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

[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.