A good way to avoid this would be to have sold ~10% first to test the system/fees.
"Is it even legal"
No, it sounds criminal, but...
In theory, if he had a witness and/or video of the owner claiming 1%, then he could win in civil court and also try to press criminal charges.
In reality, civil court costs are too high, and the district attorney is too busy for a criminal case.
True, wish there was a recording of the conversation. Would there be be anything to do since it did not have any fee warnings? Is there some kind of regulation or enforcement that requires ATM's to show what fee they are charging before accepting a deposit or withdrawal? Thanks for the answer. No, it is a complicated issue. For you to take any action outside of sending the owner complaints, would be a waste of time. There are no real regulations or rules that govern BTMs. Your argument will be mostly hearsay. Can you tell us where the BTM was located? What type of device was it? Is the BTM a buy & sell device? Sometimes people register their BTMs on sites that provide notice of the fees. https://coinatmradar.com/ |
|
|
|
...
Also, please name one State that doesn't require a license for bitcoin(e-currency) exchanges.
Each state is currently working on, has finished, or has not even started to address the issues discussed in this thread. If they have not addressed it yet, it is considered "OK". To answer your question, according to my understanding from last year, Texas does not consider bitcoin to be money, so thus it can not be money transmission. I do not know if that still stands though. |
|
|
|
You should'a sold your pro lawyerin' to that pair of financial moguls, maybe they wouldn't " have plead guilty to running an unlicensed bitcoin exchange" & pushin' Xanax  If they were legitimately selling prescription drugs while selling btc, then they are probably morons. It may even be possible they they were actually drug dealers, who were just using bitcoin for payments, and thus the government tacked on "unlicensed exchange" as well. I would need to see the complaint to know what the case is actually about. But ultimately, they are guilty of being an unlicensed money transmitter if their state defines them as that. My only argument throughout this thread is that not all jurisdictions are the same. Unlike some people think. In theory, if these two people sold btc within a friendly state, they would be free men right now. |
|
|
|
All the countries have laws regarding to financial transactions and they require a financial license for the Bitcoin exchangers. It doesn't matter if you are in USA or China.
If Bitcoin isn't defined as money in their country, exactly why would they need such a license? Bitcoin is still in the 'grey zone' for a lot of places. ... if however they are just swapping bitcoin for altcoins(no fiat at all). then and only then do they not need a licence. Franky just so you know, according to the FinCEN docs that Mayax are providing, if you interpret them as he is, then bitcoin for altcoin buy/sells or vice versa also requires a money transmission license. Definitions of User, Exchanger, and Administrator
This guidance refers to the participants in generic virtual currency arrangements, using the terms "user," "exchanger," and "administrator."6 A user is a person that obtains virtual currency to purchase goods or services.7 An exchanger is a person engaged as a business in the exchange of virtual currency for real currency, funds, or other virtual currency. An administrator is a person engaged as a business in issuing (putting into circulation) a virtual currency, and who has the authority to redeem (to withdraw from circulation) such virtual currency. (Emphasis Added) So, if they wanted to argue it, they could interpret it to say things like Poloniex or Shapeshift are also money transmitters. shapeshift does not touch the dollar.. nor is it even based in USA. this american law does not apply to shapeshift. though poloniex does not touch fiat, it however does 'reside' in USA so they would need some legal clarification. however. "virtual currencies" as noted in your documents are electronic forms of fiat. the laws around blockchain currencies are still not defined. these virtual currencies are what paypal, western union use(USD) and so defining if blockchain currencies are in that remit, still is a grey area. but overall i can easily see poloniex being on a possible US hitlist. but if you were to try to think that a MSB was just someone that transmitted any type of currency of value (bitcoin included) then every bitcoin user would need a licence. im sorry but in prison the inmates do not need a MSB licence for trading cigarettes (their currency of value) im sorry but in a relationship, women do not need a MSB licence for trading sexual favours (their currency) for getting their spouses to do things around the house. im sorry but businesses do not need a MSB licence for trading fiat for their staffs labour. as time is a thing of value too. a good lawyer could rip apart the argument of what is a virtual currency, what is a money substitute etc. remember.. a paypal USD is not the same as a bank note or a dollar metal coin Currency vs. Virtual Currency
FinCEN's regulations define currency (also referred to as "real" currency) as "the coin and paper money of the United States or of any other country that is designated as legal tender and that [ii] circulates and [iii] is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the country of issuance."3 In contrast to real currency, "virtual" currency is a medium of exchange that operates like a currency in some environments, but does not have all the attributes of real currency. In particular, virtual currency does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction. This guidance addresses "convertible" virtual currency. This type of virtual currency either has an equivalent value in real currency, or acts as a substitute for real currency. 1BTC does not act as a substitute for dollar. there is nothing to prove that 1btc is 1 dollar or that bitcoin should be treated as only being used as a substitute for a dollar. (think of it as if bitcoin was a starbucks coffee.. changing value every year and measured in different vale and different international currencies). bitcoin is a currency, but not money. its an asset currency basically so its still not clear. however its best to be cautious Yes I mostly agree with you. I'm just pointing out that the interpretation of guidance or certain regulations still contain gray areas that we assume or believe incorrectly to be true or false, and ultimately one day need specific laws on the books so that people can clearly understand where they officially stand. |
|
|
|
First of all, the article is about two individuals who are light weights ($10k in undeclared cash over 3 years). ... Hope you didn't get your $10k from "Further, the Lords allegedly failed to report cash receipts in excess of $10,000." Over 10k simply means that they failed to report transactions over $10k, a failure to comply with AML reporting regulations. On top of running an exchange & pushing Xanax like a bunch of high school kids. If you accept cash in person, AML in does not apply. AML has to do with bank deposits with a single purchase. Lol, so that is how you got your "$10k in undeclared cash over 3 years'? Let me help you out a bit with your interweb lawyerin'. They pleaded guilty to running an unlicensed exchange. As an exchange, they're obligated to report such transactions. They didn't, so got nailed for that too. That's why the article says " Further, the Lords allegedly failed to report cash receipts in excess of $10,000." Ya brah, if the government can only articulate that they didn't declare cash in excess of $10k, then they are light weights. Normally the government will provide an estimate of how much in cash they brought in for 3 years. It is possible, that in the filed complaint, there are actual cash estimated for the 3 years. The fact that the article doesn't say what those numbers are, make me think the government doesn't know, so they through that count in for good measure. Bro-tator. |
|
|
|
All the countries have laws regarding to financial transactions and they require a financial license for the Bitcoin exchangers. It doesn't matter if you are in USA or China.
If Bitcoin isn't defined as money in their country, exactly why would they need such a license? Bitcoin is still in the 'grey zone' for a lot of places. ... if however they are just swapping bitcoin for altcoins(no fiat at all). then and only then do they not need a licence. Franky just so you know, according to the FinCEN docs that Mayax are providing, if you interpret them as he is, then bitcoin for altcoin buy/sells or vice versa also requires a money transmission license. Definitions of User, Exchanger, and Administrator
This guidance refers to the participants in generic virtual currency arrangements, using the terms "user," "exchanger," and "administrator."6 A user is a person that obtains virtual currency to purchase goods or services.7 An exchanger is a person engaged as a business in the exchange of virtual currency for real currency, funds, or other virtual currency. An administrator is a person engaged as a business in issuing (putting into circulation) a virtual currency, and who has the authority to redeem (to withdraw from circulation) such virtual currency. (Emphasis Added) So, if they wanted to argue it, they could interpret it to say things like Poloniex or Shapeshift are also money transmitters. |
|
|
|
Please see footnote 1 of the bottom of your link page: 1 FinCEN is issuing this guidance under its authority to administer the Bank Secrecy Act. See Treasury Order 180-01 (March 24, 2003). This guidance explains only how FinCEN characterizes certain activities involving virtual currencies under the Bank Secrecy Act and FinCEN regulations. It should not be interpreted as a statement by FinCEN about the extent to which those activities comport with other federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, or orders. (Emphasis Added) And see: 12As our response is not in the form of an administrative ruling, the substance of this letter should not be considered determinative in any state or federal investigation, litigation, grand jury proceeding, or proceeding before any other governmental body. yes but all the States from America are following what FINCEN is saying(guidance). do a search for unlicensed Bitcoin money transmitter: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/mtgoxs-dwolla-account-seized-1368760437https://coincenter.org/2015/04/what-is-money-transmission-and-why-does-it-matter/The laws are very clear. You didn;t answer why Circle got a EU financial license after they financial licenses in all US? They don't care about money, right?They wanted to throw them away for some useless papers. NO, they want to make serious business and they want to wake up on their pillow not in a jail No, each State may, at their discretion, decide to go against FinCEN Guidance, if they wish to or if their legislators say bitcoin isn't money. It is up to each state. It is not a universal federal law, yet. Your circle question is irrelevant. Do you have proof that Circle has licenses in each of the states that they do business in, within the United States? There is no universal license. Circle is a bad exchange to use as an example since they would sell out their mother to the devil if they could get a single cent. They see bitcoin as a whore to slap around. They are backed and financed by those who wish to regulate and destroy bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Please see footnote 1 of the bottom of your link page: 1 FinCEN is issuing this guidance under its authority to administer the Bank Secrecy Act. See Treasury Order 180-01 (March 24, 2003). This guidance explains only how FinCEN characterizes certain activities involving virtual currencies under the Bank Secrecy Act and FinCEN regulations. It should not be interpreted as a statement by FinCEN about the extent to which those activities comport with other federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, or orders. (Emphasis Added) And see: 12As our response is not in the form of an administrative ruling, the substance of this letter should not be considered determinative in any state or federal investigation, litigation, grand jury proceeding, or proceeding before any other governmental body. So, currently, this is not laws. In fact, they say it is not law and is a reinterpretation of the known laws, in order to place crypt-currencies within their governance (without legislative approval). In theory, FinCENs "guidance" can not be used as anything official or definitive in a court of law or before congress. |
