I suspect (although this is just speculation) that the authority is based on the fact that the Bitcoin Foundation is transmitting a lot of money to and from citizens of California. If, indeed, the Bitcoin Foundation were responsible for all bitcoin transactions (including those in California) then the legal authority would be clear. Perhaps California officials are simply mistaken and ill-informed about how bitcoin functions.
Even if they were a money transmitter, what authority does California have over a Washington based nonprofit?
If they were a money transmitter, and operated as such in California, California's authority over them would not be affected by either the fact that they were based on Washington or the fact that they were a non-profit.
Comments
Even if they were a money transmitter, what authority does California have over a Washington based nonprofit?
The Bitcoin Foundation recently organized a large bitcoin conference in California. http://www.bitcoin2013.com/
I suspect (although this is just speculation) that the authority is based on the fact that the Bitcoin Foundation is transmitting a lot of money to and from citizens of California. If, indeed, the Bitcoin Foundation were responsible for all bitcoin transactions (including those in California) then the legal authority would be clear. Perhaps California officials are simply mistaken and ill-informed about how bitcoin functions.
If they were a money transmitter, and operated as such in California, California's authority over them would not be affected by either the fact that they were based on Washington or the fact that they were a non-profit.