|
you are right this is not all i will say on the matter, due to death and taxes knit picking OPINIONS, INTERPRETATIONS and then crying that its posted as FACTS
death and taxes. please step back and have a coffee...
i have never said FACT!!
any business relying fully on legal advice from a forum is asking for trouble. they should take what is wrote here as a stepping stone into understanding a bit of the details of how the system works so that when they go to accountants, solicitors etc they are fully prepared and more understanding of what is being told to them.
CAblez.
please understand that the numbers i used are examples that would trigger a red flag. but would not trigger an automated freezing of your account.
its advisable to read the fincen regulations, guidelines, handbooks etc. and it shows there that banks have a duty to put in place flags of potential risk. to then without freezing accounts, investigate the level of risk and if.... only if the level of risk is high enough to require a sars report to be produced (due to a linked account being on a watchlist) only then would they freeze an account or send a cease and Desist.
this is why i say that the californian bank had IN MY OPINION sent out the C&D order as they seen the funds hop through more then one account (money transmission) and the receipt being bitcoin foundation which is unlicenced. and may IN MY OPINION be on a watch list. IN MY OPINION it has nothing to do with them programming the qt client
now back to death and taxes
when a bank see's money moving from one bank account to another. the bank is not psychic to know if it is product purchase or a movement of funds. until you have a conversation with your bank.
most banks learn what the business purpose is when they receive a business plan. and gradually adjust the potential risk flags accordingly, thus maybe never needing further communications.
but pretending that there are no hidden flags that banks use, pretending that there is no need to inform your banks about large out of the ordinary payments, pretending that FIAT is your money to do with as you please. is why so many of these bitcoin traders on OTC (not formal business exchanges) get their accounts frozen.
so the best advice is to never assume your bank is psychic to know you are buying a convention centre for the weekend, never assume the bank is psychic to know the money received from a licenced exchange is yours, and the MOVEMENT of the fund outwards away from your bank is not another money movement, but a product puchase.
especially if its over $1000 in one go.
|
|
|
|
I have to conclude that you people didn't read what I posted or understand what mining does so I'll post the important part alone. I don't usually like doing that because it positions peoples ideas out of context.
Here it is: "since they are enabling transactions for a profit."
It's not the reward that he's talking about. It's relaying transactions which do involve exchange for fiat.
I don't think anyone will argue that Bitcoin is not used in just the USA so you all can stop parroting that over and over. However, the lead dev and, in fact, many of the devs live in the USA. BitInstant and quite a few other big businesses are based in the USA. So, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that we give a shit about how the legal system in the USA is reacting toward Bitcoin. Thank you.
for those in america.. please actually give a shit about any bitcoin business which also deals with FIAT. EG Eclipse mining pool pays out in fiat. bitpay pays out in FIAT
but dont worry about bitcoin businesses that only handle bitcoin EG solo mining, bitcoin QT. and other pools services that only hand bitcoin.
now that the separation between what businesses should worry about government law. a hopeful bit of peace and calm rational thinking should happen
I suppose that would be like saying the mailman is a money transmitter for carrying my checks to the utility company. You can try to interpret what FINCen is trying to say, but they haven't done a very good job of elaborating yet. There isn't any practical way to hold miners accountable for their accounting, so unless they want to be heavy handed and make an example out of someone as seems to be the practice of our land of laws, I wouldn't worry about it.
in the UK financial regulations it has been highlighted that the mail service although they do transfer money, have been given special circumstances to be exempt from requiring a licence.
the same i believe has happened in most regulated countries.
EDIT: indeed fincen exempts the us postal service from needing a licence http://www.fincen.gov/financial_institutions/msb/definitions/exceptions.html |
|
|
|
this thread has meandered off course. my initial reply was concerning vladimirs thinking that the C&D order was related to programming an open source piece of software. i replied by saying the INTERPRETATION was about money(FIAT) transfers into California. i never once used the word "FACT" My belief is that only exchanges need a license. Is this correct?
Following Californias line of thinking (interpretation of law) you need a money transmitting license if you are writing open source software, such as for example, bitcoin client, or rsync, or linux or apache web server or any other piece of software some money transmitter may use. Technically if you fart in an elevator while a banker present you would need one too. And god forbid someone comes up with fartcoin alt... the actual interpretation is that bitcoin foundation moved fiat across state lines into california as a business to pay for the convention centre. so the large (above $1000 in a single transaction) to a Californian bank from a business created a risk flag. back to the matter at hand. This is a follow-up to the discussion about the Bitcoin Foundation which receives a cease and desist order from California. So I understand that you need a license for the business of money transmission, but I think the subject needs to be clarified. Sadly, I have more questions than answers. each state has different rules but heres an attempt to merge all the rules into simple guidelines:
1) any bank money movement over $1,000 per other party in a day is classed as potential business transaction
1) any bank money movement over $15,000 per other party in a year is classed as potential business transaction
1) any bank money movement over $100,000 from your account in a year is classed as potential business transaction
any one of these can flag up your bank account being investigated. so if it is personal use only ensure your bank knows before hand. if you are running a business. ensure you have a licence.
My belief is that only exchanges need a license. Is this correct? not really. again each state/country is different. but if you are moving money above the thresholds in the last question as a business purchase/task/service. then you will need a licence
and most importantly it has to be FIAT payments to be classed as money transmitters. so the whole "miners are MSB" only concerns mining pools that give out fiat direct. EG Eclipse mining pool (the only one i know that paid out fiat)
Do all states require such a license, or only California? all states. california only sent the letter due to the spending / transmission of money for the hiring of the convention hallIs it possible to get a nation-wide license, say maybe from Delaware? If not, it means that an exchange would need to get a license from all 50 states to do business in the whole country. What a bureaucratic nightmare! from looking at bitinstant as a case study, there is no nation wide licence for USA.
if your website is linked to selling products only to residents (delivery address) of delaware. and your own business bank account is delaware based. then you only need a delaware licence. but if you are sending and receiving money in different states then stock up on pain killers and expect some headaches and cramped wrists. form filling x50this is all i will say on the matter |
|
|
|
bitcoin is neither of these.
money: is a coin or paper minted/printed with a recognised symbol of government ownership (£$), minted/printed value and is legal tender within the country which owns that recognisable symbol. (in short FIAT)
commodity: is a raw material used in the production of other products.
bitcoin however IS:
currency: is an item used as a means of trade
asset: a personal/business possession which holds value.
now that is sorted out..
Unfortunately, you posting a pile of false assertions, or at least not proven assertions does not make it "sorted out" and whatever you came up with based on those assertions is not worthy of quoting. I would say Bitcoin is either all of the above or nothing of the above as in Bitcoin is Bitcoin. i am UK based and based on ACTUAL conversations with FSA/HMRC (which also is linked to european laws) that is THEIR assertion of how to class bitcoin, based on THEIR opinion at the time. it has also been noted that americans who ACTUALLY talk to accountants and know the difference between a commodity and an asset. have came to similar conclusions related to american laws. |
|
|
|
franky1, if one can argue that Bitcoin is not only money, but also a commodity (or simply not money but a commodity), then in your scenario TBF sold a commodity to a trader and used proceeds to pay for a service.
If you sell a fuckton of carrots and use the money received to pay for something does not make you money transmitter even if some retards on the net use carrots to pay each other for virtual blowjobs.
bitcoin is neither of these. money: is a coin or paper minted/printed with a recognised symbol of government ownership (£$), minted/printed value and is legal tender within the country which owns that recognisable symbol. (in short FIAT) commodity: is a raw material used in the production of other products. bitcoin however IS: currency: is an item used as a means of trade asset: a personal/business possession which holds value. now that is sorted out.. from the californian banks point of view, as they are not psychic, all that see is the convention centre receive a large deposit (above the threshold which causes a flag) which on investigation came from TBF. then tracing the funds back. they obviously seen more then 1 hop (bitinstant handing TBF the funds and the bitcoin foundation MOVING the funds) again the californian banks are not psychic to know that before bitinstant (example) bitcoins came from TBF. all they see is TBF receive a lump sum. and pass it on. it is now for TBF to inform the californian banks/state regulators as to the actual events that occured. and as for the carrot scenario. if you received $10,000 for carrots. and then spent $700 paying rent, 10 months in a row ($7k) and $300 a month on fast food. they would consider this fine.. no red flags. but if they seen you receive $10k and you passed that $10k in full directly onto another person.. red flag. they would ask you to cease and desist doing future large movements. and to explain what this strange payment was for. which you can then explain it was a sale of carrots to pay down a $10k mortgage. .. the money would then be released. |
|
|
|
the actual interpretation is that bitcoin foundation moved fiat across state lines into california as a business to pay for the convention centre. so the large (above $1000 in a single transaction) to a Californian bank from a business created a risk flag.
Where are you guys getting this  Imaginary-land. try reading wire transfer regulations, money transmission regulations. and then put it into context of what everyone is saying about it being linked to the hiring of the convention centre. Everyone said the world was flat too. "Everyone" is a very weak argument. Payments are not money transfers. Never have been. Paying for a convetion center doesn't require a money transfer. It requires a payment. Now if the Bitcoin Foundation ran a business where persons could deposit cash or other monetary value and the Foundation would make a PAYMENT ON THEIR BEHALF to a convention center .... THAT would be money transmission. Your logical train is: a) Bitcoin Foundation had a conference b) Bitcoin Foundation received a C&D ergo the conference caused the C&D. I ate tacos. I got a notice from the state of VA regarding money transmission ergo eating tacos results in regulatory action. here we go again. spit for spat both trying to correct each other based on the limited information available to both of us. but here goes the scenario i am reading names are used are for examples for explanation. not fact. bitcoins moved from bitcoin foundation 'pot' (addres) to bitinstant large amount of FIAT moves from bitinstant to a bank account owned by a BF member large amount of FIAT moves from a BF member to californian convention centre. receipt from convention centre shows BF as the payer. so movement of funds from bitinstant to BF member shows up as not a product/service purchase. the money then moves again in full to another bank account.. FLAG potential risk. banks have many triggers. EG if you received $10k and spent it at walmart 7-11 the bank would say low risk and treat it as income. EG if you received $10k and the same day moved the exact $10k to nother bank in another state.. FLAG - potential risk. initial investigation would show BF does not have a licence. |
|
|
|
the actual interpretation is that bitcoin foundation moved fiat across state lines into california as a business to pay for the convention centre. so the large (above $1000 in a single transaction) to a Californian bank from a business created a risk flag.
Where are you guys getting this Imaginary-land. try reading wire transfer regulations, money transmission regulations. and then put it into context of what everyone is saying about it being linked to the hiring of the convention centre. |
|
|
|
bitcoins themselves no. not unless a single bitcoin was valued at £6k each (look into assets on HMRC)
Aren't they over £70 / BTC right now? quotes Mt.Gox GBP bid £ 65.59635 Mt.Gox GBP ask £ 66.25000 Mt.Gox GBP last £ 65.41026 Mt.Gox GBP 24h £ 67.77741 1 GBP 1.5441 USD http://bitcoinity.org/markets/mtgox/GBP quote £66.59 at time of posting this. i rounded up to the nearest £10 just to be safe |
|
|
|
My belief is that only exchanges need a license. Is this correct?
Following Californias line of thinking (interpretation of law) you need a money transmitting license if you are writing open source software, such as for example, bitcoin client, or rsync, or linux or apache web server or any other piece of software some money transmitter may use. Technically if you fart in an elevator while a banker present you would need one too. And god forbid someone comes up with fartcoin alt... the actual interpretation is that bitcoin foundation moved fiat across state lines into california as a business to pay for the convention centre. so the large (above $1000 in a single transaction) to a Californian bank from a business created a risk flag. |
|
|
|
We shouldn't even be talking to the government... This is none of their business and it should stay that way.
You have some reading to do my friend. Not only is money their business, it is their money. correct. money = FIAT. the US government own dollars. so dollars is their business.. not bitcoin ALL COMMERCE IS REGULATED. No exception. Even if you find a gold ring on the street, technically you owe some of it to the government.
Let's get past this foolishness about bitcoin not being regulated. IT IS being regulated while some bitcoiners hide their heads in the sand. The real question is do you want a voice in the regulation process? Or would rather let the government do it for you?
It will be to late when you come here saying "the state took my money!!" The time to act is now, or maybe yesterday.
wrong if you find gold. you keep it. its yours.. if however you convert it to FIAT, you then have to declare your fiat. same with bitcoin. america does not own bitcoin, so you do not have to declare bitcoin. but when you convert it to fiat then you have to declare it. FIAT is the governments property. imagine it another way.. you own a chicken. it lays an egg.. do you pay tax on every egg produced.. no. if you swapped an egg for some bacon, tax?? no. if you sold your egg for FIAT, income tax.. yes. |
|
|
|
mtgox, bitpay, coinlab, bitinstant = money transmitter companies = bitcoin foundation
very true and from what i can see only the business "bitinstant" has anything close to all the licences.. so i do hope who ever converted the bitcoins to fiat to pay for the convention hall done so through bitinstant |
|
|
|
This is a follow-up to the discussion about the Bitcoin Foundation which receives a cease and desist order from California. So I understand that you need a license for the business of money transmission, but I think the subject needs to be clarified. Sadly, I have more questions than answers. each state has different rules but heres an attempt to merge all the rules into simple guidelines:
1) any bank money movement over $1,000 per other party in a day is classed as potential business transaction
1) any bank money movement over $15,000 per other party in a year is classed as potential business transaction
1) any bank money movement over $100,000 from your account in a year is classed as potential business transaction
any one of these can flag up your bank account being investigated. so if it is personal use only ensure your bank knows before hand. if you are running a business. ensure you have a licence.
My belief is that only exchanges need a license. Is this correct? not really. again each state/country is different. but if you are moving money above the thresholds in the last question as a business purchase/task/service. then you will need a licence
and most importantly it has to be FIAT payments to be classed as money transmitters. so the whole "miners are MSB" only concerns mining pools that give out fiat direct. EG Eclipse mining pool (the only one i know that paid out fiat)
Do all states require such a license, or only California? all states. california only sent the letter due to the spending / transmission of money for the hiring of the convention hallIs it possible to get a nation-wide license, say maybe from Delaware? If not, it means that an exchange would need to get a license from all 50 states to do business in the whole country. What a bureaucratic nightmare! from looking at bitinstant as a case study, there is no nation wide licence for USA.
if your website is linked to selling products only to residents (delivery address) of delaware. and your own business bank account is delaware based. then you only need a delaware licence. but if you are sending and receiving money in different states then stock up on pain killers and expect some headaches and cramped wrists. form filling x50 |
|
|
|
bitcoins themselves no. not unless a single bitcoin was valued at £6k each (look into assets on HMRC) EDIT: bitcoins themselves do not have VAT on them, much like swapping pounds for dollars or euros. however capital gains would need to be paid if bitcoins exceeded £6k per coin. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/cgt/possessions/basics.htm#2and income tax on any profit you make when cashing out your bitcoins back into pound coins but if your a business selling products and the products are VAT rateable. then price them in bitcoins at the pound rate inc VAT. and when you cash out the bitcoin, pay the VAT to hmrc. EG sell a TV EX VAT =£560 INC VAT =£700 sell for bitcoin at 10BTC (£700 current value) cash out bitcoins and pay £140 VAT. |
|
|
|
Bitmill  agreed. its been used in the bitcoin community for years and also in the bitcoin game dragons tale, so i think it wins purely on account of the name being around the longest.. (grandad rights) |
|
|
|
|
i call people like this Teentrepreneurs (teenage entrepreneurs).
so many great idea's but no experience in the financial industry and only previous experience is handling pocketmoney from mom and dad..
if this guy does not have $25,000 to his name to self fund. i would be on my guard trusting him with my money.
|
|
|
|
Great idea.
But got a feeling I won't be long before the banks shut you down.
by having a 0.5BTC (£35) limit per customer not registered this should be fine for bank risk. i would however tell bittylicious to have a regular contact with his local bank manager and ensure the bank manager knows that the business is bitcoin based. and not stupidly advertising based like blockchain.info tried to act like. the only problems that could cause hassle are: 1) doing transactions to a customer above £850 a day or £12k a year 2) a customer (morelikely a paypal chargeback scammer) attempting to pphone the bank to complain about not receiving coins and demanding refund. then the bank investigating bitty. to see it is indeed a bitcoin business, where as bitty. claims it is not. so again be honest with your bank tell them its a bitcoin business and show them how transparent it is to show proof of delivery (blockchain explorer) + plus logs of communications between bitty and customer. and everything should be fine |
|
|
|
well they are doing pretty well against iran's currency
thats because america invaded iran, replaced its government and took over ownership of irans currency. as i said before america does not control the euro, yen, pound. the only way it can do is by creating a war and taking control. to then make its demands on the population that use it. now what country does bitcoin belong to that the US military need to bomb? - none now what government does bitcoin belong to that the US military need to overtake? - none let hyperthetically say the US government take over bitcoin foundation and ask gavin andressen to make a V9.1 of bitcoin QT which works in favour of the US government by moving 20% of all transactions to a government address. we as the community simply go back to version 0.8.2 and allow them to play about on the fork V9 creates while we continue unhindered on the 0.8.2 fork |
|
|
|
|
theoretically never..
if bitcoin went upto $1000 a coin at the next reward halving (or sooner) then the built in 'fee' would go from 0.0001 to 0.00001
and the average blocks total fees would go from about 0.2btc to 0.02BTC per block.
to be honest with a block reward of 25BTC and a average fee reward of 0.2btc (under1%) i do not see that fee's are actually a required thing. and at the moment although they are under a penny each people new to bitcoin that have been sold into the whole 'virtually fee free' transactions of the weusecoins video start to see statements in the video being less then honest. (although not a lie due to the 'virtually fee free' it still makes new people sceptical.
more recently becoming "fee's are much lower"....
which in the UK i can send Pound coins to any Euro/british bank for free!.(without delay due to faster payment service)
and so can most other countries. (although delayed by a few days)
then adding on the whole few minutes chat about mining. and new people start using their home desktops for mining, to see it only produces a few pennys a day based on standard gear. they get less sold on the idea of bitcoin..
i suggest a BIG overhaul of the promotional stuff and also removing fee's until there is an under 6.25btc reward limit. where those few extra micro pennies hay help more
|
|
|
|
you say your info is readily available.. but at request of this readily available information, you decline to pass over such readily available information copied from his bitcoin island self modded thread before he deleted it he does not want investors. because that involves repaying them at some point. he wants "contributors" .. in otherwords.. donators to just hand him 300BTC each ($30,000) where on this planet would anyone hand over $30k free and clear to someone that refuses to reveal their identification. and here is the end bit. what the contributors get in return Incentive - Contributors receive proportional discounts on rentals More Incentive - Contributors of 100 BTC or more receive VIP invitation to inaugural beach bash http://bitcoinisland.org/so he wants to be the land owner, and rent property out. the main question everyone has. what makes him so sure that he is the right guy to take other peoples money, become the land owner and lead the project. to only offer contributors a party invitation and discounts. the contributors should be GIVEN a allotment of land which is valued at the percentage of funds put into the project vs land size of island. it was also mentioned in his 2012 effort that if the 100,000BTC target was not reached he would refund the contributors https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=82060.msg911455#msg911455he then locked the thread may 21st 2012 knowing that no rich 'contributor' would be in their right mind to just give him $30k with no substantial return/perks. No refund has been received back to the 2012 contributors even though that campaign failed. http://blockchain.info/address/1SLAND4JQt2mhypA6cR7TSh2UunW4NU4y |
|
|
|
|
but my point is not about what the value is.. but the fact that authorites are giving bitcoins a value. instead of just saying Seized: syringe (no value)... they named bitcoin and valued it.
another thing to note about it.. out of the millions of dollars linked to drugs in that report.. out of the kilgrams of gold and silver linked to drugs.. only 11BTC is linked to drugs..
(i only got to page 5 and added up over 1.5million dollars of cash was seized..)
so lets hear a news story like this.
in a 3 month period 3 states seized over 1.5million dollars. over 4 years the entire US seized only 11BTC related to drugs, which is more of a drug related currency?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
