BitLicense Architect Ben Lawsky Joins Ripple Board - CoinDesk

As Requested, I’m Ben Lawsky, Superintendent of the NY Dept of Financial Services, Here for an AMA on Bitcoin/Virtual Currency

Hi Reddit – I’m Ben Lawsky, Superintendent of Financial Services for the State of New York. Thanks to those of you who requested that I do an AMA on the work our agency – the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) – is doing on oversight rules for virtual currency firms. We'll get started around 12:30pm EST.
PROOF: https://twitter.com/BenLawsky/status/436544922892906496
We’re still in the process of formulating our views on a number of these issues – given that this is an ongoing regulatory process. So I may not be able to provide final or definitive answers to all of the questions you ask. But I’ll do my best to try and provide a window into some of our thinking at this stage. (I may even ask a few questions of my own during the course of the conversation, if that’s okay.) We’re trying to proceed without any prejudgments and solicit a broad range of views on virtual currency. I’m looking forward to a substantive and informative discussion.
As you’ve probably guessed, I’m new to Reddit. So apologies in advance if I violate any posting etiquette. I was also told not to mention something called “Rampart” – whatever that is
For those of you interested in some background on our agency’s work in this area, NYDFS has been conducting an inquiry on the appropriate regulatory guidelines for virtual currency firms for the last seven months. As part of that inquiry, in January 2014, NYDFS held public hearings in New York City on virtual currency. More than 14,000 people from 117 countries tuned into those hearings online, which was not the usual turnout we get!
http://www.dfs.ny.gov/insurance/hearing/vc_01282014_indx.htm
https://twitter.com/BenLawsky/status/428965430842380288
Last week, we also laid out some of our initial thoughts on the path forward for regulators:
http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/speeches_testimony/sp140212.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhIZd9b2-Qs
Our expectation is that – during the course of 2014 – the information we’ve gathered in our fact-finding effort will allow us to put forward a proposed regulatory framework for virtual currency firms operating in New York. We want to move expeditiously because the sooner we provide some regulatory certainty, the better for the firms that want to know what the rules of the road are. At the same time, we recognize this is complicated stuff and we don’t want to go too fast, make a mistake, and create unintended consequences. Most of all, we want to get detailed feedback from all sides so we can make smart, modern, forward-looking decisions. Thanks to all of you for being here.
UPDATE 2:22 PM EST Sorry I have to run (also -- AMA's are more tiring than I would have expected!). Thanks to all of you for the thoughtful questions and comments. And to those who tipped me Bitcoin, I doubt I'm allowed to accept but appreciate the thought!
I'll try to come back and answer some additional questions later. I can't tell you how useful this is to our regulatory process. With that in mind, I'd like to pose a few questions to you if you'd like to answer them while I'm away from the computer:
(1) What do you personally find as the most useful and/or important current application for virtual currency? (2) Where do you think virtual currency tech is headed in the medium term and long term. (3) Are there particular problems from a consumer perspective you've had in dealing with virtual currency firms that regulators should consider?
EVENING UPDATE I circled back and answered a few more of your questions, but I have to head out for the evening. Thanks again for your thoughtful questions and feedback.
EVENING UPDATE x2 I also recorded a short sign-off video to thank everyone here for their questions and comments http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRXVPq16n_c
submitted by BenLawsky to IAmA [link] [comments]

Who is to blame for MtGox collapsing and losing half a billion dollars worth of people's Bitcoins? That's right, US regulators.

Basically: Gox or any other exchange was unable to get regulatory approval in the US. Therefore they had to operate elsewhere, causing Americans to send their money overseas to a shady operation in a less regulated jurisdiction which subsequently collapsed. Therefore, "the regulators actions directly cost people $100 million" and "some blame rests firmly on the shoulders of Ben Lawsky and others who made it so people had no choice but to go to Japan to buy the product and service they wanted." The solution? Less regulation.
Full thread which is an all out war between the statists and the libertarians.
While the actual post is at +157 he is quickly called out in the thread by other commenters and downvoted:
this is the biggest crock of shit and i'm sick of seeing it brought up. nobody was forced to do anything.
What the actual fuck? You win a fucking golden medal in olympic-level mental gymnastics. Jesus titty-fucking Christ.
You have got to be kidding here. You're trying to blame regulators because people lost money in an unregulated exchange? Ho-ly shit.
submitted by blorg to SubredditDrama [link] [comments]

Hi, this is Ben Lawsky from the WTF Government Agency of NY. Here are the proposed Linux regulations.

I know that you've been waiting for a long time for us to govern over the chaotic Linux distribution scene.
As we are also regulating Bitcoin, and in the end Bitcoin is just some code being executed, we extended our BitLicense and adapted it to normal Linux usage; focusing on the different distributions that may want to use Linux or already use it.
Here's a TL;DR, based on the insights from an user on another thread:
submitted by linux_regulator to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Ben Lawsky CoinDesk Interview (Full Text)

CoinDesk: New York extended the comment period for its BitLicense proposal. What were the key factors behind the decision?
Lawsky: We got a request from a number of different companies and individuals, including a large number of companies and individuals that sent a letter together, and certainly when we get a request from people who care deeply about how this regulation turns out, that's a factor, we consider that request and we consider it seriously.
In terms of why we did it, we got the request, but I think it's obvious that we're regulating here in a new area where you really have this very fascinating and complicated collision of regulation and technology, and I think it's vital we get it right.
It's clear from the letters we received and the letters we've gotten, there's a chance that this regulation could be a template that could be used not only in the US but internationally, and I think that gives us an additional responsibility to do our very best to get it right and the best way to get something right is to try and get as many viewpoints as you can when you put a complicated regulatory framework, consider them carefully and make the best decisions possible.
We want to make sure we consider all the potential unintended consequences, we want to make sure we're considering all the intentional consequences and the more we do that, the better the reg is ultimately going to be.
Now, we do want to move relatively quickly still, I think the sooner we get the regulatory framework out there, I think ultimately the better, but we don't need to move so fast that we risk getting something wrong.
I think given the level of interest, given that this is a new area and it's complicated and that it's potentially an international template and given the request for more time, I think an additional 45 days was reasonable. I look forward to getting a lot more comments.
We're not the kind of agency that thinks we have a monopoly on the truth and that we're always right. We feel strongly about a lot of the provisions in the proposed reg, but we get it that there might be things we can improve. The more comments that we get from serious people who care deeply about the future of digital currencies, then i think we're going to take those comments very seriously and we're already working on them in terms of a new revised reg we would put out at the end of October.
CoinDesk: There's been a lot of negative reactions to the proposal, have you been surprised by the community's reaction?
No, not really. I think the most surprising thing has been that certain provisions in the regulation that I think when we drafted it initially that we thought would be pretty clear in terms of the breadth, were read by some much more broadly than we intended.
The reg is intended primarily to financial intermediaries and to the financial service industry. What we saw fairly quickly that certain provisions were being read by software developers as potentially applying to them, and that could have a stifling development on them, if every time you needed to develop a new piece of code, you'd have to go get a license, when we read the reg we were pretty clear that it wouldn't apply to software developers, so we were a little surprised it was read that way, but looking back I can see how if there's a potential that the reg applies to you and you're talking to your lawyers and you don't know, these words are ambiguous, that's something that can occur.
I think accompanying the revisions, we'll do some kind of guidance so people have more clarity as to the breadth of the regs, so software developers aren't going to have to be sitting around wondering if it applies to them - it doesn't, it applies to financial intermediaries.
CoinDesk: You mentioned that you're currently revising the proposal. Can you take us through that process and the work that's being done?
Lawksy: I don't want to get too deep into it. But I think we have a whole group of people lawyers and otherwise, regulators who are going through all the comments we are receiving and putting them into buckets.
Let's say we have six letters we're looking at at one time, there might be the same point made in all six, and you just kind of bucket that and ultimately you have buckets of all the comments and critiques, etc and we go through a process of doing memos and analyses, do those comments make sense, should we make a change, should we not. Some of them might be obvious, like oh we didn't mean that, we didnt' need to say that.
I think some of them we'll have a lot of high-level meetings on, to talk through, well if we make that change, what does it mean, does it have any potentially unintended consequences, does this make the playing field somehow uneven for example and we'll work through that process and we'll put out a revised reg at the end of October. And when we put out a revised reg, if there are material changes, there's an additional 30-day comment period, so they can look at it and say this is a new revised reg, we should tinker here and tinker there
CoinDesk: Do foresee circumstances where you'd need to extend the time window for comment?
I don't right now, but never say never.
We do want to keep this moving on a fairly rapid track, we've already gotten extensive and very good comments in the first 45 days haven't even run fully. So I think an additional 45 days should get us to where we're comfortable and that we've given people enough time to think about the reg and the provisions they care about and give us comment and they have an additional 45 days, if they make changes, we'll get an additional 30 days then, so i feel like that should be more than enough time.
My hope is that we can move fairly rapidly.
CoinDesk: It's the end of October, what's the best-case outlook for bitcoin companies in New York?
We're primarily focused on the reg and getting it right and realizing that were not this agency that thinks it has a monopoly on the truth and if people have smart, good, thoughtful comment and we're going to consider them very carefully, and we're going to try to make this reg as thoughtful and nuanced and balanced and effective as we can.
If we get that right, I think the outlook for virtual currencies in one form or another is quite bright in New York, but we'll have to take it one day at a time.
http://www.coindesk.com/ben-lawsky-bitcoin-regulation/
submitted by thepete_rizzo_ to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

