This is big. Why is this news only leaking out now 
According to Patrick Murck, the Bitcoin Foundation only received the letter last week.
Topic: 2013-06-23 Forbes - Bitcoin Foundation Receives Cease And Desist Order From Ca - page 3. (Read 9595 times)
June 24, 2013, 07:15:39 AM
According to Patrick Murck, the Bitcoin Foundation only received the letter last week.
June 24, 2013, 07:03:45 AM
The government is confused, nothing to see here.
After reading the C and D letter, I am actually convinced that it's more of the boilerplate type that orgs like RIAA/MPAA throws at everybody "just in case", no substantial evidence of breaking any law/regulation is provided in the letter, neither any particular activity involving the Foundation that is considered illegal.
After reading the C and D letter, I am actually convinced that it's more of the boilerplate type that orgs like RIAA/MPAA throws at everybody "just in case", no substantial evidence of breaking any law/regulation is provided in the letter, neither any particular activity involving the Foundation that is considered illegal.
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.
June 24, 2013, 06:34:57 AM
The government is confused, nothing to see here.
After reading the C and D letter, I am actually convinced that it's more of the boilerplate type that orgs like RIAA/MPAA throws at everybody "just in case", no substantial evidence of breaking any law/regulation is provided in the letter, neither any particular activity involving the Foundation that is considered illegal.
After reading the C and D letter, I am actually convinced that it's more of the boilerplate type that orgs like RIAA/MPAA throws at everybody "just in case", no substantial evidence of breaking any law/regulation is provided in the letter, neither any particular activity involving the Foundation that is considered illegal.
I agree. I have a feeling someone saw footage of the Bitcoin ATM at the conference and proceeded to mail these letters to anyone they could find with "Bitcoin" in their name.
June 24, 2013, 05:45:32 AM
The government is confused, nothing to see here.
After reading the C and D letter, I am actually convinced that it's more of the boilerplate type that orgs like RIAA/MPAA throws at everybody "just in case", no substantial evidence of breaking any law/regulation is provided in the letter, neither any particular activity involving the Foundation that is considered illegal.
After reading the C and D letter, I am actually convinced that it's more of the boilerplate type that orgs like RIAA/MPAA throws at everybody "just in case", no substantial evidence of breaking any law/regulation is provided in the letter, neither any particular activity involving the Foundation that is considered illegal.
June 24, 2013, 02:51:21 AM
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.
Cheers.
Because that's where it is headed eventually (a currency) so I'd prefer that we (society) just concretely define it as a currency and then everyone knows where they stand and can build based on that.
Right now no one knows where Bitcoin stands, it could be a commodity, a currency, a meaningless play thing...? Once it is clearly defined then you can clearly work within that framework, without building a business and then finding out that the definition has changed on a whim and your business model is no longer viable.
It's not like it's not definable as a generic commodity. And you want it defined explicitly by the US Gov't as a Currency *why*? What are the benefits of that over the current definition?
So it's not a Currency... and per most accepted definitions it isn't one until it gets some official gov't backing somewhere... That's not a bad thing. Blindly marching toward a confrontation with the US Gov't because you want it to be a Currency (banknote, legal tender, physical coin) is only going to get you "Liberty Dollar'd". Unlike Pinocchio who so badly wanted to be a real boy, there's no fairy godmother guaranteeing Bitcoin it's happy ending.
June 24, 2013, 02:25:43 AM
Ill be honest, they are really starting to clamp down hard in the U.S and is making me nervous.
With this exception of this California action, everything else in the US has been completely consistent with existing US law.
I am speaking of the recent developments with the IRS and FinCen along with this as well as the numerous services surrounding bitcoin that have gone down.
As am I. Recent developments with the IRS and FinCEN are entirely consistent with US law as it has existed for years. Ditto Mutum Sigillium seizure warrant. Tax and MSB implications were directly addressed years ago in my State of the Coin 2011 presentation, among others. If you operate outside the law in your jurisdiction, the obvious result occurs... eventually.
Then I must be confused with the state of things then. I was under the impression that the recent IRS (or was it FinCen??) ruling/statement was that mining bitcoins will/may require an MSB/MT licensure.
I could be wrong and hope I am, I am not trolling I truly want to know.
My understanding is that if you mine bitcoins and then "use" them to purchase goods, no license necessary.
If you mine, and then "sell" them for fiat currency, then you need to be registered as a MSB. However, if you go to an exchange, then I think that puts the responsibility on the exchange. At least, let's hope so
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.
To a kid, that'd be pokemon cards and M&M's. To a gamer, WoW gold and GameStop points. To a woman 25-55, it's facebook credits, starbucks points, and airline miles. Sounds to me like it's another one of those "three felonies a day" situations. "We have jurisdiction over anything you care about."
June 24, 2013, 02:12:21 AM
Ill be honest, they are really starting to clamp down hard in the U.S and is making me nervous.
With this exception of this California action, everything else in the US has been completely consistent with existing US law.
Garzik, every totalitarian government acts totally in the scope of its laws too. Remarkably, the more totalitarian, the vaguer the laws tend to be.
June 24, 2013, 02:10:29 AM
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.
Cheers.
Because that's where it is headed eventually (a currency) so I'd prefer that we (society) just concretely define it as a currency and then everyone knows where they stand and can build based on that.
Right now no one knows where Bitcoin stands, it could be a commodity, a currency, a meaningless play thing...? Once it is clearly defined then you can clearly work within that framework, without building a business and then finding out that the definition has changed on a whim and your business model is no longer viable.
June 24, 2013, 01:53:30 AM
Ill be honest, they are really starting to clamp down hard in the U.S and is making me nervous.
With this exception of this California action, everything else in the US has been completely consistent with existing US law.
I am speaking of the recent developments with the IRS and FinCen along with this as well as the numerous services surrounding bitcoin that have gone down.
As am I. Recent developments with the IRS and FinCEN are entirely consistent with US law as it has existed for years. Ditto Mutum Sigillium seizure warrant. Tax and MSB implications were directly addressed years ago in my State of the Coin 2011 presentation, among others. If you operate outside the law in your jurisdiction, the obvious result occurs... eventually.
Then I must be confused with the state of things then. I was under the impression that the recent IRS (or was it FinCen??) ruling/statement was that mining bitcoins will/may require an MSB/MT licensure.
I could be wrong and hope I am, I am not trolling I truly want to know.
My understanding is that if you mine bitcoins and then "use" them to purchase goods, no license necessary.
If you mine, and then "sell" them for fiat currency, then you need to be registered as a MSB. However, if you go to an exchange, then I think that puts the responsibility on the exchange. At least, let's hope so
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.
June 24, 2013, 01:50:10 AM
I am aware of all the things people are saying. I'm just trying to say there are multiple ways to interpret the basis for the memo.
You mean if you have no clue how Bitcoin works, and you have no clue how open source development works....then this memo can be interpreted as having merit?
One would also have to have no clue about how cease and desist orders, the USPS, bureaucratic govt in general, and social media, works to interpret it as such.
June 24, 2013, 01:44:23 AM
Ill be honest, they are really starting to clamp down hard in the U.S and is making me nervous.
With this exception of this California action, everything else in the US has been completely consistent with existing US law.
I am speaking of the recent developments with the IRS and FinCen along with this as well as the numerous services surrounding bitcoin that have gone down.
As am I. Recent developments with the IRS and FinCEN are entirely consistent with US law as it has existed for years. Ditto Mutum Sigillium seizure warrant. Tax and MSB implications were directly addressed years ago in my State of the Coin 2011 presentation, among others. If you operate outside the law in your jurisdiction, the obvious result occurs... eventually.
Then I must be confused with the state of things then. I was under the impression that the recent IRS (or was it FinCen??) ruling/statement was that mining bitcoins will/may require an MSB/MT licensure.
I could be wrong and hope I am, I am not trolling I truly want to know.
My understanding is that if you mine bitcoins and then "use" them to purchase goods, no license necessary.
If you mine, and then "sell" them for fiat currency, then you need to be registered as a MSB. However, if you go to an exchange, then I think that puts the responsibility on the exchange. At least, let's hope so
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.
June 24, 2013, 12:33:09 AM
I am aware of all the things people are saying. I'm just trying to say there are multiple ways to interpret the basis for the memo.
You mean if you have no clue how Bitcoin works, and you have no clue how open source development works....then this memo can be interpreted as having merit?
June 24, 2013, 12:21:37 AM
I am aware of all the things people are saying. I'm just trying to say there are multiple ways to interpret the basis for the memo.
June 24, 2013, 12:10:03 AM
If you ever read that FinCen guidance document, the fact that Bitcoin Foundation develops the software that is used for "making" Bitcoin makes them an administrator of such currency and according to "law" administrators are a subject for money transmitter regulation.
I think people might be making a mistake saying that "Stae of California has made a mistake somehow".
The Foundation is less about direct development and more about Public Relations and community building. The github group is more in line with what you describe.I think people might be making a mistake saying that "Stae of California has made a mistake somehow".
The only administrators of the software and currency are the miners and nodes.
June 23, 2013, 11:59:03 PM
Well, technically though the Foundation develops the software...
They assist in the development of software. Plenty of code contributions come from non-BF devs too.
June 23, 2013, 11:49:03 PM
If you ever read that FinCen guidance document, the fact that Bitcoin Foundation develops the software that is used for "making" Bitcoin makes them an administrator of such currency and according to "law" administrators are a subject for money transmitter regulation.
I think people might be making a mistake saying that "State of California has made a mistake somehow".
I think people might be making a mistake saying that "State of California has made a mistake somehow".
So in order to create a pull request for Bitcoin-qt you now need to register as a money transmitter...?
Or if you send money to someone who has created any of the Bitcoin-qt code you also need to register as a money transmitter?
Come to think of it why didn't Github get a cease and desist letter for acting as a money transmitter? Because obviously they are also money transmitters...
June 23, 2013, 11:26:25 PM
This tweet about California's action today was so perfect:
Quote
Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
June 23, 2013, 11:25:04 PM
So this was posted more than 20 days after the notice was issued... has the foundation responded with their corrective actions yet?
June 23, 2013, 11:23:56 PM
Ill be honest, they are really starting to clamp down hard in the U.S and is making me nervous.
With this exception of this California action, everything else in the US has been completely consistent with existing US law.
I am speaking of the recent developments with the IRS and FinCen along with this as well as the numerous services surrounding bitcoin that have gone down.
As am I. Recent developments with the IRS and FinCEN are entirely consistent with US law as it has existed for years. Ditto Mutum Sigillium seizure warrant. Tax and MSB implications were directly addressed years ago in my State of the Coin 2011 presentation, among others. If you operate outside the law in your jurisdiction, the obvious result occurs... eventually.
Then I must be confused with the state of things then. I was under the impression that the recent IRS (or was it FinCen??) ruling/statement was that mining bitcoins will/may require an MSB/MT licensure.
I could be wrong and hope I am, I am not trolling I truly want to know.
My understanding is that if you mine bitcoins and then "use" them to purchase goods, no license necessary.
If you mine, and then "sell" them for fiat currency, then you need to be registered as a MSB. However, if you go to an exchange, then I think that puts the responsibility on the exchange. At least, let's hope so
June 23, 2013, 11:15:10 PM
If you ever read that FinCen guidance document, the fact that Bitcoin Foundation develops the software that is used for "making" Bitcoin makes them an administrator of such currency and according to "law" administrators are a subject for money transmitter regulation.
I think people might be making a mistake saying that "State of California has made a mistake somehow".
I think people might be making a mistake saying that "State of California has made a mistake somehow".
Jump to: