Pages:
Author

Topic: Wait...Does the March 18th finCen legislation make it illegal to trade bitcoins? - page 2. (Read 3950 times)

legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1014
Having an ASIC does not make you culpable, and is not "probable cause" for anything illegal. Being BFL customer might be probable cause for gullibility, though.

 Grin Grin Grin

Now they just have to find a way to define what speculation is. So if a wallet contains more than 10 btc, is it for speculation? Does the owner need to prove, what he wanted to buy?

It seems as if some Fincen reps have smoked something they obtained from Silkroad, before they wrote that up  Cheesy

I guess if you have the IQ of Satoshi Nakamoto you won't work for a government agency  Roll Eyes
legendary
Activity: 4424
Merit: 4794
simple answer. if your going to touch fiat... fincen want to know about you.

its not about bitcoin. its about the trading of a currency to fiat.

if it was purely about trading a virtual currency between each other. then all of you zynga games poker fans, world of warcraft and second life fans have more to worry about.
hero member
Activity: 882
Merit: 501
Ching-Chang;Ding-Dong
if you mine the bitcoins and exchange them into fiat currency without the intent to purchase a specific thing, to me that's no longer being a user.


I thought that part was kinda vague thougth (specifically pertaining to mining).
member
Activity: 114
Merit: 10
And this is why scrypt coins are way safer than SHA256 coins, since the govt goons could control dedicated Asic hashers, but never GPUs.
Please don't talk when you don't know shit about what you're saying

Agreed

Sorry if you have a truth allergy, I didn't realize.

Fact is, any US customer of BFL is a potential perpetrator and the goons could easily search their property, by just using the BFL customer list. Since Asics are not used for anything else than BTC mining, owning an Asic miner could be seen as probable cause. This threat would probably deter anyone in the US from owning Asics. If the rest of the world mines on Asic, this development would eventually put US miners out of business, if international Asic ownership is high. Even worse, the government could accumulate enough Asics for a 51% attack, if international Asic ownership is low.

With LTC or YAC, this scenario is impossible because it would be impossible to chase anyone owning a GPU or CPU. Not only are there too many GPUs and CPUs, but also these can be plausibly used for other purposes.

Generic hardware cryptos are much less vulnerable than dedicated hw cryptos.

Not sure why you react like this.

Actually, I have now obtained and read the original FinCEN document. http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/pdf/FIN-2013-G001.pdf

Quote
A user is a person that obtains virtual
currency to purchase goods or services.7

And footnote 7 says
Quote
7 How a person engages in “obtaining” a virtual currency may be described using any number of other terms, such as
“earning,” “harvesting,” ”mining,” “creating,” “auto-generating,” “manufacturing,” or “purchasing,” depending on
the details of the specific virtual currency model involved. For purposes of this guidance, the label applied to a
particular process of obtaining a virtual currency is not material to the legal characterization under the BSA of the
process or of the person engaging in the process.

The document also says:
Quote
A user who obtains convertible virtual currency and uses it to purchase real or virtual
goods or services is not an MSB under FinCEN’s regulations.

Long story short, if you buy bitcoins, mine bitcoins, etc. you are not subject to MSB regulations. Only if you trade in bitcoins, speculate in bitcoins, or make a business of buying and selling bitcoins to other users do you need to worry.

Having an ASIC does not make you culpable, and is not "probable cause" for anything illegal. Being BFL customer might be probable cause for gullibility, though.
legendary
Activity: 1792
Merit: 1047
It doesn't make it illegal, but you have to comply with the regulations.

Correct, but no individual is allowed to exchange Bitcoin in the US anymore. You have to be a registered Money Service Business. Currently there are none?

there is one in canada that is working with a MSB

cavirtex.com
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1094
Learning the troll avoidance button :)
No not illegal recognized as virtual exchange only reported when converted to must pay taxes and declare individuals are not unless they are mining
hero member
Activity: 882
Merit: 501
Ching-Chang;Ding-Dong
And this is why scrypt coins are way safer than SHA256 coins, since the govt goons could control dedicated Asic hashers, but never GPUs.
Please don't talk when you don't know shit about what you're saying

Agreed

Sorry if you have a truth allergy, I didn't realize.

Fact is, any US customer of BFL is a potential perpetrator and the goons could easily search their property, by just using the BFL customer list. Since Asics are not used for anything else than BTC mining, owning an Asic miner could be seen as probable cause. This threat would probably deter anyone in the US from owning Asics. If the rest of the world mines on Asic, this development would eventually put US miners out of business, if international Asic ownership is high. Even worse, the government could accumulate enough Asics for a 51% attack, if international Asic ownership is low.

With LTC or YAC, this scenario is impossible because it would be impossible to chase anyone owning a GPU or CPU. Not only are there too many GPUs and CPUs, but also these can be plausibly used for other purposes.

Generic hardware cryptos are much less vulnerable than dedicated hw cryptos.

Not sure why you react like this.

Were not debating the ability to ENFORCE the law. You can break any law as long as you don't get caught. Were talking about our legal obligation if we want to be a member of the general (non-shady) society, which means complying with the law.

Seeing as anybody who exchanges fiat for BTC other than for the sole purpose of buying something would be required to register as an MSB, and then potentially have to register in each state....It really is going to be difficult to comply.

New, specialized regulation is needed for this multi-million dollar daily volume currency is becoming widespread.
hero member
Activity: 882
Merit: 501
Ching-Chang;Ding-Dong
While researching the whole Mt.Gox warrant thing I started reading the actual legislation that they are alleging Mt.Gox has violated. http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/nr/pdf/20130318.pdf

Quote
A final type of convertible virtual currency activity involves a de-centralized convertible virtual currency (1) that has no central repository and no single administrator, and (2) that persons may obtain by their own computing or manufacturing effort.
A person that creates units of this convertible virtual currency and uses it to purchase real or virtual goods and services is a user of the convertible virtual currency and not subject to regulation as a money transmitter. By contrast, a person that creates units of convertible virtual currency and sells those units to another person for real currency or its equivalent is engaged in transmission to another location and is a money transmitter. In addition, a person is an exchanger and a money transmitter if the person accepts such de-centralized convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person as part of the acceptance and transfer of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency.

Does that mean anyone trading Bitcoins for USD is now breaking the law if they are not registered as a Money Service Business?!

Geez man, you should probably take a few minutes to read the warrant before making threads. Short answer: MtGox lied about being a transmitter of money on the "MSB Accounts, Identification of an MSB Customer" form.  That's the reason for the warrant.

I read the warrant. I'm not debating Mt.Gox at all here. Im trying to figure out exactly what portion of the bitcoin community is now legally obligated to register, like Mt.Gox tried (and apparently failed) to.

An unenforceable large portion of the BTC community as it currently stands.

From my understanding any miner who exchanges his generated BTC into fiat currency.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
yung lean
And this is why scrypt coins are way safer than SHA256 coins, since the govt goons could control dedicated Asic hashers, but never GPUs.
Please don't talk when you don't know shit about what you're saying

Agreed

Sorry if you have a truth allergy, I didn't realize.

Fact is, any US customer of BFL is a potential perpetrator and the goons could easily search their property, by just using the BFL customer list. Since Asics are not used for anything else than BTC mining, owning an Asic miner could be seen as probable cause. This threat would probably deter anyone in the US from owning Asics. If the rest of the world mines on Asic, this development would eventually put US miners out of business, if international Asic ownership is high. Even worse, the government could accumulate enough Asics for a 51% attack, if international Asic ownership is low.

With LTC or YAC, this scenario is impossible because it would be impossible to chase anyone owning a GPU or CPU. Not only are there too many GPUs and CPUs, but also these can be plausibly used for other purposes.

