|
We have a 100 points ID system here. Utility bills can be used but they aren't one of the primary documents and so they're worth less points. The various documents/cards combined must provide evidence of your name, date of birth, your current address (that's why utility bills must be recent), your signature, and your photo. Government issued documents/cards with unique identifiers are worth more points because in most cases they also require you to have verified your identity.
Oddly enough, you don't need to provide ID to open utility accounts here.
|
|
|
|
So how many peoples money did they lose with this latest debacle?
There's no reason why any funds would have been lost even if accessing them was difficult while the matter was being determined. If I recall correctly, at the emergency hearing the bank was ordered to pay a per day fee to MtGox until the matter was resolved. |
|
|
|
Let's say I base my exchange in the West Indies.
The need for licensing avoided?
You could almost certainly operate legally from somewhere like Nevis but that's not the end of the story. The whole online poker shit-storm involved companies which were fully licensed to offer gambling services in the jurisdictions from which they operated but that didn't stop the US Department of Justice from being able to use other laws (laws related to the purposes for which money can be accepted from those located in the US) to effectively prohibit them offering services to people in the US. Also, operating a business offshore doesn't mean that you'll get a free pass in respect of any US laws regarding income earned from that business. If people need to interact with financial services located in the US in any way in order to use your exchange, then you really can't guarantee that US law won't be used to disrupt that process in some way. In the case of the online poker debacle, the DoJ went after the payment processors through whom funds were being routed to and from the gambling service providers. There's also the issue of how you're going to be able to access and spend your profits if they're sitting in some Panamanian bank account. You need to be able to repatriate those funds to where you want to spend them and that raises its own set of problems. Who says you have to track who is using your exchange? Is it any skin off your bones if people are using your service in places where it is illegal? You have to track them in some way in order to manage their trading accounts and pay their withdrawals. Places like Nevis are a double-edged sword because they do offer some protection from the reach of US authorities but the degree of shielding they offer to businesses incorporated there (there's no legal requirement that the true owner of a company incorporated there is disclosed - they literally have corporation mills there which exist to set up companies whose owners can't be identified and traced) means that a lot of people won't do business with companies located there. The Bitcoin community is probably especially sensitive about that because of the whole Mybitcoin fiasco. From a purely pragmatic viewpoint, the US isn't in the business of using precedents established under other legal systems, which means that it could very well take a different legal approach to Bitcoin and its related services than other nations. Of course there's no guarantee that a "different" approach would be a more lenient one. |
|
|
|
Pretty much already there for anyone who uses exchanges.
I forge my bitcoins out of rocks of moldor like a man.
At the moment the exchanges have alternate markets so there are workarounds if regulatory issues make it difficult for them to operate in a particular jurisdiction. The cost of regulatory compliance is going to make some markets economically non-viable for the exchanges. It's doubtful that any of the exchanges have the financial reserves to become licensed in every location in which they currently operate. When it comes to seeking legitimisation, who knows whether they'll all seek to become licensed in the one market or whether they'll each seek licensing in totally different markets? I also doubt that any of them have the resources to fight protracted legal battles in courts of ultimate jurisdiction - that may well prove more expensive than the cost of obtaining appropriate financial services licences. From a purely commercial viewpoint, economic reality is likely to trump political idealism. |
|
|
|
Any type of ruling against bitcoin would certainly be very problematic it terms of setting a precedent. If you look at bitcoin as what it actually is - a shared transaction log - and the possession of "coins" as nothing more than a key or "password" that gives you access to data contained in that log, it's easy to see how slippery the slope would be. There is no owner or backer of this data other than the network itself. IMHO any legislation or ruling that would attempt to make bitcoin illegal would seemingly amount to a ruling that attempts to make one's personal acceptance of bitcoin as a token of value illegal. That's pretty intangible, and if it happens, the thought police will have arrived 27 years late.
I doubt there'll be any serious attempt to make Bitcoin illegal per se any time soon. What is much more likely is that various laws which already regulate money itself and services related to money will be expanded to encompass Bitcoin - ie, to the extent that it functions like money, a commodity, or some other financial instrument it will be regulated as such. |
|
|
|
In Buckley v. Valeo SCOTUS ruled that spending money is speech. I'm just not sure they would consider Bitcoin as money.
Buckley v Valeo was specifically about whether laws regulating campaign contributions abridged the right of political free speech (which is most definitely protected in the US). The decision in fact did maintain some limits on campaign contributions and has been criticised by free speech advocates on that basis. You'd have to argue that regulating Bitcoin restricts political free speech in order for Buckley to be considered a relevant precedent. Case law has to be on point to even be considered in adjudication. There may well be case law in the US which supports the viewpoint that spending money is always constitutionally protected free speech, but I doubt it - if that were the case then the various laws which regulate how money can be spent/transmitted/acquired/etc would have been struck down long ago. |
|
|
|
If you have low testosterone levels it's probably not the end of the world to take it if you don't work out, but you're probably better off taking something like Tribulus Terrestris, which may or may not restore your body's natural testosterone levels. I'm pretty sure taking testosterone by itself (real or synthetic) reduces your body's ability to create testosterone by itself, so it's pretty dumb to do if you're otherwise healthy, below 30, and have no need for the extra performance.
