Topic: 2013-06-23 Forbes - Bitcoin Foundation Receives Cease And Desist Order From Ca (Read 9595 times)

How did GAO get involved in this discussion? Are we fishing for multi-layered red herrings or something? Did you read the thread?

It's hard to tell which item you are disputing, but if it's the claim that the GAO specifically mentioned WoW and Second Life as potentially taxable, it's apparently true. There is much discussion of it online.
Here's one link that includes an embedded link to the GAO document.

http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2013/06/second-life-income-taxable.html

Weird stuff.

When we enter a yes/no type of debate you go in with the serious handicap that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Why do you feel so compelled to add this particular topic to the list of stuff you attempt to do without understanding? Isn't coding quite enough for one person?

Why don't you Americans have this government in-fight thing? I.e., multiple ministries competing for the power to regulate a certain something, so in order to get the greatest support one ministry will sometimes take the best-accepted position deliberately.  Maybe your officials are just so free from corruption that there isn't much to gain from the power to regulate something new?

FinCEN claims to have the authority ... that claim doesn't have legal precedence as far as I am aware.

Yes, it does.  FinCEN's March guidance makes this clear.

World of Warcraft and Second Life, along with bitcoin, were also mentioned specifically in another report from the GAO.

They don't have a prayer in Hell of making these bizarre legal theories you espouse stick, admitting it is in fact what they're contemplating (on an actual read of their guidelines, it is exactly NOT what they're contemplating, but Murck is incompetent and apparently you can't tell the difference between counsel and muck).

Now it's one thing to say "I can't afford to fight my government, right or wrong". That's fine, you're an American which makes you a slave. As long as you can live with that so can we. It's quite a different thing to say "I can't afford to fight my government thus the most awkward contortion of what some noob thinks it might have said is actually what it said".

So, let's have some of that b) there, with the clear understanding that any other choice makes you I. inferior and II. not really a part of Bitcoin. Stop trying to frame things otherwise, it's a waste of effort, as are all the red herrings about the does/is dispute.

I am getting sick of you people getting each other drunk on kool-aid on the grounds that like chickens you just believe whatever nonsense you hear most often. Let's get back to the basics: Bitcoin is a game currency, like any other game currency. The SEC does not have the authority to regulate whatever in-game auction house nor does it claim such authority. FinCEN does not have the authority to regulate WoW gold, nor does it claim such authority. You people ran amok with the entire SEC bullshit six months ago, much to my amusement, you're running amok with the FinCEN bullshit currently, in spite of it being based on an outrageous backwards read of the entire thing.

Just STAHP already, it's getting ridiculous.

(All this notwithstanding: if you trade dollars for anything in the US you're fucked. It has absolutely nothing to do with Bitcoin, it could be raw milk or guns or used Playboy mags or homemade lemonade at a stand or anything else whatsoever - the soviets are trying to move all trade towards state-approved corporations as part of their "silent revolution". Constantly mixing Bitcoin into the internal affairs of that failed state is getting about as old as thinking the US, generally, still matters. Can we move on already?).

I laughed so hard that I peed myself during that hitler vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M2C5ZM6WCs

So true... So damn true it makes me want to join the SS...

Ripple is something I have always wondered about.  Unlike Bitcoin where coins are created in a decentralized manner, Ripple created all the coins initially.  My (non-lawyer) reading of MSB regs and FinCEN guidance is that Ripple is a Money Transmitter as they are an administrator of a virtual currency (just as Linden Dollars, Liberty Reserve, Perfect Money, etc are).  That would require OpenCoin to comply with various KYC and reporting requirements.

Does this mean that guys like opencoin/ripple will be getting the same notice?

Problem is laws are man made and man defined.   I guess Bitcoins stepped on the wrong toes.

The state of California has no excuse of being ignorant of the law
 According to the constitution only gold and silver are money, and that's the law anything else is an scam.
Most Bitcoin businesses should ban together as sue the government for violating the constitution, harrasment, and corruption on behalf the banking industry.
The Bitcoin foundation in crearly not a money transmitter business and claiming otherwiseit is a clear case of harassment.
Having a competing currency is perfecly legal but since the dollar has a debt of 17 trillian vs 0 for Btc, and based on the market the BTC is killing the dollar, the gov is acting as a bully by intimidation and force on behalf of the Banks.
I would recommend for now to support the foundation, and the creation of p2p exchanges,  and to evaluate if zerocoin is a good idea or not. Finally support businesses that accept Bitcoins. For some of us Bitcoin represents more that just a currency it represents freedom.

I completely agree.  I just don't think it makes much sense to provoke 'em or give them ammo.  If you force a confrontation it won't be long before bitcoin is branded a tool only criminals use and they'll be out to make examples of a few randomly selected public bitcoin users.

Paraphrasing. FinCEN has said virtual currencies are not "real currencies" under the law.  Lucky for them (and not so lucky for everyone else) the law is very broad based and gives them the authority to regulate a lot of "non-currencies" too.


http://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html

Simple version like I said names don't matter.  FinCEN is saying virtual currencies, or virtual commodities, or virtual holy carrots are "other value that substitutes for currency".  If you disagree well FinCEN is laying out their legal case here so you can expect to eventually see them in court.

Personally I believe their analysis is a little weak but I am not going to risk my livelihood and freedom on their ability to convince a judge they are right.  The point is no matter what you call it FinCEN believes Bitcoin is a "substitute for currency".  Unless you convince a judge they are incorrect it meets they have the ability to regulate Bitcoin exchangers.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

How you market your "product" can have a HUGE impact on how it gets regulated.  (*cough*  *cough*  syrup.)  Go ahead slap a label on it "meth4U" and tell those guys to market it to the meth addicts and see how far they get.  And what do you think is going to happen when Ruger starts a new ad campaign "A kill a day keeps the good guys at bay"?  Seriously.  How you pitch your product says everything about how you intend for it to be used, and when it has unintended uses, how you pitched it is going to make a huge difference in how you're dealt with.

Cheers.

Question answered.  Inform the government.

That's interesting cause if the regulators want to bring things to court, there should be at least a slight hint of ambiguity in the legal definition of currency, but there isn't, it looks almost as if the original legislators were so concerned that they can not be clear enough about what's currency, that they go to great length to elaborate, repetitively, exhaustively, that it must be something issued by a government.

Your missing the point.  Regulators don't ask YOU what your product is.  They will TELL YOU and then those list of choices above apply.  So if the Bitcoin Foundation called Bitcoins commodities, or virtual property, or holy carrots it would have absolutely no value under the law.  Regulators would say "Bitcoin is monetary value and subject to xzy".  They don't take what you chose to name it into consideration.

I mean do you also think that if you sold gambling products under a different name, say "true random number commodity contracts" it would magically be exempt from regulations/prohibitions on gambling.

Start calling Bitcoins "magical carrots" if you helps you sleep better at night, it won't exempt Bitcoin from anything the state says it is regulated by, and it wouldn't even if you did it from day one.  If Bitcoin was NOT designed to be a currency, say it was designed to "fight spam" however defacto people realized it made a good currency and started using it as such the same regs would apply.  The state is the one with the guns and monopoly on violence.  They TELL (not ASK) you what laws apply.  If you are lucky they don't do it in a carpicious or retroactive fashion.

Totally agree with most of what you said.  It basically boils down to C or D if you value your time/livelihood.  I think the point I was trying to make earlier was that it doesn't make any sense to poke the giant just because we want to have a certain name on things.

I disagree with how much it matters what it is called.  In the legal landscape what you call it is everything and in terms of regulatory requirements, the difference between a "commodity" and a "currency" can be a pretty large stack of paperwork and a pretty big list of "can's and cannot's".