What is the Impact of the New York Bit License on Start Ups?

[tokeweed]

I came across this thread on /r/bitcoin... http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/33tvoa/dear_new_york_regulation_stifles_innovation_two/

This post made me think, what if start ups just go somewhere else?

Rumor has it two brothers created an entire industry in their bicycle shop. All the experts said it is not possible and were thought of as a bunch of liars.
"After their Kitty Hawk success, The Wrights flew their machine in open fields next to a busy rail line in Dayton Ohio for almost an entire year. American authorities refused to come to the demos, and Scientific American Magazine published stories about "The Lying Brothers." Even the local Dayton newspapers never sent a reporter (but they did complain about all the letters they were receiving from local "crazies" who reported the many flights.) Finally the Wrights packed up and moved to Europe, where they caused an overnight sensation and sold aircraft contracts to France, Germany, Britain, etc. "

[Amph]

isn't this the same story of bills gates and steve jobs? i remember they started in a garage as well, seems that garages are a good way to become rich, maybe satoshi started in a garage too

[tokeweed]

isn't this the same story of bills gates and steve jobs? i remember they started in a garage as well, seems that garages are a good way to become rich, maybe satoshi started in a garage too

The first recpient of a bitcoin was Hal Finney.  There's a good chance he did...  Or in the basement of his home.

On a serious note, will the Bit License impede this kind of innovation and make it hard in creating a Bitcoin based start up from the grassroots?

[Amph]

isn't this the same story of bills gates and steve jobs? i remember they started in a garage as well, seems that garages are a good way to become rich, maybe satoshi started in a garage too

The first recpient of a bitcoin was Hal Finney.  There's a good chance he did...  Or in the basement of his home.

On a serious note, will the Bit License impede this kind of innovation and make it hard in creating a Bitcoin based start up from the grassroots?

bit licence is for usa only if i'm not mistaken, you can always go in another place of the world to start a business from your underground floor

in the usa it could surely take out that "anonymous working" on something that may be big in the future...

[tokeweed]

isn't this the same story of bills gates and steve jobs? i remember they started in a garage as well, seems that garages are a good way to become rich, maybe satoshi started in a garage too

The first recpient of a bitcoin was Hal Finney.  There's a good chance he did...  Or in the basement of his home.

On a serious note, will the Bit License impede this kind of innovation and make it hard in creating a Bitcoin based start up from the grassroots?

bit licence is for usa only if i'm not mistaken, you can always go in another place of the world to start a business from your underground floor

in the usa it could surely take out that "anonymous working" on something that may be big in the future...

Not even the whole country, just New York.  Isn't San Francisco the place to be for Bitcoin start ups though?  

And if they want a financial district, there's other places like London, Singapore and Hongkong.  I think innovation would be welcome in those places.

[Stargazer]

I don't think it will change much. The news was already overhyped to move the markets and allow traders to dump. Maybe in the long run it will work as an outline for other states and countries, but right now it's going to be just a base for a couple nice articles.

[Slark]

If you force people to pay $2 million just to be able to start bitcoin service or project it will harm our community. No individual investors, visionaries or people with a plan will be able to exist and change bitcoin. Instead people with thick wallets and corporates will dominate bitcoin. But I guess it is future and our current situation without regulations can be compared to wild west.

[jjacob]

If you force people to pay $2 million just to be able to start bitcoin service or project it will harm our community. No individual investors, visionaries or people with a plan will be able to exist and change bitcoin. Instead people with thick wallets and corporates will dominate bitcoin. But I guess it is future and our current situation without regulations can be compared to wild west.

There will be a minimum scale above which compliance to stringent regulations will be made mandatory. The importance of not burdening startups with cumbersome regulations is understood by the people in power. 

[yayayo]

If you force people to pay $2 million just to be able to start bitcoin service or project it will harm our community. No individual investors, visionaries or people with a plan will be able to exist and change bitcoin. Instead people with thick wallets and corporates will dominate bitcoin. But I guess it is future and our current situation without regulations can be compared to wild west.

I agree that Bitlicense is harmful and will obstruct innovation. But that's applicable for NYC and services offered to citizens of NYC only . Bitcoin companies will simply choose other jurisdictions from which to operate and will not offer their services to NYC residents.

Other places have already noticed that there's much to gain from an future Bitcoinomy. The Isle of Man for example actively promotes itself to the Bitcoin industry, outlining its more liberal regulatory approach.

In the end all the regulatory corruption from obsessive statists like Lawsky will backfire on the development of NYC as a financial center. NYC will be left behind, while the rest of the world moves on.

ya.ya.yo!

[BillyBobZorton]

No one cares about stuff like this. When we see Bitcoin in huge places like ebay and the average joe sees real incentives to use it above what they've got now (fiat), then that will translate in the price.