The regulations do not change mining.  They do govern companies.  Increasingly mining is done by companies, rather than sole individuals.
The regulations also do not affect the protocol, just the companies that use it.

The centralization occurs when, in order to do business in the state of New York, a company has to obtain the Bitlicense.  Small companies will not be able to afford the expense and will simply not do business in the state of New York, like BitSimple today.
Middle sized companies may be able to afford it, but will be at a competitive disadvantage to larger companies for whom compliance is a smaller percentage of their business revenue.
The result will be the largest will buy the smaller, and this creates the sort of centralization that we have in traditional banking.

That 7 of the largest US Banks were hacked over the last few months shows part of the risks of this sort of centralization to consumers of the services of those banks.  The Bitlicense regulation as it stands, INCREASES RISK TO CONSUMERS which is the opposite of its policy goal of consumer protection.
They need to start over and rethink their strategy for consumer protection in the state.

The Bitlicense will reduce business in New York state.  The remaining choices will be the few large businesses, centralizing the risk and increasing that risk to consumers within the state.  They will not legally have the option of choosing a better smaller service that doesn't have the Bitlicense.

An ideal case would be one that can handle as many transactions as there are clicks on the internet.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
That folks are striving for perfection is encouraging.

Its been well over a hundred years from the first electric vehicles to the Teslas of today, but folks still had to get from place to place.  We'll have to make do with our imperfections until we get there.

Good thought experiment.
Storage size is one issue that link fencing would address with the additional linked chains.  This could ultimately work with Bitcoin but for the very long term storage issues.  There will be unspent transactions in perpetuity, but if each spend were made into the newer chains, only those old unspents would need to be tracked. 
They are the same, but not really the same.  We'd have to see it working in an alt for quite a while before monkeying with Bitcoin.  The transaction volume issue is another place that could benefit from the BCLF model.  Not entirely the same as one block chain, as it could also allow for feature additions in an incremental way.

I'm going to run with this idea for a moment.

Lets call it Block Chain Link Fencing.

The ways to implement might include things like
1) merge mining the new chain
2) Finding the the unspent transactions
3) providing a way to move unspent transactions from the old chain to the new chain

There are other solutions already in play such as the use of bloom filters to prune the old chain in the software.  But I thought the name that popped into my head for this feature was clever enough that I should write something for it.
(we are either fencing coins, or fencing off bloat by linking block chains, take your pick)

BIS also excludes the "systemically important" (their term for TBTF) banks from some provisions and gives special accommodation.

For the ongoing discussions about the business, it probably makes sense to have the thread in the marketplace (where it was, yes?) and then for any changes and announcements, start a thread in the announcement section that describes the announcement and refers to the marketplace discussion thread.

I don't think it makes sense to move the discussion thread to the announcements. 

SOME ADMIN WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY TO MOVE IT.
Why?  Who knows, but it doesn't really make sense.
I don't know why it would matter to them at all, but it would seem to be going in the wrong direction for keeping the forum organized around unified topics.
Market place items in the marketplace, and announcements in the announcement sections.

The radioactive bacteria are apparently worth more than the gold ones.
They cure pancreatic cancer.
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21576628-surprising-new-way-kill-tumours-three-wrongs-make-right

Money decides.  The decision is not up to "the people".
Its not like anyone can just plant a seed in their yard, add water, and have a vaccine and government is stopping them.

If you are saying you want the leviathan to extract the money from everyone to pay for this instead of something else, you need to lobby more effectively than posting on a website.

The notion that a color can be sexist, is sexist.

A little opposition makes one stronger.  In the alt realm of experimentation, that's not out of place.
However lies and misrepresentations have no place in that role.
As for the questions, concern trolls are trolls, the actions are what matters.

And a question of keeping everyone else out.
Bitlicense

Reposting this from CryptoCrypt where I'm still editing the draft, but thought it may be good to share here as well...
https://cryptocrypt.org/index.php?topic=5060.msg114770#msg114770


Many people will say that Bitlicense proposal is bad simply by virtue of the fact that government regulation is bad.  Others may question the right of the state of New York to make any such proposal or to regulate an international technology that will affect people far outside its borders.  Some suggest that there is nothing to be gained from any engagement in discussion with an entity such as the State of New York that only seeks to restrain shackle bind and even destroy the liberties of its people for the purpose of extracting fees for some smaller amount of freedom and uses the threats of imprisonment and confiscations enforced by force to achieve these aims, not for the good of its people, but to sustain its own power for power's sake.

However in the interests of discussion on its own terms a close look at the Bitlicense shows that it simply does not do what it hopes to do, and this requires significant revision at the risk of giving credence to such detractors.  Even with the assumption that these policy goals are necessary, and that the New York State government is the right and best entity to enforce such a regulatory framework, the proposed Bitlicense framework fails at its goals and instead harms those goals.

It has become increasingly clear that Mr. Lawsky believes that he knows better than any of the experts on the subject matter of his proposed regulation and that the solicitations for feedback are not sincere.  It is also increasingly plain that the proposal is not merely misguided but does not achieve its policy goals and instead increases the risk to consumers.  We need to go over Lawsky's head on this, he is failing in his responsibilities as a public servant.
 
The policy guys have to see how the proposal doesn't achieve their policy goals.

I'm not a political person myself, but Circle and some others seems interesting in discussing with them.

I met their CEO Jeremy Allaire, at the hotel we both stayed at in Amsterdam.  I'll likely send him a letter, and copy Bruce Fenton and the policy guy at TBF, Jim Harper, Perianne Boring, Jerry Brito, professor of law at GMU, I've met all those folks but I'm looking for maybe a few others you might suggest to carry the message because they have standing in the state, and a greater interest in seeing the matter handled better.

I want to polish and perhaps flush out the draft a little and would like to solicit the good people of the CryptoCrypt for any comment:
--------------
The Bitlicense proposal arose presumably for the purpose of reducing financial risks within the economy, and from the state of NY desiring to protect its consumers.  This initiative is some confirmation that the state of NY believes that Bitcoin is an integral component of the state's economic activity.  New York has taken a forward looking position by this stance as Bitcoin currently composes a tiny percentage of the economy of the state.  While this visionary approach deserves some acclaim, and it fosters NY's image as a visionary financial technology hub and shows its high concern for its citizens, it also suggests no particular urgency for a regulatory framework.

The irony is that the proposed Bitlicence dies not accomplish its policy goals and will instead accomplish the opposite of these policy goals.  For this reason, the Bitlicense proposal ought be abandoned in favor of following the guidance put forth by the experts called before congress to testify on this matter In November of 2013.   Using only existing processes and procedures and offering a Bitlicense that certifies compliance with these.  This will both provide the necessary clarity for business to prosper in the geography at issue with the proposal, as well as avoiding the increased risks inherent in the proposed Bitlicense framework.

1) The proposed Bitlicense framework increases centralization

By producing a new and onerous regulatory framework, there will be fewer market participants in the Bitcoin economic space, and each of these will by necessity be larger in order to support the new regulatory compliance function.  The unintended consequence of this is that increasingly the larger companies will outgrow the smaller ones within the state, irrespective of innovation. 
This will occur, as it has with other financial technology companies under regulations as the compliance requirements will be a smaller fraction of the overall budgetary requirements.  In turn, the larger companies will be able to purchase the smaller companies at a discount to their value with the prospect of reducing the redundant compliance regimes that are so expensive for the smaller companies.

We have seen these same effects with the Dodd-Frank regulatory framework which although with the intent of reducing the risk of the too-big-to-fail systemically important institutions, instead increases the centralization and size of the largest of these and reducing the quantity and quality of innovative smaller entities.

The result of this effect is to reduce competition and increase centralization of these companies.  Alternatively Bitcoin companies could exit the state and elect not to serve its constituents.  Indeed there are some that are already doing so, and selectively prohibit the citizens of New York from engaging as customers.  The cost to New York in lost opportunity, revenue and even in lost population for those that would avoid its jurisdiction ought be a factor in considering a regulatory framework as suggested by

2) Centralization is the risk Bitcoin is designed to avoid.
The increased centralization of Bitcoin companies due to the proposed Bitlicense
- fundamental to the design, white paper
 - Chase et al banking hack

3) The Centralization occurs at the highest risk point in the Bitcoin economy.
 - alternative is forensic and transparent
 - private companies dealing in dollars in USA do not have this transparency auditability and accountability to the extent that they do not make use of Bitcoin.

4) The Bitlicense proposal is fundamentally harmful to the goal of protecting New York's consumers from risk.

Instead of the current proposal, an effective Bitlicense might be one that more simply provides a certification of compliance with existing New York State rules.  This would provide some assurance to the consumers under the protection of New York State that the company with which it is transacting has fulfilled these criteria.

--------
Thanks for any feedback.

Hmm.  Limited edition...
I should be saving my empties?

Its not really a shock.  Its in the BASEL iii docs.  They are just surfacing some of the weird evidence of it when exchanges are treating them as a customer.

There are scarier parts, such as the provisions for determining what constitutes minority interests in securitized debt loans constituting the capitalization for the banks, central banks, and "global systemically important financial institutions".  The many loopholes for whether insolvent commercial and sovereign debt instruments be called, and the further secularization of those (which is essentially printing money).

There isn't a better license to steal than being a bank.

I really don't mind being paid in gold.  I actually like it quite a bit when it happens.
That is rare though.  Being paid in bitcoin is preferred to being paid in fiat.
Folks with gold rarely like to part with it.  Bitcoin is so much more liquid and divisible, so we should expect it to be more frequently transacted.
But, I still like being paid in gold when I can be.

QFT

Risto, you have correctly distilled the reason folks are confused by what appears as a magnanimous public offering of information gained through your expensive research efforts into thinking you are manipulating them with false claims.  It is because you are manipulating us with true claims, and with actual magnanimity.  You are looking at the long game, not the pump and dump short game that people have become accustomed by charlatans.

This shows long term strategic thinking selfishness, rather than get rich quick selfishness.
The long game is also the heroic one.  It is the game that may survive us all.  The work of a magus not a charlatan.

It matters not whether you care most about Bitcoin as asset/currency, Monero for privacy, Counterparty for advanced block chain features or another.  What is most needed for all of these is not money and investment, it is people, action and knowledge.
I would rather have 100 investors with $100 each than 1 with 500 times that amount if my goals are long term and win/win the opposite would be true if I wanted to grab and run.
People are the true wealth of the world.  I write this with the thought of Hal Finney going into the cryonic phase of his journey today, with the hope and confidence that if we can keep this world from a self inflicted doom, that he can return again healthy and warm after ALS is conquered.  Let us get to that future with a renewed energy and sense of purpose.

My Italian friends have a saying: "At the end of the chess game, the king and the pawn go into the same box".  Lesson being, it is what happens on the board that matters.  Well played, Risto.

Barter was common between tribes, not so much within them.  It still is.

This is all actually sort of cool from another perspective.  It makes a good story.

Nefarious origin, but good technology.

It calls to mind the reuse of Dr. X's Aircraft Carriers in Diamond Age.  That massive instrument of death and destruction crafted from the taxes extorted from the productive and then abandoned, finally carrying and supporting the vast population of orphaned Chinese girls that proceed to transform society.

Then why (over)claim that it reduces supply when you clearly state it doesn't do anything more than put it on a shelf to rot and become obsolete, just like it would on the producer's shelf, and perhaps ultimately be sold?  This is not reducing supply, only productive use does that.  This is not a public good, it is the opposite, a public taking.
It is a politically controlled market distortion at public expense for private benefit, subject to lobbyist influence and plain corruption.  Government ought not be in this business, it is wrong and a misuse of power.

I was in the "What is it?" / "I don't care" camp until all these ExIm apologists came along with these mealy-mouthed justifications.  The more they write, the more reprehensible it seems.  Should just stop and hope that folks don't see it for what it is.  The more you explain, the worse it appears.

Not much patience for all this lipstick on a pig.

With the long incubation time, and the higher survival rate, it is actually more virulent and more dangerous in terms of pandemic potential.
Negative tests are not 100% conclusive in early stages (before antibody development), carriers can slip through most any checkpoint.
How will you know when it is too late for social isolation?