Ok, I have "come back to talk."
This is the last ten minutes I am going to waste on this because you obviously don't know what you are talking about and, having spent time in these waters, I do. This is aside from the fact that your coming on a bitcoin forum and damning companies for not sufficiently complying with statist regulation is bizarre and contemptible.
1. NY Bitlicense provides for a safe harbor for firms in the application process. If you are too dense to read the entire bitlicense itself, read below a quote from someone who drafted it:
http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/20/bitlicense-bitcoin-lawsky-red-tape
"CoinDesk reached out to former NYDFS attorney Dana Syracuse, who defended the BitLicense on the grounds that "the process so far does not differ from traditional Money Service Business (MSB) licenses" and that firms waiting on approval can continue operating under the law’s safe harbor provision."Many States provide the same safe harbor, either explicitly or in practice, i.e., if companies are trying to in good faith the apply, they are not treated as "illegal" and they are not shut down.
2. Many states have not decided on how to treat bitcoin companies. Bitcoin companies reach out, ask for clarity about whether MTLs apply to them, and are told to wait until the state decides. As long as the companies are proactively ready to comply, they are allowed to operate. California is an example of this. Texas is another (and in fact is very open to letting bitcoin companies operate, so far, without licenses).
3. If you read MTL statutes in these states, and assume that they apply to bitcoin companies, you are wildly mistaken. Each state is trying to figure out whether their current MTLs apply to bitcoin companies and in what circumstances. So you can't say, "The MTL regs say this" and assume it applies to bitcoin companies. There are 50 different states with 50 different approaches.
4. With regard to PayPal, you are an imbecile. Of course they are licensed now -- they are a public company and have billions of dollars at their disposal. In their first 2-3 years, however, they violated just about every MTL in existence, as well as the rules of Visa and Mastercard. They were eventually sued and fined by Louisiana and other states.
http://www.cnet.com/news/feds-paypal-not-a-bank/5. If bitcoin going "mainstream" means being subject to regulation that makes it no better, with no more privacy, than our existing payment systems, then no, I don't want it to go mainstream.
6. Finally, what kind of person are you -- what kind of bitcoin user -- that you rely on regulators (state money transmitter licenses!) in order to have trust in bitcoin companies. All of the financial services companies that tanked the world economy in 2008 were heavily regulated and compliant. Very few of them broke the law or violated regulations. Think for yourself, diligence for yourself, and stop being a lemming.