There is a 30 day comment period for the current Bitlicense proposal. Unless there are substantial changes, New York will be a Bitcoin dead zone

The 30 day comment period starts next week. Bitlicense, as proposed will force most companies that store customer BTC deposits to block New York IP addresses. There is very little chance that Lawsky will make any further changes to it, so what will this mean for Bitcoin around the world?
EDIT, as a reminder:
This is how the Bitlicense will affect Bitcoin businesses, taken from here:
http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/2aycxs/hi_this_is_ben_lawsky_at_nydfs_here_are_the/cizyqyz
(I've added modifications in light of changes in the new proposal and information that I found was missing in the original write-up)
Entities are considered dealing in virtual currencies if:
.. to any resident in New York. Web services, even those incorporated overseas, must either comply or block access for NY users. (200.2n)
Entities 'dealing in virtual currency' must:
Added:
The (only?) good news: Merchants do not need a BitLicense to accept Bitcoin for a good or service. (200.3c2).
> This post was created for general guidance, and does not constitute legal advice. You should not act upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining specific advice from a professional. No representation or warranty (expressed or implied) is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this post.
EDIT 2, targetpro suggested expressing any concerns you may have about the proposed regs to the NY Dept. of Finan. Services:
submitted by aminok to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Reminder: Don't get Lawsky-ed.

Ben Lawsky came here on July 17th, one week before the "official" release of the proposed BitLicense, to kindly let us know about the proposed regulations. While it was portrayed as an act of reaching out to the community, the one-week early notice was an attempt to let the waters cool before the public comment period actually started.
His strategy worked. Now, the public comment period is well under way (it started on July 23rd) and the conversation has largely shifted away from the BitLicense and proposed solutions and clarifications.
I know several people will disagree with me on this, but "Burn It!" and "Start Over!" - no matter how well argued - aren't realistic suggestions. Considering there are several major (i.e., well-financed) players that desire and support regulation, and that want clear-cut rules, it seems virtually impossible for some form of regulation NOT to be approved in one way or another. I'm not happy about it, it's simply the reality of the situation.
There have been a lot of great letters and suggestions for improving and clarifying the regulations, but the one thing that I think almost all of us have already agreed on is to extend the length of the comment period. 45 days to thoroughly review regulation that has a significant impact on virtually every Bitcoin and altcoin business in existence is simply not reasonable.
No matter what you think about the intentions of Ben Lawsky and the regulation, it's worth your time to at least try to force the state to extend the comment period and recognize our concerns.
It does not have to be an essay. Feel free to use the below as a model if you'd like:
Mr. Lawsky and Mr. Syracuse:
I do not support the proposed BitLicense regulations, and respectfully request a minimum extension of 180 days for the public comment period. Given the complex nature of Bitcoin and other digital currencies, a 45 day comment period is not adequate to address all of the concerns raised by the diverse businesses and organizations involved in the Cryptocurrency community. The language used in the proposed regulations is far too broad and would apply to legal businesses operating outside New York State, making it even more important that we have the time needed to thoroughly review the proposed regulation.
Please allow us the opportunity to give realistic suggestions and alternatives to the proposed BitLicense regulation, as it will certainly harm both startups (who may move their operations elsewhere) and consumers (who may be blocked from using existing Bitcoin products and services from businesses located outside of New York State) in its current form.
The request for the 180 day extension of the comment period has already been publicly voiced by many in the Cryptocurrency community. Please honor this request.
Sincerely, YOUR NAME
To submit your public comment (of course, they make it as difficult as possible to figure out)...
E-Mail: [email protected]
Snail Mail: Dana V. Syracuse New York State Department of Financial Services One State Street New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 709-1663
TL;DR: Lawsky released regulations a week early to minimize public comments. We need a lot more time to review all of the implications of the BitLicense regulations. Please spend a couple minutes respectfully requesting an extension of the comment period.
submitted by AmericanBitcoin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Of Wolves and Weasels - Day 191 - Barking Mad

Hey all! GoodShibe here!
I'm technically still on vacation, but in light of the news out of New York... I feel the need to comment.
If you're not aware of what's going on, the New York State Department of Financial Services is proposing a new regulatory framework for how all Cryptocurrencies work for the residents of New York State.
However, the way that it's worded, the way that it's been presented, it's incredibly vague in some areas while being incredibly strict in others.
They're designed to take 'untraceable digital cash' and, at pretty much every point along the chain, put someone's face and name to who had what and when.
This, of course, weakens Cryptos immediately in compared to, well, cold, hard cash -- which is largely untraceable. This bill, as it has been designed, seems to try and have a massive chilling effect on cryptocurrencies in general.
You can use cryptos, sure, but by the time they're done with them... why would you want to?
You can read the proposed Regulations here.
AmericanBitcoin has put together a TL;DR of the proposed reglations
goldcakes has put together a TL;DR of some of the ramifications
If you'd like to see a quick breakdown of exactly what's wrong with the proposal, I highly recommend you read this comment by MrMadden over in /Bitcoin, which is utterly fantastic.
dalovindj also has a great post on how this would effect our fellow Shibes.
Here's the thing: We always knew that this was going to be a problem. The idea that somehow the old, established system would just roll over and let the next generation step up to the plate without a fight is laughable.
And now we've seen the first volley. The warning shot off the port bow, so to speak.
The regulations that are coming out are, well, typical government overreach designed, specifically, to elicit the reaction that they are. They're big and scary and over-reaching.
But they're also designed so that, IF there's a public outcry, at a large enough scale, they can 'pull back' the more offensive over-steps and still come out of this with the regulation that they REALLY want.
If nobody stands up to complain or fight back about it... then bonus for them. The city of New York then gets global over-reach on a massive scale all under the guise of 'protecting it's citizens'.
Incidentally, if you hadn't noticed, Canada set the wheels in motion recently, with the first 'Bitcoin Law' which caused quite an uproar (remember when DogeDice closed down rather than meet the Canadian Government's new regulations?).
Here's the thing - and it's a truth that's as immutable as time itself:
Governments are going to Govern.
They will always move to exact as much power as we let them have over any new or emerging technology, especially where money is involved.
So... what can we do about it?
For those who don't live in the US, the best thing you can do is learn about this regulation - because, whether you like it or not, the Government of the State of New York is making it your business. Because anyone who does business with residents of the State of New York will have to submit to these regulations as well.
Meaning that if you do business with a business that does business with the state of New York, you will be subject to those same overreaches.
The long and short of the problem is this:
You have 45 days, starting on July 23rd, once the Regulations are formally published, to make a case to the people of New York that, whether they realize it or not, this bill is trampling their rights.
Because, that's how you defeat this issue.
We need to get NEW YORKERS to care about this issue.
If you're not in New York, your job is now to find a way to help make New Yorkers care about this issue.
I don't care which banner your coin flies - Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin, Reddcoin, Potcoin... this is effects us all and it's only just getting started.
How will this bill effect them? It might not, directly, lots of people aren't using cryptos yet. But it's the first step in something larger.
If this goes through unchallenged, then I foresee a whole new legal arms race to 'protect' ones citizens from, well, anything they like.
Because this is '... but think of the children!' for a whole new era.
This is classic government overreach.
If you're living in New York, you need to get in touch with your local representatives and let them know, unequivocally, that this is a voting issue for you.
That you will be watching to find out if they support this bill, and that if they do, you will be voting for the other guy.
The best way to deal with this problem is not to 'get angry'.
It's to 'get angry and get to work'.
Forget waiting for the Lobbyists and their big money to tell you how it's going to be.
If you want cryptos to survive - and this legislation, as stated, would make illegal having a QT wallet/node running on your computer - then -- every crypto-user on this planet -- is now a Lobbyist.
And, for my fellow Shibes, if there's one thing that /Dogecoin has proven good at, it's in getting the word out there.
We're smart, we're media savvy - we know how to get attention!
So, let's get organized.
Bring everyone on board - every coin, every crypto-user in every corner of the world.
Let's get active.
Because we've still got time to fight this.
Together!
It's 8:50AM EST and we've found 87.62% of our initial 100 Billion DOGEs -- only 12.38% remains until our period of Hyper-inflation ends! Our Global Hashrate is up from ~44 to ~46 Gigahashes per second and our Difficulty is up from ~641 to ~815.
As always, I appreciate your support!
GoodShibe
EDIT: I've created this brainstorming thread to try and help get ideas moving. Come join me!
EDIT 2: I've also started this post to ask for the community's permission/support to reach out to /bitcoin and other communities to try and organize a crypto-wide response to these regulations.
submitted by GoodShibe to dogecoin [link] [comments]

Tragic implications of the BitLicense with respect to Bitcoin 2.0 applications, smart contracts, smart property, Bitcoin law, digital voting and Ethereum?

Now granted, I am not a lawyer. I am a commercial pilot by trade and as such please forgive any misconceptions that I may have picked up as a layman in the Bitcoin universe, for my intellect is small but my aspirations are lofty.
It has occurred to me, however, that this proposed BitLicense represents problems for the Bitcoin ecosystem so far and above what may be evident at the moment. Mostly because regulators are attempting to square a circle and apply existing banking-type regulations to a digital and software controlled payment network/protocol. And not only that, if there is one thing that being in this community has taught me, it is to never underestimate the brilliance of these young new innovators in creating radical new concepts for the future... many of which (to me at least) would seem to be on a direct collision course with these BitLicenses. If I am wrong, please tell me why. Here is what I see so far...
1.) Smart contracts. If I enter into a smart contract facilitated by a lawyer's office and said office (as a part of its legal services) holds said private key/contract for me or transfers it to a third party as part of a multi sig transaction (let's say a will, deed or trust), would this lawyer now be considered a bitcoin business and as such be required to maintain all of the same onerous requirements as large exchanges and so forth? And more troublesome would seem to be the reporting requirements of this transfer. If attorney-client privilege is paramount and necessary, would not digital contract transferrence reporting requirements under the BitLicense now expose lawyers and/or their clients dealings to the public? Indeed, a promising aspect of digital bitcoin contracts/colored coins/etc would undoubtedly be their anonymity. What other businesses would undoubtedly try to harness Bitcoin for their purposes and what other unintended consequences could this regulation bring about?
2.) Ethereum presents us with the possibility to invent an entire universe of new digital financial products and contracts. Would each of these contracts require the transferring parties to be BitLicense holders as well? Would not DAC (digital autonomous corporations) touted by the Ethereum team also be vastly hampered by the reporting and financial requirements of the BitLicense? After all, such corporations would aim to be autonomously handling Bitcoin transactions of a global nature. This would seem to greatly hamper the innovative capacity of Ethereum which aims to allow multitudes of trustless decentralized systems in place of entrenched banking establishments.
3.) Would innovators designing new types of cryptocurrencies on potential sidechains to the Bitcoin network also be required to have BitLicenses? If those cryptocurrencies are actually pegged Bitcoin transactions on a side chain, do they even represent a "new" cryptocurrency at all for the purposes of regulatory oversight? What about test nets? Are these considered true cryptocurrencies at all if they only serve the purpose of being a testbed?
4.) Digital Ecosystem: If a decentralized, autonomous taxi cab service of the future (let's just imagine such a service for a moment, shall we?) employs a wallet service provider such as Blockchain.info, would this not subject each and every rider to the same strict identity requirements as those transacting with Bitcoin exchanges? I realize it depends on how the individual company handles the taxi cab transaction, but I venture to guess that most companies would elect to have a third party do this for them, and as such would not the third party be required, as a licensee, to identify the fares? I use a taxi cab as an example because this would seem to be a use case for forthcoming google cars and what not. I am sure that if you use your imagination you can envision a future where almost all services interact digitally using Bitcoin...
5.) Voting: If a cryptographic election system is put into place, and used in the state of New York, would such a system be subject to the BitLicense requirements? And If I use a satoshi or other discrete transaction to cryptographically verify on the Blockchain that I have cast my vote at the booth, and you process it, are you, as the voting authority not then required to identify me and keep those records on file? I am grasping on this one, but it does not seem out of the realm of possibility.
As a mere layman, I am very troubled by the onerous requirements of the proposal set forth by Ben Lawsky. If even I, with my hamster brain, can envision such a universe of potential problems erupting from these regulations what does that say about the current state of our regulators? Am I wrong on many of my assumptions? Am I misreading the BitLicense? It would seem that perhaps regulators should adopt a wait and see approach before diving into this fray. Even the "experts" themselves do not truly know the implications of many of these evolving technologies. How will they interact? What innovative constructs will they give rise to? If even one of these constructs evolves to be the next "killer app" for Bitcoin what unintended consequences to the state of New York could this bring in hampering a potential supernova of innovative capacity and economic activity?
As a regulator, you need to be asking yourself, "What is the purpose of my regulation, and how best can I adapt it to suit and protect the public which I serve. How can I foster innovation and invention while still creating a legal, stable and sound baseline for infrastructure to grow?" If said regulation hampers and stifles innovation, particularly with a global peer to peer network such as Bitcoin, it would seem to be trivial to push such innovation elsewhere, at the expense of your own tax coffers and revenues. More digital business=more money for you, the regulator. More regulation=less digital business.
But most troublesome of all is the notion that many other states or governments might look on the proposed BitLicense as a template for their own misguided approaches at regulating the nascent and undiscovered land that is digital currency. I personally would be scared to death of approaching this task with haste. You simply DO NOT KNOW what you are doing, because none of us truly know yet. As such, you owe it to the people of the state of New York to start with a bare minimum and ADD TO. We all know that in the government, it is much easier to add to, than take away. On a slightly humorous note, it would seem that you are trying to square a circle, when in fact you should be looking at this is as trying to "infinity an infinity".
Edit: I have contacted the NYDFS directly [email protected] to make an attempt to publicly comment on their proposal but have yet to receive a reply on the proper correspondence address.
submitted by AstarJoe to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

GAWminers.com / Paycoin / Josh Garza has the potential to destroy or gravely set back the cryptocurrency revolution. Here is why.

Gawminers right now is initiating fraud that is beyond the scope of most bitcoin scams, maybe second only to MTGOX.
They are misrepresenting their products and fraudulently shifting hidden risks to customers. Here are my claims
  1. They are selling virtual hashes without the actual machines backing it.
  2. They falsify payouts according to pools that never existed or never received hashes from GAW.
  3. They are known and have been caught using shill accounts. Not just the company but the CEO himself. Josh Garza.
  4. They are just generally immature assholes that will ruin the fun for everyone because of their unethical character and greed.
Here are the reasons why I submit my claims based upon public evidence:
Josh Garza publicly stated that the payouts from his virtual hashing machines are from a combination of mining, day trading, and private rentals. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=720844.msg8601489#msg8601489 Nothing on the product page mentions day trading and it is misrepresentation of risks by omitting such evidence.
None of the pool owners listed on the gawminers website confirmed ever receiving hashes from GAWminers. You can go email them yourself.
The most obvious reason they do not have physical mining hardware would be to read the gawminers TOS. Here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=720844.msg8605520#msg8605520
Their Zenpool had consistently paid 2x more than other multipools during the beginning of the launch. Their fake zenpool speed counter went up to 300MHS when it was displayed publicly here: https://www.zenminer.com/pool/ until they realized they are claiming to own more than 50% of the total litecoin network at the time. That is when the counter disappeared when people began to question the enormous scope of their fake mining operation.
The zenpool is a farce. It is fake and it just simulates ponzi payouts. Which was confirmed when the payouts predictably dropped more then 100% few weeks ago and even lower than some of the other multipools. Josh publicly stated this was because "investors" were not buying big contracts. He publicly stated this here:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8j3lrbmknSgJ:https://hashtalk.org/topic/11712/zenpool-fluctuations-update-update+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
realized his mistake of making such statement and deleted the whole thread.
If a pool requires investors to buy contracts for increased payouts, then you do not have a real mining pool with real mining machines.
Josh Garza used shill accounts on bitcointalk.org here: http://share.pho.to/6pc3a/9a/original . I think he was caught publicly using shills twice. If anyone has proof, msg me and I will send you 0.25BTC.
If this ponzi scheme collapses and if his claims that he sold over 120mm of products this year are true. Then the regulatory fall out will be ugly. This is not a small scam. It is huge and will give ammunition to people like Ben Lawsky to regulate us to death as this occured with a US company on US soil. It will be another Enron or worse.
Please please please educate.
The private evidence I have is much much more condemning. But it should be obvious enough what is already out there publicly.
Also, please feel to present counter arguments.
submitted by gaw-whistleblower to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

We must do something about the US cryptocurrencies regulation

I know most Shibes don't like to hear the word 'Bitcoin', but please, read this before downvoting.
There are a lot of discussion about Bitcoin regulation in the US and this can really impact ALL cryptocurrencies, including us.
Some quotes from the latest news:
"New York’s top financial regulator told Bitcoin entrepreneurs he’ll prevent their companies from abetting money laundering even at the risk stamping out innovation in the embryonic virtual-currency industry."
"According to the study, there is "widespread concern" about the negative impact Bitcoin could have on national currencies and how it could be used to fund criminal operations and tax fraud."
Not wow, much serious and we must watch this closely.
There is a open letter to Mr. Ben Lawsky of New York, who is the lawyer responsible to create the regulation in the next months. Please sign it: http://bitcoinfinancialassociation.org
News quotes from: - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-29/new-york-state-regulator-promises-tough-bitcoin-rules.html
submitted by mojud to dogecoin [link] [comments]

When NY regulator comes to /r/IAmA to field questions about Bitcoin regulation Reddit uncharacteristically treats him respectfully and asks well informed and insightful questions. LOL JK it's a fucking mess.

