Hey! Wanna play, uh... five-ish sometimes-loaded questions? (just as speculation, not legal advice)

If MtGox were to become compliant, do you think they'd need both federal and state FinCEN/MSB compliance (assuming they don't latch onto a national bank/CU somehow)? Most people seem under the impression you can just register with FinCEN and it's done - woohoo, you're fully compliant, and this is the "compliance" most BTC MSBs seem to be talking about. But, these companies do business in all 50 states, and all these states have their own laws, licenses, and usually crazy-expensive fees.

Am I wrong, or is federal FinCEN registration as a MSB not enough?

Do you know of any US-serving exchanges which you believe probably are fully compliant?

Do you believe the USG (particularly, the courts) will accept Bitcoin being treated as a currency, and do you think that premise they're seizing Gox due to should be legally challenged? If you think it should be challenged, who should be challenging it? In an niche economy of startups, maybe we should all chip-in for a legal team to challenge the definition of BTC as a currency?

For almost all of us, we've treated Bitcoin as a commodity rather than a currency for tax purposes - especially relevant because complying with tax regulations as a miner would be an enormous, practically unfeasible pain in the ass. Still, AFAIK nobody's really bringing this up. The implications of letting FinCEN and other bureaucracies call Bitcoin a currency seem pretty unexplored, and there are people just saying "it won't affect me, I'm in the UK" when the US has a tendency for its precedents/definitions to be adopted elsewhere. Do you think the Bitcoin community has under-reacted to the likely changes in definition of Bitcoin will bring, or is it appropriate just to wait until we're explicitly told by a government we're doing something wrong (IF we're doing something wrong)?