Topic: [BitFunder] WTF! BitFunder Restrictions to US Citizens (Read 12171 times)

read what? Im trying to have a discussion but it doesn't seem that's happening. You are just saying I'm wrong without providing tour reasoning.


BitCOIN
"is a cryptoCURRENCY" - wikipedia
"Bitcoin is an experimental, decentralized digital CURRENCY"

Coins: pieces of hard material used primarily as a medium of exchange or legal tender

"In August 2013 Germany's Finance Ministry subsumed Bitcoins under the term "unit of account"—a financial instrument" -wiki

To be clear I do understand that there is a grey area whether btc is considered currency or not. I am only saying that it is my opinion that it will eventually be clearly regulated/defined and id rather be exchanging on a site that is already complying with the laws we know are either already in place, or will be put in place eventually. I find ir highly unlikely that the feds say "oh well since its not real money go ahead and sell illegal drugs/securities/whatever"

I would love to hear your opinion and reasoning, not just that I am wrong and that I should go educate myself more.

No, seriously. You need to chill out and read, gain a perspective. You're in no position to tell me what's what. Curiosity is fine and good, ignoring sense and authority to rehash the same broken assumptions over and over is not.

Your entire argument is that bitcoin might not be considered money. We already know that the federal government has in the biggest bitcoin related court case, considered bitcoin money. So with the feds and a majority of bitcoin users (all I know) considering bitcoins money what makes you think it isn't money?

You are in fact playing pretend by imagining bitcoin isn't money while trying to avoid the simple security laws that have existed forever. It doesn't matter what you/internet sleuths/marriam websters top definitionists think, all that matters is what the feds think and we already know that in at least 1 case they rules bitcoin as being money.

So you guys can keep making exchange sites that dont comply and will eventually get shut down until the next shitty exchange opens and repeats the process.

or you could run an actual security exchange like every other existing exchange in this world.

You say that colored coins or any p2p would also get shut down. How exactly? Its not as easy as knocking on someones door and intimidating them in to shutting down their illegal operation.

That's not an argument, it's a point of fact. We're dealing with what is here, are you suggesting that people act so as to anticipate what "everybody thinks" (where everybody excludes those actually familiar with the topic) will happen in the future? What's next, tarot cards?


That you are able to sell something for money does not mean that something is money. I'd urge you to read more about currency and money in general and think for yourself about these concepts rather than depending on, again, "what everybody knows" etc.


It's not pretending anything, and again, this isn't about what the uninitiated "are sure will happen". What the uninitiated are sure will happen is common speculation, and there's a reason the actual players don't get themselves tripped up with it. As you've seen, those who would like to play but either cannot or remain willfully clueless do end up tripping.


The notion that anything not carrying the still-retarded, still-playpretend citizen finance banner, whether it's p2p or whatever else, will be shut down "because US" is very mistaken and probably an artifact of confused observation of how the play exchanges have crumbled thus far. That inept stuff ends up being unable to stand has zero bearing on the apt.

This entire "you should try to fit facts into uninformed guesses about the future to appease the gods which have no business here and which we wish would stop infringing on people but whom we insist will hide under your bed and eat you up at night" is really silly. Let it go already.

Let me explain why it's important for you to behave:



Where teh US dollar is involved, US has jurisdiction.  Or, at least, US feels it has jurisdiction, which proves to be functionally identical to having said jurisdiction.
Everything else is fluff & sophistry -- commit it then to the flames.

Eve's will be regulated the day that they exchange millions of US dollars worth of their currency through security trading daily. As far as i know the Eve economy moves around $50,000 daily, so not much to be regulated. According to bitcoinwatch Bitcoins market cap is over 1 Billion USD at current rates.

Bitcoin may be considered currency by the feds or it might not but I think we all know its only a matter of time before it is considered currency so why would we waste our time/money with exchanges knowing that they are going to get shut down the second they do clearly define bitcoin as money/causing share prices to plummet.

Also about the UK not having the regulatory environment the US has have you seen this link?

https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/oia/oia_cooparrangements.shtml

This to me says that it really doesn't matter where you are hosting this service, once it becomes a big enough problem the feds will go after it.

I still think the only solutions are at least try to comply with SEC, or use something decentralized like colored coins that cant be shut down affecting shareholders.