Generic hardware cryptos are much less vulnerable than dedicated hw cryptos.

Not sure why you react like this.

Were not debating the ability to ENFORCE the law. You can break any law as long as you don't get caught. Were talking about our legal obligation if we want to be a member of the general (non-shady) society, which means complying with the law.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
yung lean
While researching the whole Mt.Gox warrant thing I started reading the actual legislation that they are alleging Mt.Gox has violated. http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/nr/pdf/20130318.pdf

Quote
A final type of convertible virtual currency activity involves a de-centralized convertible virtual currency (1) that has no central repository and no single administrator, and (2) that persons may obtain by their own computing or manufacturing effort.
A person that creates units of this convertible virtual currency and uses it to purchase real or virtual goods and services is a user of the convertible virtual currency and not subject to regulation as a money transmitter. By contrast, a person that creates units of convertible virtual currency and sells those units to another person for real currency or its equivalent is engaged in transmission to another location and is a money transmitter. In addition, a person is an exchanger and a money transmitter if the person accepts such de-centralized convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person as part of the acceptance and transfer of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency.

Does that mean anyone trading Bitcoins for USD is now breaking the law if they are not registered as a Money Service Business?!

Geez man, you should probably take a few minutes to read the warrant before making threads. Short answer: MtGox lied about being a transmitter of money on the "MSB Accounts, Identification of an MSB Customer" form.  That's the reason for the warrant.

I read the warrant. I'm not debating Mt.Gox at all here. Im trying to figure out exactly what portion of the bitcoin community is now legally obligated to register, like Mt.Gox tried (and apparently failed) to.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1014
And this is why scrypt coins are way safer than SHA256 coins, since the govt goons could control dedicated Asic hashers, but never GPUs.
Please don't talk when you don't know shit about what you're saying

Agreed

Sorry if you have a truth allergy, I didn't realize.

Fact is, any US customer of BFL is a potential perpetrator and the goons could easily search their property, by just using the BFL customer list. Since Asics are not used for anything else than BTC mining, owning an Asic miner could be seen as probable cause. This threat would probably deter anyone in the US from owning Asics. If the rest of the world mines on Asic, this development would eventually put US miners out of business, if international Asic ownership is high. Even worse, the government could accumulate enough Asics for a 51% attack, if international Asic ownership is low.

With LTC or YAC, this scenario is impossible because it would be impossible to chase anyone owning a GPU or CPU. Not only are there too many GPUs and CPUs, but also these can be plausibly used for other purposes.

Generic hardware cryptos are much less vulnerable than dedicated hw cryptos.

Not sure why you react like this.
legendary
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1222
brb keeping up with the Kardashians
While researching the whole Mt.Gox warrant thing I started reading the actual legislation that they are alleging Mt.Gox has violated. http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/nr/pdf/20130318.pdf

Quote
A final type of convertible virtual currency activity involves a de-centralized convertible virtual currency (1) that has no central repository and no single administrator, and (2) that persons may obtain by their own computing or manufacturing effort.
A person that creates units of this convertible virtual currency and uses it to purchase real or virtual goods and services is a user of the convertible virtual currency and not subject to regulation as a money transmitter. By contrast, a person that creates units of convertible virtual currency and sells those units to another person for real currency or its equivalent is engaged in transmission to another location and is a money transmitter. In addition, a person is an exchanger and a money transmitter if the person accepts such de-centralized convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person as part of the acceptance and transfer of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency.

Does that mean anyone trading Bitcoins for USD is now breaking the law if they are not registered as a Money Service Business?!

Geez man, you should probably take a few minutes to read the warrant before making threads. Short answer: MtGox lied about being a transmitter of money on the "MSB Accounts, Identification of an MSB Customer" form.  That's the reason for the warrant.
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
According to this article, mtgox spent $25 mil in first year to become financially compliant in the USA...

http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/1/4154500/mt-gox-barons-of-bitcoin


No, it says that it costs 25M to be fully compliant, and that they partnered with a compliant company in the US (that presumably paid that 25M, not MtGox). I'd read the linked press release, but it's hosted on mtgox.com which is down as usual.
hero member
Activity: 882
Merit: 501
Ching-Chang;Ding-Dong
And this is why scrypt coins are way safer than SHA256 coins, since the govt goons could control dedicated Asic hashers, but never GPUs.
Please don't talk when you don't know shit about what you're saying

Agreed
hero member
Activity: 882
Merit: 501
Ching-Chang;Ding-Dong
It doesn't make it illegal, but you have to comply with the regulations.

According to this article, mtgox spent $25 mil in first year to become financially compliant in the USA...

http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/1/4154500/mt-gox-barons-of-bitcoin

It doesn't make it illegal, but you have to comply with the regulations.

Correct, but no individual is allowed to exchange Bitcoin in the US anymore. You have to be a registered Money Service Business. Currently there are none?

According to us law you need the license even in your not a us based company but are doing transactions with people in the USA.

 
It doesn't make it illegal, but you have to comply with the regulations.

Correct, but no individual is allowed to exchange Bitcoin in the US anymore. You have to be a registered Money Service Business. Currently there are none?
Hey read again. If you mine and sell for goods (say gold) you are fine. You just cannot mine and sell into USD directly. You could also mine and convert into LTC, for example. Then sell the LTC or the gold.

Again, litecoin counts under this legislation just as much as bitcoin

Also mining isn't for everyone, and conferring fiat to ltc isn't any easier than fiat to btc.
newbie
Activity: 11
Merit: 0
Here's the deal - you can masturbate this subject all day and it won't change a thing - chances are govts don't give a shit about the little guy trading mined btc for a couple of bucks and if any of the political dildos in office decide they want to get in your panties they will just write up a new law that let's them do it. If not this law then the next one could get you.

yep,  just like paying taxes.  They don't care about the small fish.
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1393
You lead and I'll watch you walk away.
Here's the deal - you can masturbate this subject all day and it won't change a thing - chances are govts don't give a shit about the little guy trading mined btc for a couple of bucks and if any of the political dildos in office decide they want to get in your panties they will just write up a new law that let's them do it. If not this law then the next one could get you.
member
Activity: 114
Merit: 10
Satoshi created bitcoin

Miners are just paid for their work, they do not create bitcoins  Wink

It could also be argued that the persons owning the addresses that receive originated bitcoins are money transmitters. Since most miners now use pools, their addresses aren't origination addresses, but transaction addresses. If you mine with a pool, you are receiving bitcoins from the pool operator, in exchange for leased computer cycles, not originating coins.

(Some of my terminology might be not quite right. If you see errors, feel free to correct me and I will update with the correct terminology to make my intent as clear as possible.)
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1014
Splendid, in order to charge you, the government would have to admit that gold is money. Neat  Cheesy
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
yung lean
Hey read again. If you mine and sell for goods (say gold) you are fine. You just cannot mine and sell into USD directly. You could also mine and convert into LTC, for example. Then sell the LTC or the gold.

No, you cannot. If you convert BTC to LTC to USD in the US, then you are considered a 'money exchanger'. From now on, only centralized companies are allowed to handle Bitcoin exchanges. Such a company does not exist in the US. Or perhaps only CoinLab?

No, he's right. BTC to LTC is not virtual to real, but virtual to virtual. In fact, I think the BTC-to-gold is more risky, since gold could be considered a 'real currency or equivalent' since it's a commodity with highly liquid markets to/from USD. BTC-to-USD is clearly in violation here, though.
Gold is not money, so it is not currency

In this example I think gold could be considered EITHER an alternative to currency or a currency... either way you would have to register with finCen like thos 'cash for your gold' places.
Pages:
Jump to: