Quote from: Puppet on September 23, 2013, 04:45:23 PM

Quote from: metal_jacke1 on September 23, 2013, 04:39:30 PM

Firstly, I doubt his lawyers would say it was "illegal". No precedent. No law on the books regarding bitcoin and securities.

The law doesnt need to mention bitcoin. The law doesnt mention dollar or money either, it mentions "value". For something to be considered a security, it has to be a contract thats tradeable for value. That bitcoin has value is both obvious and established by a court (cf Pirate's SEC trial).

Quote

Further, you would WANT any litigation because if any federal judge said, this is just a virtual game as BTCT stated in their policy blah blah blah then that would be a win for bitcoin. Something the government does NOT want at all.

Thats what Pirate tried and failed. As posted earlier:

Shavers argues that the BTCST investments are not securities because Bitcoin is not money, and is not part of anything regulated by the United States
So Shavers essentially tried to say that Bitcoin is a bauble and that he was taking in digital points and giving out digital points that had no real world value. The prosecutors at the SEC disagree, arguing that Bitcoins are both investment contracts and notes, and, thus, are securities.
..
the judge sided with the SEC, giving Bitcoin his stamp of approval as real world money.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/08/07/federal-judge-rules-bitcoin-is-real-money/

Value can be interpreted in any way shape and form. Craigslist lists items that are worth in value, all private sales. Im not sure how you can say that something is illegal when it's not even law. Im not sure what "law" you're referring to. I assume the Securities Act of 1933, which does mention "FOREIGN" Currency. And since Bitcoin is neither foreign NOR domestic, that can be challenged. http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sa33.pdf

The judge in the Pirate case issued this opinion regarding Subject Matter Jurisdiction claims that they do have jurisdiction over legal proceedings regarding bitcoin. Note, its not a conviction, its not a summary judgement. Of course the Courts like to think they have Subject Matter Jurisdiction over the lint balls in our crotch which is why there is an Appellate court that can overturn this decision.

And of course the SEC disagrees! Its a power grab. The point is to CHALLENGE the Constitutional authority of the SEC to say they have control over something the US govt did not issue, no govt ever issued, and its completely private. Which can further stipulate what the Federal Government can or cannot say over matters of private property rights.

If you really want freedom from the SEC. Donate to a Bitcoin legal fund.