[cryptography] Is Bitcoin legal?

[Ian G]

On 16/06/11 12:34 AM, John Levine wrote:
> Bitcoins aren't securities, because they don't act like securities.

Right.  Or more particularly, he asked:

    "... I canbt help wondering why
    Bitcoins arenbt unregistered securities."

And the answer is that the registrar of securities defines what the  
securites are, and the SEC's definition is a long way away from BitCoin.

    "Uh-oh?  Maybe someone will be hearing from the SEC?"

No, that's not how the SEC works.  The SEC is a responding organisation.  
They only deal when there is a complaint.  Even when there is a complaint, 
they will try their best to ignore it.  C.f, Madoff, which was dealing in 
securities.

If there is an interest, it will come from UST, via USSS.


> There's no promise to pay, no nominal value, and you don't have a
> claim on some part of something else.

Nod. A security is a contract where something is secured by one party to  
the benefit of another.  We're missing the three components here, so where 
do we start?  Who's going to complain and what's their complaint?

Rock on...

iang
_______________________________________________
cryptography mailing list
cryptography at randombit.net
http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography

----- End forwarded message -----
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE