Bitcoin Forum

If the regulation of Bitcoin concerns you, please sign this letter to regulator Ben Lawsky


http://bitcoinfinancialassociation.org/regulation/

I thought the whole point was to get Bitcoin finally regulated

Do NOT DIVULGE ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION Before investigating where it will go, of course! #Protip


This is NOT safe!

Show where this "New York announcement" is, instead of posting something that's immediately asking speculators personal information, please.

It only asks for your name and city.

It's standard for online petitions.   

We will present the letter with all signatures to Superintendent Lawsky....signatures without a name or city are not influential.

I also personally disclose my own name and info as the op.

There are different opinions. I, for one, do not want bitcoin to get regulated, at least not the way most people want.

It all comes down to "how" it will be regulated. It might be a good thing or it might be the worst that happened to bitcoin.

It's all over the news, Bloomberg, Reuters etc.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/11/us-usa-bitcoin-idUSBREA1A20X20140211

Online petitions are extremely common and this hardly asks anything which would be a concern to most....simply name and city.

If it concerns you that's fine -- but you can easily verify who I am as the original author - I don't think there is a security risk by people signing this.

A mandatory Bitcoin license? Ooooooo scary :D and just how are they going to enforce this? ^_^

p.s. They can't, everyone in America would just start renting virtual private servers and you'd have companies outside the U.S specifically offering these services in return for Bitcoins and they'd simply move everything overseas

Don't underestimate the difficulties which can be caused by men who command over those with badges, guns, cages an army of lawyers and a near unlimited faucet of taxpayer dollars.

Bitcoin regulation can be very very bad ....affecting companies like Bitpay, Coinbase, all new startups, venture capital investment in the space, public perception etc.

If it all goes underground we are looking at a lot less growth in innovation, jobs etc.

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong, I understand well exactly how much damage it will cause but there's always a part of me that wants them to push these kind of bullshit laws through so people realise just what scumbags these people are.

the NY guys are only PLANNING to licence businesses that convert bitcoins to dollars. the regulation will remain at the FIAT gateways. this is not bitcoin regulation, this is FIAT regulation

Should vote the governments in NY and California out.

All they do is make more rules and restrict the freedom.

This is only the beginning. These people are just treading the waters. Checking our response and restricting slowly and slowly by desensitizing us.

They probably have a 4 year plan to control and regulate bitcoins.

We should be supporting it if this is the case (unless they do something really strange).

Prudent state regulation it the next necessary step in the evolution of decentralized virtual currency.

+1 for a New York BitLicense.

Regulation in some form will come whether people like it or not. Governments aren't gonna sit back and let people launder it freely. They'll expect their cut somewhere down the line.

As someone put well. Gov can control the exits, but what people do inside the cryptocurrency ecosystems will be impossible to regulate.

Bitcoin would be stronger for it in the long term.

NY will try to regulate anything and everything - with a goal in the end of generating revenue for the state in fees and/or taxes. Some other states will follow suit. It will be interesting to see the scope of any regulations they try to apply, and how they intend to enforce them.

Asking for regulators to regulate solely because one fears they will regulate anyway is like asking for a thief to steal your wallet because you fear pickpockets.

In general once they start regulating the government grows the regulatory bodies....perhaps a dozen people will be at first tasked to oversea Bitcoin regulation, then it grows and grows. 

 In the not too distant future we could see Bitcoin regulated in a manner similar to FINRA financial services with thousands of regulators and thousands of pages of regulation governing everything from personal email usage to social media to political contributions etc etc. 

...and nobody starts a traditional Bitcoin business in the US ever again.

Those thousands of pages are there to serve as a barrier for newcomers and a protection from justice, not sure Government is interested in protecting Bitcoin from newcomers.

edit.

Yes, the regulations tend to grow because this increases the power of the regulators.   If you were a regulator would you want to have a staff of three and no one know who you are or a staff of 500 and a whole industry quakes at your every word?

Also, the regs tend to be protectionist policies for the existing businesses who are large and well connected.

This would almost certainly cover things like local Bitcoin transfers and sales by individuals to others

Well, it looks like they are considering trying to.  The URL below was mentioned in an earlier post, and in it the article it states that Mr Lawsky's agency is still wrestling on whether to restrict or ban the use of "tumblers".  I think that tumblers are needed because as soon as someone ties you to a bitcoin address they then can possibly figure out how much money you have.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/11/us-usa-bitcoin-idUSBREA1A20X20140211 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/11/us-usa-bitcoin-idUSBREA1A20X20140211)

Just imagine a scenario 5-10 years in the future: You have most of your money in BTC, including being paid in BTC by your employer.  Tumblers are not allowed by regulation.  You then pay for your dinner with BTC.  Someone at the restaurant sees your address.  Well, if they know one of your addresses, it only takes a perusing on blockchain.info to potentially see a few more levels of addresses and how much money you have.  That is creepy and very useful information for criminals, for example.

And if you think that looking at the blockchain won't give you this kind of information, I can guarantee you that within a number of years there will be web sites that will do wealth analysis on a given bitcoin address.  With accuracy probabilities and everything.  Just wait.  Anything tumbled and the probabilities of that wealth calculation goes way, way down towards 0%.

That is just one example of what a tumbler can prevent.

Money Laundering is simply a term that people who want control of other people use to try to make their control look good in the eyes of still other people.

The trick is, how to anonymize your Bitcoin addresses for real, without having a central authority for Bitcoin, and preventing both, double spends and forking the blockchain.

It's beginning to look like we will be NEEDING a quantum computer for Bitcoin.

It has been said that a quantum computer that is truly operational could hack Bitcoin successfully. But it has also been said that a quantum computer running Bitcoin would be harder to hack by another quantum computer than a supercomputer trying to hack another supercomputer.

Until then, maybe we need Bitcoin credit, just so that we don't ever have to make Bitcoin payments on the spot, like at a restaurant, for example. It could be done in advance via some form of Bitcoin credit built into the Btc client.

:)

I guess this is going to turn out about the same way as it did with the gun industry; we pretty well wrote NY off and nobody wants to do business there.  Thanks regulators!

One serious drawback of this is the massive influence NY has on not just US financial regulations but globally.

lol bitcoin is struggling to get mass adoption in the US as is, you think people are going to spend money to rent VPNs so that they can use Bitcoin?  How delusional are you?

.

Unfortunately, they did:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/11/us-usa-bitcoin-idUSBREA1A20X20140211

I don't think so. This is being spun and that word is being used carelessly. It's just something he said in the hearings, I watched all 7 hours.

Tldr, the stupid media is using a word he used once to refer to the regulation. No bitlicense is officially announced.

I will never trust an association that doesn't have an alpha channel on their logo.

Regulation yes, bitlicense no.

We don't yet know specifically what NY regulators will do. From that article:

,

Yes, unfortunately it seems very clear that this is the way they are going.

It is NOT likely a coincidence that this announcement came yesterday during the exchange issues any more than it's a coincidence that Charlie Shrem was arrested a couple days before the hearings.

Don't worry Issac there is a good reason for the clunky logo....it has to do with a very generous donation and a new logo we will have up within a week.

But if you are a graphics whiz, anything you can offer in other graphics is appreciated!

I don't think that regulation of some sort necessarily is bad, but unfortunately it points in that direction  :-\

Minor regulation could be seen as a white listing of Bitcoin and thereby make it easier to act legally within the boundaries.

Something I don't like about USA (living in Denmark) is that it seems that people can get arrested with an alleged law (non-written) and then be accused of violating another weird law.
It seems that the legal certainty in USA has disappeared more and more over the last decade.

Wonder what the capital requirements could be that are mentioned in that article at Reuters?

smh at people calling for regulation.

The unregulated nature of Bitcoin is what attracted people in the first place and has allowed for explosive growth.

If you give them an inch of regulation, they take a mile.  The next step will be more regulation, and after that, even more regulation, then when they're done with that they'll try to regulate some more.

The only way to stop a bad guy with bitcoins is with a good guy with bitcoins

Regulation is a good thing.  It allows outsiders to be able to trust bitcoiners.  We should be applauding this move.

"He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

The article I read had a line in it that they were considering regulating miners also, not just exchanges or gateways to FIAT.  >:(

SOME regulation of exchanges might be good and lend legitimacy to the cryptocurrenncies.  Things like deposit insurance or minimum levels of capitalization so runs don't crash the exchange.  That would also take some volatility out of the market and make it more attractive to merchants.  The bad result could be if they try to treat BTCs like FIAT with regulations like 'know your customer' that go against the grain of the peer-to-peer architecture.  THAT could take a serious bite out the attractiveness of BTCs and all cryptocurrencies and will force everyone offshore.  But even then FACTA laws in place today would restrict exchange operators desriing anonymity to third world locales.

Lawsky seemed pretty good in the hearings. But I was expecting a hearing on how to destroy Bitcoin so anything was positive.

Signed it. Agree with most of what you wrote...

The problem is regulators' incentives. If they're free to keep the grand, historical vision of American freedom and innovation in mind, much of the letter may indeed resonate with them. But I think unfortunately therir jobs and the nature of politics is a huge enemy here. We have to understand that they are going to be judged on the amount of financial crime taking place, or more specifically, the amount of financial crime they can somehow measure that they're stopping due to the regs they put in place. And equally unfortunately, on the flipside, they will be held politically accountable if financial crime takes place in a very public way (eg, Madoff). Their primary instinct is probably to never get accused of being "asleep at the wheel". Thus, for their own reputation and job security, they'll likely err on the side of more regulation, despite how much (if at all) the freedom argument may actually resonate with them.

I think we need to fully understand that dynamic and figure out how to meet their concerns and motivations while promoting our own cause. I hope the two are not mutually exclusive.

Of course, maybe Lawsky is an exceptional guy and *will* understand the greater arc of history here. Who knows.

Yes, the motivation is key.

I've asked him for a meeting.

Politicians care about public perception and vote.  It can be a concern over the public being angry about the next Maddoff or it could be concern over jobs! innovation and the economy.

If he will meet my goal will be to show him all the negative things that can happen from too much regulation, all the jobs and positive effect of low to no (new) regulation -- and also that it's not a binary either/ or case of one must regulate Bitcoin in order to stop terrorism etc..... I'd argue that the regulation may not work and even if not regulated there are still many good time tested police investigative methods which can be used to catch criminals.

Somebody somewhere wants to license bits ...

Wil-E coyote moment as they look down and realise just how far out over the cliff they have gone?

The widepsread monetary insanity and confusion has no limits it seems.

The real insanity is people in our own industry emphatically saying "I want regulation" and when pressed for an answer why they reply "because it's coming anyway"

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the expanding needs of the bureaucracy.

Don't worry! This can only mean ONE thing!

"Better Call Saul!"

http://i59.tinypic.com/1zyvebl.jpg

Everyone should weigh in because this isn't simply about bitcoin in NY State, its precedence for cryptocurrency of all sorts for NY, and it will be viewed by other states as a guide, and as other states adopt or reject it it will create an international impression.  

Personally I favor self-regulation for btc and the whole CC industry.  I feel that after the CC industry has provided a road map and design for self-regulation, then the govts on all levels could weigh in appropriately.   The Bitcoin Foundation really dropped the ball on this one, but its not too late for many other states, the country, and other countries.  

NY is only demanding a license, but with any govt intervention goes rules, regulations, and fees, followed by fines and punishments.  

This license won't be something like a drivers license ....it will require continual and ongoing compliance, audits and more and more regulations governing it.

The top 5 bitcoin exchanges are located outside of the United States.  You can not currently "legally" operate a virtual currency exchange in the United States with out clear regulatory guidance.  We don't need "regluation."  We need clarity.

The hope is the BitLicense will provide this regulatory clarity to allow competent, compliant virtual currency business to operate legally in the US.

By the way you don't need a petition to communicate with the New York Regulators.  Commissioner Lawsky spoke at a conference on Tuesday and has invited public comment even saying he gets a lot of feedback from twitter.

@BenLawsky
@NYDFS

Here are his remarks from that event:
http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/speeches_testimony/sp140212.htm

He is the video that includes answers to questions:
http://youtu.be/zhIZd9b2-Qs

The whole conference is here

http://newamerica.net/events/2014/new_coin_of_the_realm

Hopefully.

I've requested a meeting with him so hopefully he will accept.   If not then a detailed letter signed by a couple hundred people may at least be read.

Twitter is okay but not exactly the level of engagement I'd prefer to discuss something so important and complex.

I think the hearings were lacking in the representation of those who speak about the drawbacks of regulation.


I know one goal might be to have compliant and competent firms operate in the US but the effect could be that it drives away competition and the only operators end up being those who can deal with a mountain of regulations.

Bruce,

Competition is already being driven out of the US because of the lack of regulatory clairity.  See China, Panama, Singapore, Canada etc.   The US has 44 years of consistently updated laws and regulation regarding anti-money laundering and Knowing Your Customer so there is no way a pseudonymous currency will be allow to thrived unchecked. 

The US States regulate financial institutions for  safety and soundness and consumer protection.  Look at MyBitcoin.com,  Bitcoinica.com,  BitcoinSavings and Trust, GLBSE, inputs.io.  The short history of bitcoin is littered with massive fraud and operator incompetence.  There is no way a $8B + USD economy is going to go unregulated.

The conversation is not NO regulation.  The conversation has to be about prudent regulation.  And Lawsky has shown in his public statements and these hearings that he wants input from the community to keep illicit activity out of the us financial system and to protect consumers from fraud and incompetence while creating a framework that will allow this new technology to thrive in the New York.

 

I agree 100% and if you were up on this topic you would know that part of Lawsky's regulation will probably included requirements that Bitcoin businesses inform consumers that Bitcoin is highly speculative and highly volatile.  That is great consumer protection.  You can do want you want with your money.  We are just warning you that you should understand that you are putting your money at risk.

Please take 30 minutes to view this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhIZd9b2-Qs

Published on Feb 12, 2014
Cryptocurrencies: The New Coin of the Realm?
The State of Play

In 2009, the mysterious and pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto launched Bitcoin, the world's first online cryptocurrency. Backed by no government or hard assets, the currency's value has skyrocketed and plunged repeatedly. And yet, a diverse group of entrepreneurs, businesses and would-be money launders has followed Bitcoin's trajectory avidly. The receptivity indicates a real demand for an Internet-centric medium of exchange, without banks and without fees. Yet the rise of "criminal eBays" like the Silk Road, which allow for the anonymous purchase of illegal items with the cryptocurrency, have also brought the digital cash to the attention of government authorities. Beyond monitoring illicit activity, should regulators have a role in this new financial system? Could Bitcoin-or another cryptocurrency-become a universal alternative currency? Will we ever be able to use a cryptocurrency at our local bodega?

Benjamin M. Lawsky
Superintendent of Financial Services, New York State Department of Financial Services
@BenLawsky

Makes no sense at all.  We need more regulation so we can start requiring warning labels on Bitcoin for idiots?

'New York regulates Prostitution, Pimps petition against'

Better accept that BTC will be subject to regulation, and find political support to mold the regulations in a manner that favours crypto.

DaFockBro,

I didn't say it made sense.  That is just how it works in America.

... after the lawyers showed up.

Crypto currency was doing just fine before that, now the people making the rules basically have no clue how it works.

Tell me how that isn't a recipe for disaster?

Do you want a lawyer flying your airplane, operating your local nuclear reactor or fixing that gas pipeline at the end of the street?

This IS a highly tuned technology ... just get the feck out of the way and let us handle this one, ok?

Agreed. They are going to regulate, and that shouldn't really come as a surprise. Now is the time to try and shape that regulatory effort. I liked Fred Wilson's suggestions about "safe harbor" and an on-ramp, so that startups with little volume/impact wouldn't be subject to any onerous regs. I think that's a reasonable approach. Allow the innovation to happen, see what works, and as companies scale, apply the reg burden as they level up. New bitcoin startups shouldn't need two lawyers for every one engineer, plus millions in capital requirements or surety bond coverage... But if a startup succeeds and starts to do huge volume, then their compliance burden goes up.

Bruce - I agree with your point that once regulation happens, it'll just grow and grow. That's kinda the nature of government looking across large timescales. Unfortunately it's unrealistic to assume there's a path to zero regulation. Thus, as stated above, the goal should be to help shape it in the most productive way possible. Obviously I think you're aware of this, and that's your overall goal here.

This is a great idea and makes absolute sense. But this onerous regulation protects the existing player.

So you know who is going to fight this?


Ezra C. Levine, The Money Services RoundTable  and its members:
Western Union
Money Gram
American Express

I appreciate people who commend Lawsky for having hearings and accepting input on Twitter etc.

But not to beat the "trust me I know what regulation is really like" drum too much..... but most people within the financial industry have a MUCH more skeptical view of regulators.

For example, do we think it was a coincidence that Charlie Shrem was arrested 48 hours before the hearing and then used repeatedly as a rally cry proving why we need new regs?  

How about the timing of the announcement for more regulation coinciding with the exchange shutdowns?

We don't see these announcements made on days like the Overstock announcement.

Regulators quite often use the weight of their office to essentially shakedown players who can afford fines but don't want bad publicity.

Remember the "market timing" crusade by Elliot Spitzer?   Show me a law which says "market timing" is illegal.   It's not.   But firms won't fight regulators who have unlimited legal budgets....they settle and move on.

I would like to believe Mr. Lawsky is different but I think it's naive to assume that any politician, no matter how good they are, will objectively learn and consider what's best for everyone.    Politics rule and politics is driven by the fear and greed of voters, by special interests and money.

This is no criticism against any one regulator, it's reality.   If he agrees to meet I'll talk to him about things he cares about from his office and his angle.

Someone needs to explain to Lawsky that even if the government makes it illegal to use Bitcoin, it will still have a market value and can still be used to launder money.

This was kind of the point: government cannot gain by regulating Bitcoin; all they can do is restrict its use for legal purposes.

In order for Bitcoin to go mainstream licenses are necessary. The average person will never use Bitcoin if they have to hand over their fiat money to some shady motherfucker who might run off with it, or some incompetent outfit that doesn`t know what it`s doing.

If you want the libertarian dream of unregulated money which requires a lot of vigilence and self-protection, then Bitcoin won`t be growing.

That's the most severe oxymoron I've ever seen!    :-[

pru·dent /ˈpro͞odnt/ adjective 1. acting with or showing care and thought for the future.

Seems to be what Lawsky is doing.  Time will tell.

Unless you are making commits to github https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin) , polemics, politics and parasiticism is essentially all you have to contribute (i.e. next to worthless in the great sweep of the arc of history.)

Regulation will have zero impact on making bitcoin better or worse money in regards to the 'protecting the great unwashed' claim your arguments are hiding behind. Observe how they have gotten screwed over for decades by the 'regulated' financial predators currently in charge, none less than the Federal Reserve themselves.

Bury your heads in the sand as much as you like but bitcoin is about something bigger than petty turf wars in the financial shakedown racket, that more and more of you appear to hail from.

I have not heard a more ridiculous notion than the "licensing of bits" in a long time by an official agency, but vested interests knows no bounds it seems.

Good luck with your appeals to stupidity but all you are doing is crapping in the nest of the homeland for your children, to further your own greedy interests or at best in misguided do-gooding attempts.

And here's the final inescapable truth, the bits are totally oblivious to your precious "licenses". Your efforts are already futile and all in vain.

There are a thousand ways that this can be accomplished without government regulation:  people can set up consumer reports style objective evaluation services, there can be online voting services and feedback like eBay, there can be voluntarily industry associations, voluntary insurance, proof of binding or assets, open books and audits etc etc.

No you fucking moron. The whole reason bitcoin was invented was to AVOID government tampering. Now we can't use bitcoin for it's intended purpose - which was to GET AROUND THE BANKS and their control of the value of the money.

Good job, you fucking morons.

Convenient last name, Lawsky

Oh, they control us for our safety and protection? The nicest thing I can say about that sentiment is that it's utterly delusional. In the real world, governments are corrupt to the core and the financial system is one gigantic fraud regardless of how it's "regulated." Regulation is, in fact, one of the primary tools of tyranny and is typically used to create barriers to entry in order to preserve the existing power structure. Why do you think the Fed can create 85 billion dollars a month and hand them out to their buddies in secret without being bothered by anyone? Is that to protect you and make you safe?

You're whining about actual crimes committed in the bitcoin world? Well, there are already laws (not "regulations") against fraud and stealing. Do you see the state tracking down actual criminals who defrauded people of bitcoin? No. You see them arresting innocent people on fake charges of "money laundering," which is a completely made-up non-crime with NO VICTIM. If there is an actual victim to crime involving bitcoin, they don't do anything because they don't gain control over markets that way. It's just an expense. It doesn't grow the power base.

This idea that the state is your buddy and that it loves you and protects you is beyond childish. And let me clue you in on something, free people don't need a license to buy and sell. Buying and selling is not a crime.

Need to change all the Federal Reserve notes first, to have a disclaimer - "every second, this Note decreases in value." Or something to that effect.


All totalitarian sociopaths begin violating liberties with honey. At the end, if we don't have the epi pen of trillions of dollars held by the federal reserve and regulatory capture, we're left dead on the floor, from anaphylactic asphyxiation after thousands of stings.

Forcibly stripping human beings of their right to trade freely does not sound like prudence to me.

Can you enlighten us on why you think voluntary exchange is a crime?

Just going leave an example of what "bank-sponsored regulation" has wrought ...

Vampire Squid strikes again (http://m.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-vampire-squid-strikes-again-the-mega-banks-most-devious-scam-yet-20140212)

I don't make the laws.

I just try to obey them.

The reactions in these posts and just the idea of this law really shows something interesting that's getting more and more pronounced: we really are at a crossroads.

I personally am okay with working within the frame of the structure because to me that's the best way to enact acceptance and un-muddle the waters surrounding Bitcoins. I wouldn't be surprised if this actually supports the Bitcoin economy because there is a working legal structure tied to Bitcoin in some way.

Or maybe it's all craziness...

Fortunately for us, they can't really break our network protocol despite bugs.

At the risk of offending the anarchists, this regulation is a major step forward for bitcoin. It will provide a LEGAL framework and guideline for business in NY to accept bitcoin without fear of prosecution, it is significant progress to popularize the acceptance of bitcoin. And even more important, it will provide a blueprint for other states to follow once they see how NY - the financial capital, has regulated bitcoin.

As much as you all like to tell the government to fuck off, the reality is we (well most of us) still live within a complex world governed by law and regulations. Large business in this country will not widely accept bitcoins until the government tells them it is okie. 

So i view this as progress and a major step forward for bitcoin.

Every time you post I get flashbacks to the Nuremburg trials...

http://dollarvigilante.com/sites/default/files/images/JustDoingMyJobJustFollowingMyOrders-police-military-state.jpg

This is where you are entirely wrong and have fallen into the illusion propagated by regulators that they make laws.
They are glorified policeman, they interpret and enforce the laws, with increasing arbitrariness and capriciousness.

Lawsky is a cop.

Legislature and the courts make the laws, not the cops.

The "legal framework" you seek has to come from the people and their representatives in power and justice system, not from the foot soldiers of the powerful and the banksters who have infiltrated every level of the cop bureaucracy.

Jamie Dimon was crystal clear, he wants bitcoin regulated into irrelevancy. I don't know which one of you missed that comment and still 'welcomes' bitcoin regulation.

The craven politicians and judges have to step up and be brave ... are they really prepared to license bits? Are they really going to sanction the financial totalitarianism desired by their paymasters?

Good point ---  since when do we have a situation where regulators can make laws anyway?

Laws should be made by ELECTED representatives.

The NY State House or the US Congress should be the one to make laws which affect so many, not an unelected body.

There is a guy down the street who I am really afraid will beat me with a stick when I am out for a jog or grabbing a coffee.

So, because I am so terribly afraid of this man with the stick, my solution is that I am going to knock on his door and ask him to beat me so that I'll know when he is going to beat me and in hopes that he won't want to beat me more.


..... this is what is going through my head when I hear people say. "We need regulation because it's the best way to get clarity"


No.   CLARITY is the best way to get clarity.   Ask the regulators exactly what actions related to Bitcoin will result in Bitcoin users being imprisoned or having their property seized.   That's it.

The destructive power of regulators on innovation is something a lot of people don't understand.

.

+1

but isn't the idea behind bitcoins that it is a self regulated currency?  I mean, if someone has the power to oversee this currency, then it's no different to what exists now?

Bitcoin the protocol is self regulating as we have been watching in real time with the current transaction malleability issue.  How Bitcoin interacts with the existing financial system is HIGHLY regulated by many governments and agencies.

Just to be clear, the letter / petition is AGAINST BITCOIN REGULATION AND A BITCOIN LICENCE.

With so many quotes and inclusions I wanted to make sure no one confused the letter we wrote to Mr. Lawsky which is AGAINST regulation with so,e of the commenters who think regulation is a good idea.

If you DONT want to see a Bitcoin license or at least want to see as many limits as possible on regs, please sign the letter and join us.

http://bitcoinfinancialassociation.org/regulation/

You are missing the entire point, no member of congress will take that kind of political risk and introduce a bill on bitcoin, not until AFTER it is popular and widely used with strong public backing.

But in order to get to that step, business both large and small need guideline from the government whether federal or state to provide the confidence, the regulation they are trying to introduce in ny is an important first step to provide that confidence and roadmap for business to start accepting bitcoins. The laws will come only later, you need to walk before you can run.

And i completely disagree that you can "regulate bitcoin into irrelevancy" short of a outright ban which noone is suggesting in the usa. It is by design anonymous with significant advantage over fiat for online payments/money transport.  What regulation will do is allow business and banks to accept bitcoins, and legit broker dealers to start trading it. Those need to be regulated, and that's fine.

You already see what damage shady exchanges like mtgox can do to bitcoins.  I have said this back in 2011 and i will say again, a stable legit exchange between bticoin and fiat is the single most important factor for bitcoin to gain popularity, we need big players like interactive broker and oanda to add bitcoins.  None of this can happen without above mentioned regulations.

So if you truly want bitcoin to gain popularity and become the defacto global currency, you need to welcome regulation, because the world is run by governments and regulations (sorry to break reality to you). Otherwise bitcoin will only exist in the shadows with shady basement dealers/exchanges that go under every few months.

And looking at how the exchanges have behaved so far globally, I for one would switch in a heartbeat to a properly regulated US based exchange over the mt.Goxes of this world!! Some regulation = good, no regulation = anarchy.

If you want to see less Mt Gox type situations then we need to see more professional VCs and serious investor teams....they are driven away by over regulation.

I saw Jeremy Allaire from Circle speak on Tuesday....he said a third of the $9 mm he raised will go to lawyers.

Who the heck wants to put $3 mm in the pockets of lawyers on an already risky investment?

I'd never make that deal.   I'd rather invest in a firm where the $3mm goes to hire genius engineers who make stuff and solve problems.

FinCen with their March 18th Guidance put Virtual Currency in the category of non-bank financial institution.

With the classification Virtual Currency businesses are now  beholden to many of the laws and regulation that exist for many other types of financial intuitions.

So not only will that require lawyers.

It will also require compliance officers and other administrators to manage the many and various regulations with which they are now required to comply.

What New York does won't change that.

Hopefully it will help lower the barrier of entry for smaller fintech startups until they are able to scale.

 

All the more reason for NY to not do anything else new in the area as far as new regs.

Planning to regulate basically is regulation.  They have essentially said they WILL have the announcement.  The language they have used is about as strong as it comes.

Fake! the Cryptocurrency Constitution protects citizens and any such regulation will be handled properly

and will be distributed to the Crypto community in an appropriate way not to affect the integrity of Crypto's

You should spend more time updating your website:
http://www.cryptocurrencycentralbank.com/

"Bitcoin is the most valuable crypto currency avaliable to consumers and the most widely traded, the current US dollar price of 1 Bitcoin (BTC) is $1025.50 7th January 2014."

Or at least ping an exchange and update the price automatically.

If a jurisdiction makes severe regs against Bitcoin then VCs, investors and entreprenuers won't feel protected by the Crypto Constitution which they likely have never heard of.

No I fear it is you who miss the entire point ... the entire point of living in a liberal democracy is that you can do whatever you damn well want WITHOUT running to the authorities to ask for their permission every time you need to take a piss.

The point is you are living in fear of reprisals if the State does not like what you are doing, even if it is entirely legal, because the jackboot of their legal force will ruin your life. So you need to crawl to the cops to ask for permission, "please sir don't hit us too hard if we do something you don't like".

You are not living in a free country. There is your problem right there. That IS the entire point.

That's why BitCoin you clowns. You've been given a gift, don't squander it now by sucking up to your oppressors.

LMAO - you mean like how they successfully regulate the drug trade?  "You need a license to sell crack on the corner", so of course nobody does.

Well, it wasn't going to last forever without regulation. Regulation will at least make the big big money more comfortable about taking over (and hopefully, hopefully, making us crazy rich).

Nice brief mention in the New York Times' Dealbook column.
http://nyti.ms/N40vqi

and totally anarchy is the answer then?  Look at the amount of scams and manipulations going on in the Crypto world.  Would you prefer that to continue?  Because if it does, CryptoCurrency will never be accepted by the mainstream as it will be deemed unsafe.  As a matter of fact, if Crypto fails, I am predicting that it won't fail because of the big bad regulators that everyone seems to be petrified off. It will fail because of scams and manipulations that are rampant here.  Look at what MT Gox did to the Crypto world in just 2 weeks.


If anyone is so adamant and gung ho about zero regulations, then please convert all your money from your heavily regulated bank controlled accounts (which you so much oppose) into Bitcoins and store them in the unregulated safety of wonderful exchanges such as Mt Gox.


Let's also not forgot that the Bitcoin protocol itself is controlled by a select few.

Not regulating Bitcoin means the world devolves instantly into total anarchy?

What a strange view.

No.  There are thousands of laws already protecting people against theft, fraud, hacking, false advertising, unfair trade etc etc.

Sorry but we need regulation thanks to mtgox

Why?

If a company steals from investors or violates agreements with them or provides service other than what they agreed upon all of those things already offer opportunity for legal action.

True but they could be insolvent. Regulation would require a bond for just that reason.

And we can see how well there working with exchanges like MT Gox and all the other scams being pulled off like price manipulation in exchanges.

If you want to invest with companies who have a bond you are free to do so.

Why make government force others to do so?

Good luck getting a bond for an infinite and infinitely variable value of deposits in multiple currencies.

The only way an exchange can be incompetency and disaster proof is for it to have a major law firm hold a matching trust of the entire possible balance of all currencies. Once the trust administrator sees that the exchange balances are approaching the value of the trust, then exchange deposits are suspended until the trust balances can be increased. Failure for the administrator to keep on top of things will result in malpractice and possibly even disbarment, which would be unusual for a major firm.

For example:
EUR/BTC exchange opens, after founder has put 100,000 of their own BTC and 20 million EUR in the trust. Once users have deposited 90,000 BTC on the exchange or 19 million EUR, the trust administrator suspends exchange deposits until the trust can be raised to 125,000 BTC or 25 million EUR.

Exchange fees would be divided by the exchange into salaries, operating costs, and anything left over could be sent to the trust, to prevent deposits from getting suspended.

bitcoins is built so that noone need trust another. How did you miss that bit?

Why would anyone let someone else store their bitcoins for them? Are you stupid?

The weak and corrupted are getting weeded out by the market.

All that regulation will do is ensconce the corrupted and incompetent. Probably bolstered with tax-payer bail-outs after it is found that the regulators were on the take from the players, while watching porn, and they don't want to be liable for not doing "their job" properly. We've seen what regulated financial systems look like, they don't work. Or did you miss that exhibition of corruption and incompetence writ large also?

govt regulation should only be instituted after self regulation has failed,

the cryptocurrency community is only 5 years old, it needs time to get it's act together, if anything govts should only seek to help or guide the CC community to self-regulation


The point of regulation  is security, accountability, and reliability, the CC community needs all of those things in order to make it more stable and relevant. 

 

Rumors of insolvency stem from a year ago when the U.S. govt started messing with MtGox transfer wires and Dwolla account. This is all a bit like the chinese government coming in to save the investors who'd lost all their money on bitcoin in a crash... a crash caused by the chinese government.

I get that Lawsky should be pissed off at the systems of yesterday that he hated like online poker, Liberty Reserve and eGold, have now come back in a distributed and decentralized manner. But if he is making a case that he should be allowed to track all bitcoin transactions, wouldn't that mean he should be allowed to implant microchips and GPS positioning devices into our physical selves and into all banknotes?

You think he doesn't want to do that too?

If you did a little research you would understand that LAWSKY is not suggesting the DFS track all bitcoin transactions.

These are the virtual currency hearings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZW7R7FPIJY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4_M736FgdY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EPzoxTAcAI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EPzoxTAcAI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poMdKtU9aRk


This is Lawsky giving a following up and asking additional questions after the hearings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhIZd9b2-Qs

This lawsky responding to the REDDIT AMA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRXVPq16n_c

http://www.reddit.com/user/BenLawsky

enjoy.

(and when you find the clip where he suggests tracking all bitcoin transactions you get back to me)

http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/speeches_testimony/sp140212.htm

Remarks of Benjamin M. Lawsky, Superintendent of Financial Services for the State of New York, on the Regulation of Virtual Currencies at the New America Foundation in Washington, DC

February 11, 2014

As Prepared for Delivery

This is a particularly well-timed event.

As you may know, the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) just completed an extensive set of hearings on the regulation of virtual currencies.

And today’s event represents a good opportunity to share some of what we heard, as well as our Department’s initial thoughts on the path forward for regulation.

NYDFS Hearings

Before I do that, though, I wanted to begin with some background on DFS and our work on virtual currency regulation.

Indeed, one of the first questions we often get asked about this topic is: “Why is a state regulator looking at this?” Or, “Isn’t this solely a national, or even international, issue?”

As for background on DFS, Governor Andrew Cuomo proposed creating our agency two years ago through the merger of two existing state agencies with long histories: the New York State Banking Department (which was founded in 1851) and the New York State Insurance Department (which was established in 1859).

So we’re – at once – both new and old.

Governor Cuomo served as New York Attorney General during the financial crisis – when significant gaps and weaknesses in financial regulation had devastating consequences for our economy.

As such, in creating DFS, Governor Cuomo charged us with an important mission: He wanted us to serve as a modern, unified financial regulator that can adjust and adapt to a constantly evolving financial world.

While I don’t think anyone would call virtual currency a systemic risk at this point, it does represent a good example of the necessity of innovation (not only in the technological sphere), but also in financial regulation.

DFS – like other state financial regulators – are responsible for oversight of what are called “money transmitters.” If you’re not familiar with that term, Western Union and Moneygram are two of the largest examples.

Indeed, when people say the word money transmission, they usually think of – if anything at all – firms that were formed more than 150 years ago when our country was still exploring the western frontier.

I seriously doubt that the people who wrote those statutes ever contemplated the notion of the Internet; let alone crypto-currencies; let alone a crypto-currency based on an internet meme featuring a dog.

Nonetheless, DFS has serious concerns that certain virtual currency firms may be engaging in money transmission – which would mean that our Department has a specific legal responsibility to license, examine, and regulate those firms if they are offering their services to New Yorkers.

Moreover, there have been serious and documented concerns (which I’ll discuss in greater detail later), about the use of virtual currencies for illicit activity and money laundering.

As such, in August 2013, our Department launched an extensive inquiry into the appropriate regulatory guardrails to put in place for virtual currency firms.

Over the last six months, we have had dozens and dozens of meetings with a wide range of industry participants. We have spoken to leading academics and law enforcement officials. And we have reviewed thousands of pages of documents, reports, and other materials.

After doing that initial work, we believed that an important next step in our inquiry was to hold public hearings.

Those hearings took place on January 28 and 29 in New York City. We held five different panels. And witnesses delivered more than eight hours of testimony.

The goal of those hearings was to provide a 360-degree view of this new and constantly evolving industry – both its promise and its potential pitfalls.

We sought to bring together a diverse group of witnesses with an array of different perspectives.

We believed that it was important to hear from law enforcement and regulators.

But we also wanted to bring in investors, technologists, merchants, and a number of other individuals on the ground floor of this fledging industry to provide their views.

Those hearings, I think, served two important purposes in moving our regulatory efforts forward.

First, they provided us with a good opportunity to convene and question some of the leading figures in the virtual currency and law enforcement community. From a regulatory perspective, that is extraordinarily helpful in thinking through these complicated issues.

Second, and perhaps even more importantly, the hearings also generated a significant amount of additional public discussion surrounding the subject of how to regulate this new financial technology.

At DFS, we try to approach emerging issues in financial regulation – such as virtual currencies – with a healthy dose of humility.

Ultimately, it’s our expectation that the information we have gathered in our fact-finding effort will allow us to put forward, during the course of 2014, a proposed regulatory framework for virtual currency firms operating in New York.

I believe we would be the first state in the nation to do so. Clearly, when it comes to virtual currencies, regulators are in new and unchartered waters.

And when we move forward, we want to make sure that we have heard a broad range of voices and that we are armed with the most forward-looking thinking.

To that end, we streamed the hearing on our agency’s website. And more than 14,000 people from 117 different countries tuned in. And less than half of those people were in the United States. (It probably won’t surprise you to learn that isn’t the typical audience for our public hearings.)

And it was very heartening to us that the hearings produced a number of very thoughtful blogs, articles, op-eds, and other posts from people who weren’t in the room, which discussed the path forward on virtual currency regulation.

We recognize that New York and other regulators have a very challenging task in front of us.

We have to determine the appropriate licensing, examination, and collateral requirements for the virtual currency industry. In doing so, our objective is to provide appropriate guardrails to protect consumers and root out money laundering – without stifling beneficial innovation.

That’s a tough balance to strike, but we’re trying to proceed in a careful and thoughtful manner.

It is hard to say precisely what the future holds for virtual currency and its associated technology. Currently, there is not widespread adoption of virtual currencies among the general public. And some doubt whether there will ever be.

The recent issues at Mt. Gox, for example, have prompted some financial commentators to write Bitcoin’s obituary. Or to at least question the viability and reliability of virtual currency technology.

But there might be – at the very least – a kernel of something here that has a profound impact on the future of payments technology and the financial system. Regulators are not always the experts on such matters, but my gut is that it’s likely. And that’s why we want to proceed in a careful and thoughtful manner.

Next Steps
With that in mind, I’d like to share some of our takeaways from the hearing.

At DFS, we are increasingly coming to the conclusion that simply applying our existing money transmission regulations to virtual currency firms is not sufficient.

As we have noted previously, certain aspects of virtual currency do not fit neatly into the traditional categories we think of in financial regulation – such as banking, insurance, or the like. In many ways, it’s neither fish nor fowl.

We do not have to throw out all of our existing rules for money transmitters or banks, which have generally served consumers well when vigorously enforced. Indeed, certain aspects of virtual currency could dovetail with existing regulations.

That said, our agency will likely have to proceed with issuing some form of specially tailored BitLicense that adapts those rules to the world of virtual currency.

As with most regulatory endeavors, however, the devil is in the details.

To that point, I want to outline a few of the questions we are grappling with right now in the immediate wake of our hearing when it comes to crafting specially tailored BitLicense requirements.

We have some initial thoughts on these matters, but – given the open source nature of virtual currency technology – it seems appropriate for us to outline some of the issues we’re considering publicly at an early stage in the hopes of spurring additional public debate.

My hope is that we’ll see another round of blogs, articles, and posts discussing the questions I’m about to pose.

Consumer Education and Disclosures

Let me start with consumer education and disclosures.

It seems fairly clear to us that a strong set of specially tailored, model consumer disclosure rules should be required of virtual currency firms.

There are, of course, potential risks for consumers associated with many different types of financial products – not just virtual currencies.

But, let's face it, crypto-currencies are unlike pretty much anything an average consumer has ever used before.
Right now, for the most part, it appears that Bitcoin and other virtual currencies are primarily the province of sophisticated, technologically savvy, early adopters.

If virtual currencies ultimately garner wider adoption among the general public, it will be important for consumers to be armed with the information they need to make the financial choices that are best for them.

For example, consumers should be aware that many virtual currencies do not provide for chargebacks – meaning that transactions are, for the most part, irreversible. In other words, there is generally no “money back guarantee” for crypto currencies.

Consumers should also be warned about the importance of keeping their “private keys” private – as well as the potential consequences if they fail to do so.

Given the irreversibility of most transactions, if a consumer has their private key stolen, they could potentially lose their virtual currency irretrievably.

Moreover, consumers should be informed – up-front – about the documented volatility of virtual currency and the potential for loss of dollar-denominated principal if they hold onto that virtual currency for an extended period of time. (This is something that most mutual funds do.)

Those are just a few examples of potential consumer disclosures for virtual currency firms. There are, of course, others that could be crafted. But the broader concept is what’s important.

We’ve found in other areas of the financial world that strong, clear, concise disclosures are critical to earning the long-term trust and confidence of consumers. And virtual currency is no exception.

Safety and Soundness Requirements

I think enhanced disclosure requirements are likely something that most people can agree on.

But there are some other more challenging questions that we have to address, including capital, collateral, net worth, and investment requirements.

Traditional money transmitters and banks have to abide by certain net worth and permissible investment requirements to help ensure that they are operating in a safe and sound manner.

They, for example, need to have a large enough capital buffers on their balance sheets to absorb unexpected losses and financial shocks without going under.

They are also limited in the types of investments they can hold – so they are not taking reckless risks with customer money in the search of windfall profits.

Virtual currency firms should abide by similar requirements. But the question for regulators is how we structure those rules in light of the fact that the virtual currencies these firms hold are not denominated in dollars or other forms of traditional currency.

Moreover, that issue is further complicated by the fact that the value of virtual currencies relative to traditional currencies can fluctuate significantly on a day-by-day or even hour-by-hour basis.

We need to consider questions like whether we have to create a new yardstick for measuring how well-capitalized the firms we ultimately regulate are.

Or whether virtual currencies themselves should be allowed as permissible investments.

Net worth, capital, and permissible investment requirements are among the most important consumer protection requirements we can put in place as regulators.

We have seen instances where exchanges and other virtual currency firms have frozen redemptions for extended periods of time, which can be very damaging to consumer confidence.

The long-term strength of the virtual currency industry will require robust safety and soundness requirements – so customers have faith that their money won’t get caught in a virtual black hole.

And if we get those rules right, perhaps we can make New York and the United States a magnet for legitimate, well-regarded exchanges and other virtual currency firms.

Public Ledgers/Tumblers

Another issue that we heard a lot about at the hearing from both participants in the virtual currency industry and law enforcement officials is the importance of the public ledgers for Bitcoin and other types of crypto-currencies.

Many – though, not all – virtual currencies have open, publicly accessible ledgers on the internet.

And – in an ideal world, the recent issue with Mt. Gox notwithstanding – those ledgers are supposed to accurately record essentially every single transaction that has occurred in a specific virtual currency since it came in the being. (The most well-known example is the Bitcoin block-chain.)

In this way, some posit that it is more appropriate to think of many virtual currencies as “pseudonymous” rather than “anonymous.”

A regulator may not immediately know what person is associated with every single transaction. But they can see every transaction, which can be important for law enforcement in spotting red flags for further investigation.

And when coupled with appropriate know-your-customer requirements for virtual currency firms – public ledgers can help mitigate some of the documented concerns related to money laundering and this new technology.

The question, then, is should regulators require that licensed virtual currency firms only use public ledgers?

And an associated question is what to do about so-called “tumblers,” which are of particular concern to law enforcement.

Tumblers are a technology used to obscure the record and source of virtual currency transactions.

Understandably, that’s a prospect that gives pause to those officials who are charged with enforcing laws against money laundering.

But other panelists contended that tumblers could potentially have legitimate uses, such as keeping the financial information of a lawful merchant that accepts virtual currencies private from their competitors.

Given all that, should the use of tumblers among licensed firms be banned or restricted? That’s a difficult question. And we’re interested to hear from all sides as we wrestle with it.

What Point in the Chain Should Regulators Enter?

Another issue that we’re grappling with is for which points of entry in the virtual currency ecosystem should regulators provide oversight.

In other words, what types of firms and transactions should we regulate?

Miners are a vital part of the ecosystem, but some regulators have determined that they do not meet the threshold for proactive oversight.

It would also seem difficult-to-impossible, for instance, for financial regulators to provide oversight for every single, individual, peer-to-peer transaction – unless there is evidence of specific criminal or civil wrongdoing.

We do not, for instance, require policing of every single individual transaction involving cash.

But should we, as some suggest, only regulate transactions where virtual currencies are exchanged for dollars and other traditional currencies?