I think most US citizens will agree that it is bullshit that the US implies its laws on other countries especially when not even involving US citizens but then again those countries did agree to enforce them.

Hmm, let me make one thing perfectly clear - as maybe you don't understand my position.

I AGREE with you that it appears clear the US are now considering Bitcoin as money (for some purposes) - and it would be exceedingly unwise for someone based in the US to startup a Bitcoin exchange serving US investors.  But I'm not based in the US - and am only concerned with their laws to the extent that they're in accordance with those of a jurisdiction in which I operate (or where compliance with them is covered by a treaty/understanding/whatever).  If I (or anyone else) operates in a jurisdiction where Bitcoin is NOT considered as being money then what some judge in Texas says is neither here nor there.

Ask yourself why, when the largest poker sites were not just serving - but actively targetting - US customers (despite the US saying it was illegal) no action was taken against them for doing that.  They DID eventually run into trouble - but it wasn't for providing the service, but for misrepresenting financial transactions to banks/FSPs (to get around laws brought in that prevented US banks/FSPs handling their transactions if they were honestly identified).

The US can't (in general - there are exceptions) prevent those in other jurisdictions conducting business that's legal even if it involves serving US customers.  In the same way that the US government doesn't insist any website criticising the North Korean Government requests KYC/AML identification from every user to ensure they don't supply it to North Korean residents (where, for the purpose of this post, we'll assume such material is illegal).  If a country wants to stop its citizens doing something that is legal elsewhere then the onus is on the country to block it - not on every business in every other country in the world to expend time and effort complying with every whim of every dictatorship.  Shocking as it may seem to every US citizen, your country does NOT have the right to expect everyone else to jump through hoops to ensure we don't happen to provide something to you which your government would prefer you not to have.

Same worn-out arguments.  "How cum they don't regulate gamez, huh?"

For the same reason they don't charge children playing cops & robbers with impersonating an officer -- 'coz they're smart that way.
But if enough dope gets bought with ISK, and if EVE players start acting up like naughty little revolutionaries, they'll get slapped too.
Now behave.
 

Talking about Securities Act of 1933 again? Oh, ma, do we haveta?
The MPOE Interpretation was meh when it was first written, but now it's simply lulzy.
The Pirateat40 case, Texas judge sez bitcoin's money, summarily dismissing the very same argument raised by Pirate's attorney.

But who the f is that hick judge?  Do his opinions carry weight with modern international financiers, which petty bitcoin scammers imagine themselves to be?

Well, let's say they should carry more weight than those of some guy on the interwebz who may-or-may-not-have passed the bar.

You should look at Eve online then - there have been securities issued there for years in their currency ISK.  Or second-life for that matter.  Not seen the SEC making a fuss about either.  And both of those can be traded for USD (very openly in the case of second-life currency).

The fact that something CAN be used as money/currency isn't sufficient for it to be legally considered as BEING money or currency.  That's what you're missing.  It doesn't matter what your intention, my intention, Satoshi's intention or MPOE-PR's intention is when we hold/buy/sell/trade BTC.  What matters is how your jurisdiction defines BTC.  In the US that's now tending towards it being treated as being money/currency - in at least some situations.  In other jurisdictions (e.g. the UK) at present it is NOT considered as being a currency or money and we have none of the regulatory limitations that the US are attempting to impose (though, of course, that's always subject to change).

Arguments I found weak:
 
As far as I'm understanding the argument of the entire article revolves around the fact that bitcoin may not be considered money under the current definition. Not only is bitcoin considered money by a majority of the people who use it, many people exchange bitcoins for USD/other currencies eventually, so using btc is like a proxy. Either way thinking that a definition alone is going to make anything bitcoin related immune to laws is silly and its only a matter of time before the definition is changed.

Why does bitcoin not constitute money/capital? It is clear that bitcoins do hold a monetary value or they wouldn't be constantly selling for $100+ USD.


"Bitcoin may be an item of value by one or more people" really?? This article pretends that the sole purpose of bitcoin isn't to store value. And the day that people begin using runescape cash/microsoft points to exchange securities I'm sure that SEC will be on their ass too.

