing Klingon:

Talking shit confirmed.

[pontiacg5]

I still don't entirely understand just what it is Mint is advocating, but I don't think on-chain exchanges are too far-fetched.

There's really no reason we can't see the entire records of an exchange, so why is it crazy to think the algorithm driving the trades and accounts not be "provable" like a dice game. Imagine if gox had something like that set up, whatever happened would have come to light much sooner. Security should not be an issue, or we'd have bigger problems to worry about. 

The model doesn't sound too crazy to me, "mining" could be rewarded with shared exchange fees, or it could potentially ride along bitcoin, as a merge mined chain. 

The only thing I don't understand is getting dollars to an exchange like that, outside crypto/crypto trading I don't really see how it could ever work. If ATMs, local trades, and things like pre-loaded cards took off though...

[jimmothy]

I still don't entirely understand just what it is Mint is advocating, but I don't think on-chain exchanges are too far-fetched.

You don't understand what he is saying because he is talking shit.

There's really no reason we can't see the entire records of an exchange, so why is it crazy to think the algorithm driving the trades and accounts not be "provable" like a dice game. Imagine if gox had something like that set up, whatever happened would have come to light much sooner. Security should not be an issue, or we'd have bigger problems to worry about.

The model doesn't sound too crazy to me, "mining" could be rewarded with shared exchange fees, or it could potentially ride along bitcoin, as a merge mined chain. 

You perfectly described colored coins

The only thing I don't understand is getting dollars to an exchange like that, outside crypto/crypto trading I don't really see how it could ever work. If ATMs, local trades, and things like pre-loaded cards took off though...

This requires a centralized exchange or trusting an individual. Not fixable by an algorithm.

[chufchuf]

lets reword my point.
if i, an english person were to sell a house in spain using euro's to a guy in australia... which authority would be involved.... i certainly know the UK government cannot just jump in without showing they have jurisdiction on spanish property..

How is this even a debate. Just because a bunch of americans go into the thread and take it for granted the SEC has authority on a foreign exchange? It never made sense and yet the SEC gets away with foreign brokers not serving US citizens, just because the internet made it possible.

[chufchuf]

I still don't entirely understand just what it is Mint is advocating, but I don't think on-chain exchanges are too far-fetched.

You don't understand what he is saying because he is talking shit.

There's really no reason we can't see the entire records of an exchange, so why is it crazy to think the algorithm driving the trades and accounts not be "provable" like a dice game. Imagine if gox had something like that set up, whatever happened would have come to light much sooner. Security should not be an issue, or we'd have bigger problems to worry about.

The model doesn't sound too crazy to me, "mining" could be rewarded with shared exchange fees, or it could potentially ride along bitcoin, as a merge mined chain. 

You perfectly described colored coins

The only thing I don't understand is getting dollars to an exchange like that, outside crypto/crypto trading I don't really see how it could ever work. If ATMs, local trades, and things like pre-loaded cards took off though...

This requires a centralized exchange or trusting an individual. Not fixable by an algorithm.

It can't be that complicated to have a software as the decentralized exchange, surely. What will the SEC do then?

[jimmothy]

I still don't entirely understand just what it is Mint is advocating, but I don't think on-chain exchanges are too far-fetched.

You don't understand what he is saying because he is talking shit.

There's really no reason we can't see the entire records of an exchange, so why is it crazy to think the algorithm driving the trades and accounts not be "provable" like a dice game. Imagine if gox had something like that set up, whatever happened would have come to light much sooner. Security should not be an issue, or we'd have bigger problems to worry about.

The model doesn't sound too crazy to me, "mining" could be rewarded with shared exchange fees, or it could potentially ride along bitcoin, as a merge mined chain. 

You perfectly described colored coins

The only thing I don't understand is getting dollars to an exchange like that, outside crypto/crypto trading I don't really see how it could ever work. If ATMs, local trades, and things like pre-loaded cards took off though...

This requires a centralized exchange or trusting an individual. Not fixable by an algorithm.

It can't be that complicated to have a software as the decentralized exchange, surely. What will the SEC do then?

Reread my post. Colored coins is a decentralized exchange of ownership and they are even working on decentralized exchanges implemented within the wallet software.

However exchanging fiat to cryptocurrency is not possible through an algorithm. It requires trust.

There is no algorithm that would allow us to not need to trust exchange/security operators

[Bit_Happy]

The idea is to get them to do their job correctly, properly, legally, and well.

Indeed. It is right and proper to request the chains of authority that might (or might not) show the SEC to have a legitimate authority to either request (option) or demand (mandate) MPEx provide them with such information.

Seems to me the record shows that MP responded in a perfectly appropriate manner. He didn't roll over. He didn't refuse outright. He seems to be trying to get them to demonstrate they have such authority - or perhaps more properly, get them to realize for themselves that they have no such authority.

This ^^^
^^
Until authority finds a way to (re)establish their authority. (aka "The EU will be coming for you")
Entertaining post, disturbing future.

[jbreher]

Agreed franky1's comment was not specific enough.

But yours is more incomplete, because the authority must have the power to indemnify against all laws and jurisdictions to which MPOE is subject to, not just the law and jurisdiction from which that authority derives.

That is why the rest of my post flew right over your illogical head.

What authority needs to 'indemnify against all laws and jurisdictions'? You are turning the entire legal structure since the Magna Carta upside down. The 'authority' must demonstrate proper jurisdiction and venue in order to be any 'authority' in the matter whatsoever.

Thanks for the childish insult, jerk.

Can you stop quoting the troll for once? 90% members on this forum has ignored AnonyMint, but quoting him makes it useless.

AnonyMint is making a good point here.  I wouldn't say bitcoin throws the "entire legal structure since the Magna Carta upside down," but I would say that it forces some re-thinking, especially regarding regulation and authority.    

Bitcoin is global while regulations and the authority of certain power structures are local.  This will no doubt cause friction at times…

Sigh.... I wasn't saying that bitcoin turns the legal structure upon its head - I was saying that AnonyMint's assertion that "the authority must have the power to indemnify against all laws and jurisdictions to which MPOE is subject to" turns the legal structure upon its head.

AnonyMint seems to be asserting that any random 'authority' has proper jurisdiction and venue over anything they claim to, unless they themselves assert that they do not.

The very concept is absurd. It is the responsibility of whatever agency to demonstrate they they have proper chain of authority before any person need accede to any of their dictates.

Sorry, franky1 - I certainly did not to imply that I was disagreeing with you. I merely wanted to amplify your point.

And no, seriouscoin. It is not my responsibility to temper my discussions for your pleasure. While abrasive, and seemingly overly impressed with himself, AnonyMint often has an interesting perspective on things. I certainly don't always agree with him/her, but I occasionally glean a new insight from reading his/her (frequently tiresome) posts.

[jsgayo]

withheld

[jimmothy]

AnonyMint seems to be asserting that any random 'authority' has proper jurisdiction and venue over anything they claim to, unless they themselves assert that they do not.

What I wrote was the logical NAND (dual) of your misconstruction. But nevermind because it is useless for someone with highly developed logic skills to converse with people who don't.

This is why most people can't be excellent programmers.

And yes the internet and especially Bitcoin does turn authoritative jurisdiction legal structure inside-out, which is why I wrote it is a virus and the only cure is world government (global authoritative jurisdiction).

I won't explain. Those are smart enough get it, and the rest will get it some years from now when it becomes common knowledge.

Quoted before you delete.

[cryptoanarchist]

Seems like this thread is bringing out a lot of trolls - all I see is a bunch of ignored comments.

My guess is that these are some paid gov trolls. I guess in a world of 6 billion people, some of them are going to be totally worthless bags o' crap.

[jbreher]

Quoted before you delete.

Thanks, jimmothy

AnonyMint seems to be asserting that any random 'authority' has proper jurisdiction and venue over anything they claim to, unless they themselves assert that they do not.

What I wrote was the logical NAND (dual) of your misconstruction. But nevermind because it is useless for someone with highly developed logic skills to converse with people who don't.

Now you're thrashing. What you actually wrote was:

because the authority must have the power to indemnify against all laws and jurisdictions to which MPOE is subject to

There is no way the SEC can indemnify against all laws and jurisdictions to which MPOE is subject to, as MPOE is an entity within nexuses associated with laws and jurisdictions over which the SEC has no power whatsoever. This can be broadened by replacing SEC with 'any agency', as no such agency can indemnify against all other laws and jurisdictions. It is a tautological impossibility.

This is why most people can't be excellent programmers.

You have no effing idea to whom you are speaking.

You keep yapping about the logical design for a fully-anonymous value-exchange protocol you're going to bestow upon the world, as soon as you get to putting pen to paper. Yet you spend your life here on this forum, going all armchair internet warrior upon those of us you deem your intellectual inferiors. Why would you waste your time thusly, when you could be Saving The World?

I'm starting to surmise that you don't have a clue how to design such a protocol, and that all your bluster is just a smokescreen meant to hide your limitations from yourself.

[AnonyMint]

AnonyMint seems to be asserting that any random 'authority' has proper jurisdiction and venue over anything they claim to, unless they themselves assert that they do not.

What I wrote was the logical NAND (dual) of your misconstruction. But nevermind because it is useless for someone with highly developed logic skills to converse with people who don't.

Now you're thrashing. What you actually wrote was:

because the authority must have the power to indemnify against all laws and jurisdictions to which MPOE is subject to

There is no way the SEC can indemnify against all laws and jurisdictions to which MPOE is subject to, as MPOE is an entity within nexuses associated with laws and jurisdictions over which the SEC has no power whatsoever. This can be broadened by replacing SEC with 'any agency', as no such agency can indemnify against all other laws and jurisdictions. It is a tautological impossibility.

Exactly. You still haven't identified that my logic was consistent and yours was not.

This is why most people can't be excellent programmers.

You have no effing idea to whom you are speaking.

Ditto.

I have met many programmers who can write some code but who aren't exceptional when it comes to creativity and algorithmic production. And who can't keep up with my logic. They slow me down.

The real value in open source is that every person can have a brilliant insight at least once. So collectively there are a lot more insights in open source than closed. I can't compete with open source that has a brilliant Benevolent Dictator for Life. But if you put me up against most other programmers individually, there is no contest in a super majority of the challenges (certainly there are programmers with superior logic skills than me, but you don't appear to be one of them). And put me up against the rigor mortis of Bitcoin, also no contest.

Every person has their strengths and weaknesses. My strength is not LOC production any more, you can probably easily defeat me on that metric.

I'm starting to surmise that you don't have a clue how to design such a protocol, and that all your bluster is just a smokescreen meant to hide your limitations from yourself.

Yeah I am just messing with your minds and have no actual technical ability. But maybe someone does who is reading my points and maybe they will do something. I am hoping. You see I don't really care how we get the solution, as long as we get one. I am not the young productive programmer that I once was with two good eyes (not very productive since losing one eye and acquiring an apparently progressive, incurable peripheral neuropathy auto-immune condition caused by an incurable STD which is also morphing into neuropathy every where not just peripheral and causes me chronic fatigue syndrome which causes frequent deliriousness+pain which makes it easier for me to write in a forum than to do the more intellectually sharp+focused work of actual programming... I only get opportunities to program depending on my body maybe every few days I get a good day).

Neuropathy is unpredictable. One minute I am doing fine, the next my face aches, tinnitus (motor in my ear), then suddenly my abdomen, then feet, then can't swallow and have a "fear of imminent suffocation" anxiety attack, feeling that my stomach wants to exit my body, etc..

[Nagle]

What nuttiness.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is not a "fiat institution". They have nothing to do with issuing currency, or the banking system. They regulate investments sold to US persons. It doesn't matter how those investments are denominated. The investment can be be denominated in oranges, as in the Howey case. Or Bitcoins, as Trendon Shavers found out.

[MPOE-PR]

What nuttiness.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is not a "fiat institution". They have nothing to do with issuing currency, or the banking system. They regulate investments sold to US persons. It doesn't matter how those investments are denominated. The investment can be be denominated in oranges, as in the Howey case. Or Bitcoins, as Trendon Shavers found out.

There's a substantial difference between oranges and Bitcoin. I wouldn't put too much stock in the tribulations of an anonymous Texas scammer before an equally anonymous Texas magistrate.

[jimmothy]

What nuttiness.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is not a "fiat institution". They have nothing to do with issuing currency, or the banking system. They regulate investments sold to US persons. It doesn't matter how those investments are denominated. The investment can be be denominated in oranges, as in the Howey case. Or Bitcoins, as Trendon Shavers found out.

There's a substantial difference between oranges and Bitcoin. I wouldn't put too much stock in the tribulations of an anonymous Texas scammer before an equally anonymous Texas magistrate.

Your detachment from reality is why you will end up rotting in a jail cell when the SEC/feds are done with you.

It's about time we stop pretending that using funny money makes us immune to all existing laws as the people making those laws seem to think they still apply.

The sooner this community gets rid of these stains/schemes currently tainting the innovative and revolutionary world of bitcoin which they are piggybacking, the sooner we will make progress.

[MPOE-PR]

Your detachment from reality is why you will end up rotting in a jail cell when the SEC/feds are done with you.

It's about time we stop pretending that using funny money makes us immune to all existing laws as the people making those laws seem to think they still apply.

The sooner this community gets rid of these stains/schemes currently tainting the innovative and revolutionary world of bitcoin which they are piggybacking, the sooner we will make progress.

So far, Bitcoin progress in its entirety consists of MP's stuff, MPEx among it. Learn to live with the idea, as it's not going anywhere.

[Ruthful]

There's a very good reason why unregistered securities and scams tend to avoid taking US customers(or refuse to acknowledge that they do).

I'm assuming you mean scams OTHER than the federal reserve and the US banking industry, here?

The operative word here is unregistered  securities .There is a a whole different gamut  between what's ethical and what's legal,  lest we really want to derail this thread **cough*MLM*cough**

One thing I learn observing scam and frauds(on both scam promoting and scam busting forums) is how surprisingly lack amount of resource and priority(even more so after 9/11) given to blue collar and financial crime  busting agencies(including SEC) by the US government .It takes them years of investigation to shut down frauds that are based on their own back yard(Zeek,Ad Surf Daily etc) and the same can be said when dealing frauds abroad(Profitable Sunrise),not to mention most smaller/medium sized scams flew below their radar.That is why many frauds(mostly ponzis and pyramids) that crash/ran away with funds in less than 2 years escaped the SEC, and most of the fraudsters knew this .I say we should wait around a year or so (at least) for the MPEX/SEC thing to pan out.


As other posters have pointed out, SEC  jurisdiction is dependent upon whether or not  your "business" targets US customers, not the denomination used by the exchange(gold ,Bitcoin Euro).You can use entire barter-based  payment option with rice and goats  and the SEC will still target you in they believed you're defrauding/soliciting investment from US citizens, regardless which country you operate from.

[mysidia]

The operative word here is unregistered  securities .There is a a whole different gamut  between what's ethical and what's legal,  lest we really want to

Okay, but for something to be an unregistered security, it FIRST has to be a security.

A security is a financial instrument; which implies a contract or a financial guarantee, in which you have a counterparty who could default on that instrument.

But the coins aren't like that.....   US dollars are guaranteed by a counterparty that printed them  (the US government),  but

For example: There is no guarantee that an entry 'spent' to your address listed in the Bitcoin blockchain ever becomes worth anything tangible in the first place.


If you have a purely software system....  such as a "distributed exchange",  then the trade of bit-things is guaranteed by the protocol and the mathematics, not a contractual guarantee, so there is no 'financial' instrument;   purely a mechanical operation that enters BTC ledger entry spends from one address to another.


So there are a number of potential ways in the Bitcoin ecosystem to achieve "Investments", without exchange of financial or legal instruments (or 'securities') between parties.

[jimmothy]

The operative word here is unregistered  securities .There is a a whole different gamut  between what's ethical and what's legal,  lest we really want to

Okay, but for something to be an unregistered security, it FIRST has to be a security.

A security is a financial instrument; which implies a contract or a financial guarantee, in which you have a counterparty who could default on that instrument.

But the coins aren't like that.....   US dollars are guaranteed by a counterparty that printed them  (the US government),  but

For example: There is no guarantee that an entry 'spent' to your address listed in the Bitcoin blockchain ever becomes worth anything tangible in the first place.


If you have a purely software system....  such as a "distributed exchange",  then the trade of bit-things is guaranteed by the protocol and the mathematics, not a contractual guarantee, so there is no 'financial' instrument;   purely a mechanical operation that enters BTC ledger entry spends from one address to another.


So there are a number of potential ways in the Bitcoin ecosystem to achieve "Investments", without exchange of financial or legal instruments (or 'securities') between parties.

Again pretending that using bitcoin makes you immune to all existing laws.

Do you honestly think that would hold up in court?

The SEC/feds are not as stupid as you think.

[Ruthful]

Okay, but for something to be an unregistered security, it FIRST has to be a security.

A simple way to find out if something is a security or not is by applying the Howey Test(which is what security commission in most country apply).If that "something " fails that, it can be pegged as a security.

[Bit_Happy]

So far, Bitcoin progress in its entirety consists of MP's stuff, MPEx among it. Learn to live with the idea, as it's not going anywhere.

So far, Bitcoin progress in its entirety consists of MP's stuff...
You give Satoshi no credit at all for "Bitcoin progress?"
You give no one on this forum any credit for "Bitcoin progress?"

Are you serious?

[MPOE-PR]

Okay, but for something to be an unregistered security, it FIRST has to be a security.

A simple way to find out if something is a security or not is by applying the Howey Test(which is what security commission in most country apply).If that "something " fails that, it can be pegged as a security.

So at which point did "something to which no one holds any title, to which possession is at best tenuous and existence entirely virtual" manage to pass the Howey test?

Subquestion: if you own a Monopoly board, and some collegiate hookers move into a house down the street and start sucking cock for Monopoly dollars as part of their "orally experiencing the world" agenda, are you now to register with the SEC next time you invite some friends over for a game of Monopoly lest you end up selling unregistered mortgages in virtual Boardwalk and other properties?

Get your shit together, if you're not a lawyer you have absolutely no business pretending like you know better than the people who are actually involved in this game. You want to matter, and opine, go to school.

You give Satoshi no credit at all for "Bitcoin progress?"

Guy invented it. What progress? If a woman spends fifteen years raising a kid by herself, cause daddy split three years after the deed, do you want to credit the kid's progress to him?

I don't particularly care either way, but you say something like that to an irl crowd you'll get mugged.

You give no one on this forum any credit for "Bitcoin progress?"

Are you serious?

Definitely no one on this forum gets any credit whatsoever. You're all idiots.

And that part, now that part I mean.

[Mr. Gabu]

Great, so SatoshiDICE, its shareholders, MPEx and Erik Voorhees are all under investigation by the SEC.

Hope they all go to jail. Voorhees is also member of organized crime network "Bitcoin Foundation". Hope he get 10 years at least.

[MPOE-PR]

Great, so SatoshiDICE, its shareholders, MPEx and Erik Voorhees are all under investigation by the SEC.

Hope they all go to jail. Voorhees is also member of organized crime network "Bitcoin Foundation". Hope he get 10 years at least.

[Ruthful]

The Howey test in a nutshell:
1. an investment of  "X"due to
2. an expectation of profits arising from
3. a common enterprise
4. which depends solely on the efforts of a promoter or third party

"X" must be some that hold monetary value or be money itself

so

So at which point did "something to which no one holds any title, to which possession is at best tenuous and existence entirely virtual" manage to pass the Howey test?

Bitcoin does fit what I described as "X" perfectly .

Are you trying to argue that Bitcoin is just monopoly money(I'm sure everyone here will takes issues with that )and any contract denominated in Bitcoin  is worthless?

Subquestion: if you own a Monopoly board, and some collegiate hookers move into a house down the street and start sucking cock for Monopoly dollars as part of their "orally experiencing the world" agenda, are you now to register with the SEC next time you invite some friends over for a game of Monopoly lest you end up selling unregistered mortgages in virtual Boardwalk and other properties?

Perchance you could introduce those collegiate hooker to the rest of us?I'm sure we would love to "meet" them.Some probably could have some "fun " with someone retarded "special" enough to sell themselves for toy money,although I'm not  a fan of taking advantage of the mentally disabled myself.

Do you know that certain MMORPGs  have very dynamic financial ecosystem that mirrors real life quite eerily?Take EVE Online for example:players have set up functional banks, multitudes of financial investment firms and even non functional frauds(ponzis, pyramids and whatnots) dealing with the in-game currency.Yet the SEC and other security commissions don't even bother with them despite the value(the in game currency can be "bought" with real cash  , they however can't be cashed out) in the ten of millions of USD.Why? because like your monopoly money/properties example, those in-game  currencies and investment have no monetary value in real life.

Get your shit together, if you're not a lawyer you have absolutely no business pretending like you know better than the people who are actually involved in this game. You want to matter, and opine, go to school.

Interesting conjecture there.Which part of what I've stated is untrue?Or maybe you are just as unclear on the concept of an internet forum as well.



A tango with the SEC always follows the same predictable trajectory.
When ever they open a case the outcome is either:

1.The company be cleared and continue to operate.
2.The Fraudulent enterprise folds(either crashing or simply run away) before SEC concluded their investigation, pretty much escaping with the investor's money.
3.The SEC and the relevant authorities closed them  and seized their assets.Civil/criminal charges will follow and there will attempts for the victims to be made whole.This usually/could take years , sometime even decades.


My point is the inquiry (from what is gathered is about one of MPEX's "customers", not MPEX itself) is just a preliminary action.The real shebang could happen years from now(going at the historical pace of past investigations).Don't delude your self into believing you have accomplished an outstanding act of defiance , that didn't work as well for Andy Bowdoin  either.

[jimmothy]

I can imagine the look on the judges face when mr popescu looks him dead in the eye and says

"Your honor, I had no idea when creating "the bitcoin stock exchange" that it would be considered a stock exchange."

Or

"Your honor, we don't consider bitcoins to be real money so the law doesn't apply to us."

[MPOE-PR]

Ignoring all the unwarranted reddit stuff,

My point is the inquiry (from what is gathered is about one of MPEX's "customers", not MPEX itself) is just a preliminary action.The real shebang could happen years from now(going at the historical pace of past investigations).

That's true, specifically, we will get to determine whether the SEC will continue to maintain relevance in the future, or disappear into the unheard-of heap, alongside the Mиниcтepcтвo финaнcoв PCФCP, the Austro-Hungarian Schatzkammer, King George's Board of Trade, and other extremely important in their day, meanwhile disused institutions. At any time the SEC feels ready for the test.

Don't delude your self into believing you have accomplished an outstanding act of defiance , that didn't work as well for Andy Bowdoin either.

Unrelated shit is unrelated; don't delude yourself into thinking your retardation is novel or important - there's a lengthy list of equally confused idiots buried in my metaphorical forum back yard. Course there is such a thing as invincible ignorance, but that works for groups not for the individuals.

An outstanding act has already been committed. This is, again, not for worthless you to establish; it has been called such by people who make the topic their business, so that's what it is.

Defiance was never the point, I'm sure. Whatever unresolved problems with authority you may be nursing and are presently allowing to bubble up in relation to MP and so forth aside, you can inform yourself on the topic by re-reading the ample commentary supplied by actually qualified participants, including my posts in this here shithole.

[jimmothy]

you can inform yourself on the topic by re-reading the ample commentary supplied by actually qualified participants, including my posts in this here shithole.

You may inform yourself on the topic by stepping out of fantasy land and joining the rest of us here in reality.

[Ruthful]

Ignoring all the unwarranted reddit stuff,

Ignoring all that points and facts you can't refute ,I see.We can definitely see how well you will do in courtroom cross examination

That's true, specifically, we will get to determine whether the SEC will continue to maintain relevance in the future, or disappear into the unheard-of heap, alongside the Mиниcтepcтвo финaнcoв PCФCP, the Austro-Hungarian Schatzkammer, King George's Board of Trade, and other extremely important in their day, meanwhile disused institutions. At any time the SEC feels ready for the test.

Should/if the USA fallen like all the regimes those organisation were attached to your notion might be worth musing .Until then keep your fan fictions in more pertinent forums .I think I say for everyone here that  your speculative fantasy isn't something most of us are interested in.

At any time the SEC feels ready for the test.

Famous last word indeed.

it has been called such by people who make the topic their business, so that's what it is.

Sorry ,but what part of her twitter that mentioned your meaningless act of defiance as "outstanding"?

Unrelated shit is unrelated; don't delude yourself into thinking your retardation is novel or important - there's a lengthy list of equally confused idiots buried in my metaphorical forum back yard.

Ahh, ad hominems whiles still refuse to engage any of the issues I raised.Clearly you have won this debate.

Defiance was never the point, I'm sure. Whatever unresolved problems with authority you may be nursing and are presently allowing to bubble up in relation to MP and so forth aside, you can inform yourself on the topic by re-reading the ample commentary supplied by actually qualified participants, including my posts in this here shithole.

Which qualified participants that supported your points,again?I fail to see a single one.Besides , Andy Bowdoin's  attempt at  fighting against the SEC and "evil US government" was far more epic(divine comedy level ,even) than  your simple refusal to co operate with the SEC, albeit just as impotent.

Perhaps you you would  like to explain your position in scam and law related forums (like quatloos, or realscam e.g), many there actually have background and experience in both scambusting and legal matters. I'm sure they'll just as impressed as I am with your performance.The education you'll received there will be priceless.

[MarketNeutral]

The operative word here is unregistered  securities .There is a a whole different gamut  between what's ethical and what's legal,  lest we really want to

Okay, but for something to be an unregistered security, it FIRST has to be a security.

A security is a financial instrument; which implies a contract or a financial guarantee, in which you have a counterparty who could default on that instrument.

But the coins aren't like that.....   US dollars are guaranteed by a counterparty that printed them  (the US government),  but

For example: There is no guarantee that an entry 'spent' to your address listed in the Bitcoin blockchain ever becomes worth anything tangible in the first place.


If you have a purely software system....  such as a "distributed exchange",  then the trade of bit-things is guaranteed by the protocol and the mathematics, not a contractual guarantee, so there is no 'financial' instrument;   purely a mechanical operation that enters BTC ledger entry spends from one address to another.


So there are a number of potential ways in the Bitcoin ecosystem to achieve "Investments", without exchange of financial or legal instruments (or 'securities') between parties.

Again pretending that using bitcoin makes you immune to all existing laws.

Do you honestly think that would hold up in court?

The SEC/feds are not as stupid as you think.

So which head of the hydra are you pushing papers for? The SEC, or another paragon of government virtue? Should we examine the SEC's spotless track record over the years?

[freedomno1]

Still out of SEC focus in my opinion one Eric Shut Down US based gambling on Satoshidice before closing the stock.
I can see their rationale though of looking at every shareholder then tracking the ones with Bitcoin addresses from the USA
Still feels a bit strong for a privacy invasion but then again that's what their known for (Assange + Snowden)

[jimmothy]

So which head of the hydra are you pushing papers for? The SEC, or another paragon of government virtue? Should we examine the SEC's spotless track record over the years?

I am not going to argue that the SEC is perfect in fact they are far from it.

What is not debatable is the fact that they exist.

Trading unregistered securities for US companies on an unregistered exchange to US citizens is exactly what the SEC aims to shut down.

And being unregistered is only a tiny fraction of the amount of security laws they are breaking.

[MPOE-PR]

Ignoring all the unwarranted reddit stuff,

Ignoring all that points and facts you can't refute ,I see.We can definitely see how well you will do in courtroom cross examination

That's true, specifically, we will get to determine whether the SEC will continue to maintain relevance in the future, or disappear into the unheard-of heap, alongside the Mиниcтepcтвo финaнcoв PCФCP, the Austro-Hungarian Schatzkammer, King George's Board of Trade, and other extremely important in their day, meanwhile disused institutions. At any time the SEC feels ready for the test.

Should/if the USA fallen like all the regimes those organisation were attached to your notion might be worth musing .Until then keep your fan fictions in more pertinent forums .I think I say for everyone here that  your speculative fantasy isn't something most of us are interested in.

At any time the SEC feels ready for the test.

Famous last word indeed.

it has been called such by people who make the topic their business, so that's what it is.

Sorry ,but what part of her twitter that mentioned your meaningless act of defiance as "outstanding"?

Unrelated shit is unrelated; don't delude yourself into thinking your retardation is novel or important - there's a lengthy list of equally confused idiots buried in my metaphorical forum back yard.

Ahh, ad hominems whiles still refuse to engage any of the issues I raised.Clearly you have won this debate.

Defiance was never the point, I'm sure. Whatever unresolved problems with authority you may be nursing and are presently allowing to bubble up in relation to MP and so forth aside, you can inform yourself on the topic by re-reading the ample commentary supplied by actually qualified participants, including my posts in this here shithole.

Which qualified participants that supported your points,again?I fail to see a single one.Besides , Andy Bowdoin's  attempt at  fighting against the SEC and "evil US government" was far more epic(divine comedy level ,even) than  your simple refusal to co operate with the SEC, albeit just as impotent.

Perhaps you you would  like to explain your position in scam and law related forums (like quatloos, or realscam e.g), many there actually have background and experience in both scambusting and legal matters. I'm sure they'll just as impressed as I am with your performance.The education you'll received there will be priceless.

Your brain doesn't work. Neeext.

[Beliathon]

Your brain doesn't work. Neeext.

Mircea has spoken! Mhysa, Mhysa!! Take us with you!! Don't leave us Mhysa!

[Mr. Gabu]

Mircea has spoken! Mhysa, Mhysa

WTF is this shit?

[AnonyMint]

MP is masturbating because Bitcoin doesn't have anonymity. Yet I repeat myself from upthread.

And MP if you think you are the most significant innovator in this space, get prepared to unexpectedly kneel.

You will soon be reminded that this space is fundamentally driven by technologists/technology, not Romanian Wallstreet wannabees.

[Ruthful]

Your brain doesn't work. Neeext.

Another ad hominem.You're really are destroying my argument with your uncastrated logical deduction,such an untouchable master  .Truly , such finely crafted rebuttal of my points shown me the true light,I'll blindly follow everything you said in spite of the fact that you're backed by nothing but hot air(that' takes courage).

Mircea has spoken! Mhysa, Mhysa!! Take us with you!! Don't leave us Mhysa!

ALL HAIL  THE  MIGHTY Mircea!!

The Slayer of SEC!!!!!

[Mr. Gabu]

The more you hate, the more I respect him.

[MPOE-PR]

MP is masturbating because Bitcoin doesn't have anonymity. Yet I repeat myself from upthread.

And MP if you think you are the most significant innovator in this space, get prepared to unexpectedly kneel.

You will soon be reminded that this space is fundamentally driven by technologists/technology, not Romanian Wallstreet wannabees.

Derp. Get a number, get in line son.

[Ruthful]

The more you hate, the more I respect him.

Thank You.

[AnonyMint]

MP is masturbating because Bitcoin doesn't have anonymity. Yet I repeat myself from upthread.

And MP if you think you are the most significant innovator in this space, get prepared to unexpectedly kneel.

You will soon be reminded that this space is fundamentally driven by technologists/technology, not Romanian Wallstreet wannabees.

Derp. Get a number, get in line son.

How much would like to wager big mouth? What odds do you offer for this wager?

Certainly you understand that in very unlikely odds, I put up much less than the person who bets on the very likely odds.

Come on, don't shut up now.

P.S. I will require fiat bet and proven to not originate from your tainted funds.

Add:

Hopefully you deduced the implied point that if you can't make a falsifiable statement, then a wager is not possible and thus your statement is untestable.

[MPOE-PR]

And MP if you think you are the most significant innovator in this space, get prepared to unexpectedly kneel.

It's about time we stop pretending that using funny money makes us immune to all existing laws as the people making those laws seem to think they still apply.

Are you trying to argue that Bitcoin is just monopoly money(I'm sure everyone here will takes issues with that )

The IRS got in line today, following MP's judgment on the matter in 2012. Had you simply parroted him instead of pretending like you can think for yourselves, you could still be pretending like you know what you're talking about, instead of squirming like bugs squished under a lulzmine cave-in.

[jimmothy]

And MP if you think you are the most significant innovator in this space, get prepared to unexpectedly kneel.

It's about time we stop pretending that using funny money makes us immune to all existing laws as the people making those laws seem to think they still apply.

Are you trying to argue that Bitcoin is just monopoly money(I'm sure everyone here will takes issues with that )

The IRS got in line today, following MP's judgment on the matter in 2012. Had you simply parroted him instead of pretending like you can think for yourselves, you could still be pretending like you know what you're talking about, instead of squirming like bugs squished under a lulzmine cave-in.

Seriously when will you step out of fantasy land?

Bitcoin being classified as property does not in any way make you immune to security laws.

As has been pointed out before, you can trade stocks using oranges, mail orders, monopoly money and you will still get slammed by the SEC.

Quit bullshitting and leave this forum for good. Nobody here buys your shit.

[Atruk]

MP is masturbating because Bitcoin doesn't have anonymity. Yet I repeat myself from upthread.

And MP if you think you are the most significant innovator in this space, get prepared to unexpectedly kneel.

You will soon be reminded that this space is fundamentally driven by technologists/technology, not Romanian Wallstreet wannabees.

Derp. Get a number, get in line son.

How much would like to wager big mouth? What odds do you offer for this wager?

Certainly you understand that in very unlikely odds, I put up much less than the person who bets on the very likely odds.

Come on, don't shut up now.

P.S. I will require fiat bet and proven to not originate from your tainted funds.

Add:

Hopefully you deduced the implied point that if you can't make a falsifiable statement, then a wager is not possible and thus your statement is untestable.

If you get a bet approved on BitBet that isn't a bunch of Word Salad I might be amenable to make sure there is a pot set against your stake. This bullshit "fixed odds" and "fiat bet" nonsense makes it sound like you are afraid of having anyone actually take up a bet against you.

[jimmothy]

I love it how the IRS flat out says you need to pay taxes on bitcoin gains and follow existing tax laws and mpoe pr interprets this as "feel free to do whatever you want with bitcoin"

I don't actually think mr popescu is that ignorant but he knows that his "customers" are ignorant enough to believe it.

[MarketNeutral]

And MP if you think you are the most significant innovator in this space, get prepared to unexpectedly kneel.

It's about time we stop pretending that using funny money makes us immune to all existing laws as the people making those laws seem to think they still apply.

Are you trying to argue that Bitcoin is just monopoly money(I'm sure everyone here will takes issues with that )

The IRS got in line today, following MP's judgment on the matter in 2012. Had you simply parroted him instead of pretending like you can think for yourselves, you could still be pretending like you know what you're talking about, instead of squirming like bugs squished under a lulzmine cave-in.

Seriously when will you step out of fantasy land?

Bitcoin being classified as property does not in any way make you immune to security laws.

As has been pointed out before, you can trade stocks using oranges, mail orders, monopoly money and you will still get slammed by the SEC.

Quit bullshitting and leave this forum for good. Nobody here buys your shit.

Stop attempting to redefine the parameters of the debate.
The issue at hand is moreover about under whose authority, the claims and supposed legitimacy upon which this alleged authority is based, and the philosophical underpinnings of such authority as regards bitcoin, its sovereignty, and the freedom one has to engage in agreements with others—not just about which medium of exchange one uses. For reference, I invite you to examine the US Securities Acts and subsequent legislation, a map of the world, and an intro to philosophy textbook.

[jimmothy]

Stop attempting to redefine the parameters of the debate.
The issue at hand is moreover about under whose authority, the claims and supposed legitimacy upon which this alleged authority is based, and the philosophical underpinnings of such authority as regards bitcoin, its sovereignty, and the freedom one has to engage in agreements with others—not just about which medium of exchange one uses. For reference, I invite you to examine the US Securities Acts and subsequent legislation, a map of the world, and an intro to philosophy textbook.

I invite you to read this article and report back on whether you think that the SEC has authority over bitcoin securities:


http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/networks/sec-charges-texas-man-with-running-bitcoin-ponzi-scheme

[MarketNeutral]

I love it how the IRS flat out says you need to pay taxes on bitcoin gains and follow existing tax laws and mpoe pr interprets this as "feel free to do whatever you want with bitcoin"

I don't actually think mr popescu is that ignorant but he knows that his "customers" are ignorant enough to believe it.

Strong everything.

Makes me wonder why I studied so hard for the Series 65 examine.

I especially like the part of this thread in which some people are so concerned about non-US citizens and companies groveling, supplicating, and prostrating themselves before Uncle Sam all that they may pay for a taste of US-grade government cheese.

[jimmothy]

I love it how the IRS flat out says you need to pay taxes on bitcoin gains and follow existing tax laws and mpoe pr interprets this as "feel free to do whatever you want with bitcoin"

I don't actually think mr popescu is that ignorant but he knows that his "customers" are ignorant enough to believe it.

Strong everything.

Makes me wonder why I studied so hard for the Series 65 examine.

I especially like the part of this thread in which some people are so concerned about non-US citizens and companies groveling, supplicating, and prostrating themselves before Uncle Sam all that they may pay for a taste of US-grade government cheese.

So you are telling me bitbet.us and satoshidice are not US companies serving US customers?

Too many bitcoiners living in fantasy land.

[MarketNeutral]

Stop attempting to redefine the parameters of the debate.
The issue at hand is moreover about under whose authority, the claims and supposed legitimacy upon which this alleged authority is based, and the philosophical underpinnings of such authority as regards bitcoin, its sovereignty, and the freedom one has to engage in agreements with others—not just about which medium of exchange one uses. For reference, I invite you to examine the US Securities Acts and subsequent legislation, a map of the world, and an intro to philosophy textbook.

I invite you to read this article and report back on whether you think that the SEC has authority over bitcoin securities:


http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/networks/sec-charges-texas-man-with-running-bitcoin-ponzi-scheme

Report back on what? Ok. A little context: Per my post history, I was actually one of the few people on this forum who openly confronted Pirateat40/Trendon Shavers when so many others were so quick to defend his ponzi scheme.

Of course the SEC claims to have, and has the means to enforce in the U.S. and some other jurisdictions, authority over bitcoin securities. That's not the issue. For the record, I'm glad they actually opened a case on Trendon Shavers, a U.S. citizen residing and doing business in the U.S. I'm glad he didn't just get away with it, regardless of who nabbed him. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I would be remiss not to acknowledge the rare good works done by the SEC, but unfortunately, their record seems to demonstrate that they are better at protecting criminals than stopping them.

For example, I invite you to read this book
http://lp.wileypub.com/Markopolos/
which I submit in lieu of a report, for I would on your behalf kindly ask Mr. Harry Markopolos what he thinks about the SEC, ponzi schemes, and Bernard Madoff.

[MarketNeutral]

I love it how the IRS flat out says you need to pay taxes on bitcoin gains and follow existing tax laws and mpoe pr interprets this as "feel free to do whatever you want with bitcoin"

I don't actually think mr popescu is that ignorant but he knows that his "customers" are ignorant enough to believe it.

Strong everything.

Makes me wonder why I studied so hard for the Series 65 examine.

I especially like the part of this thread in which some people are so concerned about non-US citizens and companies groveling, supplicating, and prostrating themselves before Uncle Sam all that they may pay for a taste of US-grade government cheese.

So you are telling me bitbet.us and satoshidice are not US companies serving US customers?

Too many bitcoiners living in fantasy land.

Of course they are. What are you arguing?

[jimmothy]

I love it how the IRS flat out says you need to pay taxes on bitcoin gains and follow existing tax laws and mpoe pr interprets this as "feel free to do whatever you want with bitcoin"

I don't actually think mr popescu is that ignorant but he knows that his "customers" are ignorant enough to believe it.

Strong everything.

Makes me wonder why I studied so hard for the Series 65 examine.

I especially like the part of this thread in which some people are so concerned about non-US citizens and companies groveling, supplicating, and prostrating themselves before Uncle Sam all that they may pay for a taste of US-grade government cheese.

So you are telling me bitbet.us and satoshidice are not US companies serving US customers?

Too many bitcoiners living in fantasy land.

Of course they are. What are you arguing?

I want to know if you actually believe mr popescus argument which was essentially:

- bitcoin securities cannot be enforced by existing laws because bitcoin does not qualify as money

[MarketNeutral]

I love it how the IRS flat out says you need to pay taxes on bitcoin gains and follow existing tax laws and mpoe pr interprets this as "feel free to do whatever you want with bitcoin"

I don't actually think mr popescu is that ignorant but he knows that his "customers" are ignorant enough to believe it.

Strong everything.

Makes me wonder why I studied so hard for the Series 65 examine.

I especially like the part of this thread in which some people are so concerned about non-US citizens and companies groveling, supplicating, and prostrating themselves before Uncle Sam all that they may pay for a taste of US-grade government cheese.

So you are telling me bitbet.us and satoshidice are not US companies serving US customers?

Too many bitcoiners living in fantasy land.

Of course they are. What are you arguing?

I want to know if you actually believe mr popescus argument which was essentially:

- bitcoin securities cannot be enforced by existing laws because bitcoin does not qualify as money

I have no belief regarding Mr. Popescu's argument or what you believe his argument to be. Like the SEC, I do have opinions, but they may not be relevant to Mr. Popescu's matters. Nor would I presume to speak for him, since he can clearly speak for himself, and because I have no business with him.

I do wonder why, however, if it is all so clear and defined, then why the SEC hasn't already caused him to be charged? Professional courtesy? Politesse? Navel-gazing? And surely they wouldn't resort to shilling to persuade opinion on an internet discussion forum.

[MPOE-PR]

Of course the SEC claims to have, and has the means to enforce in the U.S. and some other jurisdictions, authority over bitcoin securities. That's not the issue. For the record, I'm glad they actually opened a case on Trendon Shavers, a U.S. citizen residing and doing business in the U.S. I'm glad he didn't just get away with it, regardless of who nabbed him. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I would be remiss not to acknowledge the rare good works done by the SEC, but unfortunately, their record seems to demonstrate that they are better at protecting criminals than stopping them.

I don't think anyone's disputing that in any sense.

The only regret, for us, and the major failure, for the SEC, is the plain observation that had they followed MP's instructions prior to April 2012 instead of failing to follow them in March 2014, things such as the Pirate wouldn't have had to be prosecuted as "massive fraud involving 100s of thousands of Bitcoin, valued at half a billion".

This won't go away: the SEC cost the general public hundreds of millions of dollars through its irresponsible, reckless, and ultimately clueless and uninformed behavior in the Bitcoin market for the entire interval. And it doesn't stop there: many more scams could have stopped if instead of empty posturing and bureaucratic impotence they had in a timely manner adopted a pragmatic approach. It's not yet too late even now. It's late, sure, but not too late.

[jimmothy]

I have no belief regarding Mr. Popescu's argument or what you believe his argument to be. Like the SEC, I do have opinions, but they may not be relevant to Mr. Popescu's matters. Nor would I presume to speak for him, since he can clearly speak for himself, and because I have no business with him.

You are aware that this is a discussion forum right? Where we discuss topics at hand. Like the legality of this unregistered exchange.

I do wonder why, however, if it is all so clear and defined, then why the SEC hasn't already caused him to be charged? Professional courtesy? Politesse? Navel-gazing? .

Do you have any knowledge of what you are talking about? Has the SEC ever investigated and shut down scams in a reasonable timeframe before?

And surely they wouldn't resort to shilling to persuade opinion on an internet discussion forum

Ah, I do love the tactic of throwing around accusations of shilling to avoid any sort of critical thinking.

As if the SEC had anything to gain by persuading armchair legal advisors/investors that what they are doing is not legal.

[MarketNeutral]

Of course the SEC claims to have, and has the means to enforce in the U.S. and some other jurisdictions, authority over bitcoin securities. That's not the issue. For the record, I'm glad they actually opened a case on Trendon Shavers, a U.S. citizen residing and doing business in the U.S. I'm glad he didn't just get away with it, regardless of who nabbed him. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I would be remiss not to acknowledge the rare good works done by the SEC, but unfortunately, their record seems to demonstrate that they are better at protecting criminals than stopping them.

I don't think anyone's disputing that in any sense.

The only regret, for us, and the major failure, for the SEC, is the plain observation that had they followed MP's instructions prior to April 2012 instead of failing to follow them in March 2014, things such as the Pirate wouldn't have had to be prosecuted as "massive fraud involving 100s of thousands of Bitcoin, valued at half a billion".

This won't go away: the SEC cost the general public hundreds of millions of dollars through its irresponsible, reckless, and ultimately clueless and uninformed behavior in the Bitcoin market for the entire interval. And it doesn't stop there: many more scams could have stopped if instead of empty posturing and bureaucratic impotence they had in a timely manner adopted a pragmatic approach. It's not yet too late even now. It's late, sure, but not too late.

I'm glad you mention this point, especially that it is not too late. A timely, pragmatic approach indeed can stop and would have stopped not only the likes of Allen Stanford, Bernie Madoff, et al who have lost money due to SEC iniquity, but also many people here who've been caught on the wrong side of bitcoin iniquity who had nothing to do with Pirateat40. A casual stroll through this forum's Marketplace section is a good place to start.

But that's a vast discussion I'll reserve for another time and place. I don't want to derail the discussion any further.

Jimmothy, don't take any of this personally. As a fund manager, it is my nature to remain lawful and compliant under all securities laws, while still pushing hard against the gross incompetence and failures of the SEC. Cheers!

[AnonyMint]

MP is masturbating because Bitcoin doesn't have anonymity. Yet I repeat myself from upthread.

And MP if you think you are the most significant innovator in this space, get prepared to unexpectedly kneel.

You will soon be reminded that this space is fundamentally driven by technologists/technology, not Romanian Wallstreet wannabees.

Derp. Get a number, get in line son.

How much would like to wager big mouth? What odds do you offer for this wager?

Certainly you understand that in very unlikely odds, I put up much less than the person who bets on the very likely odds.

Come on, don't shut up now.

P.S. I will require fiat bet and proven to not originate from your tainted funds.

Add:

Hopefully you deduced the implied point that if you can't make a falsifiable statement, then a wager is not possible and thus your statement is untestable.

If you get a bet approved on BitBet that isn't a bunch of Word Salad I might be amenable to make sure there is a pot set against your stake. This bullshit "fixed odds" and "fiat bet" nonsense makes it sound like you are afraid of having anyone actually take up a bet against you.

MPOE claimed astronomical odds of superiority, thus the way to prove his confidence is to bet with those odds, not a 50-50% outcome. He isn't claiming 50-50% odds. He is claiming I am just one in a line of "Derps" who have no chance.

"Derp" implies I guess I am 1 of the 1000s on this forum or millions of masses. I would love to take a bet with him where he puts up 1000X more capital than I do. But I know he won't put his money where his mouth is.

I caught him talking shit and called him out mathematically. This is the way to shut up talkers.

I will not accept a bet that gives me his tainted BTC funds when I win the bet, because I am a US citizen and these funds would not only be subject to confiscation, this could also get me in serious trouble.

Also for him to prove funds are not tainted is going to reveal a lot about the solvency of his operation. He surely won't dare go there.

I guess you are the only reader here, who is slow-minded enough that I had to spell that out for you. It was clearly implied already from what I wrote before.

[MrTeal]

LOL... Is MP serious?

b) a statement recognising MPEx’ regulatory authority over Bitcoin finance as a SRO

Trying to get the SEC to declare that MPEx is a self-regulatory organization in charge of regulating Bitcoin finance?

[jbreher]

LOL... Is MP serious?

b) a statement recognising MPEx’ regulatory authority over Bitcoin finance as a SRO

Trying to get the SEC to declare that MPEx is a self-regulatory organization in charge of regulating Bitcoin finance?

Yeah, it seems funny. But no odder than the SEC's opening salvo.

I'm stocking up on popcorn.

[ning]

What a fascinating exchange of emails. Seriously. I think Mircea Popescu handled it—on many levels—perfectly.

I wish our schools teach kids how to handle things like this.

[jimmothy]

What a fascinating exchange of emails. Seriously. I think Mircea Popescu handled it—on many levels—perfectly.

I wish our schools teach kids how to handle things like this.

Isn't that what law school is for?

Or are we still pretending that using bitcoin makes one immune to the law?

[MPOE-PR]

LOL... Is MP serious?

b) a statement recognising MPEx’ regulatory authority over Bitcoin finance as a SRO

Trying to get the SEC to declare that MPEx is a self-regulatory organization in charge of regulating Bitcoin finance?

This is what MPEx is and has been all along, among other things. The SEC is merely required to bow down to reality. That's the first step in any encounter between strangers: before you can be party to any discussion you need to prove you inhabit reality.

[jimmothy]

LOL... Is MP serious?

b) a statement recognising MPEx’ regulatory authority over Bitcoin finance as a SRO

Trying to get the SEC to declare that MPEx is a self-regulatory organization in charge of regulating Bitcoin finance?

This is what MPEx is and has been all along, among other things. The SEC is merely required to bow down to reality. That's the first step in any encounter between strangers: before you can be party to any discussion you need to prove you inhabit reality.

I lol'd

[jbreher]

LOL... Is MP serious?

b) a statement recognising MPEx’ regulatory authority over Bitcoin finance as a SRO

Trying to get the SEC to declare that MPEx is a self-regulatory organization in charge of regulating Bitcoin finance?

This is what MPEx is and has been all along,

Let's explore this for a moment. In what sense is MPEx capable of regulating any aspect of bitcoin other than its own dealings, and those of its direct clients as limited to their interaction with MPEx?

Does it make any sense whatsoever to deem an org without police powers as a regulatory organization?

[MPOE-PR]

Does it make any sense whatsoever to deem an org without police powers as a regulatory organization?

The SEC has no "police powers" either, they're vested in the courts. Regulatory organisations simply make the rules and (usually) identify the rulebreakers.

MP isn't so keen on coercion anyway.

[jimmothy]

Great, so SatoshiDICE, its shareholders, MPEx and Erik Voorhees are all under investigation by the SEC.

Look forward to seeing how long you can hold them off.

Turns out only a bit less than 3 months.

http://www.coindesk.com/sec-eric-voorhees-deal-unauthorized-securities-sales/

[Bit_Happy]

Great, so SatoshiDICE, its shareholders, MPEx and Erik Voorhees are all under investigation by the SEC.

Look forward to seeing how long you can hold them off.

Turns out only a bit less than 3 months.

http://www.coindesk.com/sec-eric-voorhees-deal-unauthorized-securities-sales/

Like him or not, it's good to see Eric is not headed to jail.

[Beliathon]

Don't just question authority, SMASH IT!

Also, Mircea Popescu is a living sage and you should shut your grubby little obedient mouths and pay attention.

[QuestionAuthority]

Great, so SatoshiDICE, its shareholders, MPEx and Erik Voorhees are all under investigation by the SEC.

Look forward to seeing how long you can hold them off.

Turns out only a bit less than 3 months.

http://www.coindesk.com/sec-eric-voorhees-deal-unauthorized-securities-sales/

Like him or not, it's good to see Eric is not headed to jail.

It's funny that every member of Bitinstant ended up being a criminal.

Eric Voorhees

“As you may have seen, it was announced today that I have entered into a settlement agreement with the SEC. With this matter resolved, I look forward to helping to build the bitcoin industry and the future of finance.”

Good luck with that Eric. I don't think any reputable Bitcoin business would touch you with a 10 foot pole. I know any business that employs you is one I will never use.

[2112]

It's funny that every member of Bitinstant ended up being a criminal.

What had happened to Gareth Nelson? Is he in trouble too? He was the brain/algorithms guy behind the operation. He really seemed a very reasonable fellow. I was under impression that as an introvert he had to associate himself with some extroverts to deal with PR and other "people" tasks.

[QuestionAuthority]

It's funny that every member of Bitinstant ended up being a criminal.

What had happened to Gareth Nelson? Is he in trouble too? He was the brain/algorithms guy behind the operation. He really seemed a very reasonable fellow. I was under impression that as an introvert he had to associate himself with some extroverts to deal with PR and other "people" tasks.

I'm not sure about him. He may have taken some heat over the issues that led to Charlie's downfall but handled it more privately. I guess it depends how good your legal team is. Obviously Eric used a great deal of the money he made bombing the blockchain to hire a good legal defense. He may have used more than I think. Based on his statement it seems as if he is going to take another run at Bitcoin. I wonder if, since he made a deal with the Feds, he will be returning back to his home country (America) or stay in Panama.

[Beliathon]

It's funny that every member of Bitinstant ended up being a criminal.

"Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free."
-Eugene V. Debs

Debs was sentenced on November 18, 1918, to ten years in prison. He was also disenfranchised for life. Debs presented what has been called his best-remembered statement at his sentencing hearing.

What do the selfish capitalist cowards of the world have to say in response to that, I wonder?

[jbreher]

Good luck with that Eric. I don't think any reputable Bitcoin business would touch you with a 10 foot pole. I know any business that employs you is one I will never use.

Well, he violated some regulations, but did he do anything immoral? Sure, there's the dust issue, but that seems to me to be merely using bitcoin as designed.

[alani123]

Unauthorized Securities Sale? Seriously? He wasn't the only one handing out securities, what made his case more special than all the other share being sold for bitcoins?

“Potential investors can be easily enticed with the promise of high returns in a new investment space and also may be less skeptical when assessing something novel, new and cutting-edge.”

I wonder if this will have any impact at all to existing bitcoin securities. I can't think of any way the feds and the SEC could fight this. Unlike his case, most people using bitcoin and handing securities keep themselves anonymous.

[drrussellshane]

It's funny that every member of Bitinstant ended up being a criminal.

"Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free."
-Eugene V. Debs

Debs was sentenced on November 18, 1918, to ten years in prison. He was also disenfranchised for life. Debs presented what has been called his best-remembered statement at his sentencing hearing.

What do the selfish capitalist cowards of the world have to say in response to that, I wonder?

I can't say that I know a whole lot about Debs, but he probably wouldn't have referred to people with whom he disagreed in the manner that you just did.

I thought that leftists were all about tolerance.

[QuestionAuthority]

Good luck with that Eric. I don't think any reputable Bitcoin business would touch you with a 10 foot pole. I know any business that employs you is one I will never use.

Well, he violated some regulations, but did he do anything immoral? Sure, there's the dust issue, but that seems to me to be merely using bitcoin as designed.

Morality is subjective. I'm not entirely sure murder is immoral depending on why you murdered. There is a lot more than the dust issue. Search the forum to find that he is willing to do anything to anyone for a profit. He simply sees Bitcoin as a means to that end.

I like to trust people that I deal with financially and I don't trust him. I also like to see vendors that I use make good and sound business decisions and he has proven multiple times that he is incapable of doing that. From scurrying to sell SatoshiDice because he found out it was illegal to service US customers, whatever involvement he had in Bitinstant, failing to follow through on feedzbirds, legal problems over the security he listed to reap profit from dumping SatoshiDice, running to Panama when the heat was on, he has proven to be business poison. Get into bed with him on a business deal and you may find out that tomorrow you're broke and he now lives in Argentina.

[Ron~Popeil]

Good luck with that Eric. I don't think any reputable Bitcoin business would touch you with a 10 foot pole. I know any business that employs you is one I will never use.

Well, he violated some regulations, but did he do anything immoral? Sure, there's the dust issue, but that seems to me to be merely using bitcoin as designed.

Morality is subjective. I'm not entirely sure murder is immoral depending on why you murdered. There is a lot more than the dust issue. Search the forum to find that he is willing to do anything to anyone for a profit. He simply sees Bitcoin as a means to that end.

I like to trust people that I deal with financially and I don't trust him. I also like to see vendors that I use make good and sound business decisions and he has proven multiple times that he is incapable of doing that. From scurrying to sell SatoshiDice because he found out it was illegal to service US customers, whatever involvement he had in Bitinstant, failing to follow through on feedzbirds, legal problems over the security he listed to reap profit from dumping SatoshiDice, running to Panama when the heat was on, he has proven to be business poison. Get into bed with him on a business deal and you may find out that tomorrow you're broke and he now lives in Argentina.

That is one of the things I find fascinating about this community. Your reputation really does mean something here. If you have a bad reputation for dishonesty or unethical behavior you will have a harder time doing business. That and Phinneas Gage (SIC) will splash your personal details all over the internet. 

[Beliathon]

It's funny that every member of Bitinstant ended up being a criminal.

"Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free."
-Eugene V. Debs

Debs was sentenced on November 18, 1918, to ten years in prison. He was also disenfranchised for life. Debs presented what has been called his best-remembered statement at his sentencing hearing.

What do the selfish capitalist cowards of the world have to say in response to that, I wonder?

I can't say that I know a whole lot about Debs, but he probably wouldn't have referred to people with whom he disagreed in the manner that you just did.

I thought that leftists were all about tolerance.

Ignorance is both evil and rampant in our society, and I am therefore one pissed off, intolerant son of a bitch. Sorry about that.

As ignorance is bliss, so knowledge is suffering.

[Ron~Popeil]

It's funny that every member of Bitinstant ended up being a criminal.

"Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free."
-Eugene V. Debs

Debs was sentenced on November 18, 1918, to ten years in prison. He was also disenfranchised for life. Debs presented what has been called his best-remembered statement at his sentencing hearing.

What do the selfish capitalist cowards of the world have to say in response to that, I wonder?

I can't say that I know a whole lot about Debs, but he probably wouldn't have referred to people with whom he disagreed in the manner that you just did.

I thought that leftists were all about tolerance.

Ignorance is both evil and rampant in our society, and I am therefore one pissed off, intolerant son of a bitch. Sorry about that.

As ignorance is bliss, so knowledge is suffering.

Have you ever seen something that straddles the interests of so many divergent political opinions? I am a fairly committed "capitalist coward" yet I find my self agreeing with a "crazy commie" quite often. We may believe in this experiment for different reasons but the outcome is great for everyone.

[QuestionAuthority]

Good luck with that Eric. I don't think any reputable Bitcoin business would touch you with a 10 foot pole. I know any business that employs you is one I will never use.

Well, he violated some regulations, but did he do anything immoral? Sure, there's the dust issue, but that seems to me to be merely using bitcoin as designed.

Morality is subjective. I'm not entirely sure murder is immoral depending on why you murdered. There is a lot more than the dust issue. Search the forum to find that he is willing to do anything to anyone for a profit. He simply sees Bitcoin as a means to that end.

I like to trust people that I deal with financially and I don't trust him. I also like to see vendors that I use make good and sound business decisions and he has proven multiple times that he is incapable of doing that. From scurrying to sell SatoshiDice because he found out it was illegal to service US customers, whatever involvement he had in Bitinstant, failing to follow through on feedzbirds, legal problems over the security he listed to reap profit from dumping SatoshiDice, running to Panama when the heat was on, he has proven to be business poison. Get into bed with him on a business deal and you may find out that tomorrow you're broke and he now lives in Argentina.

That is one of the things I find fascinating about this community. Your reputation really does mean something here. If you have a bad reputation for dishonesty or unethical behavior you will have a harder time doing business. That and Phinneas Gage (SIC) will splash your personal details all over the internet. 

That's right. Reputation is everything in Bitcoin because most of the time it's all the protection you have. In Voorhees case I don't really know if he's dishonest, unlucky or stupid but it doesn't really matter because any of the three are killers in business.

Pirate@40 had a great reputation here. Everyone thought he was a standup guy that wanted to name his firstborn Bitcoin. He was loved and supported by a massive following of loyalists. He was just a crook but his reputation carried him. Yankee (Charlie Shrem) was also loved by all. Hell, there are still Yankee supporters that would let him fuck their wives if he asked. The problem is he makes stupid business decisions and has ruined his reputation. No more business for Charlie. Poor Jered Kenna must walk around all day breaking mirrors and walking in front of black cats. It seems like everything he touches turns to shit overnight. At least he's not a crook or stupid.

[jbreher]

Good luck with that Eric. I don't think any reputable Bitcoin business would touch you with a 10 foot pole. I know any business that employs you is one I will never use.

Well, he violated some regulations, but did he do anything immoral? Sure, there's the dust issue, but that seems to me to be merely using bitcoin as designed.

Morality is subjective. I'm not entirely sure murder is immoral depending on why you murdered. There is a lot more than the dust issue. Search the forum to find that he is willing to do anything to anyone for a profit. He simply sees Bitcoin as a means to that end.

I like to trust people that I deal with financially and I don't trust him. I also like to see vendors that I use make good and sound business decisions and he has proven multiple times that he is incapable of doing that. From scurrying to sell SatoshiDice because he found out it was illegal to service US customers, whatever involvement he had in Bitinstant, failing to follow through on feedzbirds, legal problems over the security he listed to reap profit from dumping SatoshiDice, running to Panama when the heat was on, he has proven to be business poison. Get into bed with him on a business deal and you may find out that tomorrow you're broke and he now lives in Argentina.

Well thanks. I never had cause to do business with him directly. I guess my general impression of him was formed by hearing him speak - soundcloud, youtube, and in person, and speaking with him at Bitcoin 2013 in San Jose. I find him one of the more articulate and compelling speakers that we had in the early days, and think that his talks had some thing to do with Bitcoin's early success.

Either way though, I hate anyone to be prosecuted (or persecuted) for bitcoin securities regulations. IMNSHO, The State has no business interceding between willing parties. That whole Article I Section 10 'impairing the obligations of contracts' thing.

[Ron~Popeil]

Good luck with that Eric. I don't think any reputable Bitcoin business would touch you with a 10 foot pole. I know any business that employs you is one I will never use.

Well, he violated some regulations, but did he do anything immoral? Sure, there's the dust issue, but that seems to me to be merely using bitcoin as designed.

Morality is subjective. I'm not entirely sure murder is immoral depending on why you murdered. There is a lot more than the dust issue. Search the forum to find that he is willing to do anything to anyone for a profit. He simply sees Bitcoin as a means to that end.

I like to trust people that I deal with financially and I don't trust him. I also like to see vendors that I use make good and sound business decisions and he has proven multiple times that he is incapable of doing that. From scurrying to sell SatoshiDice because he found out it was illegal to service US customers, whatever involvement he had in Bitinstant, failing to follow through on feedzbirds, legal problems over the security he listed to reap profit from dumping SatoshiDice, running to Panama when the heat was on, he has proven to be business poison. Get into bed with him on a business deal and you may find out that tomorrow you're broke and he now lives in Argentina.

Well thanks. I never had cause to do business with him directly. I guess my general impression of him was formed by hearing him speak - soundcloud, youtube, and in person, and speaking with him at Bitcoin 2013 in San Jose. I find him one of the more articulate and compelling speakers that we had in the early days, and think that his talks had some thing to do with Bitcoin's early success.

Either way though, I hate anyone to be prosecuted (or persecuted) for bitcoin securities regulations. IMNSHO, The State has no business interceding between willing parties. That whole Article I Section 10 'impairing the obligations of contracts' thing.

I agree. The state has no place there but that is a risk of doing business that you really have to account for.

[jbreher]

Pirate@40 had a great reputation here. Everyone thought he was a standup guy that wanted to name his firstborn Bitcoin. He was loved and supported by a massive following of loyalists. He was just a crook but his reputation carried him.

Yeah, that one stung.

Yankee (Charlie Shrem) was also loved by all. Hell, there are still Yankee supporters that would let him fuck their wives if he asked. The problem is he makes stupid business decisions and has ruined his reputation. No more business for Charlie.

Another guy I have no problem with. Again, The State has no business... Has his transgression resulted in problems for customers?

Poor Jered Kenna must walk around all day breaking mirrors and walking in front of black cats. It seems like everything he touches turns to shit overnight. At least he's not a crook or stupid.

I had holdings in TradeHill at both their implosions. Both times, I was made whole. Jered is certainly not crossed off my list of people I might do business with.

[QuestionAuthority]

Good luck with that Eric. I don't think any reputable Bitcoin business would touch you with a 10 foot pole. I know any business that employs you is one I will never use.

Well, he violated some regulations, but did he do anything immoral? Sure, there's the dust issue, but that seems to me to be merely using bitcoin as designed.

Morality is subjective. I'm not entirely sure murder is immoral depending on why you murdered. There is a lot more than the dust issue. Search the forum to find that he is willing to do anything to anyone for a profit. He simply sees Bitcoin as a means to that end.

I like to trust people that I deal with financially and I don't trust him. I also like to see vendors that I use make good and sound business decisions and he has proven multiple times that he is incapable of doing that. From scurrying to sell SatoshiDice because he found out it was illegal to service US customers, whatever involvement he had in Bitinstant, failing to follow through on feedzbirds, legal problems over the security he listed to reap profit from dumping SatoshiDice, running to Panama when the heat was on, he has proven to be business poison. Get into bed with him on a business deal and you may find out that tomorrow you're broke and he now lives in Argentina.

Well thanks. I never had cause to do business with him directly. I guess my general impression of him was formed by hearing him speak - soundcloud, youtube, and in person, and speaking with him at Bitcoin 2013 in San Jose. I find him one of the more articulate and compelling speakers that we had in the early days, and think that his talks had some thing to do with Bitcoin's early success.

Either way though, I hate anyone to be prosecuted (or persecuted) for bitcoin securities regulations. IMNSHO, The State has no business interceding between willing parties. That whole Article I Section 10 'impairing the obligations of contracts' thing.

Your absolutely right, all of them made Bitcoin successful. Even Trendon Shavers and Mark Karpeles led to the success of Bitcoin. Just because someone is a stupid crook doesn't mean they can't have a following that increases the visibility of Bitcoin. There are hundreds of Bitcoin users that disagree with you about SEC involvement in Bitcoin because they are the ones that turned in Trendon Shavers. If you cheat them your fellow Bitcoiners will drop a dime on you so fast it will make your head spin.

Be careful about believing in someone just because he is a poetic evangelist. Jim Jones killed dozens of people with his tongue. Adolph Hitler killed millions.

[jbreher]

There are hundreds of Bitcoin users that disagree with you about SEC involvement in Bitcoin because they are the ones that turned in Trendon Shavers.

I left dealing with Shavers to 'the authorities', because if we would have hunted him down, and applied increasing pain to him until he coughed up his private keys, The State would have thrown _us_ in prison. As it stands, he's still today a free man, and I and the rest of the aggrieved will be lucky if we collect a satoshi on the zib.

If you cheat them your fellow Bitcoiners will drop a dime on you so fast it will make your head spin.

I disagree. It may be due to the aforementioned problem of the state protecting the villains, but just look at how many chiselers get off scott-free.

[Ron~Popeil]

Good luck with that Eric. I don't think any reputable Bitcoin business would touch you with a 10 foot pole. I know any business that employs you is one I will never use.

Well, he violated some regulations, but did he do anything immoral? Sure, there's the dust issue, but that seems to me to be merely using bitcoin as designed.

Morality is subjective. I'm not entirely sure murder is immoral depending on why you murdered. There is a lot more than the dust issue. Search the forum to find that he is willing to do anything to anyone for a profit. He simply sees Bitcoin as a means to that end.

I like to trust people that I deal with financially and I don't trust him. I also like to see vendors that I use make good and sound business decisions and he has proven multiple times that he is incapable of doing that. From scurrying to sell SatoshiDice because he found out it was illegal to service US customers, whatever involvement he had in Bitinstant, failing to follow through on feedzbirds, legal problems over the security he listed to reap profit from dumping SatoshiDice, running to Panama when the heat was on, he has proven to be business poison. Get into bed with him on a business deal and you may find out that tomorrow you're broke and he now lives in Argentina.

Well thanks. I never had cause to do business with him directly. I guess my general impression of him was formed by hearing him speak - soundcloud, youtube, and in person, and speaking with him at Bitcoin 2013 in San Jose. I find him one of the more articulate and compelling speakers that we had in the early days, and think that his talks had some thing to do with Bitcoin's early success.

Either way though, I hate anyone to be prosecuted (or persecuted) for bitcoin securities regulations. IMNSHO, The State has no business interceding between willing parties. That whole Article I Section 10 'impairing the obligations of contracts' thing.

Your absolutely right, all of them made Bitcoin successful. Even Trendon Shavers and Mark Karpeles led to the success of Bitcoin. Just because someone is a stupid crook doesn't mean they can't have a following that increases the visibility of Bitcoin. There are hundreds of Bitcoin users that disagree with you about SEC involvement in Bitcoin because they are the ones that turned in Trendon Shavers. If you cheat them your fellow Bitcoiners will drop a dime on you so fast it will make your head spin.

Be careful about believing in someone just because he is a poetic evangelist. Jim Jones killed dozens of people with his tongue. Adolph Hitler killed millions.

The MT GOX story actually got me into bit coin. I had never looked at it closely until reading an article about the collapse. This in turn led me here and now I am a hard core bit coiner.

[QuestionAuthority]

There are hundreds of Bitcoin users that disagree with you about SEC involvement in Bitcoin because they are the ones that turned in Trendon Shavers.

I left dealing with Shavers to 'the authorities', because if we would have hunted him down, and applied increasing pain to him until he coughed up his private keys, The State would have thrown _us_ in prison. As it stands, he's still today a free man, and I and the rest of the aggrieved will be lucky if we collect a satoshi on the zib.

If you cheat them your fellow Bitcoiners will drop a dime on you so fast it will make your head spin.

I disagree. It may be due to the aforementioned problem of the state protecting the villains, but just look at how many chiselers get off scott-free.

I was one of the dime droppers that turned in Shavers. I personally spoke to Philip Moustakis of the SEC about the complaint and he took down my information but let me know that he really didn't need any more statements because he had HUNDREDS of them already. Way more than he needed to file.

Just because the system is broken doesn't mean your fellow Bitcoiners won't run to mommy government and tattle. They most certainly will do it and have done it en masse.

[Beliathon]

I am a fairly committed "capitalist coward"

yet I find my self agreeing with a "crazy commie" quite often. We may believe in this experiment for different reasons but the outcome is great for everyone.

[jbreher]

I was one of the dime droppers that turned in Shavers. I personally spoke to Philip Moustakis of the SEC about the complaint and he took down my information but let me know that he really didn't need any more statements because he had HUNDREDS of them already. Way more than he needed to file.

Thank you for that. Sincerely.

Just because the system is broken doesn't mean your fellow Bitcoiners won't run to mommy government and tattle. They most certainly will do it and have done it en masse.

I think it should be pointed out here that there is a vast difference between fraud on the one hand, and running afoul of the regulator's restrictions upon exercising the right to contract on the other. Stealing people's holdings through a ponzi scheme is a vastly different thing than crowdfunding a new business (Isn't the mere selling of shares in SatoshiDice the thrust of regulators against Voorhees?).

[QuestionAuthority]

I was one of the dime droppers that turned in Shavers. I personally spoke to Philip Moustakis of the SEC about the complaint and he took down my information but let me know that he really didn't need any more statements because he had HUNDREDS of them already. Way more than he needed to file.

Thank you for that. Sincerely.

Just because the system is broken doesn't mean your fellow Bitcoiners won't run to mommy government and tattle. They most certainly will do it and have done it en masse.

I think it should be pointed out here that there is a vast difference between fraud on the one hand, and running afoul of the regulator's restrictions upon exercising the right to contract on the other. Stealing people's holdings through a ponzi scheme is a vastly different thing than crowdfunding a new business (Isn't the mere selling of shares in SatoshiDice the thrust of regulators against Voorhees?).

I hear you, but you can't wake the beast and expect it to sleep until you're ready for it. Shavers ran an illegal security. Voorhees ran an illegal security. Just because Shavers wasn't crafty enough to return a bulk of the funds to investors right before he was caught doesn't make his crime different. It just means Voorhees was more crafty than Shavers and had a better legal team.

The difference between Shavers and Voorhees is a matter of semantics. They were both selling unregistered securities. Shavers became a Ponzi when he failed to return at least a bulk of the money. Voorhees was bright enough to get legal advise. I think they should have gone after him for FeedZeBirds too. He's obviously got a great legal team. Where's the 2,600 Bitcoins for FeedZeBirds Erik?

Though the SEC investigation alleges that Erik Voorhees profited over $15,000 from his sale of unregistered offerings, the total settlement cost total more than $50,000.  In the conclusion to this SEC investigation, Erik Voorhees has agreed to pay a full disgorgement of his profits of $15,843.98 plus a penalty of $35,000.  Additionally, Voorhees has committed to not participating “in any issuance of any security in an unregistered transaction in exchange for any virtual currency including Bitcoin for a period of five years.”  However, it is important to note that Voorhees has consented to the SEC ban and the SEC monetary penalty “without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings". FeedZeBirds is another Bitcoin security that Erik Voorhees offered on the Bitcoin Forum prior to his fundraising for Satoshi Dice.  Like his Satoshi Dice IPO, FeedZeBirds was advertised on the Bitcoin Forum and raised 2,600 bitcoins in May of 2012.

[Ron~Popeil]

I was one of the dime droppers that turned in Shavers. I personally spoke to Philip Moustakis of the SEC about the complaint and he took down my information but let me know that he really didn't need any more statements because he had HUNDREDS of them already. Way more than he needed to file.

Thank you for that. Sincerely.

Just because the system is broken doesn't mean your fellow Bitcoiners won't run to mommy government and tattle. They most certainly will do it and have done it en masse.

I think it should be pointed out here that there is a vast difference between fraud on the one hand, and running afoul of the regulator's restrictions upon exercising the right to contract on the other. Stealing people's holdings through a ponzi scheme is a vastly different thing than crowdfunding a new business (Isn't the mere selling of shares in SatoshiDice the thrust of regulators against Voorhees?).

I hear you, but you can't wake the beast and expect it to sleep until you're ready for it. Shavers ran an illegal security. Voorhees ran an illegal security. Just because Shavers wasn't crafty enough to return a bulk of the funds to investors right before he was caught doesn't make his crime different. It just means Voorhees was more crafty than Shavers and had a better legal team.

The difference between Shavers and Voorhees is a matter of semantics. They were both selling unregistered securities. Shavers became a Ponzi when he failed to return at least a bulk of the money. Voorhees was bright enough to get legal advise. I think they should have gone after him for FeedZeBirds too. He's obviously got a great legal team. Where's the 2,600 Bitcoins for FeedZeBirds Erik?

Though the SEC investigation alleges that Erik Voorhees profited over $15,000 from his sale of unregistered offerings, the total settlement cost total more than $50,000.  In the conclusion to this SEC investigation, Erik Voorhees has agreed to pay a full disgorgement of his profits of $15,843.98 plus a penalty of $35,000.  Additionally, Voorhees has committed to not participating “in any issuance of any security in an unregistered transaction in exchange for any virtual currency including Bitcoin for a period of five years.”  However, it is important to note that Voorhees has consented to the SEC ban and the SEC monetary penalty “without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings". FeedZeBirds is another Bitcoin security that Erik Voorhees offered on the Bitcoin Forum prior to his fundraising for Satoshi Dice.  Like his Satoshi Dice IPO, FeedZeBirds was advertised on the Bitcoin Forum and raised 2,600 bitcoins in May of 2012.

Yeah that is a bit like poking a bear. A little foresight could have prevented a lot of problems.