California Cryptocurrency Bill next committee meeting is Tomorrow

[fancy_pants]

California cryptocurrency bill

AB-1326 Appropriations Committee meeting is 05/13/15 (Wednesday, Tomorrow).  We have a chance to show up in Sacramento and voice objection in front of this committee.

Among other things,  this bill will require you, anyone exchanging fiat for bitcoin to cough up $5,000 to pay for a background check that you may not pass. If you don't pass (and I expect a vanishingly small number of bitcoiners will pass), you lose the $5,000.  There is no exemption for under $1,000.  It's just $5,000 if you sell or buy any amount of bitcoin. <--- That means all of us and is currently the best way to criminalize bitcoin.

If you're operating in California, it helps you to show up to this thing and try to get it killed in committee

I'm trying to round up some California traders willing to attend this meeting and stand in front of real politicians and say things like “this bill will squash innovation” and “This bill protects the banks not the consumer, especially not the voter”

Sacramento. email cole@blockchain.army if you want to carpool or caravan.

I don't know the time of day. perhaps it's here somewhere:

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/

[1714887224]

1714887224

[1714887224]

1714887224

[1714887224]

1714887224

[1714887224]

1714887224

[hingleMC]

hey

if anybody is down to carpool from socal - inbox me

being on the right side of the inevitable is fun to me

I'll take off work to do this if necessary

(five grand for a background check? not thirty dollars like every landlord's check of a tenant in California? man one of us better get in there and help the legislature understand how fluidly bitcoin travels through this series of tubes known as an internet)

there is no government

we are the government (we the people, remember?)

kthx

hingle

[NewLiberty]

Thanks for getting involved.

[crypto_mks]

What happened with this?  Curious to hear..

[NewLiberty]

What happened with this?  Curious to hear..

They made some edits and changes.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1326

tl;dr basically makes localbitcoin or any sort of slightly organized bitcoin buying and selling illegal in California.  The p2p stuff has to go to Nevada. 

[EternalWingsofGod]

What happened with this?  Curious to hear..

They made some edits and changes.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1326

tl;dr basically makes localbitcoin or any sort of slightly organized bitcoin buying and selling illegal in California.  The p2p stuff has to go to Nevada. 

Thanks for getting involved.
I'm not in Calfornia but that ruling sounds like a pain in the butt for local e-commerce and retail (aka the localbitcoin model)

[anderson00673]

Crap, I wish I knew about this earlier.  I dont come to the legal forums very often.  This is total B.S.  So what if I trade on a foreign exchange?  Does this mean that I have to use Tor now for everything?  I hope not because it is very slow to load anything.  Thanks for posting this and I wish I could have gone.  I guess I have some reading to do.

Edit:  OK so it is not as bad as I thought:

"(c) “Virtual currency business” means the conduct of either of the following types of activities involving a California resident:
(1) Storing, holding, or maintaining custody or control of virtual currency on behalf of others.
(2) Providing conversion or exchange services of fiat currency into virtual currency or the conversion or exchange of virtual currency into fiat currency or other value, or the conversion or exchange of one form of virtual currency into another form of virtual currency."

So basically it looks like they want to ban California based exchanges.  I have no idea why they would not want to tax this stuff, but whatever. 

The wording seems vague and difficult to interpret, but the way I read it you can still run a business such as selling stuff online for bitcoins, you just can't run a wallet or exchange.  Is that right?  Are there any lawyers here to interpret this?

[NewLiberty]

Its a follow-on of the NY model.

Create an opaque and cumbersome regulatory regime.  Extract fees.
Then set up consultancies for dealing with the regime.

Standard protection racket.

As if the banks needed more protectionism?

[jeannemadrigal2]

Crap, I wish I knew about this earlier.  I dont come to the legal forums very often.  This is total B.S.  So what if I trade on a foreign exchange?  Does this mean that I have to use Tor now for everything?  I hope not because it is very slow to load anything.  Thanks for posting this and I wish I could have gone.  I guess I have some reading to do.

Edit:  OK so it is not as bad as I thought:

"(c) “Virtual currency business” means the conduct of either of the following types of activities involving a California resident:
(1) Storing, holding, or maintaining custody or control of virtual currency on behalf of others.
(2) Providing conversion or exchange services of fiat currency into virtual currency or the conversion or exchange of virtual currency into fiat currency or other value, or the conversion or exchange of one form of virtual currency into another form of virtual currency."

So basically it looks like they want to ban California based exchanges.  I have no idea why they would not want to tax this stuff, but whatever. 

The wording seems vague and difficult to interpret, but the way I read it you can still run a business such as selling stuff online for bitcoins, you just can't run a wallet or exchange.  Is that right?  Are there any lawyers here to interpret this?

So in other words, if I want to sell 50$ of bitcoins on LBC, then I need a 5000$ license?  This is horrible.  I have to read more on this but I hope it is not the case.  They obviously want to kill bitcoins here.

[NewLiberty]

Crap, I wish I knew about this earlier.  I dont come to the legal forums very often.  This is total B.S.  So what if I trade on a foreign exchange?  Does this mean that I have to use Tor now for everything?  I hope not because it is very slow to load anything.  Thanks for posting this and I wish I could have gone.  I guess I have some reading to do.

Edit:  OK so it is not as bad as I thought:

"(c) “Virtual currency business” means the conduct of either of the following types of activities involving a California resident:
(1) Storing, holding, or maintaining custody or control of virtual currency on behalf of others.
(2) Providing conversion or exchange services of fiat currency into virtual currency or the conversion or exchange of virtual currency into fiat currency or other value, or the conversion or exchange of one form of virtual currency into another form of virtual currency."

So basically it looks like they want to ban California based exchanges.  I have no idea why they would not want to tax this stuff, but whatever. 

The wording seems vague and difficult to interpret, but the way I read it you can still run a business such as selling stuff online for bitcoins, you just can't run a wallet or exchange.  Is that right?  Are there any lawyers here to interpret this?

So in other words, if I want to sell 50$ of bitcoins on LBC, then I need a 5000$ license?  This is horrible.  I have to read more on this but I hope it is not the case.  They obviously want to kill bitcoins here.

Its not law yet, but the lobbiests are begging that "something be done" after all "think of the children!"

[nwfella]

Its a follow-on of the NY model.

Create an opaque and cumbersome regulatory regime.  Extract fees.
Then set up consultancies for dealing with the regime.

Standard protection racket.

As if the banks needed more protectionism?

Couldn't agree with this comment more.  One need look no further than Mr. Lawsky's decision to move into bitcoin consulting space himself to see that picture clear as day.