|
Does anyone know if the outcome from this meeting will be reported or if it's confidential?
|
|
|
|
In light of Fincen's recent guidance ( http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html) kraken.com would clearly fall under the definition of a money service business and more specifically an exchanger. Therefore I ask: 1. Is kraken.com registered as a money service business? 2. Does the company have the necessary money transmission licenses for the 48 states of the U.S which require them? The guidance indicates operating an exchange to those 48 states whilst not meeting 1 and 2 is in violation of US law (even if the exchange is not physically located in the US, but merely serves US customers). You're right! Like MtGox, BitStamp, Coinbase, etc., once launched we'd qualify as a money transmitter in most US states which means we'd require licenses (or an exemption) in each US state in which we have a customer. Most people believe that it's enough to be registered federally, or to locate your business outside the US but, as you've pointed out, if you serve US customers, wherever your business is domiciled, you need to be licensed in the state(s) in which those customers reside. We'll reveal our US coverage at the time of launch. Obviously, it'd be irresponsible to put customer funds at risk of seizure by operating illegally and that is not something we intend to do. Cool. To clarify, would you have the necessary money transmission licenses before you start serving US customers or are you going to risk it and just start serving US customers with only a money service business registration and no licenses? I'm sure your company has intentions to get the licenses at some stage, the important thing is whether you start accepting US deposits before you get them. |
|
|
|
In light of Fincen's recent guidance ( http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html) kraken.com would clearly fall under the definition of a money service business and more specifically an exchanger. Therefore I ask: 1. Is kraken.com registered as a money service business? 2. Does the company have the necessary money transmission licenses for the 48 states of the U.S which require them? The guidance indicates operating an exchange to those 48 states whilst not meeting 1 and 2 is in violation of US law (even if the exchange is not physically located in the US, but merely serves US customers). |
|
|
|
|
OP has proven himself to be childish and aggressive in the past on the forum. Ask yourselves if that is the type of person you want holding your funds for an escrow.
|
|
|
|
If you doubt that, i have pages of text of him attacking his customers, other developers, other coins. If that is the sort of professional you want to support, and who you want to trust with the dev of your coin, good luck.
I can confirm this based on my own experiences. |
|
|
|
|
Related to this, I would be more interested in web hosts that are reliable for this kind of thing. What hosts do all the big pools use?
|
|
|
|
|
I have a question about how the CrowdFunding platform would operate (I am new to this idea, but have heard of Kickstarter vaguely). A person submits his proposal for his project and seeks funding. People pledge different amounts of coins to help the person reach his target. Say the target is reached, then what happens? Does the person just receive the funds? If not, when? And who judges if the resulting work by the fund raiser satisfies the objectives laid out in his proposal?
|
|
|
|
WDC won the forum vote by a very small margin. Yet on the Vircurex shareholder vote WDC gets 95% of the downvotes? Either something went wrong with the votes or this is not a representative voting system.
I own a large amount of both coins.
Well, one obvious thing to point out is that forum members are not all Vircurex shareholders... For all we know, those that voted on the forum could be an entirely different set of people to the Vircurex shareholders that voted. That is obvious but with respect not relevant to anything. If you poll 600 people in a presidental election and the results are roughly 300 vs 300, and then you poll 600 different people and the results are 570 vs 30 then something is up. If each voter has an equal count in the voting process the chance of that occurring mathematically is extremely slim ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics) if you are unfamiliar with the math behind these concepts). I'm not familiar with how the Vircurex voting process was carried out, if it is true that votes were weighted according to the number of shares the voter has then that could potentially explain it. For example if someone has 90% of the shares and voted no against WDC then that is going to massively affect the vote count. But that doesn't seem very fair to me... The strangeness is compounded since WDC has 59BTC of trading volume in the last 24 hours on mcx now, and while that is a higher than average day it has been pulling in good trading volume figures since it launched (I would bet much higher than DGC, lifetime), and trading volume is what makes the exchange money. What happened was obvious. Someone either really hates WDC for some reason or was bribed to vote it down. Whatever happened, we can't change it now. There could be a legitimate reason which is not sinister. However it's certainly not fair nor representative of the community, as proven by the forum poll. |
|
|
|
WDC won the forum vote by a very small margin. Yet on the Vircurex shareholder vote WDC gets 95% of the downvotes? Either something went wrong with the votes or this is not a representative voting system.
I own a large amount of both coins.
Well, one obvious thing to point out is that forum members are not all Vircurex shareholders... For all we know, those that voted on the forum could be an entirely different set of people to the Vircurex shareholders that voted. That is obvious but with respect not relevant to anything. If you poll 600 people in a presidental election and the results are roughly 300 vs 300, and then you poll 600 different people and the results are 570 vs 30 then something is up. If each voter has an equal count in the voting process the chance of that occurring mathematically is extremely slim ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics) if you are unfamiliar with the math behind these concepts). I'm not familiar with how the Vircurex voting process was carried out, if it is true that votes were weighted according to the number of shares the voter has then that could potentially explain it. For example if someone has 90% of the shares and voted no against WDC then that is going to massively affect the vote count. But that doesn't seem very fair to me... The strangeness is compounded since WDC has 59BTC of trading volume in the last 24 hours on mcx now, and while that is a higher than average day it has been pulling in good trading volume figures since it launched (I would bet much higher than DGC, lifetime), and trading volume is what makes the exchange money. |
|
|
|
|
What regulation would such an exchange have to abide to, if it wasn't serving US customers?
I know in the US you have the BSA, MSB's and money transmission licenses, as well as any bonds. What are the terms I should be looking at to comply with EU regulation?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
WDC won the forum vote by a very small margin. Yet on the Vircurex shareholder vote WDC gets 95% of the downvotes? Either something went wrong with the votes or this is not a representative voting system.
I own a large amount of both coins.
|
|
|
|
Not even anerror now, totally offline. DDOS?
Remote server or file not found
They've been goxed. |
|
|
|
|
LTC going on mtgox is good for LTC long term because it will allow a legit payment processor to work with LTC. This will cause a tidal wave of LTC vendor acceptance. People are going to get burned badly when they see the price of ltc double on mtgox and panic dump, because the price is going to more than double once we enter mtgox territory, it will be a whole new ballgame.
|
|
|
|
{3} In addition, a person is an exchanger and a money transmitter if the person accepts such de-centralized convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person as part of the acceptance and transfer of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency.
The key point of this definition comes down to the final part of the sentence: 'or other value that substitutes for currency'. Because the exchange I am talking about here accepts a de-centralized convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person, but it's in exchange for another virtual currency (not currency or funds). So does a virtual currency count as a "value that substitutes for currency"? If it does then the exchange is a money transmitter. |
|
|
|
Just locate your exchange outside U.S.
Apparently the laws still apply if you serve U.S. customers, even if the company and the servers are not based in the U.S. |
|
|
|
|
I've always wondered something about 51% attacks. Take Litecoin as an example - 18gh network hash at present.
Does one need 9gh to 51% attack it or 18gh? The reason being, if an entity attacks with 9gh, that makes the total network hash 27gh and of course 9 is no longer half of 27.
So does an entity need 9gh to attack with success, or is it 18gh?
|
|
|
|
Bumping this topic due to the increasing emergence of virtual currency only exchanges: coinmarket.io dgex.com coins-e.com cryptsy.com openex.pw coinedup.com mcxnow.com vircurex.com Some of these exchanges are doing very large volumes (>1000 BTC) of trades per day. Yet none have money transmission licenses? Are they just hoping US regulation won't apply to them? Or is it likely they are exempt? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi all, I am seeking opinions and consensus on whether a bitcoin exchange which only allows trading between bitcoin and other virtual currencies (eg litecoin, namecoin etc) would require a money transmitter license in the US. My understanding based on the recent fincen guidance is such an exchange would certainly count as an 'exchanger' and thus need to register as a money service business but it is unclear to me that a money transmitter license is required (this is the recent guidance I have been reading: http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html) I have had slightly different answers from the different people I have consulted with privately on an informal basis. I would also be interested to know what people think of an exchange such as cryptsy.com, which is an exchange business model I am talking about (no US dollar deposits). They do not appear to have a money transmitting license of any nature. |
|
|
|
It's not easy as that, it would be cheap coins if it stayed at that price tag for day, two or three... but it's there for long time and many, many "cheap" coins are bought and that makes price rise harder as dumps will occur very often.
I think problem is in too big coin production compared with still low difficulty so coin is still profitable to mine even at this price. It's gonna take some time to move it from there as lot of coins in miners hands are stopping people to even try to push the price up. It was tried only once and people started dumping very soon after it started.
PPCoin was 2 cents for many months and 16 million 'cheap' coins were created. You've seen the price pattern since then for PPCoin in the last 3 months I am sure. |
|
|
|
what exactly are yall tryin to show with your clients? Blanked out? I dont get the joke.
Read OP. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