Honestly though, unless you've been diagnosed with low testosterone by a real doctor, there's seriously no reason a 17 year old should fuck with anabolics at all. Depending on the type of supplement, you could grow tits, break out with heinous acne or other skin conditions, as well as the potential social effects. If you're 17 years old and healthy and you want to get huge, diet and working out until you shit yourself will probably have a much more profound effect. If you're 17 years old, otherwise healthy, and aren't trying to get huge, I can't fathom why you'd inject yourself with this shit.
While I personally find tribulus pretty awesome at sub body-building doses (it produces a mild, fairly long acting, stimulant-like buzz), fucking around with your androgen receptors and your pituitary gland in your teens is probably a bad idea. While there's a fair amount of research regarding its traditional use to treat infertility and sexual dysfunction issues and the research reveals no significant issues relate to that use, there's not a lot of research into the effects of taking it long-term in high doses (there's one study which found it produced dopamine fatigue in sheep - that's far from definitive but it's consistent with the effect that long-term, high dose stimulant use can produce in humans so further research is warranted). |
|
|
|
I'm hopeful that you and other exchanges will be able to operate profitably under this regime...or simply willing to do so.
It would be hard for me to believe that you could have gotten an exchange service operating without having first recognized the kernel of truth enunciated by MysteryMiner in the preceding discussion entry.
Like I've said on several occasions, though, an exchange could probably make a temporary killing by gathering BTC/Funds from people who will end up being unwilling to incur the risk of coming back for them. Nebulous and/or non-published terms of service seem to be the norm for Bitcoin related enterprises, so you could probably get away with stating that uncollected assets will be liquidated after arbitrary periods of time.
BTW, does this thread not belong in the economics -> trading discussions bin?
If you look at the ToS of companies like Paypal Australia and Technocash which do hold Australian Financial Services licences, you'll see that the issue of what happens if a customer's funds can't be released to them because they've failed to verify/identify is addressed. The funds must ultimately be turned over to one of the various government unclaimed monies funds where it sits waiting for collection by the person who held the account or someone legally empowered to collect it on their behalf. Businesses can't legally hold onto the funds of unverified/unidentified customers indefinitely. Terms of Service don't trump the legal obligations of business to comply with the law, no matter how much business operators might wish otherwise. |
|
|
|
LOL Their "new security measures" statement reads suspiciously like it was cut and pasted from MtGox. Please be aware that due to the sudden increase in identification requests, processing of submitted documentation has become slightly delayed. We thank our users for their continued patience and support as we adjust to the requirements which have been obligated upon WBX. To be honest, a response like that is begging for a customer to complain to the Office of Fair Trading. It's a stupid thing to do when you acknowledge on your website that you're operating unlicensed. |
|
|
|
So they can only do this if they are somewhat certain that Bitcoin was in fact covered by existing legislation. I could imagine there's a good chance of successfully disputing this interpretation of the laws, considering the unique nature of Bitcoin.
we can't simply say "the unique nature of Bitcoin, GIVES us the right to do what ever the fuck we want" ... that's just not coolOh I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that is what I meant - I'm absolutely for solid legal foundations for electronic cryptocurrencies! I just don't think Bitcoin is covered by current laws hence I would think any decision by a bank trying to classify it would be disputable under current legislation. Ideally I would like to see new laws being crafted for cryptocurrencies after undergoing a public debate and normal democratic processes. Wishful thinking I guess...  we have to work with them, to define bitcoin in the law book.
Exactly! The nature of Bitcoin had nothing to do with the decision. They found that MtGox was effectively operating as a money transfer business/bank by taking and holding user deposits of actual currency and that because they weren't licensed to do that they were operating outside the law. The issue being determined was whether they had a right to a French bank account. The ruling pretty much meant that because they weren't appropriately licensed for the services they were providing, the bank didn't have to provide them with services (and neither did any other French bank).
I thought that the nature of Bitcoin was indeed the issue here that had to be decided - if I may quote from Mark's OP: Chances are it'll take a few weeks/months before a final decision is taken, however starting September 13th, a French court will review the question "Is bitcoin a virtual currency".
Are you talking about a different case or am I missing something? As far as I understand it, it's the same case. MtGox wanted the nature of Bitcoin to be an issue in the determination but it wasn't the grounds on which the ruling was made. I don't know whether it was determined to be an irrelevant issue to the proceedings or whether it's yet to be decided but Mark's updates haven't indicated that there are any novel issues awaiting determination. |
|
|
|
Is that an over complicated way of saying "when Matthew's account is deleted" or does this specifically mean if it's deleted by moderator (like 'suicide by cop')?
Probably he intends this to work like an assassination market. Mods can't delete accounts, though, and no admin would do so and also collect the bounty. You don't generally delete accounts when you ban someone though, do you? Don't you only delete them when a poster has removed most of the content and then asks a mod to delete the account, leaving the remaining posts as showing "Anonymous" as the poster? Matthew's ego's far too large for him to ever ask you to do that. |
|
|
|
On a recent survey about Bitcoin I found a person who admitted that it's his job to destroy Bitcoin within a team of people, probably to protect the current financial system: Please tell me you are not really that gullible. Sssssshhhhhh. The Masons might hear you. If you really wanted to destroy confidence in Bitcoin you'd find obscure legislation which allows the user deposits on the exchanges to be seized (there's bound to be some existing piece of legislation which could be tortured to allow this). It's easy for anyone to claim that they working on attacking Bitcoin through stuff which has already happened. Let's see how good they are at predicting what will happen next. |
|
|
|
what is this going to mean for the bitcoin consumer and bitcoin merchant?
Anyone (business or natural person) that exchange pre-paid for something must keep records of each transaction for five years, require personal identification and report "suspicius activities" to FinCEN. Bitcoin aside, I suspect we're going to see a lot less businesses selling things like gift cards, mobile phone credit, pre-paid Visas and the like if they have to verify the identity of the buyer for each sale. The administrative burden will just be too huge for a lot of small businesses to continue offering those things or it would slow down their normal operations too much (in the case of businesses like supermarkets). |
|
|
|
|
Because nobody would ever troll conspiracy theorists...
And why are the stats reading as if he's the only one who's taken the survey?
|
|
|
|
The Banque de France is the regulator - it's decision effectively legally defines MtGox as a money transfer business and prohibits it from operating without a licence.
So it seems that formally the Banque de France acted in its capacity as a regulator (not law-maker). It's effectively prohibiting mtgox from operating due to the existing law that disallows money transfer businesses to operator without a license by classifying mtgox as a money transfer business. Right? Thanks for the info - should have read further back. So they can only do this if they are somewhat certain that Bitcoin was in fact covered by existing legislation. I could imagine there's a good chance of successfully disputing this interpretation of the laws, considering the unique nature of Bitcoin. Guess we'll have to wait and see... any day now... The nature of Bitcoin had nothing to do with the decision. They found that MtGox was effectively operating as a money transfer business/bank by taking and holding user deposits of actual currency and that because they weren't licensed to do that they were operating outside the law. The issue being determined was whether they had a right to a French bank account. The ruling pretty much meant that because they weren't appropriately licensed for the services they were providing, the bank didn't have to provide them with services (and neither did any other French bank). |
|
|
|
|
Are MtGox appealing this? I got the impression that they weren't after the ruling came down.
|
|
|
|
|
As long as people realise that a law firm's not going to be able to give you a definitive answer. At best they can give you an opinion on how they think a court might interpret the legislation.
From what I've read, the changes are comprehensive enough to include things like pre-paid mobile phone and internet plans as well as gift-cards and pre-paid credit cards. There doesn't seem to be a requirement that the thing bought can be redeemed for a fixed value.
What they seem to be trying to do is include things which may be used for money laundering in the future and not just those which have been used in the past (phone cards and prepaid credit cards have definitely been used in the past). By specifying the characteristics, they have more latitude for including some new thing under the regulations without needing to re-legislate. It's kind of like analogue drug legislation for financial services.
|
|
|
|
There's a related thread here. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51980.0Also here. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=46971.0The new rule was designed to be technology neutral and is meant to be adaptable to a range of products, such as a plastic card, an internet system, or a mobile phone network.
[Criteria that determines if a product is subject to the new rules include] whether the product is reloadable, can be transferred to other consumers, and, […] can be used to transfer funds outside the United States.
We will be publishing [a] proposal for public comment very soon [on the requirement that tangible prepaid access is declared] when it is transported across a border, similar to the existing declaration required for international transport of cash and monetary instruments.
An entity that engages in money transmission in any amount is subject to the BSA rules.
The term ‘currency dealer or exchanger’ [has been replaced] with the new term ‘dealer in foreign exchange,’ a term used to include the exchange of instruments other than currency as a category of MSB.
It is recognized that AML/CFT regulations need to be applied not just to banks, but rather to a range of financial and other types of commercial institutions. Why? The reason is that any way that you can move money—any way that value can be intermediated—can be abused by criminals”.
Violations by much smaller entities might also merit monetary penalties.
Over the past year FinCEN has been engaged in an initiative to identify unregistered money services businesses, primarily independent money transmitters.
Now that FinCEN has established a solid regulatory framework for prepaid access in the United States, we must continue to promote analogous steps in foreign jurisdictions. http://www.bitcoinmoney.com/post/11074108719/fincen-freis-prepaid-access-speechThey're planning on pressuring similar bodies overseas to adopt similar provisions. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
