Topic: Challenge Lawsky's authority (Read 1459 times)

If an asset is unable to be seized then creditors will likely not be willing to take it into consideration when deciding to lend to a corporation. Same with shareholders. If both lenders and shareholders will not take an asset into consideration then this would outweigh the benefits of owing bitcoin

You know, any number of you pepole evidently do not live in the real world.

I think this may pose a problem with large corporations holding bitcoin.

Mr Karpeles quite prettily got away with it...

Bitcoin doesn't need NY or even the USA

In the big picture GLOBAL COMMERCE

Just a 10% Global Acceptance of btc means a market cap of 8.5 TRILLION, it's only 8.5Bil now with a .01% market acceptance of btc.

So you have 3 more percentage moves in btc value and it can be done without the USA or NY or any other messed up old world fiat currency system.

.01% of GWP is 8.5 Billion the current market cap of btc

.1% of GWP is 85 Billion or 5K btc value the next predictable bubble for btc value and growth from this point in time

1% of GWP is 850 Billion or 50K btc value the 2nd Predictable buble for btc value and growth from this point in time

10% of GWP is 8.5 Trillion or 500K btc value the 3nd Predictable buble for btc value and growth from this point in time

As much as NYC and NY State think they're the financial capitol of the world they are not, they're the financial capitol of the USA for its broken old world Rothchild fiat currency cartel system.

So what if the USA becomes a NO BTC TRADE ZONE in the future, so what they're not 100% of the GWP, they're really nothing in the overall GWP, it is way bigger than the USA, the GWP is the Goliath and the USA is just a minor fraction of it, sure one of the bigger fractions, but a MINOR FRACTION of GWP.

Bitcoin is more powerful than the USA, since the USA can never become 100% of the GWP, however, a global currency could become 100% of GWP and bitcoin is a potential GC, global currency unit.

Once btc passes 10% of the worlds GWP, does anyone care what countries tried to regulate it or made it illegal to own?

Btc can reach way beyond a 10% market share of the GWP eventually and even the USA cannot stop that.

Imagine countries having to pay their politicians and soldiers in btc soon.

So the old fiat currencies will literally crash as NO ONE WANTS THEM in exchange soon for bitcoin.

Why would you sell a btc for fiat currency that is only becoming more and more worthless each day while what you own is becoming more and more valuable each day.

If you read the CRS report to Congress on Bitcoin they put forth this same scenario at current market share it's a NICHE currency, however IF IT WOULD REACH A BROADER USER BASE IT COULD DESTROY THE US DOLLAR since it would stop the velocity of the need for US Dollars.

So currency velocity is the big buzz word now in finance, the speed at which DEMAND for a currency is growing.

You want to see currency velocity, it's moving at the speed of light.

.00001% of gwp .50 btc
.0001% of gwp 5.00 btc
.001% of gwp 50.00 btc
.01% of gwp 500.00 btc where we are today
.1% of gwp 5,000 btc next bubble
1% of gwp 50,000 btc
10% of gwp 500K btc

that's the currency velocity for btc, it is predictable and it will reach at least that level of the gwp

when you see governments starting to have to pay for stuff in btc, then you will see how weak every fiat currency is, they will all be running printing presses all day and night to print enough currency to buy bitcoin to pay contractors and service companies and even its workers in btc

making all fiat currencies worthless in a short time

Or until you get tired of sitting in a cell for contempt of court...................................

They can seized it only if you don't know how to protect them! But if you know how to encrypt your wallet and back-up it in a safe place there is no way for police to seize them! Exception from this rule are citizens of counties where torture is at it's best!

ummm, logic?

Horseshit.

On what do you base that claim?

They have authority because they are regulating businesses that will deal with customer funds, and because they will be dealing with funds in terms of fiat.

Ignore the sons of bitches and go around them.

No state or nation can legally legislate either the ether of the Net nor btc.

They can pass laws and rules for their citizenry but they have no valid legal effect on the net nor btc.

If you live within the borders of their old world concept of control i.e. a 'nation' or 'country' or 'state', you choose to live there and are subject to the rules that region put in place on its citizenry.

While WIPO in theory has global control of various Internet Assets including 'domain names', local or regional governments have tried to impose illegal control of world-wide systems beyond any control of one local organization or government.

BTC is IMO a global system that will exist as long as any group of people around the world consider it to have value.

BTC puts fear into the old world power structures as is evidenced by knee jerk laws to control what cannot be controlled.

In case of bankruptcy, such assets can be seized, so that creditors can be compensated. Bitcoins (usually) can't be seized.

The New York Department of Financail Services exists since 2011.  New York State Banking Department and New York State Insurance Department unify in a single agency, and Ben Lawsky becomes the first Superintendent.
see wikipedia  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Department_of_Financial_Services

To the matter at hand.  Proposed regulations on "virtual currency businesses" provide citations for statutory authority.  I haven't looked into the wording of the Financial Services Law, yet I make this post now because some of the contents of the proposed regulations appear questionable as a matter of common sense.

On what basis does a State regulator purport to have such authority that he may require business entities to retain "earnings and profits" only in government bonds, money markets and similar instruments?  I don't see how such a draconian restriction can abide within the spirit of the Financial Services Law, and it may well violate the letter of that law.  It may even violate the U.S. Constitution's restraint of trade clause.

Such egregious overreach brings into question the legitimacy of this entire proposition. The matter may require judicial attention.

If we presume that Benjamin Lawsky acts within the ambit of his Department as delineated under the Financial Services Law in letter and spirit, we abdicate our responsibility.  The NYDFS works for us; not the other way around; we bear responsibility for keeping vigil over this bureaucracy and policing it to prevent abuses.

I encourage readers to research the law.

(b) Each Licensee shall be permitted to invest its retained earnings and profits in only the following high-quality, investment-grade permissible investments with maturities of up to one year and denominated in United States dollars:
 (1) certificates of deposit issued by financial institutions that are regulated by a United States federal or state regulatory agency;
 (2) money market funds;
 (3) state or municipal bonds;
 (4) United States government securities; or
 (5) United States government agency securities.

Statutory Authority: Financial Services Law, sections 102, 202, 301, and 302