I am Content with the AMA.
For BenLawsky you have to take in consideration,what his professional Point to do is.
He seems to be very impressed by the powerful new Technologie underlying BTC.
And seems to back the Technology rather than to obstruct.
Typical american attitude to modern inventions (see Silicon Valley).
The Money laundering issue is his job ,so I don`t blame him for stressing that Point.
he will sooner than later implement a Regulation providing the bussinesses are going to operate in a legal Framework
I think in autumn the time will come that BTC is "legal" and the prices will go up as more and more bussinesses and banks will get closer to BTC.
He wants to get an BTC-Exchange in NY. Sure it will come
Topic: NY Superintendant B.Lawsky on reddit for AMA (Read 1221 times)
...
"It is good to make regulation clear for bitcoin businesses, it will create a much better foundation for them to build on. But next to helping the bitcoin businesses there should also be some focus in helping the customers. Which legal rights do we as customers have when dealing with bitcoin businesses. Should bitcoin businesses be accountable for the funds of its customers, my personal feeling would be yes. The current uncertainty is one of the reasons the bitcoin prices have been so volatile. Just look at what Mt Gox is doing to the market at the moment. It was a huge exchange where people put a lot of trust and money into, and now its burning down due to "technical problems" and people losing hope they will ever fix those. Customers panic sell/buy because they have no idea if they will ever see their USD/CNY or BTC back. Due to lack of legislation many bet on going FIAT, driving the price of a gox btc to the ground, hoping they can sue Mt Gox should it go bankrupt. And there are many more exchanges currently being used which operate in very questionable legal area's. Even though criminals might welcome those exchanges, it would be good for normal people to be able to use legit bitcoin businesses, who don't face possible seizure by law enforcement and allow for some legal "insurance" that their money cant be stolen without legal consequence for the business owners."
See the legislation case that he is building? I do.
"It is good to make regulation clear for bitcoin businesses, it will create a much better foundation for them to build on. But next to helping the bitcoin businesses there should also be some focus in helping the customers. Which legal rights do we as customers have when dealing with bitcoin businesses. Should bitcoin businesses be accountable for the funds of its customers, my personal feeling would be yes. The current uncertainty is one of the reasons the bitcoin prices have been so volatile. Just look at what Mt Gox is doing to the market at the moment. It was a huge exchange where people put a lot of trust and money into, and now its burning down due to "technical problems" and people losing hope they will ever fix those. Customers panic sell/buy because they have no idea if they will ever see their USD/CNY or BTC back. Due to lack of legislation many bet on going FIAT, driving the price of a gox btc to the ground, hoping they can sue Mt Gox should it go bankrupt. And there are many more exchanges currently being used which operate in very questionable legal area's. Even though criminals might welcome those exchanges, it would be good for normal people to be able to use legit bitcoin businesses, who don't face possible seizure by law enforcement and allow for some legal "insurance" that their money cant be stolen without legal consequence for the business owners."
See the legislation case that he is building? I do.
Link? I don't see that comment anywhere from Lawsky: http://www.reddit.com/user/BenLawsky
Also, lots of people mentioned MtGox. I posted about exchanges fairly early.
Edit: That quote you have there is not from Lawsky. It's from "da_unique" who was responding to Lawsky. Threading misread...
Sorry about that, you are correct... I misread the author of that quote.
...
See the legislation case that he is building? I do.
But how does he have the authority to do anything on Japanese soil? He might be able to seize a U.S. bank account. But he is a U.S. regulator, not the world police. See the legislation case that he is building? I do.
It has been an interesting AMA with Mr Lawsky, but for some reason, he has stopped answering questions 40 minutes ago.
Does anyone know what has happened? Or am I a reddit newbie and I am missing something?
Does anyone know what has happened? Or am I a reddit newbie and I am missing something?
It was an hour long: https://twitter.com/BenLawsky/status/436583981966823425
Ok. Thanks!
It has been an interesting AMA with Mr Lawsky, but for some reason, he has stopped answering questions 40 minutes ago.
Does anyone know what has happened? Or am I a reddit newbie and I am missing something?
Does anyone know what has happened? Or am I a reddit newbie and I am missing something?
It was an hour long: https://twitter.com/BenLawsky/status/436583981966823425
It has been an interesting AMA with Mr Lawsky, but for some reason, he has stopped answering questions 40 minutes ago.
Does anyone know what has happened? Or am I a reddit newbie and I am missing something?
Does anyone know what has happened? Or am I a reddit newbie and I am missing something?
...
"It is good to make regulation clear for bitcoin businesses, it will create a much better foundation for them to build on. But next to helping the bitcoin businesses there should also be some focus in helping the customers. Which legal rights do we as customers have when dealing with bitcoin businesses. Should bitcoin businesses be accountable for the funds of its customers, my personal feeling would be yes. The current uncertainty is one of the reasons the bitcoin prices have been so volatile. Just look at what Mt Gox is doing to the market at the moment. It was a huge exchange where people put a lot of trust and money into, and now its burning down due to "technical problems" and people losing hope they will ever fix those. Customers panic sell/buy because they have no idea if they will ever see their USD/CNY or BTC back. Due to lack of legislation many bet on going FIAT, driving the price of a gox btc to the ground, hoping they can sue Mt Gox should it go bankrupt. And there are many more exchanges currently being used which operate in very questionable legal area's. Even though criminals might welcome those exchanges, it would be good for normal people to be able to use legit bitcoin businesses, who don't face possible seizure by law enforcement and allow for some legal "insurance" that their money cant be stolen without legal consequence for the business owners."
See the legislation case that he is building? I do.
"It is good to make regulation clear for bitcoin businesses, it will create a much better foundation for them to build on. But next to helping the bitcoin businesses there should also be some focus in helping the customers. Which legal rights do we as customers have when dealing with bitcoin businesses. Should bitcoin businesses be accountable for the funds of its customers, my personal feeling would be yes. The current uncertainty is one of the reasons the bitcoin prices have been so volatile. Just look at what Mt Gox is doing to the market at the moment. It was a huge exchange where people put a lot of trust and money into, and now its burning down due to "technical problems" and people losing hope they will ever fix those. Customers panic sell/buy because they have no idea if they will ever see their USD/CNY or BTC back. Due to lack of legislation many bet on going FIAT, driving the price of a gox btc to the ground, hoping they can sue Mt Gox should it go bankrupt. And there are many more exchanges currently being used which operate in very questionable legal area's. Even though criminals might welcome those exchanges, it would be good for normal people to be able to use legit bitcoin businesses, who don't face possible seizure by law enforcement and allow for some legal "insurance" that their money cant be stolen without legal consequence for the business owners."
See the legislation case that he is building? I do.
Link? I don't see that comment anywhere from Lawsky: http://www.reddit.com/user/BenLawsky
Also, lots of people mentioned MtGox. I posted about exchanges fairly early.
Edit: That quote you have there is not from Lawsky. It's from "da_unique" who was responding to Lawsky. Threading misread...
Overall I'm hopeful and positive. But I can't help shake the feeling that something is very wrong with the way this U.S. regulation stuff is going...
1. Charlie Shrem gets arrested at the airport literally a day before the NY legislation hearings begin
2. The Charlie Shrem arrest is brought up more than once by B. Lawsky in the hearings
3. The legislators saved the bitcoin naysayers and 'doom and gloomers' for the last day of the hearings, including law enforcement chiming in negatively
4. Mt. Gox is under investigation by the FBI, seized U.S. bank accounts due to Mt. Gox likely not implemented proper AML and KYC for its customers since 2011
5. Mt. Gox is now likely insolvent, hackers absconding with customers bitcoins and $$$, and the price tanks to around $100 TODAY
6. B. Lawsky schedules to have an AMA on Reddit TODAY, the very same day that Mt. Gox is having its worst crisis
Coincidence? I just don't think so. I think the U.S. is slowly building their anti-bitcoin case here. Or a case for over-the-top regulation that would be hard or expensive for companies to comply with. I really hope that I'm wrong.
The tell will be how many times that B.Lawsky brings up the Mt Gox fiasco in the AMA.
EDIT: No one on the AMA even mentioned Mt. Gox in their questions. But B.Lawsky made a point to say this directly:
"It is good to make regulation clear for bitcoin businesses, it will create a much better foundation for them to build on. But next to helping the bitcoin businesses there should also be some focus in helping the customers. Which legal rights do we as customers have when dealing with bitcoin businesses. Should bitcoin businesses be accountable for the funds of its customers, my personal feeling would be yes. The current uncertainty is one of the reasons the bitcoin prices have been so volatile. Just look at what Mt Gox is doing to the market at the moment. It was a huge exchange where people put a lot of trust and money into, and now its burning down due to "technical problems" and people losing hope they will ever fix those. Customers panic sell/buy because they have no idea if they will ever see their USD/CNY or BTC back. Due to lack of legislation many bet on going FIAT, driving the price of a gox btc to the ground, hoping they can sue Mt Gox should it go bankrupt. And there are many more exchanges currently being used which operate in very questionable legal area's. Even though criminals might welcome those exchanges, it would be good for normal people to be able to use legit bitcoin businesses, who don't face possible seizure by law enforcement and allow for some legal "insurance" that their money cant be stolen without legal consequence for the business owners."
