Quote from: jimmothy on October 14, 2013, 01:26:50 AM

Quote from: MPOE-PR on October 14, 2013, 12:22:53 AM

You can bring an actual argument or else not bring anything; vaguely alluding to what you imagine are weak arguments without identifying them or your reasoning achieves exactly nothing.

Arguments I found weak:

Quote

I. The Securities and Exchange Comission is governed principally by the Securities Act of 1933, which gives a definition of a security as follows :

1. Investment of Money towards a 2. Common Enterprise which 3. Depends on the Efforts of Others

As far as I'm understanding the argument of the entire article revolves around the fact that bitcoin may not be considered money under the current definition. Not only is bitcoin considered money by a majority of the people who use it, many people exchange bitcoins for USD/other currencies eventually, so using btc is like a proxy. Either way thinking that a definition alone is going to make anything bitcoin related immune to laws is silly and its only a matter of time before the definition is changed.

Quote

II. It is our considered opinion that Bitcoin does not constitute either Money as discussed in the second reference nor does a purchase of a Bitcoin denominated virtual security such as offered on MPEx constitute the placing of capital or laying out of money as discussed in the first reference.

Why does bitcoin not constitute money/capital? It is clear that bitcoins do hold a monetary value or they wouldn't be constantly selling for $100+ USD.

Quote

III.3. While it is true that some people spend money or other capital to acquire such in-game currency, it is not true that :

a) Any authority exists which could issue Bitcoins, promise to issue Bitcoins, or make any representations as to Bitcoins whatsoever ;

b) Any state, government or organisation issues Bitcoins or could conceivably issue Bitcoins either as legal tender, for the payment of taxable income, as a currency of account or to be used in local or international trade.

Because of these reasons it can not be said that anyone holds any title in either law or equity to any Bitcoin. Since there is no first owner of the Bitcoin that could then pass title as part of a contract, all purported Bitcoin purchases are contracts for no consideration and as such legally without merit.

Furthermore, while it is true that Bitcoin may be regarded as an item of value by one or more people, this also is true of the in-game currency of each and every single one game ever released to this date and to be released for the conceivable future. Ruling that indeed Bitcoin constitutes in itself either money or capital in the sense of the Securities Act of 1933 would both retroactively expose all game developers and game players to extensive and burdensome reporting and compliance requirements as well as burden the SEC with an enormous task.

"Bitcoin may be an item of value by one or more people" really?? This article pretends that the sole purpose of bitcoin isn't to store value. And the day that people begin using runescape cash/microsoft points to exchange securities I'm sure that SEC will be on their ass too.

Talking about Securities Act of 1933 again? Oh, ma, do we haveta?
The MPOE Interpretation was meh when it was first written, but now it's simply lulzy.
The Pirateat40 case, Texas judge sez bitcoin's money, summarily dismissing the very same argument raised by Pirate's attorney.

But who the f is that hick judge? Do his opinions carry weight with modern international financiers, which petty bitcoin scammers imagine themselves to be?

Well, let's say they should carry more weight than those of some guy on the interwebz who may-or-may-not-have passed the bar.