Bitcoin Forum
March 19, 2024, 09:05:40 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 [298] 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 ... 800 »
5941  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: FinCEN's definition of a Money Exchanger on: June 19, 2013, 03:31:20 PM
Yes I would be selling a funded private key. Take for example cassasius. If he were to sell his 1 BTC coin in USD, he could sell his coins for the 1.3 BTC exchange rate (ATM 140$), and claim that the he charges 140 per piece of physical metal, meanwhile the BTC is a gift. If legally necessary the coin could be funded with BTC at a later date (lets say after you bought the coin at a store, go home and send me an email with your public key), that way you paid 140 for the coin and the extra BTC is not considered "consideration" because it was not on the card at the time of purchase. Is this feasible and legal?


No need for such weak legal foolery (which any court would see through anyways).  FinCEN has already stated Bitcoins are not stored value (prepaid value).  Period.  If you are exchanging Bitcoins for another form of Bitcoins there is no "exchanging" going on.

Now if you want to sell BTC for USD then regardless of if you send them as on chain transactions, "physical Bitcoins", or private keys written by hand on the back of a napkin FinCEN says you are a "money transmitter". 

The law isn't a videogame, you can enter a cheat code and bypass the law.  If your intent is to sell BTC for USD or vice versa then any weak attemtps to obfuscate it ("I am selling this paperclip for $140 and it includes 1 BTC as a free gift") has no legal merit.  I mean stop for a second if that worked as a legal strategy then why wouldn't drug dealers be "paper clip dealers" and each sale includes some free drugs.   Granted possession is still a crime but it is significantly lower penalty than distribution.
5942  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: WARNING! Bitcoin will soon block small transaction outputs on: June 19, 2013, 03:28:25 PM
Does the push for eliminating dust raise the desire for off-chain transactions? I should think this would jumpstart off chain efforts.

Is there a huge "real" (i.e. non trolling) demand to pay people tiny fractions of a penny either on or off blockchain?  I would guess not and thus it won't jumpstart anything.
5943  Other / Off-topic / Re: Do you think microwaved water hurts plant growth? on: June 19, 2013, 05:27:55 AM
If you think microwaves go through the atmosphere, see my previous post

So they wasted their money building this?



It is the South Pole Microwave telescope.  Since the atmosphere blocks microwaves it should never see anything right?


Maybe your right and it doesn't work, they just built to enjoy views like this on the taxpayer dime.

5944  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: FinCEN's definition of a Money Exchanger on: June 18, 2013, 10:17:42 PM
So if I sell bitcoins on gift cards but less than 1000 per person per day I don't have to deal with bureaucracy ?

Possibly however the phrase "bitcoins on gift cards" is unclear.  Can you better describe exactly what will be happening?

i.e. "I will do X, the other buyer will do Y".
5945  Other / Off-topic / Re: Do you think microwaved water hurts plant growth? on: June 18, 2013, 05:05:22 AM
do you think it makes a difference that maybe the microwave heats it hotter than boiling on a stove?

Well it doesn't.  Stove or microwave, liquid water can only get so hot before it boils into gas form.  This is commonly known as the boiling point and for water it is 100 deg C.
5946  Economy / Trading Discussion / Re: Other than Casascius BTC is their another way to send BTC as a tangible object? on: June 18, 2013, 05:01:49 AM
Physical item is no defense.

Receive item, redeem private key.
Chargeback as "item not as described".
PayPal/Ebay will ask buyer to send item back to seller.

But if you want to get eaten alive by scammers you could always print off a paper wallet and mail that.
5947  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: FinCEN's definition of a Money Exchanger on: June 18, 2013, 04:32:17 AM
The above aren't money transmitting businesses.  Money transmitter is a money transmitting business.  The BSA gives FinCEN the authority to consider the following financial institutions.

but the BSA does not give FinCEN the authority to require MSBs to register.  It only requires money transmitting businesses to register.  So in requiring MSBs to register, FinCEN is actually claiming that all 6 types of MSB are money transmitting businesses that are required to register under section 5330.  Really.


