Topic: 2013-06-23 Forbes - Bitcoin Foundation Receives Cease And Desist Order From Ca - page 3. (Read 9548 times)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."  

Garzik, every totalitarian government acts totally in the scope of its laws too. Remarkably, the more totalitarian, the vaguer the laws tend to be.

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.

+1, however I believe FinCen claims jurisdiction over "replacements for money, money-like things" or something to that effect.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.
The only administrators of the software and currency are the miners and nodes.

They assist in the development of software.  Plenty of code contributions come from non-BF devs too.

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...   

This tweet about California's action today was so perfect:

So this was posted more than 20 days after the notice was issued... has the foundation responded with their corrective actions yet?

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

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".