It is improved. A rotted corpse is also improved by burying it.
If 1326 does not pass, we'd be better off.
Crypto currencies do not need any special legislation. There is no benefit to this passing for any of us.
Current laws are more than adequate.
It is just more make-work for government employees.
It provides just yet another avenue for corruption, paying off government to do (or not to do) something completely unnecessary.
To your main point. We absolutely do NOT need a law to prove to anyone that "Bitcoin is not dead".
There are laws against fraud, and against stealing and all the "concerns" the lobbyists are using in order to prevent businesses in the State of California from offering any competition to the entrenched interests and banks
Topic: California Bill AB 1326 (Read 1245 times)
New Liberty,
Honestly I am see your point with the feelings of committees regulating to ensure the government gets their cut....granted this perception is understandable, but compared to before I think it could be an improvement, albeit a minor one. I would love the digital currency to grow despite political theorists claiming the concept was dead. The government taking a closer look at it and incorporating rules shows the concern is positive. If Bitcoin was truly dead, bills like 1326 would not be considered. The government wants to ensure fiat stays in the forefront but cannot ignore what is apparent and growing.
As far as the consumer protection, it is kind of mixed feelings for me just getting into the bitcoin education. I see articles from time to time about bitcoin theft and mining blocks so there is potential for abuse. Not crazy about the government trying to intervene and regulate as I question how they could seeing as Bitcoin does not belong to any government or centralized organization.
I think there will be further changes to AB 1326, though I am not sure what they will be or to what benefit or consequence to Bitcoin users.
The article I was reading
http://www.moneysedge.com/newsimage?id=130
Honestly I am see your point with the feelings of committees regulating to ensure the government gets their cut....granted this perception is understandable, but compared to before I think it could be an improvement, albeit a minor one. I would love the digital currency to grow despite political theorists claiming the concept was dead. The government taking a closer look at it and incorporating rules shows the concern is positive. If Bitcoin was truly dead, bills like 1326 would not be considered. The government wants to ensure fiat stays in the forefront but cannot ignore what is apparent and growing.
As far as the consumer protection, it is kind of mixed feelings for me just getting into the bitcoin education. I see articles from time to time about bitcoin theft and mining blocks so there is potential for abuse. Not crazy about the government trying to intervene and regulate as I question how they could seeing as Bitcoin does not belong to any government or centralized organization.
I think there will be further changes to AB 1326, though I am not sure what they will be or to what benefit or consequence to Bitcoin users.
The article I was reading
http://www.moneysedge.com/newsimage?id=130
We are better off without 1326, whether or not you care anything about Bitcoin, and despite what the lobbyists are posting here.
I don't have any use for some phony consumer protection from the state of California, coupled with some enforcement regime that suddenly will have to find a way to justify its existence and cost. Scammers will rush to be certified, while the well run transparent business don't need it and just get additional hassles.
Meanwhile, we force the rest of the Californians who have nothing to do with Bitcoin (yet) to pay for this new agency. The first they hear of it is that their State is spending money it doesn't have making up new protection rackets for the incumbent banks.
Yet more banking law to prevent competition? Really?
I don't have any use for some phony consumer protection from the state of California, coupled with some enforcement regime that suddenly will have to find a way to justify its existence and cost. Scammers will rush to be certified, while the well run transparent business don't need it and just get additional hassles.
Meanwhile, we force the rest of the Californians who have nothing to do with Bitcoin (yet) to pay for this new agency. The first they hear of it is that their State is spending money it doesn't have making up new protection rackets for the incumbent banks.
Yet more banking law to prevent competition? Really?
I'm pretty happy with the latest revision. Until the most recent revision, the bill wanted anyone buying or selling any amount of fiat for bitcoin to pay non-refundable $5K fee and hope to get approved. A straight shakedown.
Today's bill only requests a fee from business who hold other's bitcoins. That risky custodial arrangement is just like a bank and should be scrutinized. (It won't be, but should be)
So, cash for bitcoin won't be criminalized. I hope I'm right about that, please comment if I'm wrong.
Today's bill only requests a fee from business who hold other's bitcoins. That risky custodial arrangement is just like a bank and should be scrutinized. (It won't be, but should be)
So, cash for bitcoin won't be criminalized. I hope I'm right about that, please comment if I'm wrong.
I was kind of surprised when I was reading Money's Edge and understood the state bill on Bitcoin use with small businesses. It seems the scope of control and regulation can be quite beneficial toward accepting and utilizing the digital currency. What I found most interesting was this passage of the article:
"According to a draft of the bill, it would "authorize a person or entity conducting virtual currency business with less than $1,000,000 in outstanding obligations and whose business model, as determined by the commissioner, represents low or no risk to consumers to register with a $500 license fee and, if approved, receive a provisional license to conduct virtual currency business.""
I think it is an interesting step forward with the revisions, but I wonder if Bitcoin does gain serious momentum what further alterations will happen to the bill.
"According to a draft of the bill, it would "authorize a person or entity conducting virtual currency business with less than $1,000,000 in outstanding obligations and whose business model, as determined by the commissioner, represents low or no risk to consumers to register with a $500 license fee and, if approved, receive a provisional license to conduct virtual currency business.""
I think it is an interesting step forward with the revisions, but I wonder if Bitcoin does gain serious momentum what further alterations will happen to the bill.
frankly a 500 usd license fee to do up to 1,000,000 in obligations is not bad. very interesting state bill as compared to the New York Laws passed.
https://blockstream.com/DigitalCurrencyCASenateLetter.pdf may be of interest.
I was kind of surprised when I was reading Money's Edge and understood the state bill on Bitcoin use with small businesses. It seems the scope of control and regulation can be quite beneficial toward accepting and utilizing the digital currency. What I found most interesting was this passage of the article:
"According to a draft of the bill, it would "authorize a person or entity conducting virtual currency business with less than $1,000,000 in outstanding obligations and whose business model, as determined by the commissioner, represents low or no risk to consumers to register with a $500 license fee and, if approved, receive a provisional license to conduct virtual currency business.""
I think it is an interesting step forward with the revisions, but I wonder if Bitcoin does gain serious momentum what further alterations will happen to the bill.
"According to a draft of the bill, it would "authorize a person or entity conducting virtual currency business with less than $1,000,000 in outstanding obligations and whose business model, as determined by the commissioner, represents low or no risk to consumers to register with a $500 license fee and, if approved, receive a provisional license to conduct virtual currency business.""
I think it is an interesting step forward with the revisions, but I wonder if Bitcoin does gain serious momentum what further alterations will happen to the bill.
Jump to: