Spoetnik warned you all - he's sicking the SEC on your ass now

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: ?? on ??

Well, time to outsource to Japan ? Which said it loves Bitcoin.

Mt. Gox redux. Thanks. Charles Hoskinson (Ethereum founder) apparently took your advice:

https://iohk.io/team/

Quote from: https://iohk.io/careers/

Ability to communicate in English (Japanese strongly desired, Spanish would be a plus)
Ability to relocate to our office in Osaka, Japan or work remotely in Tokyo (Frequent trips to Osaka might be required)

Spoetnik

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1011

FUD Philanthropist™

In case you Altcorn guys missed the Scam Alert issued by the SEC..

Take note this was posted by me in the Bitcointalk - Bitcoin section the same day it was posted on the web.
(I had posted it within a few hours of it showing up online)
And apparently you all proclaimed this was glorious grand news, finally proclaiming BTC is now officially Legit.
I usually take "investor alert" warnings from the SEC in a more negative light though..
And the "Forum" they mention in the PDF Alert is clearly referring to Bitcointalk.

So rejoice Shitcoiner's and read the "Good News" !

https://www.sec.gov/investor/alerts/ia_virtualcurrencies.pdf

Quote

Bitcoin Ponzi Scheme. In a recent case, SEC v. Shavers,
the organizer of an alleged Ponzi scheme advertised a Bitcoin “investment opportunity” in an online Bitcoin forum.
Investors were allegedly promised up to 7% interest per week and that the invested funds would be used for Bitcoin arbitrage activities in order to generate the returns. Instead, invested Bitcoins were allegedly used to pay existing
investors and exchanged into U.s. dollars to pay the organizer’s personal expenses

and take note.. Spoetnik sick'd teh SEC's on ya ass'z Wink

financetalks

full member

Activity: 191

Merit: 100

Quote from: MisterGreen on October 28, 2014, 10:42:25 AM

I'am asking me why the SEC wants their actions to be kept confidential. Because they don't want that other companies bail out right in time before they receiving a letter from them or to what else?

Let's hope that they don't want to get their fingers on the customer database of the companies. Not because money laundery but for charging taxes.

They can't really keep their actions confidential. Any official action they take will be reported by mass media anyway.

Now it seems SEC targets only on companies instead of individuals. However, your concern about the customer database is real and is also my key concern.

MisterGreen

sr. member

Activity: 285

Merit: 250

I'am asking me why the SEC wants their actions to be kept confidential. Because they don't want that other companies bail out right in time before they receiving a letter from them or to what else?

Let's hope that they don't want to get their fingers on the customer database of the companies. Not because money laundery but for charging taxes.

felment

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Cointelegraph reports the SEC letters to possibly hundreds of crypto-companies, but also reports FinCEN has simultaneously ruled exchanges and payment processors most likely fall under the US definition of money transmitter and thus, must apply for licenses.

http://cointelegraph.com/news/112811/us-regulators-one-two-punch-sec-probes-crowdsales-fincen-takes-aim-at-exchanges

You can read the FinCEN rulings at these links.

http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/rp/rulings/pdf/FIN-2014-R011.pdf

http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/rp/rulings/pdf/FIN-2014-R012.pdf

Spoetnik

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1011

FUD Philanthropist™

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Spoetnik on October 27, 2014, 10:33:52 PM

Hundreds of Bitcoin companies that have released unregistered securities on Counterparty, Cryptostocks have been sent inquiry letters by the SEC.

I don't know where you got that from but if you omit the word counterparty it makes alot more sense. Counterparty sits on top of the bitcoin blockchain and is an exchange of sorts between currencies and i fail to see how it qualifies as a "company." Cryptostocks however is issuing securities and would therefore be a target.

i got that from first the paragraph in the news story.. i said that in what you quoted me saying, which you removed Wink

the OP posted the topic as a link only and many of you went on to comment with out reading the link.. at least the first paragraph of it.

i agree with what you said though.. govts are nasty bastards and i think people are underestimating Regulation issues.
i've said for ages it's coming and it's going to be a problem and 100% of people would stamp their feet and so no it won't be a problem at all.

rugrats

sr. member

Activity: 700

Merit: 250

Vave.com - Crypto Casino

This is news to me. The only SEC Bitcoin-related activity I know of happened back in June, involving Erik Voorhees.

http://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1370541972520

Quote

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2014-111
Washington D.C., June 3, 2014 —

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged the co-owner of two Bitcoin-related websites for publicly offering shares in the two ventures without registering them.

An SEC investigation found that Erik T. Voorhees published prospectuses on the Internet and actively solicited investors to buy shares in SatoshiDICE and FeedZeBirds. But he failed to register the offerings with the SEC as required under the federal securities laws. Investors paid for their shares using Bitcoin, a virtual currency that can be used to purchase real-world goods and services and exchanged for fiat currencies on certain online exchanges. The profits ultimately earned by Voorhees through the unregistered offerings totaled more than $15,000.

Voorhees agreed to settle the SEC’s charges by paying full disgorgement of the $15,843.98 in profits plus a $35,000 penalty for a total of more than $50,000.

“All issuers selling securities to the public must comply with the registration provisions of the securities laws, including issuers who seek to raise funds using Bitcoin,” said Andrew J. Ceresney, director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “We will continue to focus on enforcing our rules and regulations as they apply to digital currencies.”

Can anyone provide any credible link/s to this story?

Spoetnik

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1011

FUD Philanthropist™

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Spoetnik on October 27, 2014, 10:33:52 PM

see how the 100 sec subpoena's may include GHASH.io too ?

You guys are making me do some homework, I had to learn what counterparty is, lol. The thread that ties all these subpoena's together are that they are all companies. The US gov is going very aggressive on this but the line seems to be drawn at companies. This will have an effect on US based companies but oversee's companies will see no ill effect except for maybe a boom in business.

hey ME TOO ! ahhah

i barely know anything about "Counterparty" (an alternative digital currency of some sort posted here)
..i heard about it and that is about it pretty much lol

edit:
Although i HAVE used Cryptostocks before.. i bought and sold Cryptsy shares on that digital stocks trading site.

jasemoney

legendary

Activity: 1610

Merit: 1008

Forget-about-it

can anyone read fotoforensics?
http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=728beb64ac6bbcb9b7c8558976de7d198144c696.58417
(I've been slighly impressed with ELA analysis after the URO fud thought the dev was photoshopped into a room with business partners.**which was bullshit haha)

2dogs

legendary

Activity: 1267

Merit: 1000

Bitcoin Reddit ‏@RedditBTC 9m9 minutes ago

GHash/CEX received a subpoena from the SEC as a part of their recent action http://ift.tt/1zCgm6g

Spoetnik

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1011

FUD Philanthropist™

Quote from: ?? on ??

That's one train wreck of a first name. You gotta dumb it down a bit because i don't understand the relationship between altcoins and ghash/cex. I thought GHASH was a mining pool and if my memory serves me correctly CEX sells mining shares?

click the link in the OP's comment.. it mentions on the first paragraph,

Quote

Hundreds of Bitcoin companies that have released unregistered securities on Counterparty, Cryptostocks have been sent inquiry letters by the SEC.

see how the 100 sec subpoena's may include GHASH.io too ?

edit:
And guys i have not verified any of this is true have you ?
for example that picture i posted may have been forged/fake.
i have not seen one comment anywhere mentioning this point on 3 sites.. everyone is just assuming it's true.

edit2:
EvilDave must be shittin ! LOL
Search this place for keyword "Counterparty" for additional info Wink

Come-In-Behind

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

Quote from: ?? on ??

That's one train wreck of a first name. You gotta dumb it down a bit because i don't understand the relationship between altcoins and ghash/cex. I thought GHASH was a mining pool and if my memory serves me correctly CEX sells mining shares?

I believe Ghash(mining pool) is owned by Cex.io(exchange), which is also a company(Cex.io).

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/CEX.IO

Spoetnik

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1011

FUD Philanthropist™

Hey i think you used my name to get people to read this LOL
well played sir.. well played Wink

interesting stuff !!!

i looked at the link and right away i see "Counterparty" mentioned as the cause ?
so staff here it is Altcoin related Wink

and before i seen this topic i seen on a chat box a picture posted of the SEC giving Ghash.io a subpoena..

Come-In-Behind

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: UnicornFarts on October 27, 2014, 09:40:47 PM

So Ethereum, SuperNET, BlockNET, etc all should be untouched

If by untouched you mean "The SEC is reportedly employing researchers that track down the people and/or companies behind domains and Bitcointalk accounts associated with certain IPOs" then yes, very untouched.

"The letters are being sent out to companies performing offerings on Counterparty, Cryptostocks, companies hosting offerings with colored coins, and companies who have performed unregistered securities offerings via Bitcoin Talk. In all cases the SEC is employing a team of researchers to track down the people or companies behind each offering via forum messages, domain registration information, transfers of funds via exchanges and other means." - https://coinfire.cf/2014/10/27/sec-begins-sending-investigation-letters/

That doesn't go for cryptocurrencies that don't offer shareholder status which exempts Ethereum's IPo/Supernets/Blocknets from the ruling.....AKA only companies/crowdfunding sites are affected.

Unregistered securities- http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/unregistered-securities.asp

Ethereum IPO thoughts- http://www.quora.com/What-do-securities-lawyers-think-of-the-Ethereum-Genesis-sale

Supernet/Blocket depends on the efforts of a variety of blockchains and its people(especially Blocknet since it doesnt have one core coin, but would put Supernet more in the grey area and Ethereum might be as well, but I don't believe so), not one single team. IMO, it falls in favor of cryptocurrency trading(like Bitcoin), instead of speculative investments, which wouldnt make it an unregistered security.

UnicornFarts

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Yep I happen to agree with you 100%.

The more friction governments put on monetary transactions the more bearable all the downsides to crypto become in order to achieve much less friction. More friction = worse for transparent blockchains.

Come-In-Behind

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

Quote from: UnicornFarts on October 27, 2014, 09:45:21 PM

Quote from: Come-In-Behind on October 27, 2014, 09:44:39 PM

Quote from: UnicornFarts on October 27, 2014, 09:41:52 PM

Quote

U.S customers? No, the ruling is dealing with the merchants themselves, not the customers(people using the exchange/bitcoin company)

I just don't really see how they can do anything about US people voluntarily interfacing with an overseas company

Well, the ruling would require all those operating within the U.S(or catering to U.S people), to get registered as a money transmitter.I'm not entirely sure what effect this would have on overseas companies/exchanges.

good ole btc-e I guess.

they're going to be the last ones standing in this mess.

Coincidentally, I actually think this ruling would serve as the basis for enormous spikes/surges in the popularity of anon coins, along with decentralized exchanges(and those centralized ones not operating within the U.S).

UnicornFarts

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: Come-In-Behind on October 27, 2014, 09:44:39 PM

Quote from: UnicornFarts on October 27, 2014, 09:41:52 PM

Quote

U.S customers? No, the ruling is dealing with the merchants themselves, not the customers(people using the exchange/bitcoin company)

I just don't really see how they can do anything about US people voluntarily interfacing with an overseas company

Well, the ruling would require all those operating within the U.S(or catering to U.S people), to get registered as a money transmitter.I'm not entirely sure what effect this would have on overseas companies/exchanges.

good ole btc-e I guess.

they're going to be the last ones standing in this mess.

Come-In-Behind

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

Quote from: UnicornFarts on October 27, 2014, 09:41:52 PM

Quote

U.S customers? No, the ruling is dealing with the merchants themselves, not the customers(people using the exchange/bitcoin company)

I just don't really see how they can do anything about US people voluntarily interfacing with an overseas company

Well, the ruling would require all those operating within the U.S(or catering to U.S people), to get registered as a money transmitter.I'm not entirely sure what effect this would have on overseas companies/exchanges, unless theyd be required to block ip's of those from the U.S if they aren't registered as a money transmitter within all 50 states.

UnicornFarts

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote

U.S customers? No, the ruling is dealing with the merchants themselves, not the customers(people using the exchange/bitcoin company)

I just don't really see how they can do anything about US people voluntarily interfacing with an overseas company

Come-In-Behind

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

Quote from: UnicornFarts on October 27, 2014, 09:40:47 PM

Quote from: Come-In-Behind on October 27, 2014, 09:39:23 PM

Quote from: UnicornFarts on October 27, 2014, 09:38:28 PM

Quote from: Palmdetroit on October 27, 2014, 09:35:48 PM

So target is the exchanges?

WS also hates the overstock guy....

WS? Yeah - I think both the exchanges and people selling promises of their company / coin / technology / whatever for $$.

No, not coin(cryptocurrency). Only company.

So Ethereum, SuperNET, BlockNET, etc all should be untouched

Technically yes they should be untouched. But the exchange(especially those in the U.S), are gonna be the ones getting "touched".

Topic: Spoetnik warned you all - he's sicking the SEC on your ass now (Read 2892 times)