I'm not arguing bitcoins are software, I was just analogizing ownership of a bitcoin to ownership of software.  I don't think there's any classification box that a bitcoin would fit into, even the phrase "a bitcoin" is kindof a misnomer for a variety of reasons.  What I'm saying is it doesn't matter that we can't classify bitcoin, it's clear that someone can exercise exclusive control over a balance of them, and it's clear that they have cognizable value, that's all that really matters.  We don't need to say "bitcoin is like x" because that's not what the legal analysis cares about.

I think you've misunderstood me, I was not clear.  I don't think bitcoins are necessarily money, my point is bitcoins have value that's cognizable under the law.  When courts (at least in every US jurisdiction) analyze whether the crime of theft and the civil tort of conversion have occurred, they don't care whether something is money, they care whether it has value that is cognizable under the law.  If someone takes your picture while you're naked in the privacy of your own home, they've certainly stolen from you, but the value of what they've stolen, that "information" about you, isn't really cognizable under theft or conversion statutes.  Other laws may be relevant, but those ones wont.  Bitcoin, on the other hand, has value that is cognizable, it's like stealing a software program, and that's cognizable under theft and conversion.  The fact that the software isn't "money" is irrelevant, the fact that it may not have a stable value over time is irrelevant, it's something with cognizable value. 

This is why I don't think declaring bitcoin as legal tender will have any substantive effect, legal tender laws don't matter nearly as much as everyone seems to think.  For the most part in modern economies, legal tender only has relevance in one situation; when someone fails to fulfill an obligation.  Owe taxes?  Have a non-equity judgment against you?  You can pay all of those in the legal tender of the relevant jurisdiction, and they have to accept.  Beyond that, it's not really relevant.

There actually is a lot of precedent for that with bitcoins, the court recognized that bitcoins have value in the Shavers case as well as in the Silk Road cases.  Moreover, they fit the test for having value, you can't get them for free or at will, right? 

Shavers was never charged criminally, so he can't be convicted. 

Why would it matter that what was stolen isn't money?  If I trade my motorcycle to Bill for his car, and he finds a way to defraud me (fake title or something of the like), you honestly think the court says "oh, well, since no money was involved, there was no theft"?  That's not how the legal system works.

This is why I always do shared coin transactions on a laptop or something with an uninterruptible power supply.  If the power goes out or something else messes with the connection, you can still recover the intermediate addresses that are stored on your browser.

Exactly, while probably a waste of resources, this is a perfect example of something that doesn't count as entrapment that most people mistakenly think would.  The agent didn't change anything about the extremists disposition, the government didn't convince the extremist to do something he otherwise would have been opposed to.

It matters in determining who the community needs to put pressure on if it wants a particular result.  You can say it doesn't matter who does what and you just want it done, but that statement isn't productive.  No matter how much you yell at McDonalds, they're never going to make you Whopper. 

There seems to be a lot of confusion in here, so let me make at least this point clear:

The SEC is a civil enforcement agency, it does not have the power to bring criminal charges.  That's why Shavers was never arrested for his actions related to his bitcoin investment scam.  At the federal level, only the US Attorney's office can bring (non-military) criminal actions against an individual.  

So, I think first it's important to get out what entrapment is.  Entrapment is an affirmative defense available in most US jurisdictions that allows a defendant to argue they had no predisposition to commit an illegal act prior to the government's involvement actions towards them.  In order to get it, you have to demonstrate that an agent of the government convinced you to do something you wouldn't otherwise do.  For that reason, it's almost universally unavailable to someone who has been convicted of committing the act before, and it is generally unavailable of the prosecution can provide 'more likely than not' evidence that the defendant has committed the act before.  Some scenarios might help draw out just what entrapment is:

Undercover: hey guy, you want to buy a gram of blow?
Bar patron: Are you a cop?  You know you have to tell me if your a cop.
Undercover: Naw man, I'm not a cop, its $60, you want one?
Bar patron: Sure!
No entrapment

Undercover: hey guy, you want to buy a gram of blow?
Bar patron: Naw, I don't really do that.
Undercover: Come on, It's a good time for only $60
Bar patron: Alright, I guess I'll take one
No entrapment

Undercover: hey guy, you want to buy a gram of blow?
Bar patron: Naw, I don't really do that.
Undercover: Come on, It's a good time for only $60
Bar patron: Not tonight man
Undercover: Ok ok, for you, I'll knock of $5
Bar patron: Alright, I guess I'll take one
No entrapment

Undercover: Hey guy, you want to buy a gram of blow?
Bar patron: Naw, I don't really do that.
Undercover: Come on, it's a good time for only $60
Bar patron: I'm just not interested, sorry
Undercover: I'll give you a special, only $30
Bar patron: I appreciate that, but no, I don't do drugs
Undercover: How about this, I'll give it to you for free, just try it with me, I think you'll like it
Bar patron: Alright, I guess I'll try it.
Entrapment may be available.

As you can see, entrapment's a pretty rare defense for people, the police really have to have convinced you to do something you wouldn't have otherwise done.  Your bitcoin scenario doesn't seem to involve this at all, it looks like just an undercover buy, which happen all the time and are certainly not entrapment.

As for whether you could get out of a charge of trafficking because you directed payment to a third party, as the above poster addressed, that will absolutely not help you.  You traded "something of value" in exchange for the drugs, it's a but-for scenario, you wouldn't have delivered the drugs if you didn't think they would donate, getting them to give something up in exchange for the drugs is a sale. 

I still don't understand the distinction.  Whether you're a US based exchange selling to Panamanians, a Panama based exchange selling to Americans, a US based exchange selling to Americans, or a Panamanian based exchange selling to Panamanians, the rules are essentially the same.  It may determine whether the SEC or the SMV is more or less likely to be the relevant enforcer, and you might make a practical judgment there about who you'd rather go up against (The SMV tends to be more relaxed, but they also can be pressured more politically if you've pissed off the wrong person, and they have greater investigative powers as they are a unified financial regulator.  The SEC has substantially greater resources, but they're also usually more responsive and organizationally easier to deal with, they're more independent politically, but also more reliant on inter-agency cooperation), but from the neutral standpoint of this board, neither is preferable to the other.

In the US at least, a truly independent central bank would be logically impossible short of a constitutional amendment, as Congress retains perpetual plenary power over its domains, subject only to the Constitution.  Congress today can make the Federal Reserve as independent as physically possible, but it cannot prevent Congress tomorrow from revoking that independence. 

No, the state doesn't sell any lottery tickets.  There are casino-based lotteries, but they're not related to multi-state lottery products like Powerball and Mega Millions, because of how little they pay out for every dollar put in, they would be illegal as predatory in Nevada. 

Lets hope he never plays a state lottery like powerball, the payout return percentages are actually so low, even if they were increased 50% they would still be illegally low under Nevada law.  Go Nevada!

Did you verify their secret the next day and then determine you should have received a different number from the hash output?  Their system is very open and you can mathematically verify their honesty post-transaction.  If you have evidence of dishonesty in one of the longest-running bitcoin services, please provide it.

If you're going to do that, will you also warn them not to deal with essentially every other country in the world?  With the exception of a few (China, the UAE, Brazil, and Nigeria come to mind), nearly every other country's securities laws are modeled significantly after the US system.

Edit:  Similarly, AML compliance (while less likely to track the US scheme) is also detailed and complex in nearly every country, the impact of FATF and related FSABs worldwide on national policies has been far reaching.  Singling out the US as if it's laws are somehow uniquely onerous is just idiotic and demonstrates complete ignorance about the international environment for investment and AML compliance regulation. 

We can't help it if we're exceptional! 

But ultimately I think I agree with you, though for different reasons.  The securities laws of many jurisdictions are based on US law anyway, the world is our subsection, suck it nerds.

The terms you have highlighted include both agree and execute, if there's been full execution, there wouldn't be any complaining, the transaction is completed.  We also don't prosecute people in the US for breach of contract.

I believe every country, except those that have joined economic unions under certain conditions, retain the power to create money.  For instance, in the US, the Federal Reserve (which is a governmental agency that's only independent in the sense that executive discretion is extremely limited) controls the money supply, and if Congress really wanted to (and had agreement from the president or dual super-majorities), it could direct the Federal Reserve to create more money.  This is an inherent power of national governments.

There are very few obligations on registered private investment firms because only investment professionals and the super-rich are allowed to invest.  I would love for them to clarify, I've been trying to get them to for nearly a week, but their answers are extremely evasive.  As of today they claimed I was talking to a customer service rep, and from now on they'll give me answers from legal.  We'll see how that goes.  I wouldn't harass them so much if it weren't for the fact that they claim to be compliant.  Most of the investments here are pretty shady and clearly unlawful, and if consenting adults want to take the risk with their money, they should be able to, but Havelock has put a ton of effort into appearing to comply with the law.  That seems less like a free market and more like fraud to me.