Today there was an IAmA by the Superintendent of Financial Services of NY on Bitcoin regulation. Politics + Bitcoin = Bravery Typhoon.
Mr. Lawsky was smart enough to choose questions that weren't too hostile or circlejerky. But the replies to his answers are some of the bravest circlejerking I've seen since MayMay June. Let's take a look:
So if you mean what you say, please explain how HSBC is still in business... +121
Because they paid enough money to have enough time for everyone to forget about it and forge enough proof to end up with the least possible damage. +43
If there is one thing that makes my blood boil with smug Redditors it's ellipses. They are always inserted as some sort of QED, implying the parent is being dishonest, or implying the parent is stupid. I hate it.
If there is one thing that you'll see reoccur often if you read the post, it's droves of Redditors saying "BUT WAT ABOUT THE BIG BANKS!?". As if perfect regulation of a larger industry is required before regulating something else.
Why is HSBC and other banking firms still allowed to operate in NY? +50
JUST KICK EM' OUT. There are like a million WAT ABOUT HSBC comments here.
Also, why does Bitcoin get the hammer when everything else just slides under the radar when it comes to money laundering (I'm looking at HSBC)? +126
Last one, I swear.
I just want to thank you for doing this AMA. We appreciate being involved. +98
I guess doing an IAmA is the only way for a Reddit user to feel like they are being "involved"? There are better outlets. Anyway, these THANKS FOR DOING THIS NO QUESTION XD posts are becoming the norm in IAmAs.
... but not seriously enough to prosecute a single bank executive.... = loss of legitimacy +35
D-D-D-DOUBLE SMUG ELLIPSES BONUS ROUND
Hi XXXXX, you've been sent 8.6550 milli-bitcoins ($5.00) from XXXXX via /changetip. Collect it. +13
Whoa, what just happened here? +10
BenLawsky just got $5 worth of Bitcoin. Instantly. No fees. With a Reddit comment. +24
When will this END? Has the "Whoa, what just happened here" thing just become a meme now, and they're poking fun at themselves? I can't tell.
That's simply because they can't admit to using the NSA to build a parallel case +42
Man, if some NSA /panichistory starts taking root I'm going to have a euphoria overdose
Alright, so there are some brave people that hoped onto Ben's comment to ride the karma train. But there are lots of other brave people who didn't get their totally legit, unloaded, and unbiased questions answered. Let's take a look at those
Since the actual Money Laundry Laws can't be applied to Big Banks & Financial Institutions (HSBC, etc) because of fears that the entire banking system would be destabilized. +25
How can money laundering laws be real if our eyes don't real? Seriously, what the fuck is this? HSBC was prosecuted and fined. You can certainly say that it wasn't sufficient, but obviously the laws exist and are enforced against big banks.
In your opinion should more be done to punish banks that have laundered billions of dollars? Do you think a small fine compared to the money the banks made off laundering is enough? +12
Man, this is so loaded I might have to steal it for an ELI5 post.
Hello Mr. Lawsky, from the news I heard that HSBC was involved in 1,9 bn$ money laundering and no criminal charges have been filed. It seems to me, the issue there is several magnitudes bigger than with bitcoin at the moment? Don´t you think, your time would be spent wiser, to takkle this problem first. +9
Maybe I'll use this one instead
[Bitcoin is] going to replace fiat currency and do away with the need for central banks. Advancements in decentralized and distributed technologies will allow that most other government functions to be replaced as well. +7
There wasn't really a question attached to this. Just some good ole' Bitcoin is gonna topple gubmit circlejerking.
My question is, have you read any of the discussions in /bitcoin about the hearings you've been involved in and the talks you've given? +7
If your goal is to have him take the Bitcoin community seriously you better hope he never sets foot in /bitcoin
What are your intentions for regulations regarding video game currency, since it can be traded/bought/sold for fiat currencies as well? It is a digital currency the same as bitcoin. Will there be fines imposed on people selling or buying their World of Warcraft gold from other people without some kind of license? +5
Eve Money is going to replace the USD. Just wait.
What benefit does your third party regulation bring to me and the person I'm willing to trade with? Can you maybe clarify for me that your financial regulation actually benefit customers and that it exceeds the "hidden costs" caused by your bureau? +4
"Please justify regulation. TYIA."
Maybe a slightly extreme question but if I want to pay someone for the right to assign a number to an address in a virtual ledger what does it have to do with you? +3
NOT IN MY BACK YARD IMAGINARY WALLET
What gives the NYDFS the authority to regulate a jurisdiction-less distributed computer system? Have you received a mandate from the open developer community behind crypto currencies or the majority of their user bases. +4
Does this guy really think the government needs permission from Bitcoin developers to regulate Bitcoin?
I know government is slow on everything, but when do you think the government will finally be able to gather its senses and take bitcoin mainstream? Also, do you see any chances of US government not embracing bitcoin at all? +2
I guess when they are cool without ditching the USD for a deflationary and volatile currency. I mean, I know I would have been totally cool if my mortgage was based in bitcoin and over the past three years the amount I owed grew a thousand fold.
Would you say that most Americans care more about stopping money laundering or creating jobs?
Because they are mutually exclusive?
Considering that it has been well established that the US government itself has been responsible for funding both drug cartels and terrorist organizations and has laundered money to do so, can you please explain what the major concern is over a relatively small and unused cryptocurrency? +3
It's said his fedora grew 3 sizes this day
A majority of the questions are like this. Pages and pages of them. Hundreds.
The worst part of the IAmA was he didn't even answer the important questions
When will Dogecoin reach the Moon? +2
submitted by ONE_GUY_ONE_JAR to circlebroke [link] [comments]

Bitcoin 2017 a Comprehensive Timeline

Some of the most notable news and events over the past year:
Jan 3:
Jan 10:
Jan 17:
Jan 19:
Feb 8:
Feb 9:
Feb 24:
Mar 1:
Mar 2:
Mar 10:
Mar 12:
Mar 14:
Mar 15:
Mar 23:
Mar 28:
Apr 1:
Apr 5:
Apr 6:
Apr 12:
Apr 20:
Apr 26:
May 2:
May 9:
May 10:
May 21:
May 22:
May 23:
May 31:
Jun 2:
Jun 14:
Jun 29 - Jul 1:
Jun 30:
Jul 12:
Jul 16:
Jul 17:
Jul 22:
Jul 23:
Jul 24:
Jul 25:
Jul 27:
Jul 28:
Jul 31:
Aug 1:
Aug 2:
Aug 3:
Aug 10:
Aug 12:
Aug 15:
Aug 17:
Aug 21:
Aug 22:
Aug 24:
Aug 25:
Aug 28:
Aug 29:
Aug 30:
Aug 31:
Sep 1:
Sep 2:
Sep 3:
Sep 4:
Sep 5:
Sep 6:
Sep 7:
Sep 8:
Sep 9:
Sep 10:
Sep 12:
Sep 13:
Sep 14:
Sep 15:
Sep 17:
Sep 19:
Sep 20:
Sep 21:
Sep 23:
Sep 24:
Sep 25:
Sep 26:
Sep 27:
Sep 28:
Sep 29:
Sep 30:
Oct 4:
Oct 7:
Oct 9:
Oct 10:
Oct 11:
Oct 12:
Oct 13:
Oct 14:
Oct 16:
Oct 27:
Oct 30:
Nov 1:
Nov 2:
Nov 3:
Nov 4:
Nov 7:
Nov 8:
Nov 9:
Nov 10:
Nov 12:
Nov 13:
Nov 20:
Nov 21:
Nov 27:
Nov 28:
Dec 2:
Dec 5:
Dec 6
Dec 7
Dec 9
Dec 10
Dec 11
Dec 12
Dec 13
Dec 14
Dec 15
Dec 16
Dec 17
Dec 19
Dec 20
Dec 21
Dec 22
Dec 23
Dec 25
Dec 27
Dec 29
Dec 30
Dec 31
submitted by BitcoinChronicler to btc [link] [comments]

A few thoughts - Friday, July 18, 2014

Good afternoon! Yesterday was the darkest day in at least the recent history of bitcoin, perhaps ever. I'll get into why yesterday was more significant than Mt. Gox and China later, but the end point of this post is going to be that these proposed regulations are a breathtaking expansion of government power into areas of commerce that have never traditionally been regulated. If this passes, we may well find ourselves fighting against bitcoin acceptance.

Some basic truth about The Law

First, it's important to eliminate a common misunderstanding in /bitcoinmarkets. Some users are arguing that this law (lowercase letters) isn't that bad because while it covers a broad range of activity, it is only intended as a tool to fight money laundering (or some other goal, depending on the user). People need to understand that the long arm of The Law (capital letters) does not care what laws were actually intended to do. You either violate them, or you do not. A judge isn't going to allow a business to operate based on the argument that this law was intended for a different purpose.
As you make your evaluation of the effects of this law, you need to consider every possible activity that could be illegal under it. You can't write off certain activities because they were unintentionally added to the law. The Law is not compassionate and does not allow people to get away with things because the creators were trying to prevent some other behavior. There are many examples of poorly-designed laws that have had devastating unintended consequences.

Some examples

Now that we are clear that the intent of the law doesn't matter, I thought it would be worth sharing how a few examples of bitcoin-related activities in New York will work. This section includes three rows each. The first is the activity, the second is an example of what I would consider some reasonable regulations, and the third is the actions needed for compliance under this law. Since there are an absurd number of requirements for each case, I only listed one or two of the most ridiculous for each.
Activity: Operating a tipping bot that sends $0.25 tips to residents of New York that holds balances
Reasonable: Require the tips to be backed with 100% reserve in the tipped currency
Lawsky: Collect personally identifiable information about all people ever tipped, retain it for 10 years, and submit paperwork to the department when tips qualifying as "suspicious activity" are sent
Activity: Changing a variable in the bitcoin code and creating a new blockchain for testing a proposed feature
Reasonable: No regulation
Lawsky: Register with the NYDFS, payi thousands of dollars, wait 90 days, and undergo a background check with the FBI
Activity: Operating the Elgius mining pool, which adds PPLNS payouts to its own blocks, so that users never have outstanding balances
Reasonable: Allow people to take civil action if their payouts don't match what they are owed
Lawsky: Register as a money transmission service, develop compliance programs, and conduct "intrusion prevention" tests against the nonexistent wallets
Activity: Running a business like blockchain.info, which does not hold any balances whatsoever in dollars and pays all employees and vendors in bitcoins
Reasonable: Require recordkeeping of profits and expenses similar to current laws
Lawsky: This business model is expressly prohibited; no business is allowed to take profits in bitcoins
Activity: Operating an altcoin exchange, which takes untraceable litecoins and exchanges them for untraceable nanotokens
Reasonable: Prohibit fractional reserve banking and require that reserves be kept in the currencies they are backing
Lawsky: Requires altcoin exchanges to back its reserves in dollars and to associate every altcoin address with a username. If there is a bubble, the business goes under because it is no longer able to back customers' deposits.
Activity: Being a one-time arbitrator, where two parties trade something and use a multisignature transaction with you as the decider in the case something goes wrong
Reasonable: At most, require background checks on the arbitrator to verify his integrity
Lawsky: File paperwork with security plans, a list of anyone who might help you with collecting evidence to make the decision (even if you are never called upon to do so), and obtain background checks and fingerprints for all of them; pay thousands of dollars to register, wait 90 days to be approved, file suspicious activity report if the transaction is over $3k regardless of whether you are called upon to arbitrate or not
Activity: Modify your mining pool's pay-per-share algorithm to prevent block withholding attacks, or introduce a new algorithm like PPLNS, without branching out into other business areas
Reasonable: No paperwork necessary
Lawsky: File new request with the Department and wait 90 days for the new model to be approved before rolling out the feature, while competitors in other states launch immediately

Businesses no logner possible to be served to New York residents

In addition to the regulation requirements, there are also some types of business models that simply cannot overcome the regulations at all. Here are some of those types of businesses:
Arguably, the following business types could also not operate in New York because of cost concerns:
The greatest problem with these regulations is simply that there is no clause for the amount of money the company has to control. While we plan to take all possible security measures, our pool's greatest security measure is that we automatically pay out balances that are too large, so that we will never owe more than $10k in customer funds. If there were to be a hack, then we would simply eat the cost of less than $10k from personal funds because it is a small amount. The reason this works is because it would cost more than $100k to provide the sort of professional infrastructure that Lawsky is requiring, so even if the site were hacked ten times, and even if we never fixed the security holes, we would still be ahead.
That's why this legislation is irreparably flawed and cannot be salvaged. It makes sense for people holding a billion dollars to be subject to strict regulations. It is nonsensical to require people who hold $5k in customer funds to spend $200k/yr in compliance measures, given that taking 40 hacks are still preferable to such ridiculous regulations.

The likely outcome of these regulations is less protection

Now that we know the local effects on certain types of businesses, we should ask what the end result is going to be a year from now, should these regulations not be completely overhauled. I propose that the end outcome of these regulations is going to be less consumer protection and more crime. The only businesses able to operate in New York will be huge banks and hedge funds. While the banks charge excessive fees and rip customers off, they already are far more trustworthy than Mark Karpeles ever was. They already practice good security anyway because they understand (unlike Mt Gox) that customer service is important. The law isn't going to have much impact on them. Furthermore, these guys aren't even into the bitcoin business yet, so (at least at first), the only people the law effects are the small guys.
Meanwhile, everyone else other than the banks is going to do exactly what we may be forced to do: milk the system by applying for licenses and waiting as long as possible, and then, on the day before compliance is required, ban New York residents from our service and avoid doing business with anyone in New York. However, it will be impossible for us, or anyone else, to eliminate every single New York resident from our system no matter how hard we try or how good our intentions are. Because there is no minimum funds limit, New York residents are going to find that they are excluded from the use of nearly every altcoin, mining pool, exchange, open source project, wallet service, auction site, escrow system, and so on.
They key here is that by making the regulations too hard to comply with, every site is going to be equalized. If the cost of compliance were low, then honest businesses would have no problem complying. When the cost of compliance is high, there is no distinction between honest and scam businesses because New York residents will have to do business illegally. This leads to more scams and losses of money. Whereas now a New York resident who uses a service available in New York can sue the provider of a scam, they have no recourse in this proposed new world. After all, the New York resident was engaging in illegal activity by using a non-licensed business. This allows scammers to directly target people who live in New York because they have fewer legal protections than do people who live in other states.
I'm very glad that I do not live in New York right now, and I actually feel sorry for what those who have been in bitcoins since the beginning and who live in New York are going to be unable to take part in the future.

About money laundering

One of the reasons we got into this mess is because the Federal government ignored consumer protection. While they were issuing regulations about money laundering, people like Mark Karpeles were able to take advantage of a complete lack of attention to consumer protection. The Federal government wasted millions of dollars in its cases against bitcoin_charlie, who is not accused of stealing any money or participating in any violent behavior, while ignoring real consumers who were being ripped off by exchanges operating as fractional reserves like Mt Gox and Vircurex. BenLawsky is now able to seize upon the Federal government's inaction and make himself look like a hero of consumer protection because New York will do what the Feds didn't do.
Proponents of anti-money laundering regulations argue that terrorists have been significantly hindered by restrictions in moving money. Terrorism is a great excuse for many things. Consider the case of airport x-ray screening devices. Every time a person goes through one of those devices, he has a 1 in 30 million chance of developing cancer as a direct result of the x-ray exposure pushing that person over the cumulative radiation exposure threshold at which cancer would develop. The risk of dying in a terrorist attack on the plane before the machines were installed was also about 1 in 30 million. Therefore, we spent hundreds of millions of dollars on machines that kill as many people as the terrorists do. Not only that, but anyone would rather die in a terrorist attack than go through chemotherapy and years of pain in a long, excruciating death.
People seem to accept that money laundering rules are necessary, and are pushing the bar of regulation lower and lower every day. How much would your risk of death really increase if money laundering regulations were loosened? If you have a 1 in 1 million greater chance of death but vastly more freedom in your finances, wouldn't you take that? In a perfect world where people didn't die, that would be an unacceptable compromise. In our world, however, people do die. It is ludicrous that people allow themselves to become obese and then live in fear of a terrorist attack.

The creation of a new kind of criminality?

There were some shameful comments from people like the Winklevoss twins yesterday about how they appreciate regulation of the industry. For those guys, it's all about getting rich, which isn't surprising given how their wealth is largely based on winning lawsuits rather than actually creating stuff. Few people seem to be reading the text of the document and understanding how this goes beyond bitcoins. This is a breathtaking expansion of government power that has never been seen before in the financial world. The regulations in this document expand the scope of financial oversight into industries far removed from anything that is covered by existing financial regulations, like open source development. For the first time, they dictate how businesses may pay out profits and promote inefficiency by requiring a bitcoin -> dollar -> bitcoin conversion, widening the pockets of Coinbase. They signal the creation of a huge bureaucracy that will require ever more taxpayer dollars to process millions of "suspicious activity reports," licenses, and minute software changes.
But most importantly, they require recordkeeping and information gathering of unprecedented scope, and trust so many entities to gather these records that they will be leaked to everyone. People running small mining pools that pay out $0.30 per day will be retaining passport numbers. Some people are viewing this as the "government" collecting information on people, but the government already has all this information. What will happen is that these records will be so prevalent because so many people are mandated to collect them that every hacker in the world will have a copy. In what other area of business are so many people required to keep huge databases of passport photos, utility bills, and other documentation that enables all sorts of criminal activity? These records will exist for at least 10 years, be copied in mergers and acquisitions, and leaked to the media and to the criminals, who will pay record sums for them.
The criminals and rogue insiders can use the data not only to perform identity theft, but to learn everything you ever bought, who your contacts are, where you live, how much you earn, what time of day you are away from your house, and what sites you use. They can phish for passwords at just the sites you use, arrange a theft when they recognize you are on vacation, threaten to phone your employer with false allegations of rape unless you pay up, use stolen wallets to frame you by purchasing child pornography with them, and contact repressive governments to have you arrested for associating with a known dissident.
That brings me back to the opening sentence in these thoughts for today. If these regulations pass and spread to other jurisdictions, we may actually find ourselves opposing the uptake of bitcoins. If more states adopt these regulations and people start adopting, then the stage will be set for an increase in government power to track everything about everyone, and a corresponding increase in criminal activity.
I said in the past that bans on bitcoins would not have an impact on the technology because people would go somewhere else, so they were not a change to the fundamentals. Few anticipated such a dramatic expansion of government power like we saw yesterday. Using the technology to procure unprecedented amounts of data would be a change to the fundamentals which even Nakamoto probably didn't intend.

Other

submitted by quintin3265 to BitcoinThoughts [link] [comments]

Brainstorming post for Ben Lawsky's AMA

Ideas and questions that should be addressed in Ben Lawsky's AMA. It's really great that he is taking the time to address our community directly, so it's really important that the questions/items to be addressed are thoughtful and important. It will NOT be productive to post the typical "government keep out" and "F U, bitcoin does what it wants" rhetoric, as whether we like it or not, the US will be passing regulations that will affect US bitcoiners.
submitted by bubbasparse to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Novauri's comments on the BitLicense

Hello, this is Will from Novauri. You almost certainly haven't heard of our company before. We are not planning on releasing it for use until 2015, and we haven't spent a dime on marketing. Still, our team feels strongly about the emerging BitLicense regulations in New York, and I wanted to share the letter we sent to the DFS with the community today.
We already shared our views within days of the proposal being released here, but we've had much more time to craft a formal response. You'll find an abbreviated version below, and a full copy of our letter on our website here.
I know this is a somewhat 'dry' topic, but it's important to the future of bitcoin in the US. Our thoughts on this topic are below. Thank you.
About Novauri
Novauri is a virtual currency startup based in Denver, Colorado and San Francisco, California. Novauri will allow bitcoin users to purchase and sell bitcoin using ACH debits and credits from their bank accounts. The service will be available initially to US consumers in early 2015.
We are different from our competitors in that Novauri will not control the private keys to our customers’ bitcoin addresses. Not only will Novauri never have access to customers’ private keys, but our systems are designed so we will never see private keys in unencrypted form.
We intentionally built this feature into our service as a risk protection measure for our customers. Novauri cannot suffer from the catastrophic failures and massive internal thefts we’ve witnessed at services that pool customer bitcoin and control their private keys because Novauri never has control of our customers’ funds, bitcoin or US Dollars. We feel strongly that this feature is both safer for our customers and cheaper for us as a service provider. Our design requires no expensive security layers around pooled wallets, no insurance for massive, pooled wallets that are vulnerable to insider theft, or regulatory responsibility as a fiduciary holding retail customer deposits like a bank.
Innovation, bitcoin, and concerns about the proposed rules
We believe bitcoin and its underlying blockchain technology is the most significant invention of the century. Bitcoin allows for unique digital information that can exist safely on the open Internet without the protection of a central authority. Bitcoin’s unique combination of cryptography and “hashcash”-based proof of work consensus with an integrated economic incentive to participate in the consensus that also creates an automated, and fully predictable monetary policy is something we’ve never dreamed of before 2009. The applications for this technology extend far beyond payment systems, and have the capability to uniquely identify anything digitally; a possibility that becomes exponentially more exciting when it intersects with other emerging technologies, such as the Internet of things, drone applications, or holograph-based UI and peer-to-peer communications.
That being said, we believe the proposed BitLicense regulation falls short in three key areas:
1) Redundancy with existing regulation, and creates an unfair playing field
Novauri believes that the BitLicense regulation is written in such a way that it will greatly stunt growth and drive innovation to other States or Countries entirely. The regulation contains provisions that exclude existing banks from the rules entirely.
Novauri recommends removing the provisions that exempt banks entirely, and replacing the redundant and overreaching language in these areas with a simple statement: The rules and regulations applying to bitcoin at a Federal level (especially from FinCEN) shall apply to all applicable virtual currency businesses with activities in New York State.
2) KYC provisions and ineffective cyber security provisions are dangerous for consumers
Perhaps the most dangerous aspects of the proposed regulations are the identity verification processes. We’ve already seen the disasters that the data retention provisions in the Bank Secrecy Act have caused in terms of the ongoing identity theft epidemic. Every week another bank is hacked, and more and more personal information goes up for sale on the darknet. We feel that these issues are an unintended consequence of the data retention requirements in the BSA, as well as the decision by certain companies to monetize “big data”. Novauri feels that these are misguided regulations and business decisions, and is vehemently opposed to corporations storing and selling personal information. The economic costs of identity theft greatly outweigh any advertising revenue made by these companies, and the cost to taxpayers in reimbursing billions and billions of dollars in stolen tax refunds each year, to say nothing of the stress these unintended consequences cause normal people when they discover their identities have been stolen.
This issue will be far worse with bitcoin, which features a public ledger. As soon as personal information is leaked, it can be associated with the blockchain and the entire financial history of individuals will be viewable by anyone. As written, Novauri feels the proposed KYC provisions in the BitLicense proposal constitute a potential threat to our National security.
Novauri recommends that the NYDFS delay the requirements around KYC until a more elegant solution evolves that doesn’t risk massive identity theft incidents or violations of personal privacy. We recommend full synchronization with existing regulation, and revision such that an individual’s right to privacy is balanced against the needs of law enforcement. This synchronization should also include checks and balances that are non-existent today.
Regarding “cyber security”, Novauri believes that the regulations are ineffective, as technologies are continuously evolving. Novauri recommends that the NYDFS require businesses that act as fiduciaries for customer deposits and maintain control of private keys to hold deposit insurance for 100% of the value of all fiat and virtual currency deposits. If the business has faulty security, the insurance company can make that determination and increase their premiums. In the event that the business’s security is unsafe, the insurance companies will not issue insurance at all. This is a “future proof” way to ensure cyber security without politicizing the topic or risking that rules and regulations become ineffective and anachronistic with time, as they almost certainly will as written.
3) Failure to create a risk-based system that scales with the risk of the service
The proposed regulation doesn’t differentiate between businesses that exchange fiat for bitcoin while taking control of deposits, those that exchange fiat for bitcoin and do not take control of deposits, or even businesses that exchange no currency at all and have no responsibility as a fiduciary. This will effectively kill all small businesses and startups in the State of New York, and if these rules are used as a model in other States, will drive the industry offshore entirely.
Novauri recommends creating at least two types of businesses under the proposed BitLicense regulation:
Virtual Currency Retail or Investment Banking Providers would be regulated in a manner similar to banks, but Virtual Currency Retail or Exchange Service Providers would be subject to minimal regulation. Again, Novauri highly recommends using insurance as a way to “future proof” the areas of cyber security and KYC provisions.
In closing, given the possibilities presented by this emerging technology, Novauri requests that the NYDFS consider revising the rules heavily, adopting a progressive and risk-based approach that uses insurance in lieu of prescriptive measures, removes duplicative rules and regulations, and gives the technology the room it needs to grow and evolve.
Sincerely,
Will Madden Founder & CEO Novauri, LLC
For a full version of our comments on the BitLicense proposal, please visit our website here.
submitted by MrMadden to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The New York State Attorney General lives in Alternate Reality !

Dear Friends,
Legal Parallel Universe is the first thing that came to my mind when I read this final legal reply.
Pierre says it in a different way:
According to Defendants-Respondents’ response to Plaintiffs-Petitioners’ Cross-Motion for Limited Discovery, they should be entitled to live in a legal world where virtually no one has standing to challenge a regulation involving new technology or new markets, and where no plaintiff ever has grounds to seek limited discovery.
Now that all the documents are filed there shouldn’t be any more delays and as you can read in the rest of Pierre’s brief (which is located: http://www.article78againstnydfs.com/docs/Index-101880-15/17-ReplyMemoLimitedDiscovery/01-ReplyMemoLimitedDiscovery.pdf) we are requesting experts.
Ben Lawsky is a Lawyer and a politician. He is a good one but he is not an economist. Nothing in Benjamin Lawsky background predispose him to lead the NYDFS. It was just the best illustration of cronyism within the New York and Wall Street democratic establishment. His testimony is to explain why he ignored Professor Williams’ comments.
During the hearings on the proposed regulation, Mark T. Williams’s written testimony establishes that Bitcoin should be treated as a commodity, and not as a currency, yet Defendants-Respondents did not address Mark T. Williams’ position. Additionally, supposedly, the Defendants-Respondents conducted “extensive research at analysis” when they proposed the Regulation, yet the research and analysis has never been produced so it is unclear how Defendants-Respondents came to the conclusion that Bitcoin could be regulated by them.
As New Yorkers, we might understand that it’s bad politics to listen to Bostonians professors. We know that our Public University professors might not be the most distinguished but we will settle for one that is been quoted by the Attorney General.
We need to have a professor in economy and the state of New York has so many on their payroll, we are simply asking the judge to make CUNY professor available to us since his conclusions are being quoted by the Attorney General.
The citation to Mr. Krugman’s article was taken from the following passage in DFS’s opening brief: These terms—“medium of exchange” and “form of digitally stored value”—are commonly used to describe financial products and services. See, e.g., United States v. Faiella (observing that “money” in ordinary parlance means “something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment”); Paul Krugman, The Int’l Role of the Dollar: Theory and Prospect in Exchange Rate Theory & Practice 8.2 (John F. Bilson & Richard C. Marston eds., 1984) (noting that money generally “serves three functions: it is a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value”); see also United States v. E-Gold, Ltd. (holding that “a ‘money transmitting service’ includes not only a transmission of actual currency, but also a transmission of the value of that currency through some other medium of exchange”).
Legal scholars might call the Attorney General logic a Legal Parallel Universe. I personally would simply ask what medicine those attorney representing the state of New York are on.
Defendants-Respondents cannot have it both ways -- have the Court believe that Plaintiffs-Petitioners discovery motion should be thrown out just because of the absence of any merit to Plaintiffs-Petitioners’ case and argue Plaintiffs-Petitioners’ petition should be dismissed on an unresolved threshold issue. Either Defendants-Respondents should not have filed their Cross-Motion to Dismiss or limited discovery is necessary on the threshold issue as to the economic nature of Bitcoin.
Please share the date of October 10, 2017 with everyone interested in attending. It’s going to be historic!
All the documents of the lawsuit are on the website here: http://www.article78againstnydfs.com/raw.php
See you on the 10 ! (and don't forget Morpheus waiting for his trial from his jail cell.)
Theo Chino http://AbolishTheBitlicense.com https://www.meetup.com/Article-78-Against-NYDFS
submitted by theochino to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

TL;DR: Summary of the BitLicense regulations by Ben Lawsky.

Ben Lawsky from the New York Department of Financial Services has just released the proposed regulations for Bitcoin businesses operating out of NY.
Here they are:
Oy.
submitted by AmericanBitcoin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

4/23/14 - Bitcoin into space, Atlas ATS pushes forward, & Dorian Nakamoto says thank you

Video: http://www.moneyandtech.com/apr23-news-update/
Here are today's top news stories in Money & Tech:
The blockchain is headed for space. Jeff Garzik’s Dunvegan Space Systems is partnering with Deep Space Industries to build satellites called ‘BitSats’ that will be launched into space as a backup bitcoin orbital system. From orbit, these BitSats will be able to broadcast out transaction data from the blockchain to any users with a downlink. Garzik made the first payment to Deep Space Industries via BitPay, where he is also a senior software developer, and is now accepting bitcoin donations to help complete the project.
Bitcoin trading platform Atlas ATS has formed a partnership with The National Stock Exchange to speed up regulatory approval. By partnering with this self-regulatory organization, Atlas ATS hopes to bypass FinCEN's money-transmitting license in favor of SEC-approved rules that are more tailored to digital currency exchanges. Kraken and CoinMKT are also taking this route, as several exchanges race to become the first fully regulated digital currency exchange.
Nine state banking officials from the US Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS), including New York Superintendent Ben Lawsky, have launched the Emerging Payments Task Force. The new task force plans to investigate bitcoin and other virtual currencies in the hopes of developing state regulation best practices, as well as more educational resources. The discussion will begin with a public hearing on May 16th in Chicago.
With the reluctance of Irish banks to accept bitcoin, ATM provider BitVendo and safe deposit box facility Merrion Vaults have partnered to provide cold storage to BitVendo's local cryptocurrency users. The service allows users to store their bitcoins safely in Merrion Vaults' high quality and secure safe deposit vault in Dublin.
Butterfly Labs has been on rocky ground since this month's lawsuit against the bitcoin mining hardware company, accusing it of collecting payments for false orders and using customer equipment for their own mining. This recent lawsuit is only the latest accusation of fraud against the Kansas-based company. What's more, co-founder Sonny Vleisides has been found in violation of his probation since pleading guilty to one count of mail fraud in 2010, which will likely extend his probation another two years.
Dorian Nakamoto, the man famously falsely identified as bitcoin's creator, has filmed a YouTube video with Andreas Antonopoulos to thank the bitcoin community for its support. Antonopoulos led a fundraising campaign for Nakamoto that raised over 47 bitcoins - worth nearly $23,000 dollars - in a new bitcoin wallet that Nakamoto says he will keep open as a new bitcoin user. Watch that YouTube video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7YmJZ-qVW8.
Bitcoin documentary The Rise and Rise of Bitcoin premieres today at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York City. Money & Tech will be attending the screening, as well as the film’s after-party hosted by Charlie Shrem. We will be bringing you video coverage and interviews from that event soon.
We will also be attending the next major digital currency event this Friday, Dogecon SF, which will be San Francisco's first dogecoin conference. The event is hosted by Follow The Coin, and will feature prominent industry speakers such as litecoin creator Charlie Lee, industry expert Andreas Antonopoulos, and of course, Dogecoin's own creator, Jackson Palmer. We sat down with Tina Hui and Matt Schlicht from Follow The Coin to talk about what we can look forward to at Dogecon SF. Find that interview here: http://moneyandtech.com/follow-the-coin-dogecon-sf/
submitted by moneyandtech to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

Building a United Platform

No matter which coin you're backing (or how many), the regulations coming out of New York State have large, overreaching and severe consequences for all cryptocurrencies.
You can read the proposed BitLicense Regulations here.
AmericanBitcoin has put together a TL;DR of the proposed reglations
In response, you can read the in-progress GitHub Fork of those same regulations here.
If you'd like to see a quick breakdown of examples of what's wrong with the proposed regulations, I highly recommend you read this comment by MrMadden over in /Bitcoin, which is utterly fantastic.
Instead of standing 'against' these regulations, let's stand for:
The problems, right now:
These regulations are vague in some important areas and could have unintended consequences.
For example, here's a great breakdown from goldcakes (originally made here)
Entities are considered dealing in virtual currencies if:
.. to any resident in New York. Web services, even those incorporated overseas, must either comply or block access for NY users. (200.2n)
Entities 'dealing in virtual currency' must:
The (only?) good news: Merchants do not need a BitLicense to accept Bitcoin for a good or service. (200.3c2).
This post was created for general guidance, and does not constitute legal advice. You should not act upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining specific advice from a professional. No representation or warranty (expressed or implied) is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this post.
submitted by GoodShibe to CryptosUnited [link] [comments]

Please allow me to shed some light on ignorance....

I am going to point out a grave injustice in regard to logic so that each of use may judge for ourselves the credibility of this author. I'd make this post in /btc but alas I am always getting censored from that sub.
This player below wants to make a comparison between leaders of the EU or Regulators from the US to bitcoin's Core dev team:
http://forums.prohashing.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=880
In bitcoin, the chasm between the "experts" and the ordinary users is even wider than that between Lawsky and cryptocurrency businesses, or between EU regulators and the British people. In bitcoin, the "experts" consist of three classes: the Core developers, the miners, and the off-chain speculators.
The problems with the Core development team are well-known. The Core has gone off the rails
Now, how does this player get away with such a comparison? What is with "scare" quotes and the word "expert" that makes what the author feels is an airtight comparison?
The author has forgotten a word, perhaps conveniently, or perhaps in some Freudian manner, which is: Authority.
Bitcoin core, ARE the experts, they are the experienced, they have all the best networks, they are the most involved, and they have the greatest incentive for bitcoin to succeed.
This is not AT ALL true, in regard to , for example, Ben Lawsky, and his role as a US government representative, in regulating bitcoin. Do ANY of us think these roles are comparable?
The author is attempting to conflate AUTHORITY, in which there are two distinct definitions:
1) the power to give orders or make decisions : the power or right to direct or control someone or something
2) an individual cited or appealed to as an expert
The former definition is comparable to the EU leaders and Ben Lawsky. The latter definition describes actual experts, not "experts", and is not at all comparable to a person such as Lawsky or an EU leader in regard to economics and/or crypto.
To conflate these two divisions and archetypes, and to suggest that we should not be deferring our attention to knowledge players and experts the field is to act against the community, against our civilization's progress, and is a deceleration of maliciousness and ignorance.
submitted by pokertravis to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Lawksy's new regulations highlight the twin futures of Cryptocurrency. Whether you advocate for surveillance or fear it, we're all getting what we want.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
"I'm very excited about what the future could hold for this very powerful technology."
Writes BenLawsky, on bitcoin, 4 months ago in his AMA.
He also writes:
"We're hopeful that clear regulations, if done in a smart, modern way, may incentivize some of these exchanges to come ashore (hopefully here in NY)."
These are the words of a man eager to capitalize on the benefits of a new technology. Bitcoin has existed in a somewhat legal grey area, but Lawsky thinks if he can clarify a regulatory landscape then it will remove any uneasiness that interested but hesitant corporations have shown to adopting bitcoin.
In the same AMA where the word "Laundering" was mentioned 263 times, Lawsky was quick to lay out his own agenda on the issue. He's a regulator who staunchly believes that extensive KYC/AML policies will help stamp out terrorism and other forms of financial crime. Transactions need to be tracked in Lawsky's world, and he's more than willing to force the entire population to submit to that maxim in order to catch a few bad guys. He and others have been barking up the paper trail tree for a very long time, and there's nothing to suggest they will ever stop.
Regulatory clarity is an idea that makes sense on paper at least, and it will cause legitimate well-funded exchanges to spring up that submit to these extensive, and expensive, compliance checks. It will go on to cause 50 different U.S. states to create 50 different nuanced compliance schemes that each exchange will have to take into account. Such is the cost of doing business in the U.S. And yes, it will absolutely drive some business out of the US entirely and cause others to forbid american customers from participating.
It's also worth noting that Lawsky is attempting to prevent another MtGox fiasco by forcing companies that hold customers' bitcoin to provide adequate security measures, keep collateral on hand that effectively insures the deposits, and prevent them from holding any profit in bitcoin.
Bravo Mr. Lawsky. You can have your little regulated corner of the world, and the rest of us will be living in ours.
This is simply not the future of bitcoin. No one asks you for anything when downloading a wallet for yourself. No one asks for your permission, background information, or intentions when moving funds from one address to another. No one can freeze or seize the funds in an address you control. The type of rules being proposed here are the last bastion of federated economy attempting to impose control with the best of intentions. But it's exactly those intentions that will drive virtual currency usage away from government influence.
The truth is that effective money laundering control is impossible in the virtual currency world. Broad and intrusive regulation might catch some of the low hanging fruit at licensed exchanges, but users who are determined to skirt the rules can and will find ways around it, and many already have. While institutions and investors are busy sinking enormous sums of capital into the digital economy, others are busy setting up decentralized exchanges and services that fly free of regulatory scrutiny.
In Lawsky's eyes such activity might look like the golden age of piracy again, but this time it's largely a body of good actors operating under the banner of financial privacy. This is a group that is simply fed up with the big brother state. It does not trust 3rd parties, let alone their own government, to own and scrutinize their spending habits
Every modicum of value that enters the virtual currency ecosystem, even through well-regulated and compliant exchanges, increases the effectiveness of a system that operates entirely independent from this scrutiny. On a fundamental level Lawsky and I may agree that terrorism is heinous, but the days when we can trace financial transactions with any certainty are coming to a close. It's a hard pill to swallow, and it probably won't stop regulators from trying to clamp down extensively, but they're going to have to find other means to nab criminals who are engaging in harmful activities. And no, I don't mean more KYC/AML, I'll repeat this again: the more you try to push down on transaction tracking, the less effective it will be.
I firmly believe that virtual currency in some form, is here to stay, it's foolish to dismiss this. It's equally as foolish to think that all fiat currency may crumble overnight or become obsolete. Perhaps one may win over the other someday, but we're bound to see a lot of resistance to the death of either system and they will be living in tandem for a very long time. Lawsky and the regulators may claim some domain over the fiat world and transition points that convert between bitcoin and cash, but the time is quickly approaching when one is able to depart from the fiat world, and never return again.
submitted by TryAgain_NY to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Such coin. Can Dogecoin outdo Bitcoin in showing solidarity for low regulation?

Greetings most handsome Shibas!
I'm Bruce Fenton, founder and CEO of Atlantic Financial and now one of the founding members of the newly created Bitcoin Financial Association.
I'm the author of a letter one of your most fine members cross posted here which is addressed to new York regulator Ben Lawsky about Bitcoin regulation.
As mentioned in the letter, clearly such regulation covers all alt-coins and has massive affect on Doge as well as lesser coins who wish they were Doge.
We didn't mention Doge in the letter or name our new group the Dogecoin Financial Association because the shiny beauty of all that which is Doge could have caused 'much confuse'.
But make no mistake, when you see us, know that we stand with you.
I won't let anyone regulate Dogecoin without a fight worthy of a Shiba in a hamburger shop.
I mean that.
Please do consider signing our letter to Mr. Lawsky.
Your reputation is well known and perhaps we will get more signatures from the Doge community than the Bitcoin sub. That would be moon dreamy indeed.
Thank you very much.
Also, we have included a FREE MEMBERSHIP coupon to our association to every member of this sub. You can sign up using coupon code. SUCHDOGECOIN
The website with the open letter and the place to join is:
Http://BitcoinFinancialAssociation.org
Let's see what Dogecoin can do!
Until then, keep up the great work. Much love and may all your dreams be much shiny.
submitted by bruce_fenton to dogecoin [link] [comments]

BitLicense Proposal Update, Super Ben Lawsky In Da House Benjamin Lawsky Keynote - Money 2020 - Nov 2, 2014 - #bitcoin #regulation Ripple/XRP-Ben Lawsky And Bitcoin Dominance - YouTube BitLicense Will Publish End of October, NYDFS Ben Lawsky Will Keynote Money2020 Early November Excerpt from Ben Lawsky at Cardozo Law School

Bitcoin Regulations: Protecting Consumers vs. Encouraging Innovation. Lawsky claims finding a balance between not being a hindrance to innovation, and doing what is required for protecting the consumer, and preventing money laundering, is the guiding principle behind the drafting of regulation. The Lawsky Group specializes in helping companies, boards, and individuals manage their most complex, emergent and dynamic challenges. The firm provides in-depth counsel and strategic advice on financial services regulation, cybersecurity and cyber-risk, new financial technologies, compliance, consumer protection, privacy, anti-money laundering controls, crisis management, and investigations ... Lawsky is well known in the cryptocurrency community. In January 2014, while superintendent of the NYDFS, he held the first state-level hearings on bitcoin, out of which emerged the BitLicense, a set of statewide requirements that pushed a number of digital-currency companies out of New York. For bitcoin entrepreneurs, and those considering getting into the field, the superintendent, Benjamin Lawsky, said in a speech today, that startups will receive special consideration. “We are ... Ben Lawsky: New York Can’t Risk Getting Bitcoin Regulation Wrong. ... Lawsky said: “I think that gives us an additional responsibility to do our very best to get it right, and the best way to ...

[index] [29812] [29562] [27099] [20994] [17073] [19674] [489] [1345] [22702] [18331]

BitLicense Proposal Update, Super Ben Lawsky In Da House

Hard Wallets: Get A Ledger Hard Wallet For Safe Digital Asset Storage Ledger Nano Link: https://bit.ly/2pTzCyV _____... BitLicense Proposal Update, Ben Lawsky In Da House tips: 1FEqW7sQrxqQbVtx3TpYMKYUuLU9CUEfmo Used to love the SNES, good times, favorite games: street fight 2 turbo ... WeAreChange Address: 12HdLgeeuA87t2JU8m4tbRo247Yj5u2TVP Luke Rudkowski interviews Ben Lawsky at Tuesday New York State regulatory hearing about the future of ... Thoughts on Ben Lawsky and his proposed Bitcoin ban. Ben Lawsky of the New York Department of Financial Services NYDFS has proposed some very onerous and extreme regulations surrounding Bitcoin ... Pragmatism not Idealism - #LIVE CALL-IN - Bitcoin News Talk Chat Show - March 18, 2020 - Duration: 2:28:09. World Crypto Network 458 views. New

#