|
|
|
First of all, the article is about two individuals who are light weights ($10k in undeclared cash over 3 years). ... Hope you didn't get your $10k from "Further, the Lords allegedly failed to report cash receipts in excess of $10,000." Over 10k simply means that they failed to report transactions over $10k, a failure to comply with AML reporting regulations. On top of running an exchange & pushing Xanax like a bunch of high school kids. If you accept cash in person, AML in does not apply. AML has to do with bank deposits with a single purchase. |
|
|
|
The first link does not provide law or regulations. In fact, they are requesting interpretation of laws. That doesn't mean anything until a finding and entering of law. The second link does not provide laws or regulation to bitcoin. In fact, it is about brokerages that sell precious metals for any funds. The third link only applies to Washington state. As I said, each state may define money transmission any way they wish. It is interesting to note that there are no laws that actually define money to include bitcoin within these pages. The state has rolled bitcoin into the current law, even though the definition is well defined and only include government approved currency. This Interim Guidance does not amend chapter 19.230 RCW or chapter 208
-690 WAC. This Interim Guidance is subject to change or withdrawal. So simply, they got lazy and instead of adding to the law by ratification, they re-interpreted the law to go around legislation. This is not final law and can be overturned. The links provided does not prove that bitcoin laws are fully defined world wide and whether people or exchanges are in compliance or are not in compliance. |
|
|
|
First of all, the article is about two individuals who are light weights ($10k in undeclared cash over 3 years). These two people most likely used something like Localbitcoins to facilitate their trades, and if that is true, then this story is not comparable to the above listed "unlicensed exchangers" who are doing $100k+ in transactions/profits/fees per day within their own dedicated site. Second, the term "unlicensed exchange" only applies in jurisdictions in which there are regulations. Those jurisdictions are actually very few and being licensed or not does not assure your bitcoins are safe. Third, Mayax is a known supporter of world regulation over bitcoin and constantly argues for principals that are anti-bitcoin. Let's see : https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/coin-mx-bitcoin-exchange-operators-arrested/http://www.wired.com/2015/01/bitcoin-exchange-operator-sentenced-4-years-silk-road-transactionsThese are not from Localbitcoins. "unlicensed exchange" only applies in jurisdictions in which there are regulations. CORRECT. All the countries have regulations regarding to that. It doesn't have to be something special for Bitcoin. Bitcoin is considered a virtual currency/e-currency and there are strict laws toward to this. USA, UE(and not only), China, Australia, Canada, etc. All have laws for e-currency exchangers. Both links you provided do not argue what was your original argument. Both of those links include willful conspiracy to syndicate criminal activity or willful conspiracy toward drug/weapon sales. This is like apples to oranges. Because an exchange is licensed or not, does not prevent this from happening. Please provide links to all laws and regulations that you are relying upon for each country you have listed. Are you aware that in the United States, it is each state's right to self define money transmission, and as such, some of those States have determined that bitcoin is not money? |
|
|
|
First of all, the article is about two individuals who are light weights ($10k in undeclared cash over 3 years). These two people most likely used something like Localbitcoins to facilitate their trades, and if that is true, then this story is not comparable to the above listed "unlicensed exchangers" who are doing $100k+ in transactions/profits/fees per day within their own dedicated site. Second, the term "unlicensed exchange" only applies in jurisdictions in which there are regulations. Those jurisdictions are actually very few and being licensed or not does not assure your bitcoins are safe. Third, Mayax is a known supporter of world regulation over bitcoin and constantly argues for principals that are anti-bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Yeah this seems like a hoax story to me. The OP also talks about the "Cyber Police" that everyone knows is a joke term and not even close to being a real thing. Why would anyone who has 425 BTC and 40k LTC download anything on the computer that stores that? If I had anything close to that, it would be split up into multiple address and placed into DEEP DEEP cold storage. This story doesn't seem plausible. |
|
|
|
What are you going to do when the person on the other end of the peer-to-peer decentralized open-source transaction is a bad guy who takes your hard-earned coins and leaves? Can Satoshi Nakamoto help you get your money back? He tried to create an utopia where everyone can be trusted and Bitcoin can be the savior of the financial world but unfortunately the world is broken, the world is dirty and is going to shit faster than we can fix it because there is no cure for greed and this greed will end us all. Bitcoin is only safe in a wallet. Upon leaving said wallet there are no rules in place to save your ass if someone out there gets you. If you go back to my post that started this deviation in conversation you would see that I have said 1/ Bitcoin fees other than miners transaction fees will set you back more than a simple debit card which is true because the Bitcoin companies offering cards are there to make profit off you which is a fact and 2/ Bitcoin is not secure after it has left your wallet or someone gets into your wallet because you have no recourse to get it back.
I'm surprised you are a high level Hero Member, yet have these anti-bitcoin opinions. Its seems by your understanding and interpretation, bitcoin should be more like credit cards. I did not give my opinion to argue basics bitcoin philosophy, but to provide background. If these are your concerns, why are you even bothering with bitcoin? More importantly, what are your proposed fixes for the problems you outline? |
|
|
|
|
Wendigo is probably being sarcastic when talking with Carlton Banks.
In the event he would like a rational why chargebacks are against bitcoins purpose,
below is my simple opinion.
Without getting into all the details and the speculation around such details,
it is believed (IMO) within the Bitcoin community that Satoshi Nakamoto wanted to
create Bitcoin/bitcoin not only to created the first successful decentralized online
payment system, but also as a way to protect people from the manipulative and
destructive current world financial system. Many of the features of that world
system, such as the ability of chargebacks, quantitative easing, bailouts, and etc, are
actually fundamental problems in that system that allows for massive fraud, debt,
inflation, scams, theft and ultimately financial collapses that only hurts the common
person at the end of it all.
So, simply not allowing chargebacks is a plus to Bitcoin. If they were allowed or part
of the protocol, then there would be no point in using Bitcoin/bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
It doesn't really look like Bitcoin and oil have a correlation, I think a lot of it just revolves around coincidences since the movements seem to be fairly erratic and there are only a few points where the values seem to have even some sort of correlation.
...
Sheer coincidence of a small sample size
Yes I agree and it seems to have all come down to a coincidence with a 1 year sample. I am going to lock this thread now. If anyone has anything important to add, PM me and I'll unlock for your comment, but seeing as my original result/theory was incorrect, doesn't seem likely. |
|
|
|
New graph - couldn't get 3 years of data, only 2.76 years.   Based on this data, BTC & CRUDE OIL is now considered LOW Positive Correlation. The only thing interesting to note, is that it is positive, till the last year, when then it splits to negative. |
|
|
|
Would you consider buying $1000 worth of ether when its between like $8-$10 USD hoping the price fluctuates to $200-$300 per coin over time? Also do you believe ether will become more & more popular as time goes on? Finally I read online Microsoft has began experimenting how they could apply ethereum/decentrilzed market to better their company? Any other information you'd like to share feel free!
The target price of Ether is to stay around $10 per coin. It is not a speculative device, it is a token for contacts. If the token was as high as you wish ($200-$300), people would hoard it and not use it for contacts. Butter-Boy knows this, so he will and can change the protocol whenever he wants to add more supply to drop price. Currently Ether supply is 80 million coins. That is already 5 times more than bitcoin's supply in just 8 months. You can speculate and buy some if you wish, but they are designed and programmed to be around $10. P.S. This should be moved to altcoins section. ...BTW, did you mean "contracts"? ... Lol! Yeah I meant Contracts.. That was pretty weird. I did it twice too. Thanks, I'm correcting now. |
|
|
|
Would you consider buying $1000 worth of ether when its between like $8-$10 USD hoping the price fluctuates to $200-$300 per coin over time? Also do you believe ether will become more & more popular as time goes on? Finally I read online Microsoft has began experimenting how they could apply ethereum/decentrilzed market to better their company? Any other information you'd like to share feel free!
The target price of Ether is to stay around $10 per coin. It is not a speculative device, it is a token for contracts. If the token was as high as you wish ($200-$300), people would hoard it and not use it for contracts. Butter-Boy knows this, so he will and can change the protocol whenever he wants to add more supply to drop price. Currently Ether supply is 80 million coins. That is already 5 times more than bitcoin's supply in just 8 months. You can speculate and buy some if you wish, but they are designed and programmed to be around $10. P.S. This should be moved to altcoins section. Edits: Fixed spelling, spelled "contracts" as "contacts". |
|
|
|
Hi all,
Based on past experience, I can predict the first one or 2 people to try to complain about this type of post, so F offf...
My first confirmation is taking way to Effing long!!!
This time, I gave more then the min. required fee, and the transaction still was ignored in a block with over 3,000 transactions.
I Love Bitcoin, but it has serious issues which need to be solved soon.
Medium/advanced Bitcoin users should always (as habit) take a look at the mempool size before sending txs. I personally check out https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ and https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin since I always do custom fees. How much fee did you give? How long did it take to confirm? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