The argument isn't that Bitcoin is virtual, rather that it doesn't LEGALLY have a value of the type (monetary/financial) necessary for it be a valid consideration offered by contract for that contract to be considered a security.  Securities have to offer a specific type of consideration - and the core of the argument is that they don't meet that definition.  It increasingly looks like the US authorities are now intent on changing their mind on that - which luckily isn't of too much relevance to those of us in other countries where a different view is taken.

I agree with a lot of the article - but by no means all of it.  Specifically I disagree that contracts where payment is in BTC are contracts without consideration (and hence null and void and unenforcable).  Whilst it's necessary for consideration to be offered to form a contract, such consideration doesn't need to have a monetary value - valid consideration can exist at any time where the parties agree that what is being exchanged has value (that's a gross over-simplification).  Further, for something to be consideration it is only requisite that it must move from the Promisee - it doesn't have to move to the Promisor.  So unless the parties are able to obtain BTC for free (meaning no cost in money OR expenditure of effort) there is a cost to them in fulfilling their part of the contract - that what they then provide (BTC) may have no recognisable (monetary) value doesn't invalidate it as a consideration.  Put another way - receipt of any measurable benefit is NOT a pre-requisite for something to be a consideration : it is sufficient for there to be a cost (not necessarily a financial one) in fulfilling the promise.  In short, the article conflated 'monetary consideration' with 'consideration'.

That line of thought is akin to the "it's all just pretend" theory adopted by BTC-TC and (aside from being wrong) isn't particularly helpful as it's a charter for scammers : by attempting to pretend that a promise to supply someone with BTC is not a consideration.

It may help to consider a simple contract here.  

Consider a scenario where the issuer sells shares for 1 BTC then promises to spend $10 each month on buying BTC and send them to you.

IF BTC are not considered money or currency in your jurisdiction then there is no exchange of monetary value - as neither the 1 BTC you send to the issuer or the smaller amounts of BTC you receive back each month have recognised monetary value.  That it costs the issuer $10 to BUY the BTC he sends you is not relevant - as legally that value vanishes when he purchases the BTC (i.e. before any transmission to you).  You're only promised to be sent BTC - not that they'll be worth $10 (or anything at all) to you.  The article argues that in US law BTC don't meet the criteria for having monetary value (being money) - which unfortunately isn't relevant if the US decide to change the way they interpret things, but is still a valid argument in other jurisdictions.

Where I disagree with the article is over its apparent assertion that there is no consideration in such a contract.  As the purchaser I only need to demonstrate that it cost me time and/or money to purchase the 1 BTC I sent for it to plainly be consideraton.  And the issuer very clearly is offering consideration - as he is committed to spending $10 (regardless of whether or not the BTC are worth anything to me when I receive them).  So at the point at which I send the 1 BTC a bilateral contract is formed.  The same applies if the calculation of payments didn't mention USD - I only put that in to try to also address the issue of how a contract that mentioned USD could still arguably not be a security (subject to the relevant jurisdiction treating BTC as having no monetary value).

You can bring an actual argument or else not bring anything; vaguely alluding to what you imagine are weak arguments without identifying them or your reasoning achieves exactly nothing.


Me? What I'm saying is exactly in my posts above you.


This discussion isn't about companies accepting BTC for services rendered.


This is what you said. The complete and seminal discussion of the matter is in MP's article.

I read the entire article and found the arguments weak at best. I dont think we are on the same page or at least im not. What is it exactly you are trying to say?

I just want to know why a company like e-trade couldn't begin accepting bitcoin as a payment option legally.

Nope. Not at all. I imagine the problem here is you're seeking to confirm your notion of what the argument is rather than diligently, freely reading. That latter is absolutely required in order to understand more advanced topics (of which this is certainly one, and developing said understanding may take some time).

The article you linked said that because bitcoin is virtual it should not be considered money. I think this is a hilarious defense of bitcoin. The gov doesnt care what currency you use to invest in securities. You could use goats or chickens to invest in securities that doesnt make you above the laws in place. Bitcoins sole function is to be a form of currency so why are people pretending its not that.

Is there any reason that an existing stock exchange that already complies with SEC, can not start accepting bitcoins as a form of payment?

Also its not impossible to register with SEC as try bitcoin inc have successfully done so

http://bitbet.us/bet/554/bitfunder-will-close-before-july-of-2014/

Bet: BitFunder will close before July of 2014 -

The bet resolves as YES if BitFunder discontinues operation (stops allowing signup for new members altogether and/or disables BTC withdrawal either explicitly or as sufficiently reported by at least five community members) before July 1st 2014

QG

Sure, you can use the exchange with the legit securities. It neither needs nor wants governmental interference. This alternative "option" you speak of that can "save you money" will never achieve said goal in the sense that so long as something is a play exchange that hosts play securities, you're no longer in the realm of finance, but of playing pretend. You can represent some pittance you managed to snatch for yourself before some poor guy got left holding the hot potato as "having saved money", but again, this is playing pretend. Taking it seriously and involving it in discussions about the actual exchange silly at best and very, very dangerous for your wallet (and I suppose your overall well-being, etc) at the worst.


Stuff doesn't really work this way. Have a look at a real IPO, specifically section 3.2 (a). This, by the way, is (part of) what makes a legitimate security; not some scammer "creating buzz" about it, not some earnest but sadly unproficient guy supposing it looks okay, not a few determined but incapable people "voting it in", and not Nanny Gov saying it's okay.


I tried to select a specific chunk to quote for you, but you'll have to read the whole thing: The reasons why Bitcoin securities can’t be regulated by the SEC.

I think that you should be able to buy with a centralized exchange you know will have legit securities, and a decentralized option that would save you money. You could easily list your security on both the decentralized/centralized exchanges offering both options while knowing that the security has met the regulations set in place to protect investors.

Im not 100% sure I understand what you mean but I think you are saying that it is impossible for bitcoin securities/exchanges to get registered with SEC. And the gov is not regulating BTC in that case they are regulating SECURITIES. They don't give a shit how you pay for your investments, they just want to make sure they comply with the laws that have been in place for 50+ years.

And is it impossible to register with SEC or is it that nobody has even tried because they like to pretend that by saying bitcoin is "virtual currency" they can get away with illegal activities.

So basically, as far as you're concerned it's either pretend you're investing with shitty non-stocks you're aware are shitty, or else nothing at all (seeing as US Gov't regulated BTC is no longer BTC). This is a good way to go through life being sick (and/or being poor), and a fine way to starve.

That you imagine these are the options reveals the sorry state that newcomers and otherwise uniformed or emotionally clusterfucked parties alike have gotten themselves into.

Allow me to shed some light on the matter. Bullshit non-companies imagining they're "involved in BTC" have been taking advantage of bullshit non-exchanges imagining they're "innovating in BTC finance" even before MPEx was established. Unlike MPEx, those non-exchanges and a fair amount of non-businesses have crumbled. Spectacularly, and with about as much fallout as you'd expect from the implosion of bullshit scaffolding built ever and ever higher around the coins of those who don't know better or simply don't care 'til the money's gone.

I've been here, pointing this out, repeatedly.





Every time a play exchange folds, or it's no longer possible to cover one's ears and pretend their major, gaping flaws aren't flaws, forumites and others who haven't yet realized that actual BTC finance happens on IRC panic in search of some easily recognizable replacement, whether it's another bullshit non-exchange, or whether it's a similarly broken idea riding on the wings of some dev concept.

As you somehow might not expect, though you should, these palliative measures aimed at making everything okay again for bullshit non-companies only ever repeat the cycle.




The solution to all of this is not packaging up "the community"'s collective cluelessness and sending it off to Nanny Gov so that a hand much harder, meaner, and indiscriminate than mine can smack people every time they put money and thoughtless cheering into bullshit.

GPG contracts. Security that isn't based on the limitations of a "slick" website. Actual IPOs from actually planned out, accountable entities. Yes, there's a fee. You're paying for that which works, which in the end is all that's worth paying for. No, I'm not especially nice in that In-N-Out Burger sort of way (though I'm just PR, you don't have to deal with me at all to use the exchange). The lies, the sugar-coating, the beating around the bush, is exactly for cheap food service and has no place in BTC finance. Plenty of people have thrown a fit over these facts, I'm sure plenty of people will continue to do so, and will continue to lose their money. MPEx will be right here.