4 ms·

> Bitcoin and alt coins, just like WoW gold, are not stocks. Not relevant, securities doesn't mean stocks. A security is basically any financial instrument of

> Bitcoin and alt coins, just like WoW gold, are not stocks. Not relevant, securities doesn't mean stocks. A security is basically any financial instrument of value, and crytpo's are most certainly securities and obviously always have been. You need to get over this notion that "new" things are somehow not subject to existing laws. Slapping a new name like bitcoin on a financial security doesn't suddenly make it not a security; the law is not so trivially circumvented, the law doesn't need to mention a thing by name for it to apply to said thing.

quuquuquu 9y ago
Bitcoin wasn't a security in 2014 You can't retroactively apply the law. Well apparently the government acts like they can. But in my (biased) mind they shouldn't.
- gnaritas 9y ago
  Bitcoin was a security the second it came into existence. The law doesn't need to retroactively be applied, it always applied. New things aren't somehow immune from existing law because they haven't been explicitly named by the law. The law doesn't need to say "crypto's are securities" for crytpo's to be securities. Don't confuse regulators clarifying how they're going to enforce the law with changes in the law. Those clarifications come out to make it clear to "magical thinkers" that existing laws do apply and will be enforced as X.
  - swfsql 9y ago
    > The law doesn't need to retroactively be applied, it always applied. New things aren't somehow immune from existing law because they haven't been explicitly named by the law. The law doesn't need to say "crypto's are securities" for crytpo's to be securities. How about.. when a law is wrong? or if it's not just? or is changed, for this matter? since you think it's retroactively applied, which way or which one of 2 or more conflicting law are/is 'applied' retroactively?
    - gnaritas 9y ago
      The law isn't wrong, bitcoin is obviously a financial security and always was from its inception. Nothing is being retroactively applied here. The only issue here is cryto fans odd beliefs thinking crypto is somehow immune to existing regulations.

quuquuquu 9y ago

Bitcoin wasn't a security in 2014 You can't retroactively apply the law. Well apparently the government acts like they can. But in my (biased) mind they shouldn't.

gnaritas 9y ago
Bitcoin was a security the second it came into existence. The law doesn't need to retroactively be applied, it always applied. New things aren't somehow immune from existing law because they haven't been explicitly named by the law. The law doesn't need to say "crypto's are securities" for crytpo's to be securities. Don't confuse regulators clarifying how they're going to enforce the law with changes in the law. Those clarifications come out to make it clear to "magical thinkers" that existing laws do apply and will be enforced as X.
- swfsql 9y ago
  > The law doesn't need to retroactively be applied, it always applied. New things aren't somehow immune from existing law because they haven't been explicitly named by the law. The law doesn't need to say "crypto's are securities" for crytpo's to be securities. How about.. when a law is wrong? or if it's not just? or is changed, for this matter? since you think it's retroactively applied, which way or which one of 2 or more conflicting law are/is 'applied' retroactively?
  - gnaritas 9y ago
    The law isn't wrong, bitcoin is obviously a financial security and always was from its inception. Nothing is being retroactively applied here. The only issue here is cryto fans odd beliefs thinking crypto is somehow immune to existing regulations.