Hacker News Reader

Comment by swombat | Hacker News Reader

If there was any evidence of that they'd go to jail for a long time - even if bitcoin is not directly regulated, I'm sure there are still some anti-fraud regulations that would kick in...

View on HN

Which statement do you think is fraudulent?

They could actually have lost the bitcoins. They could be still having technical problems.

Fennecfoxen's theory could be illegal market manipulation, but I wouldn't be surprised if the BTC market is weird enough that it doesn't fit under the laws against that. Or at least that it'd be such a mess to prosecute that prosecutors would all find something better for their careers to do.

Fennecfoxen's theory could be illegal market manipulation

Market manipulation in general isn't illegal, so it would basically boil down to if the SEC considered BTC a currency or not.

I sure hope there's no such law. Let those who panicked and sold cry, because they were speculators to begin with.

Should there be the same laws kick in if they drive the price up, by say, adding fake orders on their exchange? I don't even think that should be illegal.

The market should move as it moves, through whichever means: fairness, deceit or ruse. I wouldn't want BTC any other way.

> Should there be the same laws kick in if they drive the price up, by say, adding fake orders on their exchange? I don't even think that should be illegal.

I strongly agree, and I do believe that there's price manipulation going on with the Gox situation at the moment. Is it just an attempt by Gox to make some money back? Or is it something far bigger aimed at damaging the reputation of BTC? Don't forget that Karpeles has recently been vulnerable to manipulation from the USG [1].

But It's surprising that you wouldn't want BTC, when on the road ahead lies Open Transactions, distributed exchanges, and so much more innovation that will take your above statement and put it directly into code. Thus making these wall-street tactics obsolete.

[1] http://thegenesisblock.com/warrant-for-mt-gox-wells-fargo-ac...

For now a bitcoin is just like a soda can to the eyes of the regulators.

So here is a fun exercise, think of bitcoins as soda cans and rethink the whole situation.

Yeah, regulated or not, that would almost certainly qualify as wire fraud, at the very least.

Does "wire fraud" even exist anywhere else in the world besides the good old USofA?

In most of the world it may be just plain fraud; the "wire" distinction is a justification for invoking the interstate commerce clause and, thus, federal jurisdiction in the US.

But its still probably illegal just about everywhere.

> I'm sure there are still some anti-fraud regulations that would kick in...

I don't know, but I don't think so. For the law you may be trading in monopoly money at your risk.

Intentional misrepresentation of fact for material gain doesn't seem to require currency of any sort.

So Kome I'll make you a deal, I've got a ownership title for the Brooklyn Bridge and I'll trade this title to you for a case of beer... deal? Deal. Sucka. Then it goes to court. Assuming you can convince the court I knew the title was fake, and the case of beer is worth more than the fake title (maybe the title has artistic merit, or maybe the beer was worthless American Lite "beer" of negative worth) then its pretty cut and dried as fraud.

What's the fake in this case? They would be convincing people that bitcoins are worth less due to their actions (and it is worth less during this period, as people have lost much faith), buying at the reduced priced, and then covering their losses and supposedly restoring at least some faith in the market, once again raising prices. Where's the fake title? Where's the lie?

What about the people who exploited transaction malleability to defraud MtGox? Will someone go after them? Doesn't MtGox have their details?

If not fraud, then simple theft.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com