If you are saying in a round about way that FinCEN has overstepped their regulatory authority well you will get no argument from me.  However unless you have seven figures and a willingness to fight them out in court it really is academic.
5948  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: FinCEN's definition of a Money Exchanger on: June 18, 2013, 12:22:28 AM
What you say is "completely wrong" is absolutely right.  There are only 6 types of MSBs.  No more, no less.  They all have exact definitions in the eCFR.  When registering as a MSB you must select one or more of the following six types.  You can't select none, you can't write in a new type.  All MSBs must be one these six.  

(1) Currency dealer or exchanger.
(2) Check casher.
(3) Issuer of traveler's checks, money orders or stored value.
(4) Seller or redeemer of traveler's checks, money orders or stored value.
(5) Money transmitter.
(6) U.S. Postal Service.

The law doesn't allow any other type of MSB.

Oh really?  Show me where in the BSA it defines "stored value" or "prepaid access".  It's not there.  These are just new categories of money transmitting businesses that FinCEN added to the regulations.  In 2011, they removed "stored value" and added "prepaid access".

The above aren't money transmitting businesses.  Money transmitter is a money transmitting business.  The BSA gives FinCEN the authority to consider the following financial institutions.  

Quote
(2) “financial institution” means—
(A) an insured bank (as defined in section 3(h) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813 (h)));
(B) a commercial bank or trust company;
(C) a private banker;
(D) an agency or branch of a foreign bank in the United States;
(E) any credit union;
(F) a thrift institution;
(G) a broker or dealer registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.);
(H) a broker or dealer in securities or commodities;
(I) an investment banker or investment company;
(J) a currency exchange;
(K) an issuer, redeemer, or cashier of travelers’ checks, checks, money orders, or similar instruments;
(L) an operator of a credit card system;
(M) an insurance company;
(N) a dealer in precious metals, stones, or jewels;
(O) a pawnbroker;
(P) a loan or finance company;
(Q) a travel agency;
(R) a licensed sender of money or any other person who engages as a business in the transmission of funds, including any person who engages as a business in an informal money transfer system or any network of people who engage as a business in facilitating the transfer of money domestically or internationally outside of the conventional financial institutions system;
(S) a telegraph company;
(T) a business engaged in vehicle sales, including automobile, airplane, and boat sales;
(U) persons involved in real estate closings and settlements;
(V) the United States Postal Service;
(W) an agency of the United States Government or of a State or local government carrying out a duty or power of a business described in this paragraph;
(X) a casino, gambling casino, or gaming establishment with an annual gaming revenue of more than $1,000,000
(Y) any business or agency which engages in any activity which the Secretary of the Treasury determines, by regulation, to be an activity which is similar to, related to, or a substitute for any activity in which any business described in this paragraph is authorized to engage; or
(Z) any other business designated by the Secretary whose cash transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory matters.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5312

FinCEN added stored value and later expanded it to prepaid access under the authority that the Secretary of the Treasury determined that "gift cards" were similar to one of the other categories.  IIRC it was "(K) an issuer, redeemer, or cashier of travelers’ checks, checks, money orders, or similar instruments".  However even that is subject to public input and review.  FinCEN didn't do that with Bitcoin they simply deemed "virtual currency broker/exchanger" = "money transmitter" which is just nonsense.


http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr2893


Still that wasn't really the point I should have said regs not laws. The eCFR and related forms, registrations, reporting, etc has no reference to "virtual currency exchanger".  There are only the 6 types of MSBs listed above.  Contrary to the view of another poster, you couldn't register as a "virtual currency exchanger" even if you wanted to.
5949  Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: Tarnished image on: June 17, 2013, 07:21:12 PM
Mining isn't a zero sum game.  It is a fixed positive sum game.  Maybe that is why you are confused.

A zero sum mining game would be that all miners need to put a certain amount of Bitcoins into escrow.  Once 25 BTC have been escrowed a satoshi is randomly selected and the miner who owns it gets the entire escrow amount.

Zero sum =/= Fixed Positive Sum.

At the current exchange rate the mining "game" has a positive sum of 25*6*24*365*~$100 = $131,400,000 annually. 
5950  Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: Tarnished image on: June 17, 2013, 03:58:41 AM
Either you misunderstood me or vice-versa.  I'm not exaggerating, i quite literally mean "no miners."  If mining is not profitable, and we discount fetishists who enjoy spending huge sums of money on specialized silicon in hopes of eventually breaking even, we can assume there'll be no miners.  Don't you agree?    

No that is simplistic.

Higher difficulty = Less miners = less hashing power = longer block interval = lower difficulty
Lower difficulty = more miners = more hashing power = shorter block interval = higher difficulty

The idea that you would ever get to no miners as in literally 0.0000000 GH/s mining is just nonsense.  The first miners have sunk cost.  Once you have hardware your ongoing cost is just electricity.  So long before existing ASIC miners become unprofitable new miners will stop deploying additional ASIC rigs slowing the rise in difficulty.  Even if difficulty so overshoots to a point that some ASIC miners are unprofitable those with lower electrical costs will still be profitable. The highest cost miners will shut down their rigs, difficulty will fall, and the margins for remaining miners will rise.  It is likely this will also overshoot, difficulty will fall far enough that the profits for remaining miners is "excessive" this will encourage more miners to go online (possibly buying rigs second hand) raising difficulty and lowering profitability all over again.

Please describe this scenario where all miners simultaneously stop mining and network hashpower goes to 0.000 GH/s.

 
5951  Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: Tarnished image on: June 17, 2013, 03:50:40 AM
If nobody is mining then the difficulty will be so low that I'll start solo mining and clean up.

Solo mining at 19m difficulty would likely take you many years just to find that first 25 BTC.


I think you missed the point.  OP seems to think mining will get so hard that all the miners will leave.  If a large amount of hashing power goes offline difficulty will fall.

That is what the OP seems to be missing.  Only a small % of users will be miners.  I mean there are 7 billion people of the planet, there aren't going to 7 billion bitcoin miners.   If there are "too many" miners the ROI will suck and some will drop out, if there are too few the profits will be very high for those who do mine so more will join.  The idea that everyone needs to mine or Bitcoin will fail is just silly.
5952  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: I have 22 BTC, should I spend it on LTC or FTC? on: June 17, 2013, 02:15:40 AM
Good point, I noticed their site claims to compliment LTC like LTC compliments btc

Of course neither does any such thing.
5953  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: FinCEN's definition of a Money Exchanger on: June 17, 2013, 01:22:47 AM
not for profit

I do not believe "not for profit" is the same as (not "engaged in business").  There are plenty of non-profit and not-for-profit entities who are "engaged in business".  There are also many for-profit companies who are losing money and not "profitting" but again they are "engaged in business".

Quote
(Cool Limitation. For the purposes of this section, the term “money services business” shall not include:

(i) A bank or foreign bank;

(ii) A person registered with, and functionally regulated or examined by, the SEC or the CFTC, or a foreign financial agency that engages in financial activities that, if conducted in the United States, would require the foreign financial agency to be registered with the SEC or CFTC; or

(iii) A natural person who engages in an activity identified in paragraphs (ff)(1) through (ff)(5) of this section on an infrequent basis and not for gain or profit.
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=57b923ddd7f27fbedc8afb57c6f8e605&rgn=div8&view=text&node=31:3.1.6.1.2.1.3.1&idno=31

If a business is losing money is still "for profit".  "For profit" is based on intent.  Some business ventures never even break even that doesn't make then

The exception requires three things:
a) a natural person (so no "non-profit corporation" for example)
b) not for profit or gain
c) infrequent basis


Quote
I wonder if there may be some exception for "sole proprietors" but you are probably right that the Department of Treasury has only begun to consider bitcoin at all.

There are no sole prop exceptions for any class of MSB.  The only difference between a sole prop, corporation, and partnership is the structure of ownership.  What purpose would it serve to except one business over another merely by how it is owned.  Take PayPal which is a MSB.  The same PayPal, same business model, same everything except it was owned by one person.  Suddenly it is exempt?  I have never seen any regulation at any level of government which treats a business differently based on the structure of ownership.  Once again what public good is served?

The reverse is often true.  MOST regulations use the word "person" and imply that the "person" can either be a natural person or a legal construct like a corporation.

Quote
(ff) Money services business. A person wherever located doing business , whether or not on a regular basis or as an organized or licensed business concern, wholly or in substantial part within the United States, in one or more of the capacities listed in paragraphs (ff)(1) through (ff)(7) of this section. This includes but is not limited to maintenance of any agent, agency, branch, or office within the United States.

Corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, and foundations are "persons" (hence the term corporate personhood) under the law.  The law doesn't need to specifically name these ownership structures they are implied in "person".  When regulations only apply to "human persons" they often will use language to indicate that such as "natural person".
5954  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: FinCEN's definition of a Money Exchanger on: June 16, 2013, 10:31:15 PM
I think the one thing I'm taking out of this is the following:

Quote
An exchanger is a person engaged as a business in the exchange of virtual currency for real currency, funds, or other virtual currency

Note the highlighted part.

Since I'm just an individual, not running a business, I figure that a lot of those really don't apply to me.

Yes there is an exception for persons that are engaged in the activity infrequently and not for profit.  Of course those terms are rather open and vague but some people have the misconception that if you don't form a corporation you must not be a business.  If you are exchanging virtual currency for real currency for profit and frequently you are a business.  It doesn't matter if you don't have a business checking account, or office, or legal docs.  By default any individual engaged in business is a sole proprietorship.  No filling necessary.

Now how that related to miners who sell their coins.  Well who knows FinCEN guidelines are kinda nonsensical on that issue. I can't see the intent being that every miner who exchanges their mined coins for USD registers as a MSB but by the letter of guidance that is what they say.  My guess is even FinCEN doesn't know what they are trying to say.
5955  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 2013-06-13 Latest from FinCEN on: June 16, 2013, 05:47:26 PM
I agree that this uncertain regulation is very unsettling

It's the crux of the issue. Fincen is destabilizing Bitcoin by wielding arbitrary authority. Taking down Liberty Reserve while allowing the larger banking players to continue with their criminal behavior for a fine/fee is a good example of such arbitrary power. It even undermines Fincen's own enforcement authority in the larger world such that future regulatory actions will likely focus on increasingly smaller players.

The worst part is that the "Money Transmitter" classification is a poison pill.  Not at the federal level where the requirements are no different than any other MSB.  The issue is that at the state level MT are very heavily regulated, licensed, and bonded.  If FinCEN says virtual currency exchanges are money transmitters according to federal law will the states follow the same path.  Remember each state has a byzantine set of different regulations, licenses, and requirements.  Licensing even if a startup can meet the high cost, capital requirements, and can secure an expensive surety bond can take anywhere from 6 to 24 months.  Now repeat that for every single state.  There is a reason there are only roughly a dozen companies with MT licenses in all the states*, those companies employ an army of lawyers to keep compliant. There is no business with more regulatory overhead than money transmitters, except maybe banks.  It may be cheaper for a well capitalized company to form a National Bank as that bypasses all state regulation.

Now I am not saying Bitcoin brokers/dealers/exchanges shouldn't have some regulation, that is likely inevitable in every country.  The MT classification is a regulatory sledgehammer and it will stifle innovation and reduce the number of players to the few very well capitalized companies (i.e. PayPal 2.0) which can afford to play that game.  Of course the cost of that regulatory overhead doesn't vanish.  It is a perpetual costs which will be passed on to users in the form of higher fees.  Higher fees will make Bitcoin less attractive (as least in the US) and that will slow adoption.

Just to give you an example:
Gold Dealer?  Regulated?  Yes.  Money Transmitter? No.
VISA? Regulated? Yes.  Money Transmitter? No.
Commodities Broker?  Regulated?  Yes.  Money Transmitter? No.
Securities Broker?  Regulated? Yes.  Money Transmitter? No.
Currency Dealer/Broker?  Regulated? Yes.  Money Transmitter?  No.
Tiny Bitcoin startup?  Regulated? Yes.  Money Transmitter? Yes (if they exchange virtual currency for real currency)

All of those entities send and receive funds but they aren't considered money transmitters.  That expensive definition has generally been reserved for the transmission of funds from one person to another one.  Now FinCEN doesn't say that a MT at federal level makes one a MT at the state level but it leaves the door wide open.  Using logic or common sense, the action of exchanging BTC for USD is far more similar to the action of exchanging EUR for USD than any other classification, yes FinCEN took the MT route in their guidance.  FinCEN already has a classification for exchanging "real" currencies, it is called "Foreign Currency Dealer/Exchange".  Now this is still a type of MSB and thus still regulated at the federal level but almost no state require licensing for that activity.  Of the six categories of MSBs, FinCEN just happened (in a legal stretch) to put Bitcoin exchanges into the category which faces (by many magnitudes) the highest level of potential regulation at the state level.

As an example lets look at the actions of three theoretical companies:
BitBase accepts a certain amount of USD from a person and provides the SAME person a certain amount of BTC based on a published exchange rate.
FiatBase accepts a certain amount of USD from a person and provides the SAME person a certain amount of EUR based on a published exchange rate.
Western Union accepts a certain amount of USD from ONE PERSON and transmits it to a DIFFERENT person for a fee.
Of these three which seems the most dissimilar?

Common sense says WU is the different one.  FinCEN says no, FiatBase is the different one. The first and third examples are money transmitters and FiatBase is a Dealer in Foreign Currency.


Now I know the tone was gloomy but the actions of FinCEN won't kill Bitcoin, Bitcoin will route around the damaged parts of the system.  The Canadian equivalent of FinCEN has indicated the action of exchanging virtual currency for real currency simply doesn't fit under any existing law and thus (for now) is unregulated.  This doesn't mean Canada will need to pass NEW LAWS rather than take the "guidance" route that FinCEN did.  You know that whole concept of "of the people, by the people, for the people".  The situation in the US however is now open to uncertainty, risk, and additional cost.  Coincidence?



* "all" = 47 states and 4 territories which require them.
5956  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Do I need a Lawyer??? on: June 16, 2013, 05:09:00 PM
Well a lawyer and/or accountant is always good for ANY business venture.

Your post is unclear but if your are worried about MSB (money service businesses) regulation the good news is FinCEN guidance is that "users" of a virtual currency  (i.e. people who buy or sell goods or services for BTC) are not regulated entities.

Quote
A user who obtains convertible virtual currency and uses it to purchase real or virtual goods or services is not an MSB under FinCEN's regulations.8 Such activity, in and of itself, does not fit within the definition of "money transmission services" and therefore is not subject to FinCEN's registration, reporting, and recordkeeping regulations for MSBs.9

http://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html

If you intend to engage in activity such as:
buy BTC for USD (or other real currencies)
sell BTC for USD
run an exchange to facilitate the trading of currency between third parties
make payments on the behalf of clients

then you likely are a financial institution and should consult a lawyer.

If you are running a mining (coin generation) enterprise the situation is even more opaque as FinCEN guidance on this area is about a clear as crude oil. The bad news is very few lawyers (and regulators) have any real knowledge of Bitcoin which makes thing "fun". Cutting edge doesn't just apply to technology.  Bitcoin is cutting edge in the regulatory, political, and legal realms as well.  Being an early adopter (business enterprise not mere user) isn't always easy.

TL/DR version:
If you are buying or selling goods/services with Bitcoin you are considered a "user" of the currency, are not a financial institution, and don't need any specific licensing.  As for accounting you can either have your accountant treat BTC as a "foreign" currency (any competent CPA should be able to handle it) or use a service provider like BitPay so that your pricing and payments are always in USD (or some other "real" currency).
5957  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: FinCEN's definition of a Money Exchanger on: June 16, 2013, 02:54:05 PM
I've got no idea why you are writing me a wall of text. The definition is quoted straight out of the definitions section of the guidance document. "An exchanger is a person engaged as a business in the exchange of virtual currency for real currency, funds, or other virtual currency".

For clarity, this is the exact part of your original post that is wrong: "FinCEN has definitively and clearly indicated that an entity which exchanges virtual currency for real currency is NOT a "(1) Currency dealer or exchanger"

Exchanger in the guidance doesn't refer to "(1) Currency dealer or exchanger" which is a FinCEN regulatory definition.  "Exchanger", "administrator", and "users" are just definitions within the guidance.  As I indicated you need to READ THE ENTIRE GUIDANCE.  Guidance isn't law.  Guidance merely indicates what existing law this new concept of virtual currency applies to.  Those guidance definitions lay out further in the document which MSB regulations apply to

The simple version (from your cite)

Quote
An administrator or exchanger that (1) accepts and transmits a convertible virtual currency or (2) buys or sells convertible virtual currency for any reason is a money transmitter under FinCEN’s regulations
" ... a person who accepts real currency in exchange for virtual currency, or vice versa, is not a dealer in foreign exchange under FinCEN's regulations."

Let me simplify the cite further since you hate reading.

Quote
is a money transmitter under FinCEN’s regulations
is not a dealer in foreign exchange under FinCEN's regulations

even simpler

Quote
is a money transmitter not a dealer in foreign exchange under FinCEN's regulations


If you are a virtual currency exchanger you ARE NOT a "(1) Currency dealer or exchanger"   <- Actual regulatory definition found in the eCFR
If you are a virtual currency exchanger you ARE a "(5) Money transmitter."  <- Actual regulatory definition found in the eCFR

It can't be more black and white than that. If your confused that is fine but don't spread misinformation as fact.
5958  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: FinCEN's definition of a Money Exchanger on: June 16, 2013, 02:26:39 PM

No please don't add misinformation.

FinCEN has definitively and clearly indicated that an entity which exchanges virtual currency for real currency is NOT a "(1) Currency dealer or exchanger"; they are a "(5) Money transmitter".  All of it is laid out in the cite above.   Please don't try to apply common sense to the law.   While you may "think" it would "make sense" for an exchanger to be under category 1 you would be wrong.  It is one thing to be wrong, it is another thing to spread misinformation.  

You're actually completely wrong. See the recent FinCEN guidance pdf: http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/pdf/FIN-2013-G001.pdf

Note on page 2, under the heading "Definitions of User, Exchanger,and Administrator" it says: "An exchanger is a person engaged as a business in the exchange of virtual currency for real currency, funds, or other virtual currency".

I cited that document.  Read further and you will realize why I am correct (I also included cites). "Exchanger" is not a " Currency dealer or exchanger".  Don't try to apply common sense to the law.  Laws have absolutely nothing to do with common sense.  Read further into the guidance on what type of msb a virtual currency exchanger is.  


It isn't "currency dealer or exchanger" (which is a sub type of MSB regulations).  Yes it would make logical sense than a virtual currency exchanger would fall under the sub type which has "exchanger" in its name.  Once again don't try to apply common sense to the law, you will fail.

Further in the guidance FinCEN puts it in absolute black and white.   Once again before saying "I am wrong".  This is the exact wording of the document you cited.

Quote
An administrator or exchanger that (1) accepts and transmits a convertible virtual currency or (2) buys or sells convertible virtual currency for any reason is a money transmitter under FinCEN’s regulations

AND

Quote
" ... a person who accepts real currency in exchange for virtual currency, or vice versa, is not a dealer in foreign exchange under FinCEN's regulations."


Before responding I would recommend (a recommendation which likely will fall on deaf ears) that you STOP and read the entire guidance from the first line to the last one.  Don't skim it, don't try to speed read it, don't try to look for the once sentence that you think means what you think it means.  Read it completely every word.   It is in absolute black and white.

What you say is "completely wrong" is absolutely right.  There are only 6 types of MSBs.  No more, no less.  They all have exact definitions in the eCFR.  When registering as a MSB you must select one or more of the following six types.  You can't select none, you can't write in a new type.  All MSBs must be one these six.   

(1) Currency dealer or exchanger.
(2) Check casher.
(3) Issuer of traveler's checks, money orders or stored value.
(4) Seller or redeemer of traveler's checks, money orders or stored value.
(5) Money transmitter.
(6) U.S. Postal Service.

The law doesn't allow any other type of MSB.  FinCEN can't write new law.  The guidance is there way of putting Bitcoin (a square peg) into one of the existing definitions (a round hole).  While it doesn't make common sense the only category which can even be stretched to cover exchanging virtual currency is money transmitter.  That is what the guidance says (if you read the whole thing).  You will notice there is no "exchanger" or "virtual currency exchanger" in the list.   Congress would need to pass new law for that to happen.  A virtual currency exchanger is a "(5) Money transmitter".

Exchanging virtual currency for real currency = (5) Money transmitter
Exchanging real currency for virtual currency = (5) Money transmitter
Exchanging on real currency for another real currency = (1) Currency dealer or exchanger
5959  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Is Mt. Gox reimbursing those with funds locked up in the Dwolla seizure? on: June 15, 2013, 06:53:30 PM
For what it is worth I may be wrong ... I received an PM from someone wanting to remain anonymous who reports they have not received  funds back that were in transit.  I can't confirm or disprove the claim so I will leave the partially redacted report here

Quote
I had my funds lost from the MtGox seizure ... I just don't want to make a deal out of it so I didn't start a thread.   .... So some users were affected.  My funds were (Pending) in dwolla then the status went to (Cancelled).  They are neither in Gox or Dwolla now.  Gox says they are waiting for a resolution (LOL).

5960  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Is Mt. Gox reimbursing those with funds locked up in the Dwolla seizure? on: June 15, 2013, 04:08:09 PM
My understanding is the only account seized was MtGox's (well technically their US subsidiary).  It was MtGox funds in MtGox account which were seized.  No user should have had any funds seized.

Really? My understanding of what happened is different. Remember, as an ordinary user to move any funds from USD to MtGox account USD took a bit of delay via Dwolla, even if your Dwolla funds were clear. In reverse the process was similar. When withdrawing USD from MtGox it would take maybe a day for that to credit to your Dwolla account (it used to be 2 weeks or more). At any given time I imagine many thousands of dollars in limbo given the size of MtGox. So if you had a pending transaction during the freeze operation I would think funds were stuck.

That's just my understanding of it.

Yes but the funds in "limbo" would be MtGox.  Funds technically are never in limbo.  Banks work on atomic transactions.  At no point is a dollar in both account nor is it in neither account.  Companies may impose delays related to various procedures or limits on cashflow but a dollar is either in MtGox account (which becomes an asset of MtGox) or in a customer's account (which wasn't seized). 

My point is DHS didn't seize any accounts except MtGox US bank account and Dwolla account, those funds are the assets of MtGox.  MtGox has a corresponding liability of the amount owed customers such that prior to the seizure the net is $0.00 (i.e. $xx,xxxx assets in MtGox funding accounts,  -$xx,xxx owed to clients). The loss of the asset doesn't erase the liability.  i.e. MTGox lost $xx,xxx but they still owe customers $xx,xxxx.   MtGox could simply credit any transaction in progress back to the client's MtGox account and write the loss off (temporary if they win in court) against retained profits.  Luckily for clients MtGox has been very profitable.

So it is my hunch (total outsider opinion) that MtGox just "ate" the total amount of seized funds (as they should).  If any customer lost funds over this they have been suspiciously silent for a long time, which lets be honest NEVER happens on bitcointalk.   
Pages: « 1 ... 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 [298] 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 ... 800 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!