Quote from: ktttn on June 24, 2013, 06:53:30 AM

Quote from: burnside on June 24, 2013, 06:44:23 AM

Quote from: kjlimo on June 24, 2013, 04:23:56 AM

Quote from: btceic on June 23, 2013, 05:24:07 PM

Quote from: jgarzik on June 23, 2013, 05:16:43 PM

Quote from: btceic on June 23, 2013, 05:13:28 PM

Quote from: jgarzik on June 23, 2013, 05:01:50 PM

Quote from: btceic on June 23, 2013, 04:03:28 PM

Ill be honest, they are really starting to clamp down hard in the U.S and is making me nervous.

With this exception of this California action, everything else in the US has been completely consistent with existing US law.

I am speaking of the recent developments with the IRS and FinCen along with this as well as the numerous services surrounding bitcoin that have gone down.

As am I. Recent developments with the IRS and FinCEN are entirely consistent with US law as it has existed for years. Ditto Mutum Sigillium seizure warrant. Tax and MSB implications were directly addressed years ago in my State of the Coin 2011 presentation, among others. If you operate outside the law in your jurisdiction, the obvious result occurs... eventually.

Then I must be confused with the state of things then. I was under the impression that the recent IRS (or was it FinCen??) ruling/statement was that mining bitcoins will/may require an MSB/MT licensure.

I could be wrong and hope I am, I am not trolling I truly want to know.

My understanding is that if you mine bitcoins and then "use" them to purchase goods, no license necessary.

If you mine, and then "sell" them for fiat currency, then you need to be registered as a MSB. However, if you go to an exchange, then I think that puts the responsibility on the exchange. At least, let's hope so Wink

I've done a bit of research and everywhere I see it defined, legal dictionary or otherwise, Currency (synonym: banknote) seems to directly state, or infer the backing or endorsement of a government. As such, Bitcoin is a commodity, and until I can walk into Bank of America and trade it for USD, like I can with my Mexican Pesos, Canadian Twoonies, or my British Pounds, I'm not going to consider it any more a currency than Joe Redneck would, my Peer on the Jury.

Try telling a farmer he has to register as an MSB/MT to sell the carrots (commodity) he grew. (mined) Or try telling a rancher he has to register as an MSB/MT to sell the calf (commodity) his cow just birthed. (mined) You have to be pretty confused to think that creating/growing/birthing/mining a commodity then selling it somehow equates to being in the business of Money transmission. (Money with a capital M, per Joe Redneck, my peer on the Jury.)

Now exchanging it as your sole business, I think that's a different ballgame, but mining it seems pretty cut and dry to me.

What am I missing? And why does everyone seem to want Bitcoin to be a currency when it's far better off legally with an official definition in the realm of general commodity? (oil, cattle, tulip bulbs) No country in the world is going to be particularly receptive legally or otherwise to direct competition with their local Currency. (with a capital C)

Cheers.

+1, however I believe FinCen claims jurisdiction over "replacements for money, money-like things" or something to that effect.

To a kid, that'd be pokemon cards and M&M's. To a gamer, WoW gold and GameStop points. To a woman 25-55, it's facebook credits, starbucks points, and airline miles. Sounds to me like it's another one of those "three felonies a day" situations. "We have jurisdiction over anything you care about."