Quote from: MAbtc on February 26, 2014, 03:10:20 AM

This is what I was asking from the start -- the explicit definition of "security" and whether or not bitcoin can be interpreted to be within the purview of that definition. I am confident that an asset does not need to be explicitly classified as a security if it fits the legal definition. I am not confident that bitcoin necessarily fits that definition. I wanted clarification on this point.

I see; perhaps we were getting our lines crossed. They must first issue guidance on Bitcoin and actually formally regulate it before they can come after anyone for insider trading or anything else that is illegal under the SEC with regards to Bitcon trading (obviously Ponzi schemes, et al, are still fair game). Even if they do end up regulating it, it would not be retroactive (i.e. they would not come after people for past behavior). If the CFTC ends up regulating BTC, there is a good chance that trading on insider information would be legal. Why? Because it's legal in the FOREX market and the CFTC may regulate it like they regulate FOREX. The SEC does not regulate FOREX. Just my thoughts.

One more thought -- depending on whether or not Gox had any investors (I don't think it did), providing false balance sheets and not being transparent with investors can certainly make the SEC come knocking on one's door.