Quote from: is4tomj on February 07, 2012, 08:18:24 PM

Quote from: matonis on February 07, 2012, 03:50:55 PM

You have also stated in your last paragraph that bitcoin can most certainly be regulated:
"The U.S. may also regulate other bitcoin organizations, e.g. banks and exchanges, through the Bank Secrecy Act and Anti-Money Laundering act and other securities laws. Even though bitcoins are not securities, trading bitcoins, or other bitcoin instruments, are still regulated by the U.S."

This is just not true. Maybe for a fund like www.ultimafund.com because that enters into SEC, but a fixed-rate exchange not holding any customer funds is decidedly not subject to any U.S. regulation. Because, if so, that would be like regulating the sale of air guitars or a QR code or self-created RPOWs that contain an embedded image of my dog urinating.

Thank you for your comment, but I am confused by the thesis, "This is just not true," and the following sentence. From that second sentence it is apparent that you agree that there is some regulation that the U.S. may impose on bitcoin-related organizations.

I do agree that regulation is limited relative to the regulation that would apply if bitcoin was a security, e.g., "Can the U.S. Regulate Bitcoin Brokers? (parts 1 and 2)" (http://blog.bitcointitan.com/post/16271054719/can-the-us-regulate-bitcoin-brokers). Clearly, however, there is regulation. Thus, my thesis, "The U.S. may also regulate other bitcoin organizations" is correct. Determining what the limits to regulation are will be the subject of many more papers.

The U.S. may regulate any entity that they see fit to regulate (look how laws were tweaked to get e-gold). I am talking about the current state of affairs, not what will happen in the future. No one knows and that's why it is best to select a jurisdiction with some reasonableness and predictability.