A Bitcoin service suspended by state of Virginia

Post by mikeash » Mon, Jun 03, 2013, 6:47 PM UTC

downandout wrote: post #28

mikeash wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternative interpretation: governments couldn't give a rat's ass about Bitcoin, but care deeply about financial institutions (at least, those too small to purchase legislators) actually following the rules. This company is transmitting money, Virginia requires companies that transmit money to be licensed, this company is not licensed, seems pretty straightforward to me. One can argue about the merits of the regulati…

Wrong. This company does not sell Bitcoins - they buy them (the state's "initial investigation" - which likely consisted of reading a complaint filed anonymously by a competitor - had this entirely wrong). They are only "transmitting money" in the same way that people who buy things from Amazon or eBay are when they buy products. By your definition, I guess I need to become a licensed MSB next time I buy a replacemen…

Post by gamblor956 » Mon, Jun 03, 2013, 6:49 PM UTC

downandout wrote: post #28

mikeash wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternative interpretation: governments couldn't give a rat's ass about Bitcoin, but care deeply about financial institutions (at least, those too small to purchase legislators) actually following the rules. This company is transmitting money, Virginia requires companies that transmit money to be licensed, this company is not licensed, seems pretty straightforward to me. One can argue about the merits of the regulati…

Wrong. This company does not sell Bitcoins - they buy them (the state's "initial investigation" - which likely consisted of reading a complaint filed anonymously by a competitor - had this entirely wrong). They are only "transmitting money" in the same way that people who buy things from Amazon or eBay are when they buy products. By your definition, I guess I need to become a licensed MSB next time I buy a replacemen…

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jun 03, 2013, 6:52 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #31

downandout wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. This company does not sell Bitcoins - they buy them (the state's "initial investigation" - which likely consisted of reading a complaint filed anonymously by a competitor - had this entirely wrong). They are only "transmitting money" in the same way that people who buy things from Amazon or eBay are when they buy products. By your definition, I guess I need to become a licensed MSB next time I buy a replacemen…

If I buy Euros, am I not transmitting money? There's a difference between Bitcoin and power supplies, namely that the former is money and the latter is not. The law applies to currency. Bitcoin advocates can't seem to make up their mind as to whether Bitcoin actually qualifies as "money". It's money right up to the point where the law starts talking about "money", then magically it's just some arbitrary good that's n…

Post by mpyne » Mon, Jun 03, 2013, 6:57 PM UTC

fianchetto wrote: post #32

rayiner wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because you can always relinquish your citizenship and leave the country if you don't want to pay taxes. It should be noted that all "voluntary" market transactions occur pursuant to the implicit threat of force. When I buy something, I reserve the right to invoke the state's use of force if the product is say defective, while the seller reserves the right to invoke the state's use of force if my payment is say…

Not to be harsh, but your argument is all over the place.

Post by Uchikoma » Mon, Jun 03, 2013, 6:59 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #25

fianchetto wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A smaller entity being threatened by a larger entity is a form of force. Do you think you pay taxes "voluntarily" also?

Yes, because you can always relinquish your citizenship and leave the country if you don't want to pay taxes. It should be noted that all "voluntary" market transactions occur pursuant to the implicit threat of force. When I buy something, I reserve the right to invoke the state's use of force if the product is say defective, while the seller reserves the right to invoke the state's use of force if my payment is say…