Legal clarification: Bitcoin vs. BitcoinUSA

[S3052]

How sure is it that the "store of value" call on bitcoins is really correct?

well davidonpda of bitcoinusa.com said:

Some information we have received from the Department of the Treasury that may help others or existing exchangers expand their presence in the United States.
We asked for a ruling on Bitcoin, and bitcoin is determined to be "Stored Value" and FinCen regulations do not apply if $1000 per day per person is exchanged.
Here is a specific ruling on Stored Value that applied to our situation: http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/fin-2009-r001.html

Thanks, there are still 2 questions:
1)  I am still not 100% clear whether the Department of Treasury really assessed bitcoins or whether they just sent the old 2005 ruling to davidonpda.

I recall someone in the forum asked him to send the official letter and I am not sure if this happened.

It would be great to get clarity.

2) If FinCEN regulations would apply, what would be the implication for bitcoins? Would the FinCEN regulations automatically apply if trading volume is higher than 1 $k?

[taykaypee]

I'm writing a 20 page report on this within the week. I will post it for the community once I'm done.

Are you a lawyer? I'm not being facetious or anything. I'm just curious.

I am not a lawyer. I'm just interested in the subject and how it relates to the law.

If you are not a lawyer, what makes you credible to write an article about that?

You better get top experienced lawyers with financial and payment expertise to work this article with you before it will contain only a bunch of wrong asumptions.

My few bitpennies.

I'm not saying I'm credible. I'm simply offering information, take it if you will.

[S3052]

No offense

I like you bringing useful information into this forum. It would just be great if you can help getting most clarity into this complex matter...

[taykaypee]

No offense

I like you bringing useful information into this forum. It would just be great if you can help getting most clarity into this complex matter...

Obviously that's what I'm striving for.

[xf2_org]

xf2_org, while I agree with you,  Bitcoin is not a "business," it is a client. Consider BitTorrent or the PirateBay, very different situations once again, but the principle is the same: people abused the software/client, resulting in the founders and developers getting sued and prosecuted. The law may very well treat it similar to a business in my opinion.

The US dollar is not a "money transmitter," it is what is being transmitted via the money transmitter. Bitcoin, as in the client, IS acting as a Money Transmitter. It falls under the definition, "[a]ny other person engaged as a business in the transfer of funds." Although, I'm unsure if it is legally doing so.

No, the person using the bitcoin client, not the bitcoin client itself.

bitcoin itself by definition cannot be an MSB.

And once again, yes, Liberty Dollar was a very very different case (once again, I'm using two "very's" to emphasize this...), but it should be known that the government COULD POSSIBLY treat this as an act of terrorism

The government could possibly do anything.  But if you are trying to try any sort of responsible comparison between Liberty Dollar and bitcoin, you should present hard facts not wild speculation.

Bitcoin DOES question the US economy, as did Liberty Dollar, though in different ways.

This is entirely your own supposition, projecting a foreign ideology onto bitcoin.

[eMansipater]

I'm not saying I'm credible. I'm simply offering information, take it if you will.

I appreciate your work on this topic taykaypee--I think you're right about this information not being well known so far and this will definitely be a good resource to have.  Cite sources and you can't do worse than Wikipedia, right?

Also, on the governmental thing there are plenty of people here who respect and appreciate our current governmental systems, while still working continuously to improve them.  Those who take a more extreme stance tend to be a little heavier on the rhetoric, as well as introducing the subject when it's only tangentially related--the rest of us have learned to love them despite their prickly shells .  I do recommend to all, though, that the place to explore the interaction between sociopolitical viewpoints is squarely in the Off-topic board.

[taykaypee]

Thanks, there are still 2 questions:
1)  I am still not 100% clear whether the Department of Treasury really assessed bitcoins or whether they just sent the old 2005 ruling to davidonpda.

I recall someone in the forum asked him to send the official letter and I am not sure if this happened.

It would be great to get clarity.

2) If FinCEN regulations would apply, what would be the implication for bitcoins? Would the FinCEN regulations automatically apply if trading volume is higher than 1 $k?

1). Good point, I do not know. I would love more information regarding this.

2). Currently, they deemed Bitcoin to be a "Stored Value," so anything above $1000 is 100% illegal and regulations would automatically apply.

[taykaypee]

Xf2, when you say the government "can do anything," they cannot, or at least not legally. Your phrasing really implies you believe the US government to be a dictatorship.

[error]

Xf2, when you say the government "can do anything," they cannot, or at least not legally. Your phrasing really implies you believe the US government to be a dictatorship.

It's awfully close. And yes, they can do anything. If they can't, they either change the rules or ignore them. Such as US attorney Preet Bharara kidnapping people from countries where there is no extradition treaty and smuggling them back to the US to face trumped-up charges when those people never did anything in the US.

[RodeoX]

Im glad the EFF takes donations in bitcoin.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Xf2, when you say the government "can do anything," they cannot, or at least not legally. Your phrasing really implies you believe the US government to be a dictatorship.

Oh, you noticed too did you?