The government of Virgina is not terrified of Bitcoin. As a state, Virginia does not have the power to issue monetary currency. What Virginia cares about is that money transmitters--of any currency--which send money into or take money out of the state are subject to regulations to protect the citizens and residents of that state.
A legal suspension is a very different thing from a voluntary shutdown. One is the state's use of legal force--the other is the business choosing not to challenge a form letter before any legal proceedings have even begun. A form letter, legally speaking, is like a boxer saying he's going to destroy his opponent--before the match has even been arranged.
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 regulation in question, but since regulations like this long predate Bitcoin, it's clearly not any sort of reaction to Bitcoin or any other virtual currency.
For example: instead of "I exchange 3 bananas for 3 apples" to "I exchange 3 bananas for 3 btc which I can exchange for 3 apples".
Might want to ask Elizabeth Warren about that one.
"Instead of risking jail time (...)"
I see some contradiction in here. If you feel a threat of violence upon you, isn't it very definition of "being forced"?
They were told they "must" close by the state. I'm not sure how anyone can construe that as voluntary.
Newspaper headlines have evolved own special grammar rules, designed to save space. According to Wikipedia [1], "Articles are usually omitted."
Also, it's a little ironic that this comment, nitpicking the headline's choice of articles, itself uses articles incorrectly (it should say "there should be _an_ article in there.")
Note that they're basically acting as the middle-man, not storing anything - I'm not really sure how the terms work in this situation. They seem to think it doesn't apply, maybe they're right.
It sounds like they did this voluntarily, and they go on to explain there have been no freezes, and all transactions have been completed. Probably a good choice (IANAL of course) while they mount a defense, which it sounds like they plan to do.
No, they were forced by the state.
It would be "voluntarily" if their customers did not like their affairs and they risked losing customers. And customers are never going to put a gun to your head. They just go away.
| They feel the risk of their property being
| seized and owners brought to court.
Unlike other recent headlines (around i.e. Mt. Gox, etc.), it seems like the question here is whether or not bitcoin constitutes "stored value" under VA law[1]. If so, this would render anyone who buys and sells bitcoin a Money Transmitter Business.
That said, I doubt FinCEN would consider Bitcoin "stored value" based on their definition [2] and recent "guidelines".
Stored value laws were created for things like prepaid cards (I believe...[3]), which were cracked down on because of their role in money laundering.
[1] http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+6.2-1900 [2] http://www.fincen.gov/financial_institutions/msb/definitions... [3] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-29/pdf/2011-19116.pd...
If you accept bitcoins for your dog-walking service, there doesn't seem to be any new regulation.
An eBay auction exclusively for btc? Where service wets beak with $$ only, or also/with btc micro payments? A problem?
"You don't get into positions of power of life and death over proles by being ignorant, only acting as if you are, which is genius-level sociopathy. If you REALLY try it sometime, you may just become the President of the United States, and have the power to slaughter babies in the Rose Garden in front of the world's press, and not suffer any real punishment whatsoever."
One thread: Bitcoin is the future of money
Other thread: Bitcoin is not money, so why apply money rules?
It either is or isn't.