Topic: 2013-06-23 Forbes - Bitcoin Foundation Receives Cease And Desist Order From Ca - page 2. (Read 9595 times)

Generalizations like "acts/used/properties like a currency" can apply to any commodity.  What does not apply to any commodity are the things that make a currency a Currency.  Per the Australian legal system, that'd be something tangible backing it.  Per most legal definitions I've come across, (synonym: banknote) that'd be a government's central bank.

And yet, pointedly, the question was not answered.

What you want, or I want, or even the Bitcoin Foundation wants is utterly irrelivent.  You can call Bitcoin anything you want but governments around the world aren't that stupid.  If it "acts like a currency" and is "used like a currency" and has "currency like properties" what do you think THEY are going to classify it as.

I mean it would be like saying this Marijuana.  Take "bath salts" as an example.  It wasn't marketed as a drug, wasn't sold as a drug, it didn't provide instructions on how to use it as a drug however people started using it like a drug and what did various governments classify it as?  A controlled substance or a household product?

The only way xCoin doesn't get classified as a currency by various governments is if it lacks the properties of currency.  So something which isn't fungible, liquid, accepted as a medium or exchange, and doesn't store value probably won't be classified as a currency, then again why would you want to use that?

I posted the full text in a new thread...

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/someone-on-reddit-says-foundation-members-can-face-jail-time-242113

According to Patrick Murck, the Bitcoin Foundation only received the letter last week.

I've done a bit of research and everywhere I see it defined, legal dictionary or otherwise, Currency (synonym: banknote) seems to directly state, or infer the backing or endorsement of a government.  As such, Bitcoin is a commodity, and until I can walk into Bank of America and trade it for USD, like I can with my Mexican Pesos, Canadian Twoonies, or my British Pounds, I'm not going to consider it any more a currency than Joe Redneck would, my Peer on the Jury.  

Try telling a farmer he has to register as an MSB/MT to sell the carrots (commodity) he grew. (mined)  Or try telling a rancher he has to register as an MSB/MT to sell the calf (commodity) his cow just birthed. (mined)  You have to be pretty confused to think that creating/growing/birthing/mining a commodity then selling it somehow equates to being in the business of Money transmission.  (Money with a capital M, per Joe Redneck, my peer on the Jury.)

Now exchanging it as your sole business, I think that's a different ballgame, but mining it seems pretty cut and dry to me.

What am I missing?  And why does everyone seem to want Bitcoin to be a currency when it's far better off legally with an official definition in the realm of general commodity?  (oil, cattle, tulip bulbs)  No country in the world is going to be particularly receptive legally or otherwise to direct competition with their local Currency.  (with a capital C)

Cheers.

Of course there is no consequence for the state getting it wrong.  If the state had to pay costs + 20% + $5,000 punitive penalty for any improper notice there would be a lot less improper notices.  Then again it costs the state absolutely nothing.  Hell they could send a cease and desist to every human being in the country and all it would cost is the taxpayers of CA slightly more taxes.

Who, precisely, wrote that comment?  And is that author presently suing a bunch of bitcoin companies?

Had it really been the case that the foundation was engaged in unauthorized activities, I would expect the wording of the letter to be more along the line of"Hey there, don't move, gotcha!" Instead it has nothing specific/of substance in it, how can you ask someone to "cease and desist", without telling him what to stop doing?

What am I missing?  And why does everyone seem to want Bitcoin to be a currency when it's far better off legally with an official definition in the realm of general commodity?  (oil, cattle, tulip bulbs)  No country in the world is going to be particularly receptive legally or otherwise to direct competition with their local Currency.  (with a capital C)

OK thanks ... some comment in reddit:

First of all "paying wage" to own employees (in fiat/bitcoin/bananas/oranges) is not "money transmitting service".

Proper paperwork is a must of course even with bananas payment.

"(a) Whoever knowingly conducts, controls, manages, supervises, directs, or owns all or part of an unlicensed money transmitting business..."

The question then becomes whether the Bitcoin Foundation has any "control" or "direction" over its members and/or affiliates, who are most clearly in violation of the law under section (b). These words are vague. It could be argued that it does.

There is an extremely high chance that people will go to jail over this whether people here think it's stupid or not.

Did anyone consider that 'transmitting' money to their employees without the correct paperwork could trigger a cease and desist?

What some people here do not realize (and yes I mean you) is that by standing up for scammers you end up just as fucked as they are. Find a better hobby.

Could be any number of reasons, let's not jump to conclusions.

One thing that came up in a previous thread is the the foundation lists Satoshi as one of the founders, whereas it seems to be misleading.

The foundation could easily have been engaged in activity that it should not.  

I'm not saying California is correct either tho...

Let's find out the details of the case.

According to Patrick Murck, the Bitcoin Foundation only received the letter last week.