Given the gradual (but accelerating) growth of virtual currencies in online and brick and mortar transactions (as well as other less legitimate enterprises), that could leave a gaping loophole for misconduct if this technology gains wider adoption.

Indeed, law enforcement officials at our hearing cited the capacity of virtual currency to help “scale up” money laundering in a way that is not necessarily possible with physical cash.

When it comes to using physical cash for illegal activity – criminals are constrained in certain respects to what they can physically carry and transport. There are no such limitations when it comes to virtual currencies.

This is not say that our goal is to unduly single out virtual currency regarding these concerns.

Let’s be frank, a lot more money has been laundered through large banks than has been laundered through virtual currency. If you look at the history of DFS, you’ll see that’s something about which we are acutely aware and working aggressively to combat.

More broadly, it is simply the responsibility of regulators to be cognizant of the new and emerging risks that virtual currencies present for illicit conduct, and try and find ways to mitigate them.

Conclusion

Now, there are many other issues we are considering as part of our regulatory inquiry, such as the specific licensing and examination requirements for virtual currency firms.

Or whether there should be a regulatory safe harbor through which virtual currency firms – assuming they have met certain basic anti-money laundering and consumer protection requirements – can notify their regulators and keep operating during a licensing process. That was one idea raised at our hearings.

But we have a limited amount of time today and I wanted to provide a flavor of some of the things we’re thinking about.

Indeed, I think it’s clear that 2014 is going to be a critical year for the future of virtual currencies.

They are at a bit of crossroads regarding whether they will become an important part of the future financial system – or primarily a tool for illicit activity.

At this stage in our inquiry, regulators have been accused by some of having more questions than answers. But I think that’s healthy – particularly if we are being true to our stated goal of proceeding without any prejudgments.

At DFS, we’re committed to proceeding thoughtfully since virtual currency could ultimately have a number of benefits for our financial system.

It could, for example, force the traditional payments community to “up its game” in terms of the speed, affordability, and reliability of financial transactions.

I think many consumers – myself included – are perplexed that, in a world where information travels around the globe in a matter of milliseconds, it can often take several days to transfer money to a friend’s bank account.

To use a personal example, I have my credit card with a particular bank, and I also have my bank account at that same bank. And once a month I have to pay my credit card bill by transferring money from my bank account at the same bank to pay my credit card bill at the same bank. And it takes three days.

I have to leave three days to make sure the money goes from one hand of the bank to the other hand of the bank and that is a little crazy, in my opinion.

So I think it’s fair to say there’s room for additional innovation in the financial world and payments technology. And we want to be careful to get the balance right.

And that's why events and discussions like this are so important.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today and I look forward to the conversation we’re about to have.

Well he asks if he should ban/restrict tumblers, non-public blockchains and whether he should ''regulate all virtual currency transactions'' even though he doesn't require it with cash. All of that would put it on the level of tracking us with devices in case we do cash transactions. Who is he asking, or is he just thinking aloud?

And why does he call the virtual currencies 'firms'. A currency isn't a business partnership.

And the Zabel guy from the FBI? he said to 'regulate bitcoin harder than we regulate banks', what on earth does that mean?

I don't see anything wrong with this.

Didn't everybody say bitcoin is like gold which has some kind of value?

Then is that true that you need to have a business or other license/permit to operate gold mining/gold trade?

Not so sure about this but will investigate more on the matter and get back.

I personally am okay with working within the frame of the structure because to me that's the best way to enact acceptance and un-muddle the waters surrounding Bitcoins. I wouldn't be surprised if this actually supports the Bitcoin economy because there is a working legal structure tied to Bitcoin in some way

http://www.coindesk.com/market-based-reactions-new-bitcoin-regulation/ (http://www.coindesk.com/market-based-reactions-new-bitcoin-regulation/)


http://irdial.com/blogdial/?p=3666 (http://irdial.com/blogdial/?p=3666)


TL;DR unlikely any type of "BitLicense" or any other bitcoin regulation would survive First Amendment court challenge because it is, after all is said and done, just plain text, unencrypted bits.

He's doing it again.

https://twitter.com/BenLawsky/status/438335784358531072

I don't understand why he calls both the currency Bitcoin and companies like MtGox ''firms''.

Because that is who he regulates, "firms" or businesses that transact in virtual currency in or with citizens of the State of New York.

I agree.   In a vacuum, the ideas for some of the regulations would really help for mainstream adoption, but just like any governing body, "regulations" is just government lingo for "control"

Well it would seem so, most of the time he says firms are things like exchangers. But then if all he's regulating are the firms, why does he ask

''The question, then, is should regulators require that licensed virtual currency firms only use public ledgers?''

What's happening there, did bitcoin  suddenly become a firm, would he require cash to have a public ledger now, does he want to crap on the fungibility?

Good questions.  No easy answers. (unless you are a crypto-anarchist Libertarian!).

Agreed, if it is free to get. For those operating in NY...

Doesn't mean squat in any other state/country.

Very easy answers, in fact. There is no firm, no company, upholding bitcoin. It's decentralized. It's evident to the eye.

Sorry but iam not throwing up any of my personal information without knowing where it is going !!

Oh, I can tell you exactly where it will be going. Straight on to massive databases sitting on insecure govt. servers. Big fat, centralised ripe targets of personal ID information that criminals and espionage agencies (are they different?) salivate over and spend all their efforts changing/breaking laws and trying to hack into ....

I need you to talk to my neighbor who thinks the whole bunch are lazy do nothings.  That should be fun to watch.

Never seen that before, ouch.

Hi,

I can personally vouch for it.  We will never share the info of anyone who signs the letter or who signs up as a member of the association.

If you don't know me then my personal voucher doesn't mean much but we have several members who are easily verifiable.

The U.S. has balkanized money transmitter laws.  Operating legally in the U.S. imposes the same regulatory burden as operating legally in fifty different countries.
We need a single federal money transmitter license, not many State licenses.
We don't need NYDFS coming in and offering to help.  We need all fifty states, including NY, to get together and find a way to clear a path for bitcoin startups to grow. NY will help bitcoin only if it takes the lead and sets an example by getting out of the way.  As it stands, regulations which New York already has prevent companies like Kraken from operating here.  A company like Coinbase operates at significant risk -- risk from the State, not money launderers or thieves.
Promulgating further regulation on the State level is useless.  After New York, there is a line of forty-nine more states coming right behind, with their own regulatory bodies.  
The best thing anybody could do is just lock Lawsky in the bathroom until we make it legal for companies to buy and sell bitcoin in this country without fifty money transmitter licenses.

How do they think they can control our homeworld and domain, the blockchain, in the first place?