Topic: Did regulations actually change in New Hampshire or is Poloniex full of shit? (Read 557 times)
December 17, 2016, 12:39:01 PM
Ya well, if you want good private and anonymous trading on Poloniex without having to jump through their hoops, then just use the Alcurex.com remote markets.
December 16, 2016, 04:59:13 PM
I'm kind of parroting what other people have been saying; there isn't anything that I see happening to separate Bitcoin's classification from fiat and Poloniex is treating that as bad news and there are going to be changes that have to be made in order to meet the new standards presented.
It's retarded, but I don't think Poloniex is full of shit, yet. They have yet to prove that, either way.
It's retarded, but I don't think Poloniex is full of shit, yet. They have yet to prove that, either way.
December 16, 2016, 04:39:26 PM
Lol, there are probably 9 whole people in NH that actually use bitcoin--pardon my cynicism. But we are still in the wild west stage of crypto, where the laws haven't yet evolved and nothing is written in stone. Or even ink, really. The poloniex thing can change, and they're certainly not the only game in town. It's a big town with a lot of drunks and wild women, and even the sheriff is intoxicated. Fun times to be had by all. Fear not.
If this spreads down a couple states, I might be worried.
Also: These are two separate questions.
If this spreads down a couple states, I might be worried.
Also: These are two separate questions.
December 16, 2016, 04:08:38 PM
Regardless of these issues, the fact becomes clearer when applied to freedom of choice, and at a larger issue, the concept of barter and exchange, which obviously have precedence over any commercial laws, implied or enforced, and the right to privacy and freedom of enterprise.
After seeing the prices of altcoins drop and markets being screwed from the regulators making these residents move off the markets, I became more concerned about the issue of privacy and did some searching, and recently found Alcurex Exchange in Finland, with off-shore markets that allow investors from all over the world to join up and trade bitcoins and altcoins freely, without restriction, on Poloniex, Bittrex, and locally.
Now that I found Alcurex, I don't have to worry about AML/KYC, and still have all the access to Poloniex and Bittrex markets in a safe and private environment.
October 04, 2016, 09:11:26 AM
....
And BraveNewCoin further clarified:
So it's http://gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXVI/399-G/399-G-1.htm if you want the full legalese.
And BraveNewCoin further clarified:
Quote
Unfortunately, New Hampshire statute 399-G:1, “Licensing of Money Transmitters,” was recently changed to add “virtual” currencies, commencing on January 1, 2016.
So it's http://gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXVI/399-G/399-G-1.htm if you want the full legalese.
So, Polo have been trading illegally for like 8 / 9 months?
Charlie Shrem got a few years in prison for operating a money transmission business without a licence.
Not necessarily. It all depends how said law is interpreted and applied. They might just doing this as a precaution because there's a possibility of it being deemed illegal. It would also help if the state of New Hampshire made a judgement on whether cryptographic currencies actually count as money or not, since New York and California can't seem to agree on that point.
This is one of those - you can't be half pregnant issues. If they just found out they were trading illegally, they were still trading illegally. Otherwise, why stop?
October 04, 2016, 08:26:31 AM
....
And BraveNewCoin further clarified:
So it's http://gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXVI/399-G/399-G-1.htm if you want the full legalese.
And BraveNewCoin further clarified:
Quote
Unfortunately, New Hampshire statute 399-G:1, “Licensing of Money Transmitters,” was recently changed to add “virtual” currencies, commencing on January 1, 2016.
So it's http://gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXVI/399-G/399-G-1.htm if you want the full legalese.
So, Polo have been trading illegally for like 8 / 9 months?
Charlie Shrem got a few years in prison for operating a money transmission business without a licence.
Not necessarily. It all depends how said law is interpreted and applied. They might just doing this as a precaution because there's a possibility of it being deemed illegal. It would also help if the state of New Hampshire made a judgement on whether cryptographic currencies actually count as money or not, since New York and California can't seem to agree on that point.
October 04, 2016, 08:18:23 AM
....
And BraveNewCoin further clarified:
So it's http://gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXVI/399-G/399-G-1.htm if you want the full legalese.
And BraveNewCoin further clarified:
Quote
Unfortunately, New Hampshire statute 399-G:1, “Licensing of Money Transmitters,” was recently changed to add “virtual” currencies, commencing on January 1, 2016.
So it's http://gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXVI/399-G/399-G-1.htm if you want the full legalese.
So, Polo have been trading illegally for like 8 / 9 months?
Charlie Shrem got a few years in prison for operating a money transmission business without a licence.
October 04, 2016, 07:53:09 AM
CoinIdol stated that:
And BraveNewCoin further clarified:
So it's http://gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXVI/399-G/399-G-1.htm if you want the full legalese.
Quote
The reason for this, are the changes in New Hampshire's regulations in 2016, that state that all cryptocurrency sellers are considered money transmitters under New Hampshire law and must have an appropriate license to operate in the state.
And BraveNewCoin further clarified:
Quote
Unfortunately, New Hampshire statute 399-G:1, “Licensing of Money Transmitters,” was recently changed to add “virtual” currencies, commencing on January 1, 2016.
So it's http://gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXVI/399-G/399-G-1.htm if you want the full legalese.
October 04, 2016, 07:43:38 AM
just copied this from the most recent news articles but have not yet read it myself,
hopefully it gives context to what the OP is on about (ill edit it or make new posts as i dig into it)
http://www.concordmonitor.com/cryptocurrency-problem-4989137
in short new hampshire have pigeon holed bitcoin and altcoins into the same category as fiat.
instead of making new CONSUMER protection laws specific to cryptocurrency businesses an treated bitcoin and alts as currency assets. which would have been a good thing to do
new hampshire just wants to make bitcoin just as controlled and corrupt as fiat within the cough 'free state' cough, so that its no longer about creating a consumer protection. but regulating bitcoins use via licences with a false 5% context of being part of existing consumer protection
governments need to separate the word regulation from consumer protection. as they are not the same thing.
hopefully it gives context to what the OP is on about (ill edit it or make new posts as i dig into it)
http://www.concordmonitor.com/cryptocurrency-problem-4989137
Quote
Three other bitcoin exchanges – Coinbase, CoinEx and Circle Internet – have registered with the state Banking Department. Demopoulos said Poloniex is different from those because it deals only with cryptocurrency, not with dollars and other “fiat currency,” a term for legal tender backed by a government. It’s not clear whether this difference is the reason for Poloniex’s withdrawal from New Hampshire.
This situation came about after the Legislature overhauled the state’s banking and credit union laws in 2015. One change involved the term “convertible virtual currency” when describing regulated matters.
The state Banking Department began looking at cryptocurrency exchanges, which are companies that hold bitcoin and other virtual currencies owned by other people. Maryam Torben-Desfosses, a hearing examiner for the Consumer Credit Division of the Banking Department, told the commission that depending on the details of their business model, these firms may be subject to the same regulations as money exchanges like Western Union, or of holders of what is known as “stored value” items such as debit and credit cards.
The goal, she said, is to protect consumers. Torben-Desfosses pointed to high-profile failures such as a Japanese bitcoin exchange known as Mt. Gox, which cost customers hundreds of millions of dollars worth of lost bitcoin when it was hacked, but said that more mundane concerns are also important.
“If I’m going to use the exchange to send money to Alaska, how can we make sure it gets there, that the (exchange) is not going to pocket it?” she said.
This situation came about after the Legislature overhauled the state’s banking and credit union laws in 2015. One change involved the term “convertible virtual currency” when describing regulated matters.
The state Banking Department began looking at cryptocurrency exchanges, which are companies that hold bitcoin and other virtual currencies owned by other people. Maryam Torben-Desfosses, a hearing examiner for the Consumer Credit Division of the Banking Department, told the commission that depending on the details of their business model, these firms may be subject to the same regulations as money exchanges like Western Union, or of holders of what is known as “stored value” items such as debit and credit cards.
The goal, she said, is to protect consumers. Torben-Desfosses pointed to high-profile failures such as a Japanese bitcoin exchange known as Mt. Gox, which cost customers hundreds of millions of dollars worth of lost bitcoin when it was hacked, but said that more mundane concerns are also important.
“If I’m going to use the exchange to send money to Alaska, how can we make sure it gets there, that the (exchange) is not going to pocket it?” she said.
in short new hampshire have pigeon holed bitcoin and altcoins into the same category as fiat.
instead of making new CONSUMER protection laws specific to cryptocurrency businesses an treated bitcoin and alts as currency assets. which would have been a good thing to do
new hampshire just wants to make bitcoin just as controlled and corrupt as fiat within the cough 'free state' cough, so that its no longer about creating a consumer protection. but regulating bitcoins use via licences with a false 5% context of being part of existing consumer protection
governments need to separate the word regulation from consumer protection. as they are not the same thing.
October 04, 2016, 07:25:40 AM
"Due to regulatory changes, services to New Hampshire residents will be temporarily suspended in the coming weeks https://poloniex.com/press-releases/2016.09.21-notice-to-new-hampshire-residents/Posted by MobyDick at 2016-09-22 04:41:19"
https://poloniex.com
Did anything actually happen in NH? When I search in regards to "regulatory changes" in NH... all I find is Poloniex stuff.
https://poloniex.com
Did anything actually happen in NH? When I search in regards to "regulatory changes" in NH... all I find is Poloniex stuff.
Jump to: