Bitcoin Forum

I discovered this fun fact while doing some research on Trust Cash.  

1. Georgia full list (zip): https://dbfweb.dbf.state.ga.us/WebCCData.html (https://dbfweb.dbf.state.ga.us/WebCCData.html)
2. Delaware full list:  http://banking.delaware.gov/information/checksales.pdf (http://banking.delaware.gov/information/checksales.pdf)
3. Texas full list:  http://www.banking.state.tx.us/supreglic_ent.asp (http://www.banking.state.tx.us/supreglic_ent.asp)
4. Iowa full list: http://www.idob.state.ia.us/public/license/Financesrch/lic_default.htm (http://www.idob.state.ia.us/public/license/Financesrch/lic_default.htm)
5. Kentucky full list:  http://dfiweb.ky.gov/dfipublic/default.aspx (http://dfiweb.ky.gov/dfipublic/default.aspx)
6. Washington:  https://fortress.wa.gov/dfi/licenselu/dfi/licenseLU/LicenseLLU.aspx (https://fortress.wa.gov/dfi/licenselu/dfi/licenseLU/LicenseLLU.aspx)
7. New Hampshire full list (xls):  http://www.nh.gov/banking/list-money-transmitter.xls (http://www.nh.gov/banking/list-money-transmitter.xls)

I haven't had time to look into other states, but here is the link to the correct department in each state to go searching:

http://www.shajlaw.com/moneytransmitterlicense.html (http://www.shajlaw.com/moneytransmitterlicense.html)

Also, it appears that Trust Cash is not a licensed MSB in any state I have clicked on so far. Trust Cash is headquartered in Georgia and incorporated in Delaware.  Does anyone know if they actually have an MSB license anywhere?  Because I cannot find one.

EDIT - while I'm at it, Google's name popped up as well

1. California full list  http://www.dfi.ca.gov/directory/mt.asp?DATA= (http://www.dfi.ca.gov/directory/mt.asp?DATA=)
2. Nevada full list  https://fid.online.nv.gov/datamart/details.do?anchor=d0edd98.0.1 (https://fid.online.nv.gov/datamart/details.do?anchor=d0edd98.0.1)
3. New York full list   http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/whowesupervise/simoneyt.htm (http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/whowesupervise/simoneyt.htm)
4. Louisiana full list  http://www.ofi.state.la.us/soclist.htm (http://www.ofi.state.la.us/soclist.htm)
5. Texas (see above)
6. Iowa (see above)
7. Kentucky (see above)
8. Virginia full list:  http://www.scc.virginia.gov/bfi/reg_inst/trans.pdf (http://www.scc.virginia.gov/bfi/reg_inst/trans.pdf)
9. Hawaii full list:   http://hawaii.gov/dcca/dfi/regulate/regulate/Folder.2007-05-03.2330   (http://hawaii.gov/dcca/dfi/regulate/regulate/Folder.2007-05-03.2330)
10. Michigan full list:  http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/fis/ind_srch/ConsumerFinance/ViewList.asp (http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/fis/ind_srch/ConsumerFinance/ViewList.asp)
11. North Carolina full list:  https://www.nccob.org/Online/MTS/MTSCompanyListing.aspx (https://www.nccob.org/Online/MTS/MTSCompanyListing.aspx)
12. Tennessee full list:  http://www.tennessee.gov/tdfi/banking/Lic_MT.html (http://www.tennessee.gov/tdfi/banking/Lic_MT.html)
13. Washington (see above)
14. Oregon full list:  http://www4.cbs.state.or.us/ex/all/mylicsearch/index.cfm?fuseaction=main.show_main&group_id=20&profession_id=23&profession_sub_id=23000
15. New Hampshire (see above)
16. Utah full list:  http://www.dfi.state.ut.us/MonTrans.htm

actually a social credit system (i.e. based on competing value tokens issued by lots of different companies) would be much better than the central banking system we have today. It is in fact proposed as a solution in Money As Debt 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6uuAupT4AQ).

But please, not Facebook. They are a quasi-monopoly and people are sheeple and will by and large uncritically accept their credits as the only de-facto currency of exchange. This idea can only work if there are lots and lots of mid-size, ethical companies that have to compete for our valuation.

For Bitcoin, it’s uncertain if it can play a role in such a scenario as a common denominator.

Not even "sheeple" are going to want to use a non-transferrable currency with a spending tax of 30% outside of Facebook games.

EDIT: To the OP - if you want to give Trust Cash the benefit of the doubt, they may be an agent of an already licensed entity. But I have to say the whole operation seems odd to me.

Google Checkout is licensed in Virginia. Facebook is not.

There are quite a few others licensed in Virginia that are interesting.  Full list is here (http://www.scc.virginia.gov/bfi/reg_inst/trans.pdf).

thanks, I updated the OP.

This one is interesting in your list

Amazon Payments, Inc. d/b/a TextPayMe
410 Terry Avenue North
Seattle, WA  98109

I can't help but think Amazon.com may be Satoshi Nakamoto:
- they have a history of butting heads with regulators
- they operate a very high volume business on very slim margins
- they certainly see half their profit margin going to the banks
- they have a history of technical innovation

It would make sense to me that they would put a team of bright people on the task of inventing a better payment system that would allow them to bypass the banks and dramatically improve their bottom line.  When they worked out how to it, they would have realized they could never just launch such a thing themselves (bringing the ire of the bankers and the politicians they own down upon them).  So, instead they come up with plan b…put it out there and nuture it until such time as it's clear that it can survive on its own, then back away…wait a few years until the world gets over all it's qualms about the technology…then start using it.

their service is called TextPayMe, right, they have any mention about decentralized e-currency in there or something ?

Not sure, but take a look at this: https://docs.google.com/viewer?pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgJ8yckwNYqcJirJnChFxqmwGu7kipD2KbqQwYI5SmOFu11AFQWdoNEILLM-xcnSMyLRMVSUo8uuY86Ixk8n-dLr2S0e98ZbFB6HMlBSoJ1Oi_T4a7EBMcIlgqSSEZ1wYUMWPFf&q=cache%3AIPpL3ho5QWIJ%3Awww.edgardunn.com%2Fuploads%2F100012_english%2F100347.pdf%20&docid=c600ee601f693f608c79c6f198d4409f&a=bi&pagenumber=5&w=1200

Source: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:IPpL3ho5QWIJ:www.edgardunn.com/uploads/100012_english/100347.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgJ8yckwNYqcJirJnChFxqmwGu7kipD2KbqQwYI5SmOFu11AFQWdoNEILLM-xcnSMyLRMVSUo8uuY86Ixk8n-dLr2S0e98ZbFB6HMlBSoJ1Oi_T4a7EBMcIlgqSSEZ1wYUMWPFf&sig=AHIEtbQHPep_JaA1sB8MAnWu93DxgQhFbA

That's a good report.  Now if they will make one little change to page 8 it will solve all their problems.

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g296/tonygal/report.jpg

Agreed :)

To me, it looks like an Easy Button.

https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR1MrzcA8K3pjuKQ9pk9hZpHkUMBTmGcvT4KodIhcGqIlnn7WRH

Haha.

Why all the research on these licenses?

Are we looking for competitors to bitcoin?

Does bitcoin need some of these licenses?

Is that even possible given that no one is "in charge" of bitcoin?

"What am I doing wrong? I only buy and sell Bitcoin products. If you have a problem with "their" products, talk to the Bitcoin producers."  :D

Mobile Wallets and Mobile payments will be a very, very crowded space in 1-2 years.  So yes, it is quite interesting to see Facebook take the steps now to be a licensed Money Transmitter.

Bitcoin services like the exchanges, payment processors, and expediters like BitInstant definitely fall under existing regulations for currency exchanges, payment processing, and money transmission.  Especially when such businesses use Dollars or Euros as part of their business.  

So yes, the recent crackdown on TradeHill, etc, just shows that bitcoin related businesses need the proper licensing.  If facebook and Google are getting this type of license, then bitcoin businesses should probably follow and do the same thing.

So sounds like this is mostly an issue for exchanges.

We're thinking that there isn't anything that a business needs to do to simply accept bitcoins at this time?

correct, there is nothing a merchant needs to do regarding licensing.  Merchants are free to accept Euros, Pesos, gold, any form of payment they want to.  The licensing is for the exchanges, the payment processors, and possibly the wallets.

Ok, so this will only to apply to sending fiat money. Bitcoin isn't actually transmitted anywhere. It just registers a signature in the block chain and it doesn't matter where the wallet is stored. If the wallet is stored in the cloud, then it is not even going from point A to B. There is no reason to believe that the transaction is not local.

If all Bitcoin exchanges become "licensed", I'll certainly lose faith in it as a currency. The point of bitcoin isn't to be accepted by the current powers that be, but to overthrow them. Fuck their licenses and fuck the people we're supposed to beg for permission from.

Following  :)

I believe the concept of Bitcoin is great enough for both approaches at the same time. If necessary, an alternative block chain can be used for underground activities.

Eh...the fact that they are getting "licenses" at all bothers me. To me, its a sign that the banking elite have a plan for Bitcoin. My guess is that they want to make themselves the primary exchanges and demonize exchanges that aren't part of their network. They've already infiltrated Gox and Intersango is definitely controlled op. I have to wonder how many people in here are trolls sent to bash any exchange that is non-government. (think TradeHill)

I don't see it that way. But we all do know that the exchanges are bottlenecks. Maybe the big ones like MtGox can get licenses, maybe not. But I guess either way, we need P2P exchanges, or at least more direct exchanges (escrow only) like bitmarket.eu (https://bitmarket.eu/).

+1 Definitely!  Another idea I had was an exchange that runs multiple dwolla accounts under different names, and also leaves their dwolla accounts with only minimum amounts in them, withdrawing most into gold and silver. That would stymie their chargeback bullshit because the funds would be taken out before the exchange added the deposit to the customers trade acct.

Kinda like this:   deposit:
                                 customer dwolla acct -> exchange's dwolla acct#1

                                 exchange's dwolla acct#1 -> gold/silver
          
                                 exchange funds customer's trade acct

                     withdraw:
                                 exchange's dwolla acct#2 -> customer dwolla acct

                                 exchange refills it's withdraw accounts using its gold/silver reserves

feedback?

Yup, a more than just those 7:
- http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/177_35/facebook-credits-money-transmitter-license-bank-regulation-1046825-1.html

Good Find!  That just came out today.  I wonder if the author was tipped off by my post and initial research a couple days ago.

We should not underestimate facebook and facebook credits as a competitor.  Starbucks will accept them, so will other stores.  They will get lots of publicity from this.  They will take a large share of the digital wallet space, because they already have the leading app on every smartphone platform.

Facebook will be a private, global e-currency when they enter the peer-to-peer market.  You will be able to pay people remotely in India using facebook credits.  This needs to be watched, and watched closely.

maybe i should look into it more closely, if that ever happens people would want to exchange some of their centralized credits for "digital gold" to keep their savings safe, you never know when playing farmville all day could be your actual dayjob  :D

Look out Zynga, you might be getting a call from the Spanish authorities soon. 

There's a chance that FB credits will become the easiest conduit for exchanging USD into BTC. And the concept of a digital currency is difficult for many people to comprehend. FB credits will certainly open up many minds. This could be a boon for BTC.

just like windows opens many people's minds for linux  ???

people want to get their job done, their needs fulfilled. facebook would have to fuck up big time (though they eventually will i suppose when the central bank of zuckerberg discovers quantitative easing, making a brave 0.1% looking for alternatives).

Who cares if the exchanges get licensed? As long as the basic client still allows person-to-person transfers without involving a 3rd party, then it doesn't matter what the exchanges are doing. If you are willing to accept and hold BTC as value in trade for whatever you provided then you don't even need an exchange. Once the BTC economy grows enough that you can purchase the things you need without requiring a BTC/fiat conversion it won't matter at all how connected the exchanges are to the existing banking system.

There is a very critical difference here that gives Bitcoin a great advantage. A Bitcoin business only needs to be licensed in the jurisdictions where they do business but the Bitcoins themselves can be used worldwide. Let us say I wish to transfer money from here in Canada to a person in Kenya. I can purchase the Bitcoins here in Canada at a business that is licensed in Canada but not in Kenya, send them to a person in Kenya who then sells them in Kenya at a business that is licensed in Kenya but not in Canada. A competitive money transfer using say Google or Facebook requires that business to be licensed in both Canada and Kenya. M-PESA is not an option here because M-PESA is not licensed in Canada. There are many innovative money transfer and e-wallet services worldwide but they are for the most part local products. Even PayPal who has been at this for over a decade does not allow a withdrawal to a local bank account in most parts of the world. https://www.paypal.com/worldwide/ (https://www.paypal.com/worldwide/). The challenges that PayPal faces with regulation worldwide illustrates this issue very well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PayPal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PayPal)

Bitcoin can exist at an infinite number of locations and can be sent to the same instantly because anyone that has the private key has the first access and is the one that actually determines the physical location of the Bitcoin. You can use the Shroedingers Cat analogy with Bitcoin. When you send Bitcoin to an address, you don't know how many people have been given the private key to that public address. Decentralized money will be an interesting test for law since there will always be plausible deniability regarding the country of origin and destination.