Slashdot Mirror


Virtual Currency Becomes Real In South Korea

garylian writes "Massively is reporting that the South Korean Supreme Court has stated that virtual currency is the equivalent of real-world money. For those of you who might not be drawing the link, the core there is that selling in-game currency for real money is essentially just an exchange of currency and perfectly legal in South Korea. This could have sweeping implications for RMT operations the world over, not to mention free-to-play games and... well, online games in general. The official story is available online from JoongAng Daily."

203 comments

  1. The real reason by sopssa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's lucrative for the government to say that. After all, now they can add tax between exchanges, in top of the service costs too.

    1. Re:The real reason by Joehonkie · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Awww, I wanted to say that!

    2. Re:The real reason by tacarat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yep. Considering that they've been taxing game transactions transparently for years, I guess this is just catching up.

      What? They haven't? Old school arcade players bought additional health in Gauntlet. The tax was rolled into the $0.25 purchase price. Continues (which are basically extra lives in a game) are the same thing. I'm sure there are other examples, but the taxman getting a cut on such "microtransactions" is nothing new. They just needed a way to do it with some of the newer setups.

      Granted, now the problem is that this may have negative ramifications for the games due to the higher level of multiplayer interaction. Would duping become a crime equivalent to counterfeiting and thus carry big jail time?

      --
      "Common sense will be the death of us all"
    3. Re:The real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I wanted to make a lame joke about "only old people" in reference to Korea. However, I'm probably the only person to remember that meme.

    4. Re:The real reason by DarkIye · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Also, doesn't converting other currencies to virtual currency cause a duplication of the money? I mean, you give the company your Korean won and they have to make you some cash. Well, unless they move the money to you from a virtual vault they own, and to have such a thing they'd have to change the whole system.

    5. Re:The real reason by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not the *government* saying that. It's the courts.

      I have serious doubts about the article summary and title here. Reading the article behind the article, it seems that the courts haven't ruled that in game money is "real", otherwise they'd be taxing in-game transactions. It's just saying that in-game money can be sold.

      It seems reasonable that they should treat the sale of in game things (currency or objects) like any other kind of sale of any other kind of property. Why should you be able to earn in-game money and sell it without tax, while somebody selling the fruits of his labor in something else has to pay tax? Or vice versa?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:The real reason by rarel · · Score: 4, Funny

      Only old people remember that meme.

    7. Re:The real reason by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're probably the only one old enough to remember that.

    8. Re:The real reason by alonsoac · · Score: 1

      It's not the *government* saying that. It's the courts.

      South Korea's government is divided into three branches: executive, judicial, and legislative. So yes the courts are part of the government.

    9. Re:The real reason by Knara · · Score: 1

      Over in one. Good show.

    10. Re:The real reason by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Yes, there's a difference between considering ingame money to be "real money" and considering it to be an item or goods which can be sold.
      Considering monopoly money to be real money would be stupid.
      However considering the little paper slips that come in the box to be something you actually own and can sell to other people without the permission of the company which makes monopoly box sets is quite different.

      Now this does bring up the question of: if I'm running a really big monopoly game why shouldn't I be able to write into the rules whatever I like? That to keep playing everyone has to stand on their head and sing the star spangled banner once every 3 turns to avoid being kicked out of the game or that players can't trade the game pieces between each other for real money.

      People have to remember, even if that piece of armour looks shiny and that mount frisky it's still as much a part of the game as that monster printed on the Magic cards and if you're making your own game it's your rules.

    11. Re:The real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kinda like how the banks lend you money.

    12. Re:The real reason by hey! · · Score: 1

      You are correct, but only in a sense that has no practical value.

      This is a case of metonymy (sorry, language isn't logical). When the poster was talking about "the government", he was obviously talking about that portion of the government that is concerned with setting policies with the aim to maximizing the revenue of the national government. It makes no sense to ascribe policy motivations to judicial decisions, unless one is criticizing the judicial system for operating outside its proper sphere.

      I ran into a similar issue recently in a medical ontology, which had a concept for "adverse reactions to insulin and anti-diabetic medications". Technically that is redundant since insulin *is* an anti-diabetic medication. Insulin is by far the most important medication, so reactions to it go in this category, but reactions to *other* medications go in categories *underneath* this. This is not logical; it makes it impossible for the system to be sure that a patient has had an adverse reaction to insulin if this category is used. But that's the way people speak and understand each other. Humans *know* that unless otherwise specified we're talking insulin.

      It's just synecdoche -- the part standing for the whole in speech. That's the way people talk, even though it is inconsistent with kind of language philosopher-kings would prefer.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    13. Re:The real reason by Naturalis+Philosopho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you better take a hard look at how currency is currently issued by real governments. It's been a long time since the gold and silver standards made money even somewhat real, and even longer since a piece of eight made money ultimately real. Heck, an argument could be made that outside of barter we all use the equivalent of star trek type credits already. All the courts are really saying here is that online currency is a form of property like any other than can be bought and sold.

    14. Re:The real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shut up, nerd. i'll sell whatever virtual money i want WITHOUT tax. do something.

    15. Re:The real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The old people in Korea meme only lasted a few days, and then people felt it was a really stupid meme and demanded no one used it and insulted anyone that did. It's not even that old. What was it, last year? Maybe 2 years.

    16. Re:The real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why is the judicial system not a branch of the government?

    17. Re:The real reason by MBraynard · · Score: 1

      Only if you can pay the taxes with ingame currency, too.

    18. Re:The real reason by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      We have plenty of virtual currency floating around out there without even talking about games. See things like bank runs.

      For instance, I don't believe any bank anywhere has the cash on hand for all its customers. Casinos aren't required to have enough money to cover all of the chips they have on the floor.

    19. Re:The real reason by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Grasshopper, two years is old.

    20. Re:The real reason by gnapster · · Score: 1

      Not so loud! If people realize that's how it works, it could send us into a recession! ...oh, wait.

    21. Re:The real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, like, whoa, 1 day is old man. And leave my grass alone, i want to play with the elephants.

    22. Re:The real reason by c0sine · · Score: 1

      > it seems that the courts haven't ruled that in game money is "real"... It sounds like the paper crap which accepted as a legal tender in most countries is any more real than these candy wrappers from S. Korea :-(

      --
      Take care, Cos
  2. Currency value manipulation by zerosomething · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So we can sue Linden Labs for currency manipulation cause... oh wait the US does that all the time so I guess it's legal?

    --
    It all starts at 0
    1. Re:Currency value manipulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You realize that, in practice, laws don't apply to governments and anyone working on their behalf, right?

    2. Re:Currency value manipulation by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Only 'cause it's the US that's doing it. C'mon, how long have you been on this planet that you don't know that?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. Legal? by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

    Is minting a competing currency legal in South Korea? I thought it was illegal in the States, I seem to remember some libertarians a while back trying to set up a gold standard currency that would have competed with the dollar and they got closed down.

    1. Re:Legal? by revlayle · · Score: 1

      virtual currencies are not minted - unless they change the definition of minted

    2. Re:Legal? by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Dollar bills are not 'minted' either, but they are still covered by the constitution and laws that govern the minting of currency.

    3. Re:Legal? by zerosomething · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Casinos do it all the time. Private currency isn't illegal

      --
      It all starts at 0
    4. Re:Legal? by revlayle · · Score: 2, Funny

      LOGIC - IT HURTS *sizzzzzle*

    5. Re:Legal? by istartedi · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're probably referring to the "Liberty Dollar".

      Issuing a competing, aka "complementary" currency is not illegal! See, Ithaca hours, the Matole Petole, and a number of others.

      What made the Liberty coins illegal was that they had too close a resemblance to actual US currency, and were being advertised in ways that might lead people to believe they were legal tender. There may have been some other frauds revolving around the organization that sold them also.

      The fact that they minted silver (and maybe gold too, I don't recall) didn't make them illegal. The aforementioned Petole is silver, and nobody bothers them. They don't try to pass their coins off as valid US currency though, just 1.0 oz. fine silver. Nothing illegal about that.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    6. Re:Legal? by suso · · Score: 1

      There are a variety of regional currencies in the U.S. that are usually part of local economic interests. I think there is some clause that allows them. There is an article for it on wikipedia somewhere.

    7. Re:Legal? by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      There are? Can you provide any more information, or some sort of references?

      You're not confusing the twelve Federal Reserve regional banks with different currencies, are you? Each regional bank has its mark on the bills it issues, but they are all part of a single system of currency.

      -Peter

    8. Re:Legal? by pclminion · · Score: 1

      It was never intended as a competing currency. The government has, after the fact, DECLARED that it is equivalent to real currency. You cannot, in most sane countries, be prosecuted for something you did before it was a crime. And if the intention of the government was to make virtual currency illegal, they could have just declared it so, rather than saying it's the same as real currency. Obviously the intention is to be able to tax transactions made in game worlds with actual tax.

      Of course, since the two currencies have been declared equivalent, I don't see why I couldn't just pay my taxes in virtual gold. They're the same thing right?

    9. Re:Legal? by JonStewartMill · · Score: 1

      The "Liberty Dollar" is alive and well -- at least according to its proponents.

    10. Re:Legal? by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1
      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    11. Re:Legal? by hrvatska · · Score: 2, Informative
    12. Re:Legal? by JonStewartMill · · Score: 1

      FWIW, I think I read something about it in a Wikipedia article on the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.

    13. Re:Legal? by hitmark · · Score: 1

      technically, the only thing that makes a currency "legal" is if a national leadership will accept it as payment for taxes.

      anything else is basically a IOU for services or products.

      hell, as most money is being circulated electronically these days, i cant really tell a diff between virtual and real money any more.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    14. Re:Legal? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, it is illegal. See 18 USC Chapter 25 486:

      486. Uttering coins of gold, silver or other metal

      Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

      Liberty Dollars were not authorized by law, and therefore the minting of same is illegal.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    15. Re:Legal? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      What made the Liberty coins illegal was that they had too close a resemblance to actual US currency...

      Have you ever actually seen a Liberty Dollar? Among other things, they're (a) made of silver, unlike any current US coin; (b) much larger than any current US coin; (c) printed with a different design; (d) labeled with a different motto; (e) have "libertydollar.org" on the back; etc. In short, they are nothing like any current US currency. Here's a picture, in case you don't believe me: Liberty Dollar.

      ...and were being advertised in ways that might lead people to believe they were legal tender.

      There was some trouble with individual Liberty Dollars users not specifically stating that they were paying with real money, as opposed to legal tender, but to the best of my knowledge the organization itself never advertised Liberty Dollars as legal tender, and in fact went out of its way to point out the difference and advise its customers not to label it as such. What would be the point, after all, of taking valuable silver coins and passing them off as worthless legal tender?

