Topic: [BitFunder] WTF! BitFunder Restrictions to US Citizens (Read 12168 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.

I believe this is the reason Bitcoin price is stagnant...

It is absolutely unhappy time because of BTCT and BITFUNDER...... those two exchanges just diminishing the confidence of investors within BTC securities...

I know what you mean -- if we don't speak up for our right to bear Twinkies, they'll take away our rotten beef rights next, and when they come for our salmonella-infested poultry, there'l be no one left to speak up

(Twinkies?)

Jacque Shellacque:  You brag about sneaking into my America, hidden in the back of your mule's Deux Chevaux.  I know you weren't driving -- our Brave Boarder Guardsmen would have spotted a sicko like you in an instant, and you said you can't drive due to your so-called "illness."  It is not an illness, it's a lifestyle choice!  Acknowledge this, and stop sneaking into my country to spread your filthy vices!
Now my country will have to check the trunks of every Canadian shitbox trying to cross the border.  Just to keep sickos like you from infecting American Children with your perverted ideas about epilepsy.  
Epilepsy is not "normal" and it is not "natural," read the Bible, you sicko!

*As far as my not seeing you coming?  I probably won't if ur mom won't drive u 2 America.

Sec doesn't want businesses parading around as legit companies making a profit selling illegal items and operating in ways that would fuck over its investors. I think its funny that people think just because you use bitcoin as a form of payment the law no longer applies to them.

Because the grocery stores know they are doing something illegal by selling bad twinkies its only a matter of time before they get shut down. SEC's standards were put in place to protect the investors and any stock exchange service should comply if operating within its jurisdiction. 

Side note: would it not be possible to create a p2p exchange program?

last couple times I crossed the usa/canada boarder the only dedicated american patriots I saw were obese losers with dead eyes who were so bored that they barely had the energy to wave me through.

but what you say is pretty funny! if you ever want to live where you can express yourself freely, use cryptocurrency or cryptocurrency based securities exchanges without facing the wrath of a quasi-facist "nanny-state" c'mon up to canada. we respect FREEDOM here.

also, if I was actually going to do any of the things I write here... I wouldn't write them here first. The next time you see me...you wont see me. capice?

I like your metaphor so Ill try to explain my reasoning with it. I think that there should be 2 options for people, buy fresh twinkies from a grocery store (that is regulated by FDA) and you can also buy old gross twinkies you found in a back alley if you want to take the risk of it being expired/poisoned. My point is that for centralized exchanges to operate they need to be complying with the regulations in their field. We cant have half-assed grocery stores profiting off the old twinkies that should never have been sold in the first place.

Your twinkies comparison doesn't make any sense at all.

But see, why would you want sketchy stocks in the first place? This basically devolves into an argument over how to save the Twinkies that were masquerading as real food, made a bunch of people sick, and ended up proving unfeasible for everyone involved.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3316856

I've posted a proposal to potentially help US investors to reduce loss from forced selling at lower price.

Sauce?
And which "those laws" are them those?

P.S:  US law is THE OPPOSITE of access control on Apache servers.  It works like this:

Allow all
Deny Bad.thing.1, Bad.thing.2, ...

Horrible way to secure a server, 'coz everything not explicitly forbidden is ALLOWED.
No law?  Then shit's allowed.  See?

Those laws don't apply to cryptocurrencies or Bitcoin.

Maybe it's better that way.  At first glance:

Newsflash:  Dwolla yanking support on Oct. 15.
Search CampBX->Parent co:



Lawdy, why?

I think you're just affraid to drive

http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg.shtml

It's not currently possible to start a licensed exchange. There aren't any laws to make it possible.

The first step is to start a lobbying effort through DATA http://datauthority.org/ to create a new set of laws to make it possible. Otherwise the decentralized route will be the only path left to take.  
I think we will end up with both. It's a Napster type situation where Napster has just shut down and we all know what happens next technologically. It's inevitable that a decentralized exchange will happen and the region lock was probably the single decision that was the impetus for it. Ukyo's decision will have a ripple effect.

The technological solution is not a long term solution, it's a bootstrapping. The technological solution will eventually be regulated and that will be the long term solution.

A centralized exchange is a legal impossibility according to the vague US laws. You can thank the lack of foresight of US politicians for that. DATA authority may be able to bring some foresight into the lawmaking process and we probably need think tanks for this space.

Maybe some of the legitimate businesses that are already registered and want to incorporate bitcoin funding?

I might be wrong but aren't campbx and coinbase operating legally in the us?

And I completely agree with your two solutions. We either need a fully decantralized exchange (like colored coins) where these sketchy stocks can prosper freely, or a regulated centralized exchange that would probably be more expensive but I would be willing to pay for better insurance.

...and if someone bites the bullet and starts a licensed exchange, the fun's only starting -- where to find registered securities to trade???

There currently aren't and yes that is possible.

There are only two solutions.

A) Technological via a decentralized exchange.
B) Political via lobbying efforts to pass laws for customized regulation to cater to our needs.

I think both solutions should be pursued simultaneously. If lawmakers don't listen now, they'll listen when the tools are made and the pressure builds. Lawmakers can get together to pass a law to allow for Bitcoin exchanges but until that happens the technology is unregulated. The legal status is unknown although I do know that it's not legal to run an unlicensed centralized exchange.

Let me make sure i understand you:

1.  You hear about a crypto-related internet company, unregistered or registered in Belize or the Caymans.
2.  A guy on the internet tells you to invest.
3.  You are directed to a website, a "Virtual Exchange."
4a. Site tells you that nothing on the site is real, everything is for "entertainment or educational purposes only."
4b. Site tells you .
5.  ? ? ?
6,  You "invest" money anyway, expecting to "PROFIT!"

You don't see anything ... unusual here?

Edit:  you might find this exchange between burnside & Ukyo, from about a year ago, a fun read.

 

There should be a banner on the homepage saying "we will in no way attempt to comply with the US law". Do we have any actual details as to why these exchanges are shutting down? As far as I am understanding they just aren't complying with SEC's standards which don't seem too unfair in my opinion. I would love a bitcoin based stock exchange that actually does comply with US laws sort of like how many bitcoin exchanges operate legally in the US.

You didn't realize these exchanges weren't regulated?  That's incredible

This is exactly it. Pretending that the stocks were for educational purposes was a joke. Any company that takes in the equivalent of millions of dollars USD from investors is definitely not for educational purposes and should expect to be regulated like every other business in the united states. So clearly both of these exchanges were operating illegally, is there any reason to believe havelock is not going to suffer the same fate? Has anyone actually looked through their terms and how they operate carefully because it seems we only ever come to realize how incompetent these companies are after they have already fucked us over.

If terrorizing a struggling business into accepting your substandard ID wasn't enough, you now go on to threaten my children and my kindly grandma with your brutish reckless "driving"?

You don't frighten me, buster!  I have dedicated American Patriots guarding my boarders, they'll spot you for the terrorist weapon of mass destruction that you are, and then BAM!  Guantanamo!

Better keep your dangerous self to your God-forsaken backwater foregny, and stay out of my Land of the Free -- we have STANDARDS here.

they accepted my photo ID, I'm verified now, but your attitude towards people with barriers is still stuck in Nazi Germany circa 1939. I could go get a driver's license, you know. I do not have to disclose my medical condition, and I know epileptics who drive despite the risk, but out of consideration for the rest of the society I live in, and the safety of my fellow citizens I deign not to get behind the wheel, because I never know when a grand mal will come on and I will drive into pedestrians/ on-coming traffic/private properties/pets & animals.

But hey listen, you're obviously a forward thinking guy, how bout I do go get my license and go joyriding around your granny's house or the school where your kids attend. Fuck the rules, eh?

ORLY?
    "Frankly, if I dont get satisfaction, I hope they regulate these assholes right out of the water."

A vindictive call for the statist dogs to ruin the service for our able-bodied friends if a business doesn't cater to his "special needs."  Next he'll be asking for government to distribute the wealth, just because he was born poorer than me.  Unacceptable!

He should better himself or accept his station in life, not call on the government thugs to regulate a struggling business

The cool thing is that I now have to sell everything on BF since I don't have a driver licence and any credit card.

But the funniest thing is:


You only need the front face of a credit card to use it.

Why do you think that they want gov.t issued driver's license to begin with?  Here's a hint: it's the nanny-state.  They are causing this issue for our disabled friend, and he (justly so IMHO) is stating that if they are going to fuck him because of nanny-state id requirements, he hopes it takes them full circle and fucks the site too.

Nowhere did he call on the nanny state to intervene on his behalf.

My sense for day trading was to sell every asset once before to go to sleep or go to away from Internet and still I don't get easy having funds in this kind of sites.

I hope soon we have something like colored coins in beta.

Thats what you get for trusting.

Absolutely absurd. Between the actions of BTCT and BF I have lost just about everything I invested. BitFunder just a few weeks ago said they had no intent on closing and accepted the transfer of shares from BTCT - as soon as they get over there they pull this nonsense.

Access for people with disabilities is made possible through the very government regulations we try to avoid.
It is not a right.
Illness, much like poverty and lack of intelligence, hinders your ability to compete in this -- the free market.
Sad but true.
Kindly refrain from calling on the nanny-state to intervene on your behalf to regulate bitcoin entrepreneurs out of existence

It is also partially restricted to canadian and other users. As they force you to go through weexchange (false volume) they are going to prevent you from doing even this unless you have provided a selection of id documents totalling 100 points, but if you do not posses a drivers license there is NO WAY to get 100 points. I've got credit card (25 points), utility bill (25 points), passport (40 points) but no driver's license. I have epilepsy. Trust me, you DO NOT want me driving on public roads. so this means, due to a medical condition, that is no fault of my own, I am probably unable to use weexchange, and therefore, on nov 1st, totally unable to use bitfunder either.

now, i DID send my govt. of canada provincial photo ID card, which works at airports, boarder crossings, and every other official place that asks for driver's license, and I sent a message to them asking/warning them about this, but it seems they completely ignore all queries for help.

I really hope they address this bullshit cuz I want to sell my shares when I choose, not be forced to sell them before THEIR set deadline. Manipulation opportunity anyone?

Frankly, if I dont get satisfaction, I hope they regulate these assholes right out of the water.

I see, you have to register to sell the shares..

By the looks of things, shares are now going underground, I noticed Additcion mining are allowing you to convert your BF shares to direct shares..

I really hope this doesn't mean the end of crowd funding sites, I guess we just have to sit back and let the US have their rampage and try to pick up the pieces the best we can

I've lost 60% of all my BTC on BitFunder...in ONE day.

I'm pretty sure bitfunder.com will be shut down soon..

Nothing to do with BTC, everything to do with unregistered securities.
And you can buy & hold them as much as you like, it's the selling side that's a big no-no 

I've already lost BTC2, not that much compared to some I'm sure, but about BTC2 more than I wanted to lose today..

Is it time to cut the losses and bail, or stick with it. I understand a lot of the market for the stocks was US but seeing as I'm a UK citizen should I follow the trend and get out while I can, or stick with it. The shares obviously still have value, the companies still exist but perhaps the market has just be cut right down..

What are other free citizens doing in this time of need?

IMHO it's the perfect time to get cheap stocks, hopefully we'll see a surge in a few weeks, I don't think the UK will be imposing the same (law)? any time soon

* Is it a law or what, why are US citizens not allowed to hold BTC stocks any more?

Let's assume that *all* of Bitstamp deposits are Euro:



I'm afraid my statement holds true
*But, of course, Bitstamp's volume is not all Euro.  The Euros converted to US Dollars?  Those are dollars too

Here is the terms and conditions text from Ukyo's site:



Terse.  Concise.  Easy to understand.

No promises of explanations, commitment or Dear John letters.

You knew what this was.

This is a pertinent question. Where is the cease and desist? This shutdown was prompted by something, so where is the correspondence? Why are people content for Ukyo to not give any details about this

I'll address you grievance.
The exchange operators understood the shifting legal landscape, and explicitly stated that understanding in the site's user agreements/FAQs.  I'll quote burnside:

No assets on the site are to be considered real.
Nothing is verified. (Do your research!)
The use of this site is for educational and entertainment purposes only.
If an asset issuer on this site defaults, you have ZERO RECOURSE. (not like you have any recourse in most international BTC situations anyway.)

While the aforementioned would be laughed out of every Podunk courthouse, you must agree that it leaves little to interpretation.
If you feel that the wording is ambiguous, please offer a more direct alternative -- i'm at a loss.

If i didn't sufficiently stress that the legal landscape was, and continues to be, in flux, i'll repeat it.  The Pirateat40 case & other developments made it clear that these "virtual" antics had IRL consequences.  As i've mentioned before, the exchange operators attempted to telegraph their intent, going as far as announcing the possibility of restrictions on US citizens, but were shouted down.  Those willing to listen listened.

The exchanges were taking risks, you have opted to bet on the FAQs & user agreements being simply words to fool the regulators.
The regulators weren't fooled.  You were.

Of course I knew the risks.  And I mitigated them to a large extent by not exposing myself too much to the "securities" sector as a whole. 

OTOH, just saying "inversely" and not addressing the actual argument I put forward isn't an answer.

The exchange operators can't have it both ways, if they didn't understand the risks of running an exchange, and that in doing so they were putting themselves at risk and only woke up to this fact because they've only recently hired lawyers, I'd say that they are downright incompetent and shouldn't be trusted by the community should they try to do something going forward.

If they knew the risk and just got cold feet 6 months into the venture, then I'd say that speaks volumes as to their ethics.  If you were aware of the risks going in, then why did you even start it in the first place if you were going to run away at the first hint of trouble? 

Either way, neither has handled these things as they should have, both while operating and in shutdown mode.  I'm not saying it is easy, I'm just saying that they signed up for the task, and there is an implied type of responsibility there.  As you made clear, the risks were known, shutting down now is either an act of cowardice or incompetence.

It might be both, but it can't be neither. 

Inversely, you also knew the risks going in.
You knew that you were investing in illegal, unregistered stocks.  Or rather most here did.
If you did not, it wasn't for lack of warnings from fudsters, trolls & other sane adults.

Oh man, havelock should be next.

I have to say that the way that both Bitfunder and BTCT have handled things is absolutely atrocious.

If they are pretending that the conditions that are forcing them to shutter their doors didn't exist when they set up their exchanges, they are either liars, unethical or incompetent.

Each of them has created large quantifiable financial losses for people who had relied on their assertions and now they want to shove that responsibility off onto another entity.  I'd love to see even a redacted version of the Cease and Desist letter either of these exchanges received.  Because, I don't believe one exists.  They've scared themselves out of doing something that they should have known was scary to do in the first place.

Acting like all the rules around issuing securities just happened is a joke.  They were in place for literally decades and closing in on a century before these exchanges were ever conceived.

They knew the risks of running one of these things, if they weren't up to it they should have never started. 

Let's stifle our emotions for a sec & figure out what we're talking about.
Most of the bitcoin economy revolves around the dollar.  Like so:



Are you saying you wish for The US Dollar to vanish from the bitcoin scene?  If so, the US Government is your friend.  Our government is working, albeit halfheartedly, to stem the influx of USD into the bitcoin economy.  The flourishing bitcoin scam scene is doing the best it can to hurry teh process along.

+1

Maybe you hit the right point

Great. Also it has being discussed in any particular stuff discussion thread that was holded at BitFunder.

The point is were just as mad about it as you are, well those of us that are aware. I'm not happy with what the US is doing any more than you are, but pointing fingers at people in the US and saying Haha I hope you get screwed even more its your fault is pretty childish and naive to say the least.

All of us need to band together. We should be upset mostly at this situation and trying to come together to find a solution so this stops happening to all the exchanges. Blaming governments and their people wont stop the panic selling

Actually no, most of the countries involved fought to simply maintain their land. Only a few powers were interested in taking over the world.

The function of any Government is to govern and do right by her people. Obviously no Government in the world actually stands up to this ideal, but some are better than others. I suggest the USA works against its own people every single time making it one of the worst offenders, along with China and Saudi Arabia.

Don't the world wars show us that the government should not aim for that?

Actually that is the function of any government. What do you think the world wars were about?

The SEC isn't the problem. The SEC is in the process of making crowdfunding legal. All this does is clear the way for another group of US companies to set up a regulated exchange.

SecondMarket or Sterlingfunder for example. The best thing to do is pull your coins out of all these exchanges and wait it out. The SEC has nothing to do with people panic selling or with exchanges shutting down and votes have nothing to do with the inaction of the SEC to publish their rules for crowdfunding.

Agreed, the sooner the better.

The USD is about to crash hard along with the US economy.

This is what happens to all ponzi schemes sooner or later...

There is no difference, give your government the power to control the world reserve currency, lets see how long it takes before they are the bully on the block.

Well there's the official BitFunder thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitfunder-asset-exchange-marketplace-rewritable-options-trading-130117

Then there's the discussion about the exclusion of US citizens: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/if-you-are-a-us-citizen-you-basically-can-go-f-yourself-btct-bitfunder-dwolla-308012 (I guess that's what you're looking for)

Then there's the discussion about Ukyo.Loan regarding the current situation: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ukyo-can-us-members-collect-divs-or-transfer-assets-after-111-308053

And finally if this problem could also hit havelock: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/can-us-citizens-expect-the-same-fate-on-havelock-308018

This sucks, looks like its almost impossible to have any bitcoin securities in USA any more.

Well most Governments don't try to control the entire world. That is the difference.

Yes, its all of us USA'rs fault, die USA'rs. Stop being stupid, there is no government out there that's doing its people any favors.

Well I am not really sympathetic. I don't live in the USA yet my own investments are being eroded away due to all this drama with your SEC and remember, you voted in your leaders.

You reap what you sow.

I prefer a world where there are no Bitcoins in the USA at all. How awesome would it be if the USA missed out on the cryptographic economy completely while the rest of the world surges ahead?

Time for Bitcoin to grow up and become the worlds economy, excluding the USA of course. I knew all along the USA and its goal to control and know everything was incompatible with Bitcoin.

Link the other ones then.

Why don't we create another 5 threads on this topic, maybe that changes something.

Now that bit-coin is considered money.  Bitfunder is a stock exchange, the government wants to get its greedy hands in the cookie jar.  Hopefully Bitfunder gets all the regulations figured out.