NY just announced a MANDATORY Bitcoin license - if this concerns you sign this. - page 5.

BCB

vip

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1002

BCJ

Quote from: BruceFenton on February 13, 2014, 12:58:43 PM

Quote from: BCB on February 13, 2014, 11:40:16 AM

The hope is the BitLicense will provide this regulatory clarity to allow competent, compliant virtual currency business to operate legally in the US.

By the way you don't need a petition to communicate with the New York Regulators. Commissioner Lawsky spoke at a conference on Tuesday and has invited public comment even saying he gets a lot of feedback from twitter.

Hopefully.

I've requested a meeting with him so hopefully he will accept. If not then a detailed letter signed by a couple hundred people may at least be read.

Twitter is okay but not exactly the level of engagement I'd prefer to discuss something so important and complex.

I think the hearings were lacking in the representation of those who speak about the drawbacks of regulation.

I know one goal might be to have compliant and competent firms operate in the US but the effect could be that it drives away competition and the only operators end up being those who can deal with a mountain of regulations.

Bruce,

Competition is already being driven out of the US because of the lack of regulatory clairity. See China, Panama, Singapore, Canada etc. The US has 44 years of consistently updated laws and regulation regarding anti-money laundering and Knowing Your Customer so there is no way a pseudonymous currency will be allow to thrived unchecked.

The US States regulate financial institutions for safety and soundness and consumer protection. Look at MyBitcoin.com, Bitcoinica.com, BitcoinSavings and Trust, GLBSE, inputs.io. The short history of bitcoin is littered with massive fraud and operator incompetence. There is no way a $8B + USD economy is going to go unregulated.

The conversation is not NO regulation. The conversation has to be about prudent regulation. And Lawsky has shown in his public statements and these hearings that he wants input from the community to keep illicit activity out of the us financial system and to protect consumers from fraud and incompetence while creating a framework that will allow this new technology to thrive in the New York.

BruceFenton

sr. member

Activity: 404

Merit: 250

Quote from: BCB on February 13, 2014, 11:40:16 AM

The hope is the BitLicense will provide this regulatory clarity to allow competent, compliant virtual currency business to operate legally in the US.

By the way you don't need a petition to communicate with the New York Regulators. Commissioner Lawsky spoke at a conference on Tuesday and has invited public comment even saying he gets a lot of feedback from twitter.

Hopefully.

I've requested a meeting with him so hopefully he will accept. If not then a detailed letter signed by a couple hundred people may at least be read.

Twitter is okay but not exactly the level of engagement I'd prefer to discuss something so important and complex.

I think the hearings were lacking in the representation of those who speak about the drawbacks of regulation.

I know one goal might be to have compliant and competent firms operate in the US but the effect could be that it drives away competition and the only operators end up being those who can deal with a mountain of regulations.

BCB

vip

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1002

BCJ

Quote from: BruceFenton on February 12, 2014, 11:04:38 PM

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on February 12, 2014, 10:39:56 PM

Somebody somewhere wants to license bits ...

Wil-E coyote moment as they look down and realise just how far out over the cliff they have gone?

The widepsread monetary insanity and confusion has no limits it seems.

The real insanity is people in our own industry emphatically saying "I want regulation" and when pressed for an answer why they reply "because it's coming anyway"

The top 5 bitcoin exchanges are located outside of the United States. You can not currently "legally" operate a virtual currency exchange in the United States with out clear regulatory guidance. We don't need "regluation." We need clarity.

The hope is the BitLicense will provide this regulatory clarity to allow competent, compliant virtual currency business to operate legally in the US.

By the way you don't need a petition to communicate with the New York Regulators. Commissioner Lawsky spoke at a conference on Tuesday and has invited public comment even saying he gets a lot of feedback from twitter.

@BenLawsky
@NYDFS

Here are his remarks from that event:
http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/speeches_testimony/sp140212.htm

He is the video that includes answers to questions:
http://youtu.be/zhIZd9b2-Qs

The whole conference is here

http://newamerica.net/events/2014/new_coin_of_the_realm

BruceFenton

sr. member

Activity: 404

Merit: 250

This license won't be something like a drivers license ....it will require continual and ongoing compliance, audits and more and more regulations governing it.

Armis

hero member

Activity: 588

Merit: 501

Everyone should weigh in because this isn't simply about bitcoin in NY State, its precedence for cryptocurrency of all sorts for NY, and it will be viewed by other states as a guide, and as other states adopt or reject it it will create an international impression.

Personally I favor self-regulation for btc and the whole CC industry. I feel that after the CC industry has provided a road map and design for self-regulation, then the govts on all levels could weigh in appropriately. The Bitcoin Foundation really dropped the ball on this one, but its not too late for many other states, the country, and other countries.

NY is only demanding a license, but with any govt intervention goes rules, regulations, and fees, followed by fines and punishments.

Trance

hero member

Activity: 551

Merit: 500

Don't worry! This can only mean ONE thing!

"Better Call Saul!"

Holliday

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1012

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on February 12, 2014, 11:15:14 PM

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the expanding needs of the bureaucracy.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: BruceFenton on February 12, 2014, 11:04:38 PM

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on February 12, 2014, 10:39:56 PM

Somebody somewhere wants to license bits ...

Wil-E coyote moment as they look down and realise just how far out over the cliff they have gone?

The widepsread monetary insanity and confusion has no limits it seems.

The real insanity is people in our own industry emphatically saying "I want regulation" and when pressed for an answer why they reply "because it's coming anyway"

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the expanding needs of the bureaucracy.

BruceFenton

sr. member

Activity: 404

Merit: 250

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on February 12, 2014, 10:39:56 PM

Somebody somewhere wants to license bits ...

Wil-E coyote moment as they look down and realise just how far out over the cliff they have gone?

The widepsread monetary insanity and confusion has no limits it seems.

The real insanity is people in our own industry emphatically saying "I want regulation" and when pressed for an answer why they reply "because it's coming anyway"

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

Somebody somewhere wants to license bits ...

Wil-E coyote moment as they look down and realise just how far out over the cliff they have gone?

The widepsread monetary insanity and confusion has no limits it seems.

BruceFenton

sr. member

Activity: 404

Merit: 250

Quote from: Melbustus on February 12, 2014, 07:30:53 PM

Signed it. Agree with most of what you wrote...

Yes, the motivation is key.

I've asked him for a meeting.

Politicians care about public perception and vote. It can be a concern over the public being angry about the next Maddoff or it could be concern over jobs! innovation and the economy.

If he will meet my goal will be to show him all the negative things that can happen from too much regulation, all the jobs and positive effect of low to no (new) regulation -- and also that it's not a binary either/ or case of one must regulate Bitcoin in order to stop terrorism etc..... I'd argue that the regulation may not work and even if not regulated there are still many good time tested police investigative methods which can be used to catch criminals.

Melbustus

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1004

Signed it. Agree with most of what you wrote...

The problem is regulators' incentives. If they're free to keep the grand, historical vision of American freedom and innovation in mind, much of the letter may indeed resonate with them. But I think unfortunately therir jobs and the nature of politics is a huge enemy here. We have to understand that they are going to be judged on the amount of financial crime taking place, or more specifically, the amount of financial crime they can somehow measure that they're stopping due to the regs they put in place. And equally unfortunately, on the flipside, they will be held politically accountable if financial crime takes place in a very public way (eg, Madoff). Their primary instinct is probably to never get accused of being "asleep at the wheel". Thus, for their own reputation and job security, they'll likely err on the side of more regulation, despite how much (if at all) the freedom argument may actually resonate with them.

I think we need to fully understand that dynamic and figure out how to meet their concerns and motivations while promoting our own cause. I hope the two are not mutually exclusive.

Of course, maybe Lawsky is an exceptional guy and *will* understand the greater arc of history here. Who knows.

bitpop

legendary

Activity: 2912

Merit: 1060

Lawsky seemed pretty good in the hearings. But I was expecting a hearing on how to destroy Bitcoin so anything was positive.

PT17pilot

newbie

Activity: 2

Merit: 0

The article I read had a line in it that they were considering regulating miners also, not just exchanges or gateways to FIAT. Angry

SOME regulation of exchanges might be good and lend legitimacy to the cryptocurrenncies. Things like deposit insurance or minimum levels of capitalization so runs don't crash the exchange. That would also take some volatility out of the market and make it more attractive to merchants. The bad result could be if they try to treat BTCs like FIAT with regulations like 'know your customer' that go against the grain of the peer-to-peer architecture. THAT could take a serious bite out the attractiveness of BTCs and all cryptocurrencies and will force everyone offshore. But even then FACTA laws in place today would restrict exchange operators desriing anonymity to third world locales.

DaFockBro

newbie

Activity: 126

Merit: 0

Quote from: vaccinesaregood on February 12, 2014, 06:07:43 PM

Regulation is a good thing. It allows outsiders to be able to trust bitcoiners. We should be applauding this move.

"He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

vaccinesaregood

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Regulation is a good thing. It allows outsiders to be able to trust bitcoiners. We should be applauding this move.

DaFockBro

newbie

Activity: 126

Merit: 0

smh at people calling for regulation.

The unregulated nature of Bitcoin is what attracted people in the first place and has allowed for explosive growth.

If you give them an inch of regulation, they take a mile. The next step will be more regulation, and after that, even more regulation, then when they're done with that they'll try to regulate some more.

The only way to stop a bad guy with bitcoins is with a good guy with bitcoins

minerdetail

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

I don't think that regulation of some sort necessarily is bad, but unfortunately it points in that direction Undecided

Minor regulation could be seen as a white listing of Bitcoin and thereby make it easier to act legally within the boundaries.

Something I don't like about USA (living in Denmark) is that it seems that people can get arrested with an alleged law (non-written) and then be accused of violating another weird law.
It seems that the legal certainty in USA has disappeared more and more over the last decade.

Wonder what the capital requirements could be that are mentioned in that article at Reuters?

BruceFenton

sr. member

Activity: 404

Merit: 250

Quote from: IsaacGoldbourne on February 12, 2014, 04:21:27 PM

I will never trust an association that doesn't have an alpha channel on their logo.

Don't worry Issac there is a good reason for the clunky logo....it has to do with a very generous donation and a new logo we will have up within a week.

But if you are a graphics whiz, anything you can offer in other graphics is appreciated!

BruceFenton

sr. member

Activity: 404

Merit: 250

Quote from: Keyser Soze on February 12, 2014, 04:25:08 PM

We don't yet know specifically what NY regulators will do. From that article:

Quote

Lawsky said last month that his agency plans to issue rules for businesses handling virtual currencies, including a "BitLicense", which could make New York the first U.S. state to regulate virtual currencies such as bitcoins.

Lawsky expected to release the regulations in the spring or the summer of this year, and said the agency would seek public comment once it had published the plan in a so-called notice for proposed rule making.

Yes, unfortunately it seems very clear that this is the way they are going.

It is NOT likely a coincidence that this announcement came yesterday during the exchange issues any more than it's a coincidence that Charlie Shrem was arrested a couple days before the hearings.

Topic: NY just announced a MANDATORY Bitcoin license - if this concerns you sign this. - page 5. (Read 10627 times)