Anyone else perplexed by the distinction between "real" and "virtual" that's arbitrarily made without definition?
Topic: Poll, FinCEN Guidance, Good or Bad? - page 2. (Read 4479 times)
Quote
c. De-Centralized Virtual Currencies
A final type of convertible virtual currency activity involves a de-centralized convertible virtual currency (1) that has no central repository and no single administrator, and (2) that persons may obtain by their own computing or manufacturing effort.
A person that creates units of this convertible virtual currency and uses it to purchase real or virtual goods and services is a user of the convertible virtual currency and not subject to regulation as a money transmitter. By contrast, a person that creates units of convertible virtual currency and sells those units to another person for real currency or its equivalent is engaged in transmission to another location and is a money transmitter. In addition, a person is an exchanger and a money transmitter if the person accepts such de-centralized convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person as part of the acceptance and transfer of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency.
A final type of convertible virtual currency activity involves a de-centralized convertible virtual currency (1) that has no central repository and no single administrator, and (2) that persons may obtain by their own computing or manufacturing effort.
A person that creates units of this convertible virtual currency and uses it to purchase real or virtual goods and services is a user of the convertible virtual currency and not subject to regulation as a money transmitter. By contrast, a person that creates units of convertible virtual currency and sells those units to another person for real currency or its equivalent is engaged in transmission to another location and is a money transmitter. In addition, a person is an exchanger and a money transmitter if the person accepts such de-centralized convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person as part of the acceptance and transfer of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency.
This is the important part.
So, it doesn't apply to me if I mine coins then buy gold with them, right? Just if I cash them out for fiat currency.
Quote
FinCEN's regulations define currency (also referred to as "real" currency) as "the coin and paper money of the United States or of any other country that is designated as legal tender and that [ii] circulates and [iii] is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the country of issuance.
So if there is any country where gold is designated as a legal tender, then gold would also be within the definition of a "currency"
It's unfortunate that the US Gov't is sticking their nose in Bitcoin and will be forcing US-based bitcoin users to comply with whatever strange hoops they decide to make us jump through... but this is also a big step towards being viewed as something legitimate in the eyes of the mainstream. And of course the government would not just ignore it forever... it was either regulate it somehow or attempt to make it outright illegal.
I think it will be a pain in the ass, but overall will probably be good for bitcoin.
I think it will be a pain in the ass, but overall will probably be good for bitcoin.
So, it doesn't apply to me if I mine coins then buy gold with them, right? Just if I cash them out for fiat currency.
Quote
By contrast, a person that creates units of convertible virtual currency and sells those units to another person for real currency or its equivalent is engaged in transmission to another location and is a money transmitter. In addition, a person is an exchanger and a money transmitter if the person accepts such de-centralized convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person as part of the acceptance and transfer of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency.
I wouldn't bet on that.
So, it doesn't apply to me if I mine coins then buy gold with them, right? Just if I cash them out for fiat currency.
Bitcoin clones are basically equivalent to Bitcoin. The page doesn't mention the word "dollar" either, but it obviously applies to dollars.
Wow your dumb.
If you were to exchange Litcoin for Euros in the US, this would still apply, and what does that got to do with Bitcoins and Dollars?
This document addresses "Virtual Currencies and Fiat Currency" it doesn't address only "Bitcoin" and "Dollars"
After a cursory reading of the ruling, I say I believe it to be excellent news. The ruling itself is pretty bland and overall pretty sensible, and for what is essentially the first utterance of the word "Bitcoin" from the mouth of the US Government, that translates to "excellent" for this community. It is the first hint of their strategy and it seems to be something other than an all-out assault on the peoples' currency.
I don't see the word "Bitcoin" mentioned anywhere in that document
They can't do that.
IANAL - but I'm pretty sure that the law must define things, rather than name them.
After a cursory reading of the ruling, I say I believe it to be excellent news. The ruling itself is pretty bland and overall pretty sensible, and for what is essentially the first utterance of the word "Bitcoin" from the mouth of the US Government, that translates to "excellent" for this community. It is the first hint of their strategy and it seems to be something other than an all-out assault on the peoples' currency.
I don't see the word "Bitcoin" mentioned anywhere in that document
"De-Centralized Virtual Currency" -- what else could that possibly refer to?
Take your pick: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=67.0
It refers to any "De-Centralized Virtual Currency", not Bitcoin exclusively. And as I said makes no mention of the word "Bitcoin" it applies to any virtual currency.
Could mean Litcoin, FRC, Ripple, NVC etc... etc... etc..
Bitcoin clones are basically equivalent to Bitcoin. The page doesn't mention the word "dollar" either, but it obviously applies to dollars.
After a cursory reading of the ruling, I say I believe it to be excellent news. The ruling itself is pretty bland and overall pretty sensible, and for what is essentially the first utterance of the word "Bitcoin" from the mouth of the US Government, that translates to "excellent" for this community. It is the first hint of their strategy and it seems to be something other than an all-out assault on the peoples' currency.
I don't see the word "Bitcoin" mentioned anywhere in that document
"De-Centralized Virtual Currency" -- what else could that possibly refer to?
Take your pick: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=67.0
It refers to any "De-Centralized Virtual Currency", not Bitcoin exclusively. And as I said makes no mention of the word "Bitcoin" it applies to any virtual currency.
Could mean Litcoin, FRC, Ripple, NVC etc... etc... etc..
After a cursory reading of the ruling, I say I believe it to be excellent news. The ruling itself is pretty bland and overall pretty sensible, and for what is essentially the first utterance of the word "Bitcoin" from the mouth of the US Government, that translates to "excellent" for this community. It is the first hint of their strategy and it seems to be something other than an all-out assault on the peoples' currency.
I don't see the word "Bitcoin" mentioned anywhere in that document
"De-Centralized Virtual Currency" -- what else could that possibly refer to?
After a cursory reading of the ruling, I say I believe it to be excellent news. The ruling itself is pretty bland and overall pretty sensible, and for what is essentially the first utterance of the word "Bitcoin" from the mouth of the US Government, that translates to "excellent" for this community. It is the first hint of their strategy and it seems to be something other than an all-out assault on the peoples' currency.
I don't see the word "Bitcoin" mentioned anywhere in that document
Probably good, especially for merchants who are uncertain about legality.
This goes beyond Bitcoin.
Altcoins and Ripple are now in the books as well.
Altcoins and Ripple are now in the books as well.
The only downside of this ruling, to me, is that it adds overhead to some mining operations.
Balancing that are what I see as a major upside, plus a minor one:
1) FinCEN has acknowledged Bitcoin as a real thing, and done so in a way that implies they aren't going to pee in the end users' soup. One of the big possible uncertainties of Bitcoin's future was that the gummint, once it took notice of Bitcoin, would react punitively. The fact that the ruling places no restrictions on end-users (or, really, anyone who isn't mining for fiat or running an exchange) goes a long way to dispelling that cloud.
2) Miners are now incentivized to spend their mined coins within the Bitcoin economy, because then they don't have to register as money transmitters. This means an increase in demand for BTC-denominated goods, which is excellent long-term for Bitcoin as a whole.
Balancing that are what I see as a major upside, plus a minor one:
1) FinCEN has acknowledged Bitcoin as a real thing, and done so in a way that implies they aren't going to pee in the end users' soup. One of the big possible uncertainties of Bitcoin's future was that the gummint, once it took notice of Bitcoin, would react punitively. The fact that the ruling places no restrictions on end-users (or, really, anyone who isn't mining for fiat or running an exchange) goes a long way to dispelling that cloud.
2) Miners are now incentivized to spend their mined coins within the Bitcoin economy, because then they don't have to register as money transmitters. This means an increase in demand for BTC-denominated goods, which is excellent long-term for Bitcoin as a whole.
I'd say "probably good". Short term this will mean that certain exchanges will probably need licenses, especially if similar ruling spreads to the EU and elsewhere. That will require money and paperwork. However, this will further increase the legitimacy of Bitcoin long term. It's good news I believe.
I share this opinion. Short term bad, long term good.
I'd say "probably good". Short term this will mean that certain exchanges will probably need licenses, especially if similar ruling spreads to the EU and elsewhere. That will require money and paperwork. However, this will further increase the legitimacy of Bitcoin long term. It's good news I believe.
After a cursory reading of the ruling, I say I believe it to be excellent news. The ruling itself is pretty bland and overall pretty sensible, and for what is essentially the first utterance of the word "Bitcoin" from the mouth of the US Government, that translates to "excellent" for this community. It is the first hint of their strategy and it seems to be something other than an all-out assault on the peoples' currency.
FinCEN seems to be stating the obvious really. Stay in crypto and you're not a "money transmitter". Touch fiat and you are. That's the essence of it, yes? It is already the case that exchanges dealing with fiat are subject to AML, KYC and all that baloney.
Jump to: