The Bitcoin foundation does neither exchange or trade Bitcoins, nor does it release any Bitcoin client. Its only mission is to "standardize, protect and promote" the use of Bitcoin.
Charging the Bitcoin foundations for violations against the money transmission laws would be like charging NRA for violations against firearm laws. This would be a very alarming precedent and would basically violate your rights for free speech.
The best argument in favor of the C&D I can think of is that the Bitcoin Foundation pays a salary to the lead developer of the reference client and daemon.
If you violate money transmission laws because you pay a salary to someone (without being a licensed money transmitter) there would be lots of people violating those laws in California.
I agree, I'm just speculating on California's justification for the C&D, assuming it isn't simply a result of ignorance of how bitcoin works and the role of the Bitcoin Foundation.
Isn't a simpler explanation that they are just stupid and didn't take 5 minutes to find out exactly who they are sending the letter to and just sent it to the first google result for bitcoin?
That's a two way street. I'm guessing the Bitcoin Foundation might have overlooked some of its due diligence obligations; it looks to me like CA is 'piercing the corporate veil' if you're familiar with that legal term.
Comments
The Bitcoin foundation does neither exchange or trade Bitcoins, nor does it release any Bitcoin client. Its only mission is to "standardize, protect and promote" the use of Bitcoin.
Charging the Bitcoin foundations for violations against the money transmission laws would be like charging NRA for violations against firearm laws. This would be a very alarming precedent and would basically violate your rights for free speech.
The best argument in favor of the C&D I can think of is that the Bitcoin Foundation pays a salary to the lead developer of the reference client and daemon.
If you violate money transmission laws because you pay a salary to someone (without being a licensed money transmitter) there would be lots of people violating those laws in California.
I agree, I'm just speculating on California's justification for the C&D, assuming it isn't simply a result of ignorance of how bitcoin works and the role of the Bitcoin Foundation.
Isn't a simpler explanation that they are just stupid and didn't take 5 minutes to find out exactly who they are sending the letter to and just sent it to the first google result for bitcoin?
That's a two way street. I'm guessing the Bitcoin Foundation might have overlooked some of its due diligence obligations; it looks to me like CA is 'piercing the corporate veil' if you're familiar with that legal term.