Most of the comments here are not particularly well-informed and should be ignored. Yes, the Bitcoin Foundation (probably--I don't know anything about them oth

Most of the comments here are not particularly well-informed and should be ignored. Yes, the Bitcoin Foundation (probably--I don't know anything about them other than what I've read) isn't strictly speaking a money transmitter. Yes, the California Department of Financial Institutions--which will cease to exist in 7 days when it gets merged into the California Department of Corporations--is totally ignorant of Bitcoin. But they know the law pretty well. Especially the one that they wrote. (See the name Robert Venchiarutti on the letter? He's really the one behind it. The DFI lawyers just do what they're told. They don't even like the law. Venchiarutti actually wrote it, with the help of TMSRT's lobbyists.) That being said, the law to worry about here isn't even the one cited. It is, as I've stated quite frequently, 18 U.S.C. § 1960 (http://www.plainsite.org/laws/index.html?id=14426 http://www.plainsite.org/laws/index.html?id=14426). And that law says that you don't have to be a money transmitter to get a letter such as the one received by the Bitcoin Foundation (http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/149335233?access_key=key-2lnhtenm4qb1mydngxac&allow_share=false&show_recommendations=false http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/149335233?access_key=key-2l...). "(a) Whoever knowingly conducts, controls, manages, supervises, directs, or owns all or part of an unlicensed money transmitting business..." The question then becomes whether the Bitcoin Foundation has any "control" or "direction" over its members and/or affiliates, who are most clearly in violation of the law under section (b). These words are vague. It could be argued that it does. There is an extremely high chance that people will go to jail over this whether people here think it's stupid or not. It's too bad no one took me seriously when I pointed out that the MTA was going to cause problems two years ago. I've been doing the industry's dirty work ever since. It would have been a lot faster and easier with some help. Now we all have to hope that my constitutional challenge (http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=716056 http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=716056) is going to save the day. And it might, but that day may be pretty far off in the future at the current rate. Meanwhile, everyone should really be freaking out over AB 786 (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB786 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?...), presently before the California Senate, which makes the MTA worse than it already is by giving Robert Venchiarutti even more power. I've been successful in removing the clause that created a new thought crime, but the rest is still pretty bad--unless you're a payroll company. Amazing what lobbying can do. If you want to help, click on the "Comments to Author" tab at the link above, register with the State of California, and tell Assemblyman Dickinson that the MTA should be repealed for all of the reasons I outline at https://s.facecash.com/legal/20130225.packetnumbered.pdf https://s.facecash.com/legal/20130225.packetnumbered.pdf: its overly broad scope, inability to sensibly regulate mobile technology, and unconstitutional nature. Money transmission takes place over the internet, which is in the domain of the federal government, not the states. See /ALA v. Pataki/, 969 F.Supp. 160 (1997), http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10174094889155823351 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1017409488915582.... Also CC: Eileen Newhall <eileen.newhall@sen.ca.gov>, Mark Farouk <mark.farouk@asm.ca.gov>, Senator Jerry Hill <jerry.hill@sen.ca.gov>, Marc Hershman <marc.hershman@sen.ca.gov>, and BCC me: Aaron Greenspan <aarong@thinkcomputer.com>. If you live in California make sure to say where. Be polite. Reading material: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5308013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5308013