Quote from: prophetx on July 24, 2013, 06:02:32 PM

it is going to get interesting. looking at the macro picture, this in reality is bad news for US growth.

from a commerce and growth perspective, the current US legal system is really holding back a lot on innovation in how business is done, so that the Federal govt can maintain relevance in a world where it will become less relevant

Indeed.

Quote from: Entropy-uc on July 25, 2013, 04:21:12 PM

I doubt that it will take that long for AMC/VMC/AM/Ken Slaughter to get a visit from the folks with black suits and subpoenas.

The problem with this opinion is that it has no downside.

Science, contrary to this mechanism, works by creating propositions that are falsifiable, which is to say that can be proven wrong. Then they're tested, and usually proven wrong.

Propositions that can never be proven false are a waste of time, unless you're here to propose marriage to us or something.

Quote from: Entropy-uc on July 25, 2013, 04:21:12 PM

Much of the reason no one has been prosecuted by the SEC up until now is because the SEC has never done it before. Organizational inertia is a major factor in government. Now that the path has been blazed

Hold your horses, they might overturn your armchair at this rate!

No path has been blazed, the SEC venue shopped for what they think is going to be an easy hick court to slip some stuff under the rug. Suppose it turns out they get ambushed and slaughtered there. Suppose they played right into the hands of superior strategists. What then?

Quote from: tinus42 on July 25, 2013, 06:58:35 PM

Though why he would ride a horse instead of a camel in Egypt is indeed a great mystery.

MP sez: "Because horses I know how to ride. Camels not so much."

Quote from: Cyberdyne on July 25, 2013, 10:09:29 PM

Or "Why does he not wear sunglasses when his eyes are clearly struggling to stay open?"

How often have you seen people on horseback with sunglasses on? Guess why not? Guess what the question says about you?

Quote from: tinus42 on July 25, 2013, 10:14:36 PM

Maybe he forgot to bring them.

See above eh.

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on July 25, 2013, 10:37:08 PM

"Game currency" is no defense. First Circuit court has already ruled that virtual shares issues by virtual companies existing only in virtual stock exchange solely for the purported reason of being a game for entertainment to still be investments.

That is an utter misrepresentation of the Stock Generation case, and a good illustration of why it's a good idea to actually hire counsel rather then rely on some sort of "enlightened diy" where you take the most scary construction possible on anything you half read. The salient point in that case was that while 19 of the 20 purported investments were presented as gambling by the operators, the 20th was in fact presented as an investment. The court did not challenge and in fact affirmed the absolute protection games have from being incorporated into reality. The court did not challenge and in fact affirmed the SEC's absolute domain to regulate such investments as are part of reality.

Of particular concern is that your caselist contains cases sorted in what appears to be a descending order of [Internet] fame rather than a descending order of relevance. This would be worrisome if you actually had anything to do with this entire thing called "Bitcoin in court".

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on July 25, 2013, 10:37:08 PM

Note before someone gets hung up on "money" as outlined in SEC complaint upthread many cases subsequent to Howey have affirmed that money is anything of value. In prior cases even goods or services have met the first prong of the definition. One such example was a ponzi scheme involving gold bullion instead of dollars.

Spare me the bullion, find one with Monopoly dollars in it. Or maple leaves. Or other such things of "value". Again: that the court is free of formalism works both ways. Substantially, Bitcoin is not money, and a formalist approach to value does not save the proposal to regulate every basketball card trading club in Punjab under the SEC.

PS. What's dishonest is to make a post and then delete it/substantially change it. If you don't trust yourself to express what you really think on any topic on the first pass, write everything on a notepad and post it a week later or whatever. I am responding to your original because it is a lot more informative than the weasely stuff you replaced it with. For the record, this is exactly how reputations are broken.