7 ms·

- Buying Bitcoins - Selling Bitcoins - Buying any goods or services in exchange for Bitcoins - Selling any goods or services for Bitcoins - Send

by dreen 13y ago

- Buying Bitcoins - Selling Bitcoins - Buying any goods or services in exchange for Bitcoins - Selling any goods or services for Bitcoins - Sending Bitcoins to anyone located outside of Thailand - Receiving Bitcoins from anyone located outside of Thailand I think what they mean is that its impossible for a company to do any of the above things legally. Its not possible to enforce this on the individual level.

mjn 13y ago
Yes, as the statement notes, the Thai government didn't seek anyone out, and don't appear to be actively interested in whether people are making Bitcoin transactions. Rather, a company, Bitcoin Co. Ltd., asked the Bank of Thailand for an opinion on the legality of their operations and whether any licenses were needed. The Bank of Thailand responded that such activities can't be licensed under current law. Therefore, Bitcoin Co. Ltd. decided to suspend operations to avoid running afoul of the law.
- helterskelter7 13y ago
  I think your logic is wrong. The Bank of Thailand clearly stated that such operations are illegal. They did not say that they cannot legislate it but rather, that they are illegal and must not be carried out. And this is the reason why Bitcoin Co. Ltd. suspended operations. Now what you stated. I think the text was quite clear.
  - mjn 13y ago
    Yes, that's what my comment indicates: the company inquired whether a license is needed, and whether it could be granted. The Bank of Thailand says that yes, one would be needed (they are engaged in financial services, after all), but under current law cannot be granted (there is no provision for licensing the kind of financial services the company proposes to carry out). Hence, the company decided to suspend operations. The point is that the initiators of the discussion were a company seeking information about operating as a financial-services company. It wasn't a police-initiated operation, like a raid on an individual buying things with Bitcoin, or something of that sort.
Nursie 13y ago
>> Its not possible to enforce this on the individual level. Why not? From what little I understand it's pretty easy to spot bitcoin related traffic on a network, transactions in particular. Thailand already has some sort of national filtering/porn censorship set up IIRC.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- clarkmoody 13y ago
  If the person in question is running a Bitcoin wallet, that is. Receiving and sending via blockchain.info online wallets would require masking website traffic only, and there are lots of ways to do this. Receiving via offline wallet would be completely untraceable, unless the addresses were know a priori by the authorities. Checking the balance on a web-based blockchain viewer could tip off the watchers, but the same precautions apply here as for the above case.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    Receiving via an offline wallet... You mean effectively a savings account that is inbound only? Sure, no traffic needs to come to you then. I'm sure there are ways to secure the traffic. As it stands, however, running your own node, mining, and sending BTC is pretty detectable.
    - clarkmoody 13y ago
      Of course. The important thing here is that the receive-only scheme provides a way around two of the six points mentioned by dreen above: selling goods/services for Bitcoin and receiving Bitcoin from anyone outside the country. Actually, from that list it looks like running a node and mining would not be illegal. And if you're mining with a pool, make sure the payout is added as part of the generation transaction, not sent as another transaction later.
      - Nursie 13y ago
RuggeroAltair 13y ago
If someone proposes this kind of law in the US, would it be compatible with the US Constitution? It seems to me hard to enforce in some western countries. How can you enforce people not to buy or sell something, unless you decide it's a scam. Regulations could be enforced, I suppose, the same way short-selling can be 'paused' in situation in which the market is going crazy or volatility is too high. But unless you use these loopholes I am not sure it would be possible. Does anyone know of ways to enforce such a thing in the states? Or in any of the western european countries?
- Nursie 13y ago
  >> How can you enforce people not to buy or sell something, unless you decide it's a scam. Drugs, weapons, precursors/ingredients for those things.... Certainly some of the worst and most controversial parts of modern legal codes in the west, but governments ban stuff they don't like all the time. Where you're dealing with financial instruments, there is just so much law in place already that it seems to me it would be almost impossible to make a business using Bitcoin and not fall foul of some law somewhere.
  - RuggeroAltair 13y ago
    No, I agree, and I mean exactly what you meant. Either you say that something is dangerous (as in your example, drugs, weapons... etc), or it has to be considered a scam. I may be wrong and I would like to understand this better, but I don't see how they can declare it illegal to buy unless they find a loophole (money laundry, etc). But just saying you're not allow to buy it, without associating with it a motivation (which could eventually be challenged via various Courts), doesn't see easy to me in the US. They can't even manage to ban weapons really.
- peter303 13y ago
  Sure, Section 8 of the US Constitution: "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures"

by dreen 13y ago

mjn 13y ago

Yes, as the statement notes, the Thai government didn't seek anyone out, and don't appear to be actively interested in whether people are making Bitcoin transactions. Rather, a company, Bitcoin Co. Ltd., asked the Bank of Thailand for an opinion on the legality of their operations and whether any licenses were needed. The Bank of Thailand responded that such activities can't be licensed under current law. Therefore, Bitcoin Co. Ltd. decided to suspend operations to avoid running afoul of the law.

helterskelter7 13y ago
I think your logic is wrong. The Bank of Thailand clearly stated that such operations are illegal. They did not say that they cannot legislate it but rather, that they are illegal and must not be carried out. And this is the reason why Bitcoin Co. Ltd. suspended operations. Now what you stated. I think the text was quite clear.
- mjn 13y ago
  Yes, that's what my comment indicates: the company inquired whether a license is needed, and whether it could be granted. The Bank of Thailand says that yes, one would be needed (they are engaged in financial services, after all), but under current law cannot be granted (there is no provision for licensing the kind of financial services the company proposes to carry out). Hence, the company decided to suspend operations. The point is that the initiators of the discussion were a company seeking information about operating as a financial-services company. It wasn't a police-initiated operation, like a raid on an individual buying things with Bitcoin, or something of that sort.

Nursie 13y ago

>> Its not possible to enforce this on the individual level. Why not? From what little I understand it's pretty easy to spot bitcoin related traffic on a network, transactions in particular. Thailand already has some sort of national filtering/porn censorship set up IIRC.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
clarkmoody 13y ago
If the person in question is running a Bitcoin wallet, that is. Receiving and sending via blockchain.info online wallets would require masking website traffic only, and there are lots of ways to do this. Receiving via offline wallet would be completely untraceable, unless the addresses were know a priori by the authorities. Checking the balance on a web-based blockchain viewer could tip off the watchers, but the same precautions apply here as for the above case.
- Nursie 13y ago
  Receiving via an offline wallet... You mean effectively a savings account that is inbound only? Sure, no traffic needs to come to you then. I'm sure there are ways to secure the traffic. As it stands, however, running your own node, mining, and sending BTC is pretty detectable.
  - clarkmoody 13y ago
    Of course. The important thing here is that the receive-only scheme provides a way around two of the six points mentioned by dreen above: selling goods/services for Bitcoin and receiving Bitcoin from anyone outside the country. Actually, from that list it looks like running a node and mining would not be illegal. And if you're mining with a pool, make sure the payout is added as part of the generation transaction, not sent as another transaction later.
    - Nursie 13y ago

RuggeroAltair 13y ago

If someone proposes this kind of law in the US, would it be compatible with the US Constitution? It seems to me hard to enforce in some western countries. How can you enforce people not to buy or sell something, unless you decide it's a scam. Regulations could be enforced, I suppose, the same way short-selling can be 'paused' in situation in which the market is going crazy or volatility is too high. But unless you use these loopholes I am not sure it would be possible. Does anyone know of ways to enforce such a thing in the states? Or in any of the western european countries?

Nursie 13y ago
>> How can you enforce people not to buy or sell something, unless you decide it's a scam. Drugs, weapons, precursors/ingredients for those things.... Certainly some of the worst and most controversial parts of modern legal codes in the west, but governments ban stuff they don't like all the time. Where you're dealing with financial instruments, there is just so much law in place already that it seems to me it would be almost impossible to make a business using Bitcoin and not fall foul of some law somewhere.
- RuggeroAltair 13y ago
  No, I agree, and I mean exactly what you meant. Either you say that something is dangerous (as in your example, drugs, weapons... etc), or it has to be considered a scam. I may be wrong and I would like to understand this better, but I don't see how they can declare it illegal to buy unless they find a loophole (money laundry, etc). But just saying you're not allow to buy it, without associating with it a motivation (which could eventually be challenged via various Courts), doesn't see easy to me in the US. They can't even manage to ban weapons really.
peter303 13y ago
Sure, Section 8 of the US Constitution: "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures"