Topic: FinCEN addresses Bitcoin - page 10. (Read 28355 times)

It's even cuter that you believe in coincidences.

Oh that's so cute! that you believe in conspiracy theories!

Firstly, FinCEN do not make laws, they are an enforcement arm of the govt. Their interpretation is as good as the next best lawyer who wants to come along and argue against them in the courts.

Secondly, the law is so vague as to be basically useless for any objective interpretations so everybody gets to make up whatever flavour of opinion that suits them on the matter.

No one has ever said with any convincing arguments that bitcoins are illegal AFAIK, so they are legal. Nothing new here. FinCEN will say whatever they want to suit their agenda, nothing new there either ... I think they have bigger problems elsewhere than "virtual currencies" right now (note they did not attempt to define what a "virtual currency" is anywhere, or they may happen to include govt. fiat in the dragnet ).

This is a "guidance" posting.  It's a summary of how FinCEN feels that the already-existing regulations apply to the situation.  In reality, nothing much has changed except for providing some clarity.  All that verification stuff is required and the fly-by-night folks have got some worrying to do.

I'm wondering how things like the Linden Labs stuff comes out of this.  They have centralized virtual currency with an administrator.   On the other hand, they have third parties doing conversions so they might be ok.

Yup.  There's really no way the exchange could prove the withdrawal was not to a third party.

I think you might be surprised how much political power the people who monetize government deficit spending have. Can you immagine a government that is restricted to actually taxing it's citizens to pay for wars and social programs? And not income withholding either... it will likely have to be funded entirely by taxation that doesn't involve self-reporting, like property and inventory tax.

The anonymous BTC<-->USD exchanges are going to go two ways: Those that comply with FinCen and ask customers for full information, and then those who dispense of their online storefront and just start dealing by PGP encrypted email transactions. The only risk in dealing bitcoins for fiat in such an "alleyway deal" manner is a sting operation, but of course, we all know how successful those have been in shutting down SR.

Sucks to be an AML officer.

Reverse Midas touch.

WOO HOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So does this FinCEN shit apply to anybody trading in BTC ->USD even if they are not from the US?


This is the beginning of the end for no questions asked exchanges,  Me thinks somebody should get working on a decentralised exchange if its even technically feasible.


Anyway they can pry my bitcoin from my cold dead brain.

we must have different definitions of the word government. I define government as a group of people who have claimed a monopoly on the use of violence within a geographical area.

On the

"Bitcoin and government don't mix"

I'm a politician, I love bitcoin, I belong to a small party (atm, just wait until Cannabis is legaised in the UK

And ye, bitcoin IS the future. Regulation IS key (and as someone rightly mentioned, it's the next stage of its evolution).

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/end-of-governments-152651

It would be better to say "current governments (corrupt, greed, banker controlled) and bitcoin don't mix"

But the governments of the future, ohhhh, they're gonna LOVE IT, because using bitcoin will enable the people to love you (as you save them from this horrible state the planet is in).

Exactly.

As soon as a state officially recognizes bitcoin .. it's like, the start of an avalanche. This is an amazing thing, for freedom and transparency and end end to corrupt bankers and governments and the damn rothchilds and their ilk

Also an I Am Not A Lawyer (IANAL) disclaimer.

I was trying to figure if this applies to a hosted (shared) EWallet provider who holds customer's bitcoins and broadcasts bitcoin transactions, but does not convert to fiat or any other type of currency.


Because the EWallet provider isn't providing exchange to fiat or other currency (or value that substitutes as currency) the service is not a money transmitter.

That's good.



One example of this is an exchange that lets a customer have cash deposited into the exchange's bank account.  There's no way to prove the funds were the customer's funds and not some third party that had deposited for credit to the customer's exchange account.  

Because of the difficulties exchanges have had in offering that service I've just assumed that was a gray area.  But what if these funds are bitcoins and not dollars?  Does this mean an EWallet provider [Edit: exchange] needs to know that the bitcoins received to my wallet account came from me, and were not the result of a transfer I received from someone else?  That's the whole point of an EWallet .   This is unclear to me if this "no third party payments" restriction applies to bitcoin transfers as well.


That's the end of redeemable codes and account-to-account (A2A) transfers (unless, of course, the service providing it is an exchange and money transmitter).  But again, is this just for fiat funds, or do BTC transfers apply as well?


So the cash-out services where the withdrawal goes to whichever bank account you provide would make them a money transmitter.  Or the ones that will cash out coins and send a Western Union money transfer or make a cash deposit to my bank account at my bank -- those are money transmitters according to this.

I'm sure some in the community are more than radical enough. The question is, how many innocent people will have their lives destroyed for non-compliance?

I expect the restrictions will have the same effect the laws in Argentina have on the unofficial exchange rate.

Oh sure.

The question is one of balancing anonymity against paying the rent.

Is the bitcoin community radical enough to cut the US gov out? Like, if, says, the gov attempts to forbid bitcoin, or create unreasonable restrictions?

You make a valid and possibly disconcerting point.

Marijuana isn't legal - but the (tax) regulations surrounding it will get you into a hell of a lot more trouble than possession will.

Spitting on the sidewalk might get you a ticket for a fourth degree misdemeanor, if the cop is having a particularly bad day - but agreeing with your buddy to spit together is conspiracy under the law.  That's worth 20 years in a federal pen.

I think Vladimir's exhortation in another (Cyprus-related) thread applies here as well.  Maybe even more so.

Get your BTC into your own wallet.

Clean them up...

Watch how the shitstorm develops.

From BLOGDIAL's "FinCEN sounds death knell for US based Bitcoin businesses" (it's worth a read):
http://irdial.com/blogdial/?p=3488

"Finally, this is a great opportunity for a country to cause Bitcoin startups to congregate in their territory. A 150 year moratorium on any law that touches anything to do with Bitcoin / Blockchain technology would create a new Hong Kong island of super prosperity, as it becomes the world’s hub for all Bitcoin business, and the trillions of dollars in Bitcoin flowing through it, leaving the pitiful democracies in the dust."