Topic: **IMPORTANT**URGENT** Support needed to defend the stance of bitcoin in India - page 2. (Read 8271 times)

right - and that risk meant both financial and legal risks. financial one meant the hacking or lost wallet or volatility etc

RBI never said "not to indulge" !!!
It only asked you to be cautious and told you that cryptocurrencies are unregulated and thus risky.

Anyways I have edited the wikipedia entry.

Wikipedia did not even count as a reference when i was doing a project in my masters haha. So did not bother to show it.

Everything else you mentioned is true and I have shown these articles. The links to these are there in my OP. But what is your point?

Just so you know - apart from that Dec 24th advisory, everything else was discarded. The way i could convince about being unregulated is because there is no notice saying it is getting regulated. Not because chakrbarthy said he has no plans of regulation.
These guys want in form of notice by govt or regulatory bodies. Quotes and comments on quotes or articles on quotes did not count. Even the regulatory landscape
in other countries did not count.

I guess you missed the Wikipedia lol

In June 2013, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) issued a notice acknowledging that virtual currencies posed legal, regulatory and operational challenges. In August 2013, a spokesperson wrote in an email that bitcoin was under observation.

On 24 December 2013, the Reserve Bank of India issued an advisory to the Indian public not to indulge in buying or selling of virtual currencies, including bitcoin. Following the announcement Bitcoin operators in the country began suspending operations.

The first raid in India was undertaken a couple of days later in Ahmedabad by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on the office of the website, buysellbit.co.in, that provided a platform to trade in this virtual currency. The preliminary investigations found it to be in violation of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA).

On 28 December 2013, the Deputy Governor of the RBI, K. C. Chakrabarty, made a statement that RBI had no plans to regulate Bitcoins.

The consolidated legal position in the month of August 2014 is that the legality of bitcoin is in doubt in India. The Reserve Bank of India has cautioned users of virtual currencies of various legal risks. Indian law enforcement agency Enforcement Directorate also searched the office and website of a bitcoin entrepreneur to analyse any possible legal violation. ED believes that Bitcoins money can be used for hawala transactions and funding terror operations.

Perhaps you neglected to check the bitcoin website and wiki.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_bitcoin_by_country#India

Yes that was the first day of discussion. Now that the second day of discussion is also over and still been called tomorrow for more discussions with the senior of whom we were talking to.

That is exactly i did. i did my research to gather articles, took the print outs, highlighted the relavent lines and presented to prove bitcoin is unregulated and business like ours is unregulated as well. http://imgur.com/bejDVWg
the articles did not work but i could get the message across.

What case are you talking about?

sure if it was left unanswered. i already mentioned they are fine with my statement saying bitcoins are not illegal and they are unregulated and is so our business.

MORE MONEY? what are you talking about? what has more money to do with regulations?

If the govt says bitcoin businesses can only perform business by following a specific set of regulations, then the businesses must follow or else go out of business.
on the side note you can read this http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/press2015/pr1505071.htm

Before replying please make sure you understand exactly what is being said!!!!

My comment was mainly pointing out the fact that in the start of this thread you were looking for information to provide some "Authorities" that bitcoin was not regulated, if there are ever any "Open Investigations" on anything no matter the topic it is the job of an "Authoritative Figure" to build a case of facts thus doing his or her own research on the topic before confronting any and all subjects involved.

I do know for a fact and I KNOW that there are many authority figures that will back me on this! There is no way in HELL that an "Authority Figure" would confront thus in question and ask for information to be provided to build there case!

Do cops looking for drugs go up to the criminals they are going to bust and ask them for information about the drugs so that they know if its legal or not?


And not notifying your customers about a supposed "Authority Group" contacting your business about its legality is very unprofessional.


Oh and as for your comment: "gathering of info and proposing to take a stance is better than leaving in limbo when it comes to regulation" there are millions of people in this world with much more money then you would ever see in your life that would make sure it stays un-regulated!

If that keeps your mind calm.. good for you to assume that way than just being bothered

i need time to type responses when there is a series of questions / comments in a single post. you have my replies now.

I just said i cannot disclose as of now while i am being questioned. and naming them here do not change anything.

I have not entertained with customer's data apart from confirming the individual they are naming is our customer. I do have the summons. i mentioned this already.

Traffic to site?? There are less than 10-15 active users on India sub-section where this thread is there.

1. I never said authorities are hassling me. They have the questions for me and i am trying my best to answer.
2. that is right - 3 topics. first was the transactions i had to address. then it is about how unocoin is running the business and if it had any reguatory approval. once i could convince, bitcoin is not regulated the questions now is about bitcoin itself.
3. i dont see why i would put this on the website. thousands of businesses from flipkart to airtel have tens of cases running on them - none will keep updating in their website. in our case, it is just the questions i am answering and you really want me to write that i am answering questions?
4. huh that is a dumb comment. if you think every official know about bitcoin and how it works - you are crazy. i dont see why every authority would be bothered about bitcoin to the same extent.

sure, gathering of info and proposing to take a stance is better than leaving in limbo when it comes to regulation

the security of the environment has not changed to provide a new update to our members !

u read my mind..

As expected- no response. Sathvik (CEO Unocoin.com) you can hide, but time will catch up with you. have to go sleep. bye.

Most likely because there isn't one!

why are you not naming the authority?? it is the least we can expect of you

rather you should not even have entertained them with even one byte of customer's data, without proper warrant or summons

I really doubt your motives here, everything has been jumbled up....

The only think I can see coming out of this post is trying to get more traffic to your site.


1. You Refuse to provide details on the "Authorities" hassling you only showing that there is need to hide this information. If such authorities were involved in such a disagreement then really disclosing them to the public would put much needed pressure on them to back down faster!
2. You have provided no valuable facts and have twisted this conversation into 3 different topics as stated by another member.
3. You refuse to provide any documentation on the official website about this matter.
4. More then enough evidence has been provided to satisfy any and all "Authoritative Agencies" on the nature of bitcoin. (Any law authority figure that is not smart enough to put 2 & 2 together and get the result should not be an Authoritative Figure!)


As I read this thread over and over I keep coming to the conclusion that its a probe to gather information on what it would take to regulate a crypto currency in a specified country.

If such a situation is actually occurring then it is your responsibility as a CEO to provide as much information to your members as possible as it is your responsibility to provide a secure environment for them.

 

Technically - nothing. The info they needed was there on his bank account statement already. I just searched our database based on the name they specified and confirmed, yes he is our customer.

what info was given by Unocoin regarding that customer's transaction to the authorities?