What's the position of the shareholders posting here regarding the overpayment fuck up?  If Nefario can't recover all of the overpayments, will BG's own remaining funds be used to top up the short-fall in preference to being used to pay Nefario's salary?

So would we be right in assuming that no-one's going to authorise any salary payments to Nefario until this mess has been cleaned up and that the business will use its own remaining funds to top-up any shortfall if Nefario is unable to recover all the over-payments?

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm F5ing the return address like a motherfucker.  I think this is totally hilarious.

Fifty Ways to Lose Your Bitcoins inspired by Paul Simon.

He thinks that the second string from the top is a B string.  I think he's got bigger problems than the type of guitar and amp he's using. If he's flipping his guitar trying to emulate Hendrix, then he should at least look up Hendrix's stringing set-up (he used a non-standard G string and tuned high E down to E flat but he strung in conventional bass at the top order (which gives you a different sound on a flipped guitar for reasons that aren't worth explaining to dank).

But he is communicating.  He wants the people who got paid double to return the overpayment.  

A lot of people would be better off keeping the overpayment than being able to claim their now worthless shares/bonds from asset issuers so I wish him good luck with trying to get people to honour his request.

Nefario appears to have been taking customer relations lessons from Patrick Strateman.

It would probably be a breach of your merchant conditions.  It's the credit card provider who sets the merchant and customer conditions regarding chargebacks, not the merchant or the customer.

Another problem is that the person using the credit card isn't going to be the credit card-holder in a lot of chargeback cases.  The card details are going to have been used fraudulently and you're not going to have the details of the person who actually bought (and most likely immediately sold) the Bitcoins from you.  Even if the person using the card had agreed to arbitration, the actual card-holder wouldn't be bound by that agreement.

Also, arbitration is not free.  It's something you'd need to cost into your overheads.  There's a high level of credit card fraud in "card not present" transactions so you could reasonably expect a lot of chargebacks.  You'd be the one paying for arbitration and the onus would be on you to prove that the transaction was legitimate - how on earth would you go about that?

You could be right about that.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110687.msg1240504#msg1240504

But can you live without the ability to post in YOSPOS?


Didn't you claim that someone else bought your first account for you?

I don't find it implausible per se, I'd just take anything I was told over the phone with a grain of salt because what you really want is a written statement quoting the specific regulations they maintain require you to be registered/licensed.  Once you have that, you know whether there are exemptions you can seek or whether you can mount a valid argument that those regulations shouldn't be applied to your particular circumstances.  More importantly, even though such communication isn't generally viewed as binding advice, it's difficult to get into trouble if you've followed it and it turns out to be wrong.

In my experience, regulators want a lot of information before they'll offer you an opinion because so much is determined by individual circumstances.  The opinion they give you is based entirely on the information you give them and it can be totally wrong if there's something you didn't mention because you thought it was unimportant or if the person you spoke to didn't ask the right questions.

This kind of shit might seem unimportant but it's stuff you need to consider if you don't want to find you conventional financial accounts suddenly shut down for suspicious activity.  Every time a business opens an account with a financial institution (including merchant accounts with CC providers) that institution does an AML risk assessment and if they don't like your level of risk or if your account activity indicates a higher level of risk than they first anticipated, they'll either dump you as a customer or start imposing increasingly onerous KYC requirements on you (and likely start filing a whole lot of SARs).

Was the arbitration clause and the waiving of the right to be part of a class action in there before? I know that a lot of businesses recently updated their ToS following a SCOTUS ruling that such clauses are valid.

There are other regulations which apply to "value transfer" and "stored value".  That's why you can't just look at one bit of the regulations in isolation and claim that nothing can be applied to Bitcoin.  How you're actually using something often determines what laws apply.  Even with USD, which regulations apply depend on how they're being used.

It's easy to say "they can't apply regulation X because Bitcoin isn't Y", but it's not your ass which is on the line if you're wrong about that or you who'll have to appear in court and find the funds to challenge any ruling where they do try to apply regulation X.


People seem curiously reluctant to do that, though - possibly because at this point more users are interested in Bitcoin as a means of making a quick profit than are interested in using it as a P2P payment protocol.

Have you read the actual definitions of all the terms used on the form and obtained legal advice about whether they would apply to the OP's situation?   Because "the people on Bitcointalk didn't see how I could be regarded as a MSB" isn't a legal defence for failing to register (the fine for failing to register within the required 180 days of starting business as a MSB is $5000 per day and that's assuming that you're not violating any other regulations at the same time).

OP needs specific information from FinCEN about which sections of their regulations apply to his proposed business and then he needs to seek expert legal opinion on the information provided by FinCEN and any specific additional requirements in the state where he's planning on operating.  OP may, indeed, be exempt from needing to register as a MSB, but he needs that confirmed by the actual regulators, in writing.  

The definitions aren't straightforward and they really need to be interpreted by someone who is familiar with past FinCEN rulings and enforcement actions.  If you're going to argue that they don't apply to your particular business, you need to have a legal argument to that effect which would stand up in court.

http://www.shajlaw.com/moneyservicesbusiness_faq.html

Karma.   

Maybe this time around the arrival of a mystery cheque made repayment easy, but that mystery cheque would have needed to go on rent had dank's parents not given him $2000 and neither parental aid nor mystery cheques are guaranteed the next time dank has personal loans (which is what they are) due for repayment.

If he said he used the money to buy drugs and sold them to his friends, at least that would be a business model which explained how he anticipated being able to pay back the money with high interest.  For all anyone knows, he could be playing online poker with the funds. Or just using it on living expenses and impulse purchases and hoping to hell that some way of paying it back comes along before it's due.

In fact far from earning financial service providers money, AML compliance is a huge economic burden.

In a lot of places it's standard in order to be able to even register or acquire shareholdings in a private company (and it definitely applies for shareholdings over a certain % in public companies).  Many financial institutions also require that any signatories on a business account fully verify their identities in addition to the business itself verifying.

There are many things which can trigger enhanced KYC requirements and ongoing customer due diligence is an actual requirement of AML compliance.  Each organisation has to develop its own framework for these processes, but the penalties for non-compliance are so huge that entities tend to err on the side of caution and try to exceed the required standards (which are often only laid down as broad principles) rather than risk falling short of compliance.  

OP has a hard on for MtGox.  He's claimed his MtGox account was hacked in the past.  Now we know why he didn't file the police report MtGox required in order for them to release information about the IP from which his account was supposedly hacked.

Who on earth is dumb enough to use BTC in a way which connects their SR activity with their MtGox activity?  Your friends aren't very bright, are they?

For what it's worth, "the Feds" and other authorities don't have to pay MtGox for information about suspicious activity.  Just like your banks, PayPal and other financial service providers, they're required by law to report suspicious activity and face huge fines if they fail to do so.  Unlike your banks and PayPal, they can't afford tens of millions of dollars in fines so of course they're going to be diligently compliant.

If you don't want your BTC activity reported to the authorities, then don't buy or sell BTC through services which intersect with conventional financial services.  And if your friends are stupid enough to have left a MtGox/SR trail, god only knows what other stupid things they've done to draw attention to their SR activity.

MtGox clearly states that they collect KYC information for AML purposes.  Can you and your friends not read or something?

Also, your friends got a call from the ATF, not the DEA.  That means that the specific type of activity they're undertaking is known and MtGox sure as shit doesn't have that information.  It sounds a lot like your friends are pretty careless and any connection between them and MtGox started at your friends' end and led to MtGox rather than the other way around.  SR washes funds so it's not easy to track them back to a specific SR transaction if you start at the MtGox end.

Whether or not people consider Charlie's advice "shitty", the OP makes no mention of having obtained legal advice of his own.  Nobody should even consider applying for licensing as a financial services provider of any type without first obtaining their own legal advice.  If you can't afford a lawyer and accountant to advise you on the process, then you likely can't afford proper anti-fraud and AML compliance measures, either.  Some things really aren't DIY, and financial service licensing is one of them.

Some of the larger Bitcoin businesses have a very big moat.  The barriers to entry for certain types of services are much higher than they were twelve months ago and people need to realise that.

LOL at it being called "Tulip Mania".