Quote from: Deprived on October 14, 2013, 03:41:23 AM

Quote from: crumbs on October 14, 2013, 03:18:43 AM

Quote from: Deprived on October 14, 2013, 02:40:45 AM

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

"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.

You should look at Eve online then - there have been securities issued there for years in their currency ISK. Or second-life for that matter. Not seen the SEC making a fuss about either. And both of those can be traded for USD (very openly in the case of second-life currency).

The fact that something CAN be used as money/currency isn't sufficient for it to be legally considered as BEING money or currency. That's what you're missing. It doesn't matter what your intention, my intention, Satoshi's intention or MPOE-PR's intention is when we hold/buy/sell/trade BTC. What matters is how your jurisdiction defines BTC. In the US that's now tending towards it being treated as being money/currency - in at least some situations. In other jurisdictions (e.g. the UK) at present it is NOT considered as being a currency or money and we have none of the regulatory limitations that the US are attempting to impose (though, of course, that's always subject to change).

Same worn-out arguments. "How cum they don't regulate gamez, huh?"

For the same reason they don't charge children playing cops & robbers with impersonating an officer -- 'coz they're smart that way.
But if enough dope gets bought with ISK, and if EVE players start acting up like naughty little revolutionaries, they'll get slapped too.
Now behave.

Hmm, let me make one thing perfectly clear - as maybe you don't understand my position.

I AGREE with you that it appears clear the US are now considering Bitcoin as money (for some purposes) - and it would be exceedingly unwise for someone based in the US to startup a Bitcoin exchange serving US investors. But I'm not based in the US - and am only concerned with their laws to the extent that they're in accordance with those of a jurisdiction in which I operate (or where compliance with them is covered by a treaty/understanding/whatever). If I (or anyone else) operates in a jurisdiction where Bitcoin is NOT considered as being money then what some judge in Texas says is neither here nor there.

Ask yourself why, when the largest poker sites were not just serving - but actively targetting - US customers (despite the US saying it was illegal) no action was taken against them for doing that. They DID eventually run into trouble - but it wasn't for providing the service, but for misrepresenting financial transactions to banks/FSPs (to get around laws brought in that prevented US banks/FSPs handling their transactions if they were honestly identified).

The US can't (in general - there are exceptions) prevent those in other jurisdictions conducting business that's legal even if it involves serving US customers. In the same way that the US government doesn't insist any website criticising the North Korean Government requests KYC/AML identification from every user to ensure they don't supply it to North Korean residents (where, for the purpose of this post, we'll assume such material is illegal). If a country wants to stop its citizens doing something that is legal elsewhere then the onus is on the country to block it - not on every business in every other country in the world to expend time and effort complying with every whim of every dictatorship. Shocking as it may seem to every US citizen, your country does NOT have the right to expect everyone else to jump through hoops to ensure we don't happen to provide something to you which your government would prefer you not to have.

Let me explain why it's important for you to behave:

Where teh US dollar is involved, US has jurisdiction. Or, at least, US feels it has jurisdiction, which proves to be functionally identical to having said jurisdiction.
Everything else is fluff & sophistry -- commit it then to the flames.