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    16. Re:Legal? by istartedi · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but I believe it all hinges on the definition of "current money". If it doesn't hinge on that phrase, then why are the "generic silver rounds" sold by other dealers not being confiscated? I think the Liberty Dollar people would have been fine if they had not used the word "Dollar" or the dollar sign. I'm not sure how "current money" differs from "legal tender", AFAIK they have the same legal meaning for this purpose.

      The US Mint explains their PoV here.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    17. Re:Legal? by megamerican · · Score: 1

      It's really only illegal if you are somewhat successful.

      The FBI went after Liberty Dollar, which sold and real gold and silver coins and encouraged people and business to use them voluntarily instead of a Federal Reserve Note.

      The legal tender law doesn't apply to people using other currencies in private transactions. It basically means that banks and people can't force you to pay anything but dollars on debt that you owe. However, here is a gem from the FBI Press release:

      “People understand that there is only one legal currency in the United States. When groups try to replace the U.S. dollar with coins and bills that don’t hold the same value, it affects the economy. Consumers were using their hard-earned money to buy goods and services, then getting fake change in return,” said Owen Harris, the Special Agent in Charge of the Charlotte Division of the FBI. “No one in this country is above or beyond the law, and our law enforcement partners will continue to bring violators to justice.

      There are so many things wrong and hilariously ironic with this statement I'll let it stand as is.

      The FBI's basic argument was that the liberty dollar looked too much like "real money" and they must preserve the monopoly of the Federal Reserve to "save the economy."

      Gee, thanks!

      --
      If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    18. Re:Legal? by istartedi · · Score: 1

      I had seen the Liberty Dollars before, and yes they look "fakey" to me, and probably to most Slashdotters.

      Now... to somebody with an IQ of 100 or less... well, maybe they'd be fooled.

      In any event, the US Mint does a pretty good job of explaining how the LDs, in essence, used the "trademarks" of legal US currency.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    19. Re:Legal? by megamerican · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is illegal. See 18 USC Chapter 25 486:

      486. Uttering coins of gold, silver or other metal

      Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

      Liberty Dollars were not authorized by law, and therefore the minting of same is illegal.

      It depends on the definition and meaning of "current money." Gold and silver coins and certificates have long since been minted or printed for the purpose of being put into circulation.

      Since it has been awhile since silver and gold coins have been considered "current money" it would be reasonable to assume that is no longer against the law to mint, utter or pass your own for private use.

      --
      If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    20. Re:Legal? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      So it's only illegal if it's made of metal?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    21. Re:Legal? by Dalambertian · · Score: 1

      Speaking of the gold standard, is it too late to start the Joule standard? As in, $1 would be worth exactly 5MJ (or something similar). Would it help/hurt the world's economy?

    22. Re:Legal? by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      So if in game currency is now legal currency... Does that mean that a game company can generate billions of dollars of cash and exchange it for the real thing?

    23. Re:Legal? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      the "trademarks" of legal US currency

      I suppose you're referring to this list?

      • "Liberty"
      • "Dollars"
      • "Trust in God" (vs. "In God We Trust")
      • "USA"
      • "an inscription purporting to denote the year of production"
      • "images that are similar to United States coins" (torch, Statue of Liberty, Bill of Rights, Liberty Head)

      A very amusing list, indeed. I particularly like their complaint about "an inscription purporting to denote the year of production" and a phrase which they explicitly do not use on any of their coins. The claim to a monopoly on patriotic imagery is nice as well.

      The fact is, however, that the Mint does not have a monopoly on any of these items taken individually, and as a whole their arrangement on the Liberty Dollar is not particularly like any current US currency. The only plausible way someone could confuse the Liberty Dollar for a US coin would be something along the lines of "It's round and metallic and I've never seen anything like it before; ergo it must be US currency", which is clearly fallacious reasoning.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    24. Re:Legal? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      What part of "intended for use as" do you not understand?

      Liberty dollars are minted with the intended use as current money.

      Since it has been awhile since silver and gold coins have been considered "current money" it would be reasonable to assume that is no longer against the law to mint, utter or pass your own

      Actually, no it would not be reasonable to anything of the sort. The reason it is not reasonable is because the liberty dollars are intended for use as current money, regardless of whether or not the federal government uses silver and/or gold coins as current money.

      for private use.

      But, liberty dollars are not for private use. If they were for private use, then the minters of the liberty dollars would not encourage people to try to pay for things with liberty dollars.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    25. Re:Legal? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      It would certainly tie your diet a lot closer to your wallet.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    26. Re:Legal? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      I'm no expert, but what definitely looks wrong to me there is the use of the word "Dollar." If I sell you a lump of silver for $20, fine. But if I sell you something that says "$20 dollars" on it, with the explicit (or clearly implied) promise that it will always be worth $20 USD, that is not fine. That is forgery, because it implies the faith & credit of the US govt for my made-up currency.

    27. Re:Legal? by istartedi · · Score: 1

      No. It's illegal if it might be confused for, or is being passed as, official US currency.

      Ithaca hours are paper. So are store coupons, and if you think about it they're a form of currency backed by product discounts.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    28. Re:Legal? by istartedi · · Score: 1

      OK, we've simply established our respective sides here. The court will decide. In fact, the legal system is in the process of deciding and IIRC it's actually going to a jury.

      Not to put words in your mouth, or hang a label on you; but you sound like a Libertarian partisan.

      The Liberty dollar strikes a certain cord of civil disobedience, which is a time honored tradition. I wonder if the defendant in this case knew that going in, or if he just made a mistake. In order for a campaign of civil disobedience to succeed, it has to reach some kind of critical mass. At the time being, it doesn't look like "sound money" has gained traction in the way that "stop the war" or "equal rights for Blacks" or even "equal rights for gays" has. I know I'm not on the bandwagon.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    29. Re:Legal? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      The court will decide.

      It would be easier to place faith in the impartiality of their ruling if the court weren't part of the same organization as the plaintiff, namely the federal government.

      ...you sound like a Libertarian partisan.

      You are entirely correct; I am a partisan of Liberty. Thanks for noticing.

      The Liberty dollar strikes a certain cord of civil disobedience...

      In order for an act to be civil disobedience it must first be (wrongfully) illegal. The Liberty Dollar is certainly intended to be as much a political statement—a protest against the current fiat system—as a practical alternative currency, but I have seen no evidence to suggest that the creators or (generally speaking) the users of the Liberty Dollar believe it to be illegal.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    30. Re:Legal? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Of course, "dollar" could also refer to the Bahamian dollar, the Barbados dollar, the Belize dollar, the Bermuda dollar, the Brunei dollar, the Canadian dollar, the East Caribbean dollar, the Guyanese dollar, the Hong Kong dollar, the New Taiwan dollar, the Singapore dollar, or the Trinidad and Tobago dollar. All of these (plus the US dollar, of course) started out as local equivalents of the Spanish dollar, though only two (Singapore and Brunei) have thus far avoided debasement. (Source)

      If it doesn't say "US dollar", "$US", "US$", or "USD" then there is little justification for the assumption that "dollar" must refer to the United States variant. When the term is used in a phrase like "Liberty Dollar" and abbreviated ALD (American Liberty Dollar) rather than USD the chances of actual confusion should be minimal.

      I think the problem here, if there is one, is simply that Americans are unused to handling any form of non-US currency. Combined with the recent tendency to vary the appearance of the coins (e.g. the introduction of 50 different types of quarter, one for each state), this leads to an unfortunate but inevitable pattern where anything round and shiny placed in one's hands is assumed to be some sort of US currency, regardless of whether it matches any known type of coin.

      Naturally this impairs the market for real money, like the Liberty dollar, by confusing it with the far less valuable "legal tender". As such, the U.S. Mint should take more care to avoid trademark pollution by making their coins more distinctive and educating the public as to their proper identification. In this area they could take a few lessons from NORFED, creators of the Liberty Dollar.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    31. Re:Legal? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Naturally this impairs the market for real money, like the Liberty dollar, by confusing it with the far less valuable "legal tender".

      I will take the USD or Euro over precious metals any day. The value of any single commodity, including gold and silver, fluctuates wildly against any reasonable index of inflation. Meanwhile the dollar is reasonably stable. Granted, it does deflate steadily and doesn't hold value over a century, so keep it in a bank instead of a mattress. But I wouldn't hazard a guess how much gold it might take to buy a dinner, or a home, even one year from now.

  4. Whats the diff? by mishehu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What is the difference between this and the S.K. gov't simply deeming that any money earned on the sale of "virtual currency" would be subject to income tax? That is, assuming they have an income tax there, which I do not know myself. I suspect that the US IRS and respective state gov'ts would take this opinion...

    1. Re:Whats the diff? by Jezza · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I suppose it's OK, if you can pay it with Linden Dollars.

      I seriously don't see how this'll work. Real money has the "I promise to pay the bearer" (or similar) thingy, virtual currencies don't. This seems like a pretty huge difference, I don't think the South Koreans have properly thought about it. Imagine if I did pay my income tax with Linden Dollars... Do I only get virtual health care? (I'm a Brit... I realise in the US this isn't funny).

      As long as I can't buy real things with my virtual money then it's not real money! As soon as I can, well then I guess it is (as long as the goods have title, I have to be able to resell them).

    2. Re:Whats the diff? by argent · · Score: 1

      Imagine if I did pay my income tax with Linden Dollars... Do I only get virtual health care? (I'm a Brit... I realise in the US this isn't funny).

      In the US you get virtual health care for your taxes, and STILL have to pay for real health care.

    3. Re:Whats the diff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't pay my taxes in the "funny money" you guys use over there either....

      I can, however, exchange your GBP's for USD's, much the same as I can exchange
      gold, gas, or sticks of RAM for whatever form of payment is acceptable to those
      I wish to pay.

      Now that the world is connected in real time, we really are under a "one world currency" -
      the unit of that currency is "value"

    4. Re:Whats the diff? by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      If I can exchange a sack of monopoly money I no longer need with someone for a pack of gum does that make the monopoly money real?
      Perhaps they want to use it as toilet paper... that still doesn't make it real money.
      All it means is that that other person considers it to be something.

    5. Re:Whats the diff? by ArbitraryDescriptor · · Score: 1

      I don't think this case means what you (or TFS) think it means. I can't read the massively article at work, but the JoongAng article just seems to suggest these guys ran afoul of some regulation meant to prevent exchanging real money via on-line gambling and they were to be fined 8 million won as a result. The judge ruled that, because the game in question was skill based (not luck based), it was not gambling, and they were acquitted.

      Acquitted of what, I don't know. The article was kind of vague on that.

    6. Re:Whats the diff? by stonefoz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't worry, it's still funny here in the US, just for all the wrong reasons. We have "Virtually" the best health care system available, at least that's what they tell me on the TV. Wouldn't want some pinko-commie to actually implement a real health care system. You're right, I shouldn't laugh, someone might charge me for that, it's the best medicine after all?

      --
      I think I just cashed out all my cool points.
    7. Re:Whats the diff? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      It's "real money" if it's used as the marketable commodity in an indirect exchange. In your example the monopoly money and the gum are both intended for direct use, so you have a case of direct exchange (barter) and no money is involved. If the other party intended to trade the monopoly money for something else they wanted, rather than use it directly, then you could say that it was "real money" for the purpose of that three-party transaction.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    8. Re:Whats the diff? by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      This is seriously stupid, and perhaps even more than you imagine.
       
      I own a game company, and make an in-game currency. That's treated as normal money. I then make myself a trillion dollars, and retire.
       
      Sure, that currency market will crash pretty quickly, but if you can do any sort of transaction at the same speed as regular currency, it wouldn't be hard to buy a lot of stuff from a lot of different people before that came to light. And would that be illegal? If it is, then suddenly the government has to start monitoring in-game money, money markets, auction houses, etc. If it's not illegal, then it's even worse.
       
      What's next? Imaginary money can be used as real money? I'm going to start imagining piles of money now, I'll be RICH!

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    9. Re:Whats the diff? by Jezza · · Score: 1

      This is kind of the point I'm making, in game money IS NOT real money. If it is then I can create as much of it as I need (I'll get hyperinflation with my "JezDollars" but I just make more of them), a region that recognises my "JezDollars" as real currency is in serious economic trouble as I ram this up and dump these things buying up their local currency.

      The South Koreans simply cannot understand simple economics, because if they did they'd never do this.

    10. Re:Whats the diff? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I seriously don't see how this'll work. Real money has the "I promise to pay the bearer" (or similar) thingy

      I assume you're referring to the text on U.S. dollar bills that had "Will pay to the bearer on demand" before the actual amount. This was only present on older dollar bills, because they were still silver-backed (and those older yet, gold-backed), and could be properly exchanged for metal that was backing them.

      All dollar bills printed since U.S. moved to fiat money do not have that text, and, save from being legal tender (i.e. mandatory to accept as a payment for any kind of pre-existing debt), there are no obligations that U.S. government has with respect to them.

    11. Re:Whats the diff? by Jezza · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking of Pounds Sterling (UK money) as that's what I have in my pocket (though not much of it) the scruffy fiver I have here does indeed say "I PROMISE TO PAY THE BEARER ON DEMAND THE SUM OF FIVE Pounds" [sic]. Clearly our money is different to yours.

    12. Re:Whats the diff? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking of Pounds Sterling (UK money) as that's what I have in my pocket (though not much of it) the scruffy fiver I have here does indeed say "I PROMISE TO PAY THE BEARER ON DEMAND THE SUM OF FIVE Pounds" [sic].

      Here is the explanation as to why you still have on pound sterling bank notes. Apparently, it had also changed meaning: it used to mean that you could go and exchange the bank note for actual gold that was backing it, just as it did for U.S. dollars, but since you had ditched gold standard, it only means that Bank of England will replace your bank note with another bank note of the same denomination on demand.

      I hope it's obvious how this doesn't really affect the nature of pound sterling as "real money" in any way.

    13. Re:Whats the diff? by Warbothong · · Score: 1

      Real money has the "I promise to pay the bearer" (or similar) thingy, virtual currencies don't. This seems like a pretty huge difference, I don't think the South Koreans have properly thought about it.

      Iif I swap you a cow for your sheep and you don't give me the sheep, I can take you to court and you can offer to pay £X where X is the value of a sheep. I have no legal alternatives but to accept, since the court will consider the case closed. This is because pound sterling is legal tender in the UK, and the definition of legal tender (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that any debt paid in it will be accepted by the courts.

      The tricky part about legal tender is the "I promise to pay the bearer" thingy. That's a debt, owed to the holder of the note by the Bank of England, and as such if you give it to them they must legally pay you ten pounds. Due to the definition of legal tender, they can simply give you another tenner in exchange, and in fact don't need to keep anything like gold to pay those promises, since legal tender allows them to swap your note for another.

      That's the problem with attempts at alternative currencies, like the Liberty Dollars. The point of a Liberty Dollar is that it's backed by precious metal. However, due to the nature of legal tender it isn't actually backed by anything since instead of the precious metals they can legally give you legal tender instead to settle the debt, and as already said legal tender is only backed by itself.

      A point to note about this WRT the TFA is that everything which is tradable must therefore have an accepted value in legal tender, so that people can sue each other for nonpayment (although this value doesn't have to be constant of course). This would make real-world wealth for companies simply by changing variables in their servers. Of course, these virtual currencies aren't legal tender, so it's not exactly the same as a bank changing some account balances on a whim, but since they must have a value, companies like Linden Labs can create as much currency as they like then sell it for below the currently accepted value, which would result in profit for the company whilst somewhere down the line of transactions that virtual currency travels there will be some poor sod (or most likely many) either left with useless virtual currency nobody accepts, or the value will become so small that they can't be traded for a valid denomination of currency (like, say 1p). Essentially, it's a pyramid scheme.

  5. Sweet! by Reason58 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Every time you die in-game you can write off the armor repair costs on your taxes!

    1. Re:Sweet! by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know what the S. Korean laws are but in the United States and many other countries gambling losses can be be written off except to cover taxes on gambling gains. There's actually been some complicated discussion about how this applies to professional poker (whether it is a game of skill, and thus a sport or luck based enough to be considered just a form of gamblings). One could potentially make an argument that games like this are close enough to gambling that they would be covered by such laws. I wouldn't be convinced by that argument but given that part of the logic of such laws is to discourage behavior that is seen as potentially addictive, a similar law might make sense here (assuming you consider the laws about gambling losses to be reasonable). Regardless, if they were taxing your in-game gains, you could at minimum probably write off the monthly subscription fee for the game. (Disclaimer: IANAL)

    2. Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you can retire at LVL 65.

    3. Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      United States and many other countries gambling losses can be be written off except to cover taxes on gambling gains
       
      Minor correction for you... gambling losses can only be written off to cover taxes on gambling gains.
       
      Basically, you can only write off losses for an amount equal to or less than your gambling winnings. So, no losing $10K and taking it off your taxes. That is, unless the $10K in losses offsets your $10K in reported winnings. ;)

    4. Re:Sweet! by undecim · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm sure there are many quests in various MMOs that count as charitable donations

      --
      The Internet has given stupid people the resources of intelligent people.
    5. Re:Sweet! by PGOER · · Score: 0

      Does this mean I can write off my time in the virtual brothels... er... I mean, massage therrapests? Will I have to claim the +50 gold pieces as income? Where do I fill that in on the W2 form? I think my next character is going to be 10th LVL Accountant.

      --
      I am not a nerd, I just play one in real life. My avatar thinks I'm a total loser.
    6. Re:Sweet! by wtbname · · Score: 1

      Bah,

      Back in my day, your armor was collected by the person who killed you, your taxes went to a police force that only patrolled in cities, and all offenses were punishable by instant death. On the bright side, most thieves could be marked by their pure white death shroud and a propensity for sidling up next to you suspiciously.

  6. What implications will this have for the Won? by suso · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wonder if this will make the value of the South Korean Won drop. Because it would almost make it possible to print money. Of course I guess you'd just need to value different game's currencies differently and then have published exchange rates. Its interesting.

    1. Re:What implications will this have for the Won? by nedlohs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No more than the ability of the Zimbabwe government to print Zimbabwe dollars, or the Chinese to print yuans, or the US to print US dollars does.

      In other words, none at all, if the game currency is "printed" then the exchange rate will devalue it - just like already happens in every MMO game I've seen.

    2. Re:What implications will this have for the Won? by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      No. If the in game currency supplu increases, its value exchanged relative to the Won or any other currency for that matter, goes down. Printing more in game currency does not decrease the value of other currencies.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    3. Re:What implications will this have for the Won? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's just like that time when the Dollar tanked when Zimbabwe started printing those hundred million dollar bills? Oh wait, except that didn't happen at all. (Hint: nobody even suggested that there would be a fixed exchange rate between virtual currency and the Won.)

    4. Re:What implications will this have for the Won? by DeadPixels · · Score: 1

      The only way I could see this having an impact was if a game developer decided to purposely screw with the in-game economy by causing massive inflation or something similar, and this would probably only impact the Won if it was a game that had enough people trading or paying "Real Money" for the virtual currency.

      If you manage to somehow obtain 500 million in virtual currency, you could theoretically sell it all to customers. However, that's no different than what the company that makes the game is doing, and they're not causing the Won to devalue.

      Plus, even if someone does make money off of the sale of virtual currency, they're still getting it in Won and then they're likely spending that Won in South Korea, but now on non-virtual products and services.

      I still think it's a little silly to pay money for virtual currency, but whatever floats your boat, I guess.

    5. Re:What implications will this have for the Won? by suso · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is the way it should work, but what happens if the market isn't saturated with traders? There may end up being a delay between the supply and the exchange price. If market data isn't published by game companies or whatever and there is nothing controlling the game company from making more money in game (a gold standard or serious regulation). I guess currencies are exchanged like stocks are though, where the price is controlled by the buyers willingness to buy it or not. So I guess if they saw a flood of virtual currency then it would automatically adjust the price.

      But currencies can be exchanged off the trading floor, yes?

    6. Re:What implications will this have for the Won? by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      In either case, if someone found a way to print off in game currency like mad, then it would be outright fraud and the whole ponzi scheme would collapse immediately. The in game currency is little different than any other currency so there isn't much that makes it logical to single out this system specifically.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    7. Re:What implications will this have for the Won? by suso · · Score: 1

      I'm not thinking of someone who wants to "cheat" and get a bunch of in game currency, I'm more thinking of what will happen when a bunch of people start making their own games to print their own virtual currency. I suppose its just like penny stocks. I'm mostly just thinking aloud.

    8. Re:What implications will this have for the Won? by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > No more than the ability of the Zimbabwe government to print Zimbabwe dollars, or the Chinese to print yuans, or the US to print US dollars does.

      You are getting close to the truth of the matter. The more accurate term for what we call fiat money is faith based money. When the US prints money the only reason people accept it is because it carries the 'full faith and credit' of the US government. So until fairly recently that carried enough weight that it was THE world currency. The Chinese yuan, backed by communists with a fuzzy grasp of things economic didn't give people the same warm fuzzy feelings and as for Zimbabwe, well their money had little more value than the intrinsic value of the paper it was printed upon, because nobody put much faith or credit in that government.

      With which background we can take up in game currency. The only question is what does the 'full faith and credit' of a game operator count for? If run with sufficient attention to accounting transparency and regulation it should be possible to have the same level of trust as with a bank. Linden Dollars have a well known exchange rate already, if not for game related reasons which argue against it, there is no reason an entity as large as Sony couldn't make it's in game currency fully trustworthy and exchangable on the world's currency exchanges; if not quite on the level of trust as the King Dollar of old at least as reliable as the yuan and if they couldn't beat Zimbabwe they should disband the corporation on grounds of incompetence. Publicly traded corporations aren't given the liberty to be as corrupt and incompetent as nation states can get away with.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
  7. If this remains the case by JoshuaZ · · Score: 3, Informative

    They need to do better jobs keeping track of currency levels in different games. As virtual currency becomes more common in game settings, better cryptography needs to be used to make sure that people don't change the numbers. Similarly, there becomes issues with income taxes and the like. In the long run we should probably all switch to cryptographically anonymous currency anyways which can be easily implemented using blind signatures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_signature so that even the bankers don't know who used which bills for which transactions. Unfortunately, many large institutions (such as governments) will likely resist such systems because they lead to a substantial loss of control.

    1. Re:If this remains the case by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Why?

      There's nothing different between someone sticking bugger numbers into their in-game currency store and the US government mailing "stimulus checks" to people.

      It doesn't effect anything other than the currency involved.

    2. Re:If this remains the case by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      The concern isn't a currency injection of that sort. The concern is that hackers or the like increasing their currency levels then becomes effectively identical to counterfeiting. Or worse, someone might alter how much currency you have in a game, back date the amount, and then report you to the government for underreporting on your taxes. Without better cryptography and better security in general, this would potentially become a massive headache.

    3. Re:If this remains the case by KitsuneSoftware · · Score: 1

      It's not a question of cryptography, it's a question of accounting. Consider:

      1. Alice creates a character in "Second World of Runes Online".
      2. Alice starts of with 10 gold pieces.
      3. Alice has a memory poking tool, and uses it to change that 10gp into (1<<31)gp.

      If the game is written badly, it will let Alice get away with this. If the game is written properly, the server isn't listening to her client, and will only let her spend 10gp no matter what her client claims to have. For reasons of supply and demand, I am sure that every MMOG that has ever suffered from gold farmers is written properly in this regard.

    4. Re:If this remains the case by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      The problem with attempting to implement electronic cash is that physical cash only exists because it was grandfathered in. Under current regulations, anyone introducing cash today would be charged with money laundering due to the lack of records. Electronic cash has been attempted several times, and the result is always the same.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  8. The only thing I need to know is... by YojimboJango · · Score: 1

    Can I pay my taxes with it?

    1. Re:The only thing I need to know is... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Can I pay my taxes with it?

      No, since it is (I assume) not legal tender in South Korea.

      Similarly, if you reside in, say, U.S., but also have a business in Zimbabwe, any personal income from said business - even though it would be in ZWL - would be taxed (assuming your state has income tax) in U.S., and IRS will want that to be payed in USD. It's your own headache to covert it as needed (and take any associated losses).

  9. Not really surprising by multipartmixed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Assuming the South Korean currency is not backed something solid (like gold), then their currency is just as virtual as online virtual currency -- it has no actual intrinsic value.

    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    1. Re:Not really surprising by lgw · · Score: 1

      All fiat currencies worth mentioning have great intrinsic value: you can use them to pay your taxes. When a government stops accepting it's own currency as tax payment, the government is usually on its way out (it will be interesting to see how this plays out in California with the Cali government paying bills with IOUs that it won't accept as payment).

      Total federal taxes paid in America are something absurd like 20% of GDP (it's over 30% if you count all goverement taxes, IIRC), so that's some pretty solid intrinsic value.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Not really surprising by pclminion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      their currency is just as virtual as online virtual currency -- it has no actual intrinsic value.

      Neither does real gold, unless you happen to need to make really really thin wires, or build something which is extremely reflective, or actually make use of gold's natural properties in some other way. Don't delude yourself. There is no such thing as "intrinsic value."

    3. Re:Not really surprising by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      But all real world Currency has an exchange rate across the globe - which is all backed by gold.

      You can print more money, which will depreciate the value of the currency, or you can stock it up - increasing its value, or alternately, you can buy or sell the "Gold" you hold to alter its worth that way.

      Virtual Currency however, is an entirely different mix altogether. Only the government can print legal tender (legally). Virtual currency is dependant entirely on the games developers. They could decide to give you more "gold" for Bosses, Dailies, etc. They could decide to remove everyones in game gold, or the company could shut down, there are no legal ramifications to what they must do. There are going to have to be some additions to the EULA garnering that while Virtual currency equals real money, it does not, in any way, have to remain in your pockets, and at any time could be reclaimed by the developer, or forgotten entirely.

      Since I'm sure most of the worlds gold buyers are NOT actually South Korean, and actually from foreign markets (Like the US) - it's removing the amount currency in the buyers market (essentially) while increasing the amount in South Korean markets.

      Oh Hey, look, GoldFarmers.com just turned in 10,000 USD dollars for Korean currency, now the treasury has less, so the Korean Dollar goes up. Guess what, the US Treasury still has the same amount.

      Very smart move by South Korea - dangerous to the western world.

    4. Re:Not really surprising by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      Total federal taxes paid in America are something absurd like 20% of GDP

      That's not absurd. Take a look at the worldwide figures.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    5. Re:Not really surprising by hitmark · · Score: 1

      funny thing is, most of the money printing these days is as an effect of lending, not out and out printing.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    6. Re:Not really surprising by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      their currency is just as virtual as online virtual currency -- it has no actual intrinsic value.

      Neither does real gold, unless you happen to need to make really really thin wires, or build something which is extremely reflective, or actually make use of gold's natural properties in some other way. Don't delude yourself. There is no such thing as "intrinsic value."

      Well, don't delude yourself. Removing the human factor from the equation; nothing has value, intrinsic or otherwise. Gold is perhaps the only material known to man that has, since the beginning of recorded history, maintained a value. Many times during our history this value was greater than that of other men's lives. Just sayin'.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    7. Re:Not really surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gold is virtually worthless. The real(industrial) demand is really low, gold is recyclable, and we have a lot "just sitting there".
      The real value of gold should be based of the cost of recycling it, not "OMG, it look nice and people are investing in it!"

    8. Re:Not really surprising by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      30% is about average compared to European style countries. The main difference being that, they actually use the money and spend it on their citizens in visible ways, like health care and free (or nearly free) higher education.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    9. Re:Not really surprising by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      their currency is just as virtual as online virtual currency -- it has no actual intrinsic value.

      Neither does real gold, unless you happen to need to make really really thin wires, or build something which is extremely reflective, or actually make use of gold's natural properties in some other way. Don't delude yourself. There is no such thing as "intrinsic value."

      While intrinsic value may be illusory, actual value is not. You pointed out a very few of golds finer points (missing my number one which is very good conductivity and number two which is an awesome resistance to corrosion), but the fact that it IS so useful along it's relative scarcity make it worth having even if you personally have no application for it. It can be sold or traded for almost anything, and if things get real bad you could cast it into bullets (for shooting your more upper class werewolves perhaps).

      The utility and scarcity of commodities give them inherent, if fluctuating, value.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    10. Re:Not really surprising by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Never mind the fact that unlike every other currency, precious metals (gold and silver) have held their value for centuries.

    11. Re:Not really surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BUT RON PAUL SAID

    12. Re:Not really surprising by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      I think food has done a better job of maintaining value -- you can't eat gold.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    13. Re:Not really surprising by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      > Neither does real gold, unless you happen to need to make really
      > really thin wires, or build something which is extremely reflective,
      > or actually make use of gold's natural properties in some other way.

      I can cover regular connectors with very thin layers of gold, and sell them to audiophiles for significantly more than the original cost of the connectors and the gold-plating process.

      Also, I can put a piece of carbon into a band of gold and give it to a female, in exchange for several months of sex. The carbon, without the gold, would only yield a few days of sex.

      Therefore, gold has a very high intrinsic value.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    14. Re:Not really surprising by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 1

      I think food has done a better job of maintaining value -- you can't eat gold.

      How many civilizations can you count that have been destroyed by another for their food supplies?

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    15. Re:Not really surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      actually make use of gold's natural properties in some other way. Don't delude yourself. There is no such thing as "intrinsic value."

      Of course gold has intrinsic value. Just not very much intrinsic value.

      The vast majority of the current price of gold is due to the fact that people think it has value, which is the same reason the US dollar or Euro has value.

      I like Warren Buffet's quote on gold:

      It gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head.

    16. Re:Not really surprising by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      Basically all native American civilisation. Well, actually for the land, but they are equivalent at the end of the day.

    17. Re:Not really surprising by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      How many civilizations can you count that have been destroyed by another for their food supplies?

      Right off the top of my head? Egypt (repeatedly) and most of the Mesopotamian civilizations have been conquered for their food. The areas now known as Poland and the Ukraine have also been popular, and there's evidence that the fall of Rome was caused by Germanic tribes looking for food. In the Americas, most of the native civilizations were destroyed to gain either farmland or ranchland -- the Great Plains tribes in particular were pushed out (and the buffalo that fed them were exterminated) to gain room for cattle to feed the cities of the East Coast.

      Ships carrying grain from newly-conquered provinces aren't as glamorous as ones carrying gold, so historians don't write about them as often, but the grain fleets outnumbered the treasure fleets by several orders of magnitude.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    18. Re:Not really surprising by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      As a currency, however, food is somewhat lacking. It's bulky, you can't store it for very long, and it's value is noticeably non-uniform (and difficult to judge without actually eating it). Gold is compact, relatively incorruptible, arbitrarily divisible, easy to purify, and of uniform value once purified; as such it makes a much better currency.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    19. Re:Not really surprising by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 1

      Basically all native American civilisation. Well, actually for the land, but they are equivalent at the end of the day.

      Let's be specific here. By food I mean dead plant or animal matter that I can consume through digestion and derive energy from. By gold I mean that rare orange metal dug out of the ground that never loses it's luster.

      Oh, and just fishing here, but who exactly killed Native American's for their food? I can draw a clear distinction between the Spanish and Central American natives and the Pilgrims and North American natives. That distinction being that the Spanish came to collect the gold and dispatch with any humans that got in their way. I've never read a single story about the Pilgrims killing Natives to take their food...

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    20. Re:Not really surprising by bmajik · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually Ron Paul, if he were abiding by the Austrian Economics playbook, (as he usually does) would never tell you that gold has "intrinsic" value, because nothing has an "intrinsic" value. Value is determined entirely by the transaction participants according to their own desires, and only at a specific point in time. Today, gold is worth ~1000/troy ounce to most Americans. Next week, post nuclear holocaust, you may have a hard time giving people 1oz of gold in exchange for 1 bag of radiation-free ramen.

      What Paul and most clever people _will_ tell you is that gold is very useful as a medium of exchange and a store of value within socieites because it is very hard to systematically manipulate [read: inflate], and because it is much better at both functions than "fractional cows".

      It was not an accident that many societies all independantly settled on weights of precious metals as their unit of monetary exchange and value.

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    21. Re:Not really surprising by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      The US, though, spends large amounts of the money on defense of the US, and a not insignificant amount of it on the defense of Europe. How much money do European countries spend on defense of the US?

    22. Re:Not really surprising by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 1

      How many civilizations can you count that have been destroyed by another for their food supplies?

      Right off the top of my head? Egypt (repeatedly) and most of the Mesopotamian civilizations have been conquered for their food. The areas now known as Poland and the Ukraine have also been popular, and there's evidence that the fall of Rome was caused by Germanic tribes looking for food. In the Americas, most of the native civilizations were destroyed to gain either farmland or ranchland -- the Great Plains tribes in particular were pushed out (and the buffalo that fed them were exterminated) to gain room for cattle to feed the cities of the East Coast.

      Ships carrying grain from newly-conquered provinces aren't as glamorous as ones carrying gold, so historians don't write about them as often, but the grain fleets outnumbered the treasure fleets by several orders of magnitude.

      I will have to do some checking on the North African/Middle East events. I don't have enough time to explain how wrong you are about the Native American's and how some of their civilizations fell. Disease did most of the work you attribute to men. Second to that was the total devastation of their main game, the North American buffalo, which the new immigrants hunted (for fun, not food) to near extinction.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    23. Re:Not really surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could be wrong but it seems like you just listed a bunch of gold's intrinsic values (especially the "natural properties" one).

    24. Re:Not really surprising by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      Disease did most of the work you attribute to men.

      Disease weakened them. Men destroyed them.

      Second to that was the total devastation of their main game, the North American buffalo, which the new immigrants hunted (for fun, not food) to near extinction.

      Read up on the Buffalo Wars sometime. As part of the effort to move the Plains Indians on to reservations, the US Army organized extermination hunts of buffalo.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    25. Re:Not really surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't you just enumerate some of the intrinsic values of gold, thus rendering your final sentence ludicrous?
      And wouldn't the intrinsic value of money be its use in trade?

      I believe what's being referred to here is an eternal value, a "standard" value, if you will. Clearly the worth of money is and always has been an illusion - but it's certainly a very useful illusion.

    26. Re:Not really surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Gold is perhaps the only material known to man that has, since the beginning of recorded history, maintained a value.

      It's weird of you to say that while talking about delusion. Gold has *had* value, but it and silver notoriously do NOT maintain a constant value. Gold is subject to inflation and deflation just like anything else. And in modern times, it's nothing more than a placeholder for value, since in practice you can't really do your buying and selling using gold.

    27. Re:Not really surprising by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Didn't you just enumerate some of the intrinsic values of gold, thus rendering your final sentence ludicrous?

      No. Do YOU require gold to have those properties? Is gold valuable to you because of its ductility, or is it valuable because you can trade it to somebody else? The fact is, most people have no use for the special physical properties of gold. It is only valuable because other people believe it is valuable as well, and thus forms a basis for currency. Or to put it another way, imagine you were the last person left on Earth and you had a million tons of gold. Would that be valuable to you? That's what I mean by "intrinsic value." If you were some kind of freak who likes to live all alone on a planet making really, really thin wires, then sure, gold would have value to you. Otherwise it would be a useless chunk of pretty metal.

      The value is conjured up in people's minds. It is not intrinsic to the gold itself. My point is that saying that gold is somehow a more "concrete" embodiment of value than alternate currencies is false. It's just as much "all in your head" as the value of the Euro is all in your head. Now, a gold standard might prove to be more STABLE, for various reasons, but that doesn't make it more "intrinsic."

    28. Re:Not really surprising by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      The main difference being that, they actually use the money and spend it on their citizens in visible ways.

      We do spend it in visible ways. In fact even as we speak many of our sons, fathers, and brothers are having a great visible tour of sunny Iraq!

    29. Re:Not really surprising by roscivs · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, don't delude yourself. Removing the human factor from the equation; nothing has value, intrinsic or otherwise. Gold is perhaps the only material known to man that has, since the beginning of recorded history, maintained a value. Many times during our history this value was greater than that of other men's lives. Just sayin'.

      That's mostly because gold does a good job at possessing the characteristics of a medium of exchange:

      1. transportability
      2. divisibility
      3. high market value in relation to volume and weight
      4. recognizability
      5. resistance to counterfeiting
      6. memory

      Other materials with similar characteristics have "maintained a value" the same way gold has--not because of any intrinsic store of value.

      --
      ~ roscivs
    30. Re:Not really surprising by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      It's still absurd even if other places are worse.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    31. Re:Not really surprising by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Even going by your (somewhat twisted) definition, gold at least has "intrinsic" value to someone; there would still be demand for it even if you took away the additional value it warrants as a medium of exchange. Paper currency, on the other hand, has no significant "intrinsic" value to anyone; no one buys paper currency for direct use. Among other things, this means that while gold can become a currency naturally as barter gives way to indirect exchange, paper currency only becomes prominent as a result of fraud (or force).

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    32. Re:Not really surprising by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      Then pray tell, what is the correct percentage of GDP that we should pay in taxes, and how did you arrive at that figure?

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    33. Re:Not really surprising by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      The ideal level of theft, taxes included, is zero percent of GDP.

      Short of that ideal would be the minimum level required to fulfill the federal government's Constitutional mandated functions, which history shows is far less than 20% of GDP.

      P.S. Note that GDP includes government spending, so (assuming an approximately balanced budget) a taxation rate of 50% of GDP is actually a 100% tax on all private spending. A rate of 20% of GDP thus effectively skims off 40% of all private consumption and investment. For an unbalanced budget, as we currently have, the effect is much worse, as government spending makes up a larger portion of the GDP.

      P.P.S. Wikipedia claims the United States has a tax rate of about 28.2% of GDP, not 20% (Source), for an effective taxation rate of over half of all private spending and investment.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    34. Re:Not really surprising by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      The ideal level of theft, taxes included, is zero percent of GDP.

      Yeah, that's what I thought you'd say. Now where are the successful examples of countries being run that way?

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    35. Re:Not really surprising by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 1

      Disease did most of the work you attribute to men.

      Disease weakened them. Men destroyed them.

      Second to that was the total devastation of their main game, the North American buffalo, which the new immigrants hunted (for fun, not food) to near extinction.

      Read up on the Buffalo Wars sometime. As part of the effort to move the Plains Indians on to reservations, the US Army organized extermination hunts of buffalo.

      Yes. That is precisely why I brought these up as counters to your argument. Men did not destroy these civilizations. Most of them still exist today (in fact you just mentioned the Indian Reservations). Disease killed the vast majority of them. You seem to be under some delusion that the "wild west" was truly Cowboys vs. Indians. This completely ignores the fact that the majority of Native Americans actually helped the pilgrims and settlers, and freely traded away their land.

      Now, someones original position was that settlers and pilgrims killed the Native Americans for their food. That is completely false. Again, I mentioned the buffalo hunts first, as evidence that they were indeed not seeking the Native's food sources.

      Gold never loses it's luster, and as long as man roams the earth, it will never lose it's value.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
  10. Guaranteed by Whom? by Tisha_AH · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Given that the "currency" (units, seashells, whatever) have some intrinsic value in that you put labor into the creation of some sort of work product there needs to be a guarantee of the currency, someone or some-thing (government, bank, etc...) who backs up that currency with assets. Also an exchange would need to be established to control the conversion of this new currency into other units. If you do not have these mechanisms in place then your new currency is as valuable as wampum was to the American Indians.

    When the European powers moved into the Americas they discovered that wampum was being used as a currency for the exchange of services and commodities and as a means of having portable wealth. The colonies, companies and fur-trappers would bring in mass-produced glass beads from Europe where they had very little value and exchange these to the Indians for furs, food and land. Within a few decades the entire system of wampum devalued itself and had collapsed.

    Virtual currency is just 1's and 0's on a computer (our real currency is more like that now than it ever was). How easy would it be to create the equivalent of glass beads in our virtual wampum on-line society?

    --
    Tisha Hayes
    1. Re:Guaranteed by Whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Guaranteed by Whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Virtual currency is just 1's and 0's on a computer (our real currency is more like that now than it ever was). How easy would it be to create the equivalent of glass beads in our virtual wampum on-line society?

      If you create a lot of virtual glass beads and then try to exchange them for real-world currency, you end up with a supply-demand problem. Right now, that is essentially an unregulated retail market: gold farmers post whatever price they're willing to sell gold, and gold buyers either accept or reject the price. In that market, if a gold farmer find an exploit or other means of printing virtual glass beads, he can convert them to real-world cash wherever his monopoly will allow. By declaring that this virtual currency purchase is essentially identical to currency exchange, SK transfers it from a retail, bubble-gum-like market to a regulated, public, exchange-based market. That means trades will be bid & negotiated, with the results posted publicly, and there will be much more dynamic competition between both gold-sellers and gold-buyers. In that case, finding an exploit to make free gold would rapidly crush the market and make said effortless currency worthless. Same as the US printing dollars to pay off its debts.

      Presumably, it means there will be a WoW-Gold:SKW entry added to all the forex markets. It is to laugh.

    3. Re:Guaranteed by Whom? by Dan+Ost · · Score: 1

      As long as US dollars are the only currency I can pay my taxes in, US dollars will never be worthless.

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
    4. Re:Guaranteed by Whom? by evilWurst · · Score: 1

      Virtual inflation by 'printing' more money isn't what I'd worry about; it's already an existing problem with paper money (see Zimbabwe for just how bad it can get in the present day).

      What I'd worry about is the unstable transition back from virtual to real. For starters, data is easier to lose than paper, through software and hardware faults and hacks. But more in the forefront is that buying physical stuff with virtual money is hard (unless it's government backed by the equivalent value of official paper money, at a fixed rate). WoW gold won't get me cereal at the supermarket, and 100% of it evaporates in a puff of smoke if Blizzard folds.

      And in a system of limited trade between virtual money and real goods, it kind of has all the flaws of a potential bank run; if there's any threat to the value of the virtual currency, some physical vendors will stop accepting it, triggering a run on the ones that still do as everyone tries to convert their maybe-soon-worthless digital latinum into tangible stuff. So you end up ruining indvidual accouts, the game economy, AND the physical vendors who got caught holding the bag of bits when the music stopped.

  11. So that means WoW gold is legal tender? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can go to a bank in South Korea and exchange my WoW gold for Won? No? Then how about EvE's ISK? No?

    Why could that be? Maybe because the issuers of that "currency" are companies, not countries, and no country on this planet backs it with its real economy? And "forging" it is about as trivial as changing a few lines in a database because no game company follows banking standards concerning security (not to mention auditing)? And let's not talk about Blizzard or CCP letting those printing presses roll whenever they feel like without any oversight from any kind of national bank.

    In short, the whole deal is BS squared.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:So that means WoW gold is legal tender? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Actually, the way I read the decision, the answer to your question may be "yes." It does seem like the decision implies that non-state-backed currency is still a legal exchangeable currency. So yes, Korean banks might very well start publishing daily WoW-Won exchange rates. I think you're catching on to why this is an interesting development.

      Regarding the risks to holders of a company-backed rather than a state-backed currency, I don't really see the big deal. I trust Blizzard much more than I would trust the national bank of Zimbabwe, and yet Zimbabwe dollars are traded in international markets and exchange rates are published. According to Oanda's currency converter, a million Zimbabwe Dollars will exchange for exactly US$2,702.70 today. Why are we treating WoW gold differently? It can't be because we trust Mugabe's financial wizards more than we trust Blizzard.

    2. Re:So that means WoW gold is legal tender? by lgw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The supply of the US Dollar is controlled by the Federal Reserve, a private company. It's directors are appointed by the US government, but, still, private company. The US has been pretty bad about "letting the presses roll" over the past year or so - exchange markets sort that out very quickly. These virtual currencies are more stable than a great many national currencies. EvE's ISK supply is overseen by economic professionals (a smart move by the game company!), also more than can be said for some countries.

      That's the thing about money - it's all pretty much BS, but it works anyway.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:So that means WoW gold is legal tender? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think what we need here is a car analogy. A Ford truck is not legal tender, however it has Real value. This court decision just says that in game currency is like Ford trucks. It has real value - it is not legal tender - but because it has value the law has a basis for decisions involving these properties. So any transaction or theft involving in game 'currencies' is handled the same as transaction or theft involving Ford trucks.

    4. Re:So that means WoW gold is legal tender? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, there's not a really good article I can dig up in English, so I hope a Korean speaker pops up with a more indepth opinion on this. The argument seems to be more about whether these in game monies represent gambling stand ins like poker chips, or whether it represents real property. From what I'm gathering from these too brief articles, if it's like poker chips, under RoK law, then the establishment can control it. If it's like real, earned property, the establishment's control over conversion to other forms of property (currency) is much more limited.

      In short, this seems to be a victory for farmers and not real players.

      In neither case does this mean WoW gold is legal tender. It seems that the court just means it has real value. A piece of land has real value, but isn't legal tender. However, it can be converted into legal tender currency by selling it to someone. It doesn't seem that this is really creating money anymore than Visa is creating currency by extending credit to you. If a merchant extends credit to Visa, then someone else extends credit to the merchant then you extend credit to that someone else, then you've created a closed exchange where items with real value can change hands without real currency ever being used. Or something roughly along those lines...

      As someone else mentioned, by having real value, it opens the door to being taxable. It also reinforces the idea that if someone defrauds or uses an exploit/bug to take your property, they can be prosecuted. Of course, when the game has 'legitimate' pick pockets, then what?

    5. Re:So that means WoW gold is legal tender? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wouldn't matter. You still wouldn't be able to exchange it because the EULA prevents it - They'd ban your account.

    6. Re:So that means WoW gold is legal tender? by svtdragon · · Score: 1

      Hyundai. You mean it's a Hyundai. Or maybe a Kia.

      Or a Samsung. This is South Korea after all.

    7. Re:So that means WoW gold is legal tender? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These virtual currencies are more stable than a great many national currencies.

      You seem to be forgetting that not only can in-game currency creation be easily controlled by the company running the MMOG, the destruction of in-game currency is almost as easy for them. If the company decides there is too much currency in the in-game then "sinks" (e.g. costs for things like vaults, NPC repair services, high-priced luxury goods only available through NPCs, etc...) can be implemented or increased quickly and usually without significant tantrums from the players. Today the only way a real-world government can to the analogous is through increasing fees and taxes (100 or even 50 years ago they could create less money for a few years than the estimated rate of currency destruction, but far too much of our economy is electronic for that to work now), which in a participatory government requires legislation. It's the last part that makes it infeasible for any non-authoritarian government to exert the same level of tweaking to its economy that the creators of EvE enjoy. Remember that any functioning MMOG economy, including EvE's, is on the macro-scale a planned economy; no matter how much players can trade in-game wealth among themselves, the total wealth is controlled by the game's company because they determine how and under what circumstances wealth is both introduced and removed from the system.

    8. Re:So that means WoW gold is legal tender? by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Correct. This doesn't change a thing for RMTers. All the court has said is that it is not illegal to do this. This doesn't affect the fact that most games' EULAs state that the currency is not to be bought or sold with/for real currency, and that you are liable to get your account banned for doing this. Nor does it affect the part that states that all in-game goods (including currency) remain property of the game publisher - you are just 'borrowing' them, and they are within their rights to take it back at any time.

      Actually I'm not really sure this changes anything as I don't think the practice was illegal even before the court ruling. The court has just clarified the situation that has already existed for some time. Not illegal (but may still break the game's EULA/agreement).

    9. Re:So that means WoW gold is legal tender? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Real money != legal tender.

      If I come from US to Canada with a stack of greenbacks in my pocket, that's "real money", and will be counted whenever anyone assesses how much I own, for any legal purpose. If I have a friend mail me more bucks, that will be income, and it will be taxed as such in Canada. However, I won't be able to use those bucks to pay my debts in Canada (unless the creditor voluntarily agrees to accept them - whereas with Canadian dollars, he wouldn't have a choice to refuse).

    10. Re:So that means WoW gold is legal tender? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bobby Kotick would cream himself if he got a licence to print WoW money.

    11. Re:So that means WoW gold is legal tender? by lgw · · Score: 1

      MUDflation is everpresent, but these game companies have every incentive to limit it. I've never seen a game currency go the way of the 30s Mark, or many recent 3rd world currencies. Heck, I've never seen prices overall double in a year in a game I've played, let alone increase 100000-fold in one month.

      Controlling your currency better than a poorly-run government is a really low bar to clear!

      Governemtns have remarkably strong control over fiat currencies, BTW, they're just loath to use such control. The dollar supply could be reduced dramatically by the Fed, for example, by increasing the fraction of reserves a bank is required to keep when loans are made (the fraction is currently 0, remarkably enough, except for demand accounts).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:So that means WoW gold is legal tender? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      All right and fine, but the Fed will not simply shut down the US if it doesn't deem it profitable anymore.

      Be afraid if they could...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:So that means WoW gold is legal tender? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Still, you can go to any bank in Canada and get CADs for your USDs. I kinda doubt it would be so easy with WoW gold, ISK or even Linden $s.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:So that means WoW gold is legal tender? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Still, you can go to any bank in Canada and get CADs for your USDs.

      True, but it's strictly between me and banks. They aren't required to exchange USDs, it's just profitable for them to do so, hence they offer such a service.

      I kinda doubt it would be so easy with WoW gold, ISK or even Linden $s.

      Well, you can already buy (farmed) virtual gold in many games for cash - what is it if not currency exchange? Most people only look at "me paying real cash for virtual money" aspect, but there's the other side in that transaction, for which it is "paying virtual money for real cash". And there's nothing precluding you or me from being that side, either.

      In fact, I would be surprised if some place, somewhere, doesn't already offer such exchange services. Of course, they'd have to balance their purchases with sales, otherwise every gold farmer out there would bring it to them to sell, and they'd accumulate virtual money faster than they could sell it themselves. I'd also imagine such a service would charge ridiculous rates to be profitable. Still, it's definitely possible.

    15. Re:So that means WoW gold is legal tender? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      I know it's late, but I would still like to thank the anonymous source of the comment above. If it happened earlier in the discussion, a lot of extra light would have been shed on the whole debate.

  12. Pay up by G2GAlone · · Score: 1

    South Korea is going to have to pay for this mistake...

  13. Criminal charges for "steeling" gold? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So hacking an account and taking someones gold is now a criminal act the same as mugging is? Cool!

  14. Clueless gamer blog gets it wrong by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    The gamer blog has it wrong, the article poster didn't help, and the Slashdot "editors" blew it as usual. Read the article in JoongAng Daily (which they offer in English). The key issue here is that online gambling is illegal in Korea, and two game players were charged criminally for making money from an online game. The Supreme Court of Korea ruled that they were not gambling, so they don't get fined.

    This decision doesn't affect relationships between players and game operators. It's not about EULA enforceability or property rights. It's a criminal law issue. If you trade game currency, you're not going to be fined or go to jail in Korea. Whether a game site can ban you is a separate issue.

    1. Re:Clueless gamer blog gets it wrong by PGOER · · Score: 0

      Terrorist!! How dare you question the integrity of Slashdot editors!! If they say there are WMDs in the hands of South Koreans we must believe them, and declare war on the internet. I'm sure your comment is totaly valid, but I don't have time to research the background of these articals.

      --
      I am not a nerd, I just play one in real life. My avatar thinks I'm a total loser.
    2. Re:Clueless gamer blog gets it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Exactly. This verdict has no implications whatsoever for anyone outside South Korea, since online gaming is never classed as gambling in any other country I know. It's just a case of an editor on Massively not actually reading the article, jumping to ridiculous conclusions, and the /. jumps the bandwagon.

  15. Lucrative for me, too! by IndigoDarkwolf · · Score: 1

    I just need to get a job at Blizzard.

  16. MARINA. by Qui-Gon+Jinn · · Score: 2, Funny

    Transfer all your WoW gold to me, for me.

  17. So fix the headline by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Funny
    "Real Currency Becomes Virtual(ly worthless) in US".

    This message was brought to you by the Fed.

  18. What about FOREX? by tacokill · · Score: 1

    So I can trade these currencies on any one of a number of currency exchanges, such as Forex? (/sarchasm)

    I am recalling all of the statutory and regulatory requirements for currency traders. It goes without saying, they are substantial. Does that mean each player in the game needs to be regulated as a currency trader and follow the same regulatory requirements? What if you have multiple accounts? Does that mean you are now a hedge fund with a whole new set of regs? Can I go short on these currencies? If so, how would the mechanics of that work? etc, etc, etc....

    Lastly, what safeguards are in place to make sure it is a fair marketplace and noone can "corner the market" or otherwise manipulate it in an illegal way?

    With about 5 minutes of armchair regulatory and legal analysis I can already see this is going to have significant unintended consequences.
    (Bonus points: Currency traders --- what other regs do you have to follow that would not work on a virtual currency in a game?)

    1. Re:What about FOREX? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Game currencies are better modeled as commodities than currencies. But there is a robust black market in thier trade, between the various specialty companies in the "gold farming" industry. And you probably could go short, just not with a standardized contract.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  19. Scrip? by pete-classic · · Score: 1

    Is this different than scrip in any meaningful way?

    -Peter

  20. "Taxes" ? dont be fools. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    taxes were always there. it didnt matter zit if you converted cash into something from virtual currency or from sale of your old underwear. as soon as you have incurred income, it was taxable.

  21. Where does this lead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If virtual currency now has value, a player vs player encounter where you steal someone's gold can land you in jail now for theft?
    I can't wait until they give in game characters legal status and start charging people with murder... (though someone founding PETM [People for the Ethical Treatment of Monsters] might be amusing).

    This is why realism in games continues to be a bad idea. The next thing you know, we'll be paying real taxes on our purchases of "Gold Spear+1".

  22. Money for nothing.... by realsilly · · Score: 1

    Virtual = Not real.

    From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/virtual
    (Just one of many definitions)
    Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name: the virtual extinction of the buffalo.

    Scenario
    You lend person A $20.00, they repay you with electronic credits or virtual gaming money. What if you don't play electronic games? The owner of the game company doesn't give you the physical $20.00 for relinquishing the electronic credits or electronic gaming money. This will not bode well....

    --
    Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
    1. Re:Money for nothing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chicks for free?

    2. Re:Money for nothing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bad example - what if your local trade is using seashells? 20 bucks printed on paper are equally worthless if you don't play in the same economic sandbox.

  23. PVP and thieving... by $1uck · · Score: 3, Funny

    So in a game such as EQ (the only MMO I've played) you could kill people (on pvp servers) and take their gold. Clearly this is part of the game, but is it something you could be arrested for now?

    1. Re:PVP and thieving... by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So in a game such as EQ (the only MMO I've played) you could kill people (on pvp servers) and take their gold. Clearly this is part of the game, but is it something you could be arrested for now?

      You're marked as "funny", but I think it's a valid question. If I play a game of basketball with someone, and steal their wallet, that's a crime. How's that different than MMORPG gold theft; because the rules say stealing is okay? Then how is that different from a casino, where "skill" or luck allows either one party to take the money from the other party? Sounds like gambling to me, which is illegal in SK.

    2. Re:PVP and thieving... by syousef · · Score: 1

      So in a game such as EQ (the only MMO I've played) you could kill people (on pvp servers) and take their gold. Clearly this is part of the game, but is it something you could be arrested for now?

      Only if you don't pay your "I just killed me a player" tax.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    3. Re:PVP and thieving... by KWolfe81 · · Score: 1

      Yup. So in the future, feel free to kill people online, just make sure you don't rob from their cold dead corpses...

    4. Re:PVP and thieving... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I got killed and lost X gold. Time to mark dieing as a tax write-off

    5. Re:PVP and thieving... by ThosLives · · Score: 1

      Personally I think it makes sense to tax transactions from real-world currency to game-world currency. Essentially this is because the person trading real-world currency for some in-game asset is essentially purchasing the labor of the person who allocated those in-game resources.

      What gets seriously complicated though is when you consider transactions that take place entirely within the confines of the game universe. Consider one player where a player spends time to get in-game currency units, and another who spends time to create an in-game item, and they exchange. If this was in the "real world" something like VAT or sales tax would be levied. The question is - what tax would be levied in the virtual world? The pithy comments like "when I can pay my taxes with in-game assets..." are actually pretty insightful.

      Essentially trading real currency for virtual assets is like paying a performer at a concert: you can convert currency into entertainment but you can't really convert that entertainment into anything else.

      For taxation of all in-game transactions, you'd have to have some mechanism to convert in-game activities back into real-world currency in some reasonable manner. Consider someone singing to themselves in their home: the person is creating "entertainment assets" but should those be taxed? What about if they are singing for their friends? This would be my argument against taxing sole in-game transactions.

      Requiring taxes for all transactions would essentially force all game participants into real money traders, because they would have to sell assets to obtain currency to pay taxes (since game assets are not fungible like real-world currency). Either that or, terribly, people would have to pay out-of-pocket for their in-game "assets" which would be a hard pill to swallow. In fact, I'd assert that the latter would either put all virtual games out of business, or at best severely limit their business, or cause all game-players to essentially be relabeled criminals.

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
  24. Misinterpretation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Massively is reporting that the South Korean Supreme Court has stated that virtual currency is the equivalent of real-world money.

    Um no they didn't...

    Dependents bought items and in-game currency then resold those items for cash. The gov got pissed and said it was gambling then fined the 2 guys. The court then ruled that they were not gambling but earning cash by selling/trading a good that held VALUE. This has more to do w/ virtual items/goods having a VALUE and less to do w/ a transfer of currency. I wouldn't go as far to say that Aden = $$$ but more to the likes of Aden = VALUE kind of like how a car has a value, but is not directly $$$, it's a good and not a currency.

    Car analogy for the /. crowd...

  25. Poor analogy... by Pollux · · Score: 1

    The core there is that selling in-game currency for real money is essentially just an exchange of currency and perfectly legal in South Korea.

    Applying that logic domestically, does that mean that I can mail all my old arcade tokens to the IRS to help pay my taxes?

  26. I Pay All of My Bills...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with wii points.

  27. Monopoly Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone know the current exchange rate?

    1. Re:Monopoly Money by rhpenguin · · Score: 1

      According to Bank Of Canada the Canadian dollar is worth $0.97USD.

  28. Let's launder money by Yuioup · · Score: 1

    INSERT INTO Wallet (amount) VALUES (1000000000.00)
    GO

    UPDATE Player SET Status = ReallyRich
    GO

    1. Re:Let's launder money by roguegramma · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You forgot to add
      WHERE playernickname = 'mynickname'
      in both sql statements.

      It would suck if everyone else also would be Really Rich wouldn't it?

      Also, real banks would use Oracle, not sql server as the database.

      --
      Hey don't blame me, IANAB
  29. Money isn't real by bussdriver · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Money is virtual ALREADY. Arguably, money was virtual at its inception but since we moved from gold (tangible) to debt (intangible) money is now virtual.

    Furthermore, most the worlds money is exchanged as numbers (now being done with computers) so even the representative objects (cash/coin) have only been a niche player.

    Banks don't print money, they practically type a cheat code and the government just gives them a higher number to work with (which is many times higher than the actual virtual amount they are given - see fractional lending.)

    Democracies have a weakness: complexity.
    The more complex the more removed from the public the issue is for them to manage their employees (public servants.) Like a boss who is clueless about the jobs his workers perform; it just doesn't work out as well in the long term... Power by obscurity primarily using complexity; or one could think of it as security by obscurity. It actually works; obscure something enough and you deter the curious people; unlike computer security, 1 person "getting in" does not cause much change (if any) most of the time (because its not a computer system and it does not behave like one even if the concepts apply to both.)

    The solution is to simplify the law... using mostly lawyers elected to office? I know... Seriously, we don't need most the complexity its why judges and juries exist to interpret using "common sense" if we try to program everything explicitly for fear of the judicial branch and the public might think we end up with what we have today (see jury nullification and think about why it exists to counter this mentality of undermining of freedom.)

    1. Re:Money isn't real by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If by "real" you mean "non-tangible", that's been the case for centuries, and was finally recognized when we went off the gold standard. The Fed alters the money supply, not by printing money, but by altering the amount of money people agree exists.

      If you're a big bank and the Fed loans you a million dollars, nothing tangible changes. Everyone just agrees you have a million dollars at your disposal because the Fed says there is. If they alter their interest rates to make borrowing attractive, suddenly there's lot more money floating around in the economy. If the raise interest rates so you (as a big bank) don't want to have so much debt to them on your books, suddenly you start demanding people you've lent money pay you back so you can pay your bills. That sucks money out of the economy, even though nothing tangible has happened (like zapping a pile of gold with a disintegration ray).

      It's really simple in a completely non-intuitive way.

      But that's not the sense I mean when I say "real money". "Real money" is something anybody with any sense would agree is money. In-game money has many of the characteristics of "real money"; it is liquid, and you can exchange it for some things of value. It lacks the property that anybody of any sense would treat it as "just as good as money", which means you can't trade it for just about anything the way you can real money. You've got to barter it for something else people agree is money before it has that all important universal buying power.

      There's an obvious reason for this. The company that operates the game would literally have system that could generate unlimited amounts of money. Banks can be a *little bit* like that. They can create travelers checks and other documents that say "pay to the bearer such and so", but they have to carry those as liabilities on their books. They can't print as much of this money as they like without altering their ability to pay their obligations to people who demand something "as good as" what the Fed provides. The game company has no incentive to limit the amount of money it creates, other than its impact on game play. If the government gave me the power to make *real* virtual money without any kind of downside, I wouldn't care about what it did to my game.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:Money isn't real by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      If the government gave me the power to make *real* virtual money without any kind of downside, I wouldn't care about what it did to my game.

      Except that if nobody was using it to buy anything in your game, or you created a huge amount of it and made it easy to obtain by playing your game, nobody would have any reason to trade anything for your virtual money and it would be worthless, making the exchange rate for other currencies would not very good.

      If you think about it, this is how money works in the "real" world too -- you typically can't walk into a store and buy milk with a foreign currency, you've got to exchange it for the local currency. If nobody wants to buy anything in a particular country, or that country's government prints too much money, the exchange rate collapses. World of Warcraft and other similar games are just like virtual countries.

    3. Re:Money isn't real by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

      "If by "real" you mean "non-tangible""

      I am sure Blizzard is fully aware of the "tangible" in all of this.

      An economy that is, if even only in part, based on virtual currency is also HIGHLY susceptible to having the carpet yanked out from under them. Something as simple as turning off servers, or the deletion of all virtual funds owned by a given country, could have serious real life economic consequences.

      Think about that for a moment. Real economic changes being brought on under the auspices of a game EULA?

      New tag please. /tooweirdforsciencefiction

    4. Re:Money isn't real by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      Most people do not understand the thing; therefore, I'd say its not so simple.

      But it was indirectly tangible - the cash and numbers are virtual but they represented REAL tangible assets. The money was itself was always a symbolic representation but the meaning behind it WAS tangible until we got off gold.

      Accounting was possible with something tangible. Now, its purely virtual with just 1 authority (for US dollars) doing the accounting.

      In a way, it was similar to gold, because generally speaking the accounting for the gold was a hidden trust-based system because nations were sometimes cooking their books. They couldn't allow a real accounting for the gold backing they claimed to have when it wasn't there because that would cause a devaluation of their money. While similar, it is not the same because there was a possible fall back position of a tangible object. Its like a written contract vs a handshake.

      The FED doesn't have to account for the gold; yet there is enough to hide that we can't ever get a real accounting of what they have been doing.

      We didn't realize this system could be fundamentally altered - it was a necessity because we were cooking the books and didn't have the gold backing. The situation was forced during Nixon and his way out of the mess was to say "it no longer matters we don't care about gold anymore" while making deals with OPEC so that the dollar wouldn't be devalued by making the world buy oil in US dollars. In a way, we moved to OIL from gold but even that is not that simple either.

      We don't really need that middle eastern oil as much as people think; we get most our oil from our own hemisphere. Its about our currency more than their oil.

      What should really piss people off is that the FED hands out (with gov backing) the "cheatcode" to corps to get free money - to "banks" of their choosing. Its a bailout all the time-- the more money they create the less value yours has; its a TAX on everybody so the banksters can profit from your money without you having anything you can do about it. This is why a tangible backing was beneficial; it was a CAP on this kind of behavior (although it still happened in a different way but it wasn't as bad or as easy.)

      http://moveyourmoney.info/

      -

      Game money needs some level of scarcity to work just like how the FED does it; it will have issues yet to be seen-- such as games where users can buy money for the game and then have it devalued or lost in hacks/bugs etc.

  30. My virtual currency by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

    i wrote a thing about an international virtual currency. The basis was 1 hour of unskilled labor would be 100 credits. Each credit has an entry in the database as to who owns it at the moment. Small transactions could be done with a private/public key transaction. Bigger transactions require more authentication.

    The serial of a credit would be 128b. The first eight being the date of it's release into the system in CRC32, leaving 96b for the rest of the serial. That gives us an insane amount of credits even if the population hit 12B. The date would be a quick means to verify that the number of the credit someone is trying to spend isn't some random number.

    Money enters the system by an employer and employee agreeing to do the transaction in this system for the minimum wage. Since money enters the system in batches, it could keep value tightly controlled. It would also address some problems with gulfs in currency/labor values ($1 doesn't buy shit here, but could buy a big meal elsewhere). People who are to be paid more than minimum wage must be paid in a transaction of already release currency.

    It would be purely virtual and transactions would be tracked, making it less useful for criminal enterprise.

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
  31. doing it In game may fall under gambling laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doing it In game may fall under gambling laws / other laws

    Will the NGC have to take a look at the WOW or any game like it source code?

    how about laws covering carnival game?

    arcade / arcade redemption law? in NJ there are a few laws covering skill games / redemption / claw games that they have NJ roms vs the roms for the same game in other places.

    And that is before any TAX / income laws as well.

  32. sounds like another case of.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Koreans trying to be clever but not very..it could create a credit bubble, whereby many people are caught holding aden and other in-game currency.
    If Lineage suddenly went out of fashion or another game swept in and became very popular, you'd have a lot of people rushing to sell in-game currency in general, which could even have economic knock-on effects, particularly mp3 players and hand-held gadgets that are popular amongst mmorpg players.

  33. real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    shit just got real

  34. So... by widelight · · Score: 1

    If they make virtual currency and meat world currency identical in the States, does that mean I can pay my rent by farming gold in WoW? 'Cause I can farm gold for a couple hours a day... then I'd never have to work. Sounds like a deal to me.

  35. Bail-Outs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long before NCSoft asks for a Government Bail-out?

  36. Virtual currencies don't compare to real world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The supply of the US Dollar is controlled by the Federal Reserve, a private company

    Stop it with this "Private Company" bullshit.

    The Federal Reserve was established the "Federal Reserve Act", an an Act of Congress. It is Governed by appointees of the US Government.

    That's why Representatives like Ron Paul can push for bills like the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009-- the Federal Reserve is within the realm of Congress.

    Yes, there are elements of the Federal Reserve which behave like a private company. Why is that wrong? It's a Central Bank, is it wrong for Member Banks to hold nonvoting stock in the Central Bank?

    The opposition to the Federal Reserve is purely political. God, I fear a country where the monetary policy is governed by irrational and uncontrolled actions in Congress. Monetary policy needs to be stable, and isolated from politics when possible.

    These virtual currencies are more stable than a great many national currencies

    Your virtual currencies don't even register in the scale of a real world economy.

    The EVE Online Currency is minuscule compared to the Dollar. The GDP of the American economy is over $14 Trillion. The EU economy is worth a similar amount. What is the Eve Online economy worth? A few million dollars, maybe?

    And I can readily buy a loaf of bread and a car with my American Dollar. I'd like to see you buy anything with your ISK.

    1. Re:Virtual currencies don't compare to real world by lgw · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering where you saw me say the Fed was a bad thing, before you went off on a rant? One of us is obsessed with this, and I don't think it's me ...

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  37. From someone who lived there, snake oil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    yes there is: food, air, fresh water, security for your family, comfortable shelter, tools, transportation, fuel, weapons. They are the real currencies of the world.
    & btw knowing the xenophobic Koreans, they can use this in 2 ways to screw over foreigner living in their coutry (which the little racists tend to do)

    1. Devaluation of in-game credit strategy: They can specify in a contract that you be paid in a legal tender to the value of xx korean won.
          Of course this would mean you're paid partly in in-game currency. As it devalues, u have nothing. This is exactly what I'd expect from Korean people who are unmatched in treachery. Only the Cambodians are more treacherous. They could always revert to this strategy if things went sour. They're Koreans!

    2. Inflation of in-game credit strategy: This would imply that foreigners would never be allowed to get the in-game currency. Koreans would rush to buy the in-game currency and dump won, perhaps to increase economic competitiveness with China through a cheaper won. Crazy as it sounds, Koreans do things in a one for all and all for one way just like this. The danger with this is, you could end up hurting your domestic economy as if the in-game currency collapsed with a panic, mmorpg players (usually the poorer element of Korean society) would become more poor and buy even less mp3 players and hand-held gadgets and other things that mmorpg players buy.
    Strangely enough, this seems more likely, as foreigners are already forbidden from being members of Korean-based email, chat, and mmorpg sites! I used to live there! It's a xenophobic society.

    My analysis:
    Koreans operate socially on the jung system. If you're family you're sacred, otherwise you're less than shit. 'Compassion' in Korea doesn't exist in the way we understand it - it's just nepotism, family, old-boys clubs.
    It's a strategy to compete with China by forcing devaluation of the Korean won (hence making exporters more competitive. If you know anything about economics, you'll know a devalued currency is always going to make your exporters cheaper.) at the expense of the poorer elements of Korean society. Korea has a track record of never giving a shi.t about it's poorer citizens/netizens so that would also fit the jigsaw puzzle. The poorer would have less money to buy Korean goods, but it's really the export market that Koreans care about anyway.
    In summary, they're going after a devaluation strategy.

  38. Article misses the mark by mmalove · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Article is horribly misrepresenting the Korean supreme court ruling.

    It claimed such an exchange was not criminal.
    It did not:
    -Create any kind of exchange between virtual/real currencies.
    -Create any kind of obligation on gaming companies to be accountable to player's virtual bank accounts.
    -Negate the EULAs of the majority of games which state RMT is a violation of your use of their services and will result in your account being banned from their servers.

    In other words, Bliz can continue to cancel your WOW account, they just can't arrest you. In Korea.

    -.-

    --
    You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
    1. Re:Article misses the mark by Jhyrryl · · Score: 1

      Actually, it wasn't the article that was misleading, it was the summary provided to Slashdot.

      --
      Jhyrryl
  39. so, can I go to jail for mugging someone's avatar by Khashishi · · Score: 1

    and taking their gold?

  40. game of skill and your take is a bet / Prize and y by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    game of skill and your take is a bet / Prize and you can lose if you lose. But it then may fail under gambling laws / other laws. To the point of this game is not legal in this state.

    Will there be a NJ ver of WOW and other games like it? like there are for skill arcade redemption games? NGC will have to take a look at the game code be for it can be played in NV?

  41. Mistaken currency concepts. by Erick+Lionheart · · Score: 1

    Many posters rail at "virtual" currency and indicate it is bogus because you can't pay your taxes with WoW gold, or trade it on FOREX.

    I would encourage those slashdotters to check up on Philippines Pesos, or even Chinese Yuan.

    1) AFAIK You can't pay your taxes in any currency but the legal tender of said country (Euro is an official currency, but can't pay your US taxes with those)
    2) You can't exchange certain country's currencies on the FOREX market. If you have Philippine Pesos, you can pretty much only exchange them for something else (including another currency) in the Philippines.

    The only difference with most game currency is that those exchanges are not overseen by the "government" (game company), but done on a black market. If Blizz "prints" lots of money (or there is a dupe), value will go down fast. It's happened in many games. A sudden crackdown on gold farmers will drive currency value up. Same with a new expensive gold sink.

    With your Chinese Yuan, you can get services in China only. With your WoW gold you can get services in WoW only. I'm pretty sure there's a market for wow gold in nearly every country out there. Likely easier to monetize that, if you really wanted to, than some leftover Chinese yuans you might find in a drawer...

    There is well enough activity and services available in MMO's that a lot of those currencies have "real" value and something like an exchange rate. I don't see where the issue is with that though. When you've paid $10 to watch a movie in a theater, you only have the experience of it left afterwards. if you pay $10 to get some wow gold and get a flying mount, you get an experience as well.

    Disclaimer: I own http://www.gamersloot.net/ and we -used- to offer in-game gold/services a long while back (now mostly just cd-keys)