I find this relatively, though not entirely, compelling.
Indeed it is hard for me to argue that Bitcoin is -not- a game... for any number of people involved in Bitcoin may consider it a game and how can one argue with them? The issue of title is also very interesting. Does anyone actually own bitcoins? Is possession of something all that is required to prove title? And if so, Bitcoins aren't really possessed are they... it's the keys which are possessed.
All very confusing. I wish the government would just leave this system alone.
Topic: The reasons why Bitcoin securities can’t be regulated by the SEC - page 3. (Read 5846 times)
October 06, 2012, 04:12:21 PM
October 06, 2012, 04:07:33 PM
I'm about to go out, but will be reading later.
October 06, 2012, 04:05:31 PM
Who is in your counsel and what credentials do they hold? What measures do you have and will have in place to prevent an immediate seizure/closure prior to you fighting your arguments in court?
October 06, 2012, 03:45:42 PM
Interesting theory. Seems a bit pyrrhic though.
October 06, 2012, 03:16:34 PM
"As stated in various other venues, MPEx does retain ample counsel. We’ve proactively prepared a defensive litigation plan and written as well as oral arguments in order to be able to defend our position as well as the interests of the larger Bitcoin community in multiple relevant jurisdictions.
After much internal debate, and in the light of recent developments (by which I mean the misguided actions of one patently incompetent and emotionally unstable individual behaving in a manner consistent with mid-age onset schizophrenia) I’ve decided to prepare and release a limited statement detailing in principle our considered position on some matters of interest.
The reasoning is that while it is both unwise and uncommon for legal arguments to be disclosed before actual litigation due to the obvious advantage this confers on the other party, nevertheless it would seem the community could significantly benefit by some general framework to consider things within. In balancing this later need with the former imperative I think MPEx is behaving generously to its environment while at the same time not significantly endangering its own position.
What follows is not a legal document per se, because it has been much abridged, it lacks significant devices, references etc and for this reason it shouldn’t be included in litigation as-is. It would be in the best case an amicus brief."
(Continued...)
After much internal debate, and in the light of recent developments (by which I mean the misguided actions of one patently incompetent and emotionally unstable individual behaving in a manner consistent with mid-age onset schizophrenia) I’ve decided to prepare and release a limited statement detailing in principle our considered position on some matters of interest.
The reasoning is that while it is both unwise and uncommon for legal arguments to be disclosed before actual litigation due to the obvious advantage this confers on the other party, nevertheless it would seem the community could significantly benefit by some general framework to consider things within. In balancing this later need with the former imperative I think MPEx is behaving generously to its environment while at the same time not significantly endangering its own position.
What follows is not a legal document per se, because it has been much abridged, it lacks significant devices, references etc and for this reason it shouldn’t be included in litigation as-is. It would be in the best case an amicus brief."
(Continued...)
Jump to: