Quote from: Manticore on February 25, 2014, 10:15:25 PM

Quote from: MAbtc on February 25, 2014, 09:47:36 PM

Remember that Pirate40 was charged by the SEC for violating securities law. Securities laws do apply to bitcoin businesses. Clearly there is a difference between a BTC-denominated security and BTC -- but I am very much unconvinced that securities regulation do not apply to pertinent businesses.

In my view, this would very much violate the spirit of securities regulation. The fact that BTC is not backed by any asset does not explicitly allow businesses to engage in fraud.

Sure, if there are no laws that can be applied, there are no laws that can be applied. You haven't actually done the legal research to determine whether or not there are applicable laws.

No, I haven't and there probably are laws that can be applied. Pirate40 violated SEC law because he was engaged in a fraudalent Ponzi investment scheme. This falls under the SEC and is completely different than someone front-running unregulated Bitcoin or simply stealing someone else's coins. If someone broke into your house and stole your BTC, the SEC would not get involved.

I didn't suggest that. I acknowledged the difference and stated my position.

Quote from: Manticore on February 25, 2014, 10:15:25 PM

Listen, I am not defending Gox. I can't stand the company. And they probably committed fraud on many levels that can be prosecuted under some sort of law. The FBI would probably have found a way to prosecute them for wire fraud (at least) if they were US based and accepting USD. But you mentioned insider trading and front running in a previous post. IMO securities law does not apply to those and may not apply here because he was not engaged in an "investment" scheme.

To this, I would still say:

Quote

In my view, this would very much violate the spirit of securities regulation. The fact that BTC is not backed by any asset does not explicitly allow businesses to engage in fraud.

Now, if you can post excerpted statutes that specifically omit assets that are arguably analogous to bitcoin from securities regulation, I'd be interested to see that. As it stands, this is all hypothetical, and I remain unconvinced.

These regulatory matters will be cleared up in the next couple years. Whether or not one wants to take a chance and operate in a blatantly fraudulent manner, on the basis that "bitcoins are unregulated -- there are no laws"... good luck.

Quote from: Manticore on February 25, 2014, 10:26:36 PM

There are laws regarding fraud and laws regarding securities, and the two can be separate. If Karpeles ran off with the coins, securities law isn't relevant. We're talking theft on a massive scale....straight up fraud, both civil and criminal. Japanese National Police, not the FSA.

The issues raised have nothing to do with this alleged theft -- only to do with the proposed tactics of market manipulation and arbitrage proposed in the draft.