See the legislation case that he is building? I do.
1. Charlie Shrem gets arrested at the airport literally a day before the NY legislation hearings begin
2. The Charlie Shrem arrest is brought up more than once by B. Lawsky in the hearings
3. The legislators saved the bitcoin naysayers and 'doom and gloomers' for the last day of the hearings, including law enforcement chiming in negatively
4. Mt. Gox is under investigation by the FBI, seized U.S. bank accounts due to Mt. Gox likely not implemented proper AML and KYC for its customers since 2011
5. Mt. Gox is now likely insolvent, hackers absconding with customers bitcoins and $$$, and the price tanks to around $100 TODAY
6. B. Lawsky schedules to have an AMA on Reddit TODAY, the very same day that Mt. Gox is having its worst crisis
Coincidence? I just don't think so. I think the U.S. is slowly building their anti-bitcoin case here. Or a case for over-the-top regulation that would be hard or expensive for companies to comply with. I really hope that I'm wrong.
The tell will be how many times that B.Lawsky brings up the Mt Gox fiasco in the AMA.
EDIT: No one on the AMA even mentioned Mt. Gox in their questions. But B.Lawsky made a point to say this directly:
"It is good to make regulation clear for bitcoin businesses, it will create a much better foundation for them to build on. But next to helping the bitcoin businesses there should also be some focus in helping the customers. Which legal rights do we as customers have when dealing with bitcoin businesses. Should bitcoin businesses be accountable for the funds of its customers, my personal feeling would be yes. The current uncertainty is one of the reasons the bitcoin prices have been so volatile. Just look at what Mt Gox is doing to the market at the moment. It was a huge exchange where people put a lot of trust and money into, and now its burning down due to "technical problems" and people losing hope they will ever fix those. Customers panic sell/buy because they have no idea if they will ever see their USD/CNY or BTC back. Due to lack of legislation many bet on going FIAT, driving the price of a gox btc to the ground, hoping they can sue Mt Gox should it go bankrupt. And there are many more exchanges currently being used which operate in very questionable legal area's. Even though criminals might welcome those exchanges, it would be good for normal people to be able to use legit bitcoin businesses, who don't face possible seizure by law enforcement and allow for some legal "insurance" that their money cant be stolen without legal consequence for the business owners."
See the legislation case that he is building? I do.
.
Supernintendo
at twitter he tweeted that game "cracked him up"He seems to be a cool guy
I watched all 7 hours, he's pretty chill
Supernintendo
at twitter he tweeted that game "cracked him up"He seems to be a cool guy
Supernintendo
Based on the prior displays of Redditors comments to be immature, thoughtless, rude, and outright disrespectful to authority, am I the only one who feels this is NOT going to play out well?
Mr. Lawsky had good, positive, constructive debate with Bitcoin advocates at the NY hearings. Let's not completely erase his memory of that.
About Mr.Lawsky you are completely right. I got the same Impression.Mr. Lawsky had good, positive, constructive debate with Bitcoin advocates at the NY hearings. Let's not completely erase his memory of that.
Let`s hope,the audience at reddit will get tamed. It would be desastrous for bitcoin whren any offences made to Lawsky.
Thanks for the info, i will join the discussion! 
Based on the prior displays of Redditors comments to be immature, thoughtless, rude, and outright disrespectful to authority, am I the only one who feels this is NOT going to play out well?
Mr. Lawsky had good, positive, constructive debate with Bitcoin advocates at the NY hearings. Let's not completely erase his memory of that.
Mr. Lawsky had good, positive, constructive debate with Bitcoin advocates at the NY hearings. Let's not completely erase his memory of that.
it's official, Ben Lawsky has agreed to the Reddit AMA
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1y9mnx/yes_its_official_ben_lawsky_has_agreed_to_the/
Please join the AMA.
The best we can do in regard to bitcoin is being polite , respectfull and not aggessive,rude or impertinent.
I think it`s a very good Chance for us bitcoiners.
registering at reddit is free.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1y9mnx/yes_its_official_ben_lawsky_has_agreed_to_the/
Please join the AMA.
The best we can do in regard to bitcoin is being polite , respectfull and not aggessive,rude or impertinent.
I think it`s a very good Chance for us bitcoiners.
registering at reddit is free.
Jump to: