Bitcoin Forum

http://altcoinpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/bitcoin_atom_bomb-660x400.jpg

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) today issued two administrative rulings regarding digital currency. And the government has apparently decided to go with the nuclear option.

The first ruling published today relates to the application of FinCEN regulations to a virtual currency trading platform, while the second ruling discusses the application of FinCEN regulations to a virtual currency payment system.

In ruling FIN-2014-R011, FinCEN states that any and all cryptocurrency exchanges must become licensed as a money transmitter including crypto-only exchanges:

"As explained in the Guidance, a person is an exchanger and a money transmitter if the person accepts convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person as part of the acceptance and transfer of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency."

In ruling FIN-2014-R012, the agency confirms that and and all payment processors are obliged to register as money transmitters, significantly increasing the cost of entry in becoming a payment service provider.

"As described above, the Company is an exchanger under the Guidance because it engages as a business in accepting and converting the customer’s real currency into virtual currency for transmission to the merchant. The fact that the Company uses its cache of Bitcoin to pay the merchant is not relevant to whether it fits within the definition of money transmitter."

Once labeled a money transmitter, a business wishing to continue operating must pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to become licensed in each of the 50 states. And that’s only the beginning of the regulatory costs and legal hoop jumping.

In addition, companies are required to register with FinCEN, conduct a comprehensive risk assessment of its exposure to money laundering, implement an Anti-Money Laundering Program based on such risk assessment, and comply with various record keeping, reporting and transaction monitoring obligations, in addition to meeting several other requirements.

It is interesting to note that the government classifies Bitcoin as a digital “property” for taxation purposes, but as a digital “money” for regulatory and licensing purposes.

Full Story: http://altcoinpress.com/2014/10/fincen-ruling-us-government-ramps-up-war-on-cryptocurrency/

There is no war - if you want to bitch about problems, why not go hunt down ryan kennedy?

If there is war, it's between those who want centralization of security but decentralization of profit - and more level headed people who know they can't have their cake and eat it too.

Not unless you are prepared for the same treatment from others.

Why complain if anyone scams you if you want to complain about fincen?

Neither of those ruling are surprising or ridiculous. Obviously, if you are a payment processor, you are transmitting money. The exchange ruling is a little less obvious, but it makes some sense.

The US is on the process of finding the best way of regulating bitcoin, from a a digital “property” for taxation purposes to a digital “money” for regulatory and licensing purposes. It will boost the development of bitcoin and set up an good example for the other countries.

I never realized how heavily censored the coindesk.com comment section was until tonight.


Deleted (no links or anything. lol) ^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hmmm. Maybe I just have a conspiracy complex.  :P

Surprising number of sensible posts.

The types of rules have been around for years before Bitcoin.  There were some interviews on some early Let's Talk Bitcoin with the Money Transfer Association and they discussed all these problems.  FinCEN is merely applying those rules and it is not specific to Bitcoin.  This is an ongoing problem with all financial-related businesses.

Also, the IRS put out guidance based on their rules.  Their guidance leaves open the possibility of other circumstances or changes in the future.  This is perfectly reasonable for me since most of my transactions were on exchanges rather than buying goods and services.  the courts also rules in things like Silk Road and pirateat40.  Someone has a web site that compares these different interpretation but I can't find it at the moment.

Actually, according to these new rulings, there is the possibility that a business paying its employees in Bitcoin (under certain circumstances) would be subject to the money transmitter requirements. I suspect it will take a few days for the gravity of this new development to be fully appreciated and understood.

miners will also be considered as money transmitters.

Just a matter of time before users are put under the definition and required to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to "transmit" even a single satoshi.

No, I got that ruling last year.

http://cointext.com/fincen-issues-bitcoin-friendly-ruling-for-miners/

Yeah, I think you do :)

The US should save the trouble and issue money transfer licenses along with a social security card.  Soon if you have one, you will need the other.

Why would fincen waste time going after miners.  If they manage to regulatory sink btc a a viable financial instrument in the public's eye then they managed to kill two birds with one stone.

I suspect mining regulations will soon follow if they end up determining that bitcoin needs another nail and its proverbial coffin

Miners are stationary targets.  The easy prey get saved for later.

Sad but oh so true

This is that famous process of finding the best by trying all the worst first?
The USA has some of the worst regulatory issues outside of Southern Europe.