|
wintermeasures
|
 |
June 11, 2016, 02:03:18 PM |
|
if you do not use them, willing to use exchange what? because the average exchange not licensed. if you have a licensed exchanger then let me know. Thank you |
|
|
|
|
|
reuschman
|
|
June 11, 2016, 02:20:47 PM |
|
if you do not use them, willing to use exchange what? because the average exchange not licensed. if you have a licensed exchanger then let me know. Thank you coinbase is a licensed exchanger I guess! they have also an american USA headquarter. |
|
|
|
|
Yakamoto
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1007
|
|
June 11, 2016, 02:37:05 PM |
|
if you do not use them, willing to use exchange what? because the average exchange not licensed. if you have a licensed exchanger then let me know. Thank you coinbase is a licensed exchanger I guess! they have also an american USA headquarter. They do probably have a license, or as close as you can get to one if they don't directly have one, since they ask for so many identification pieces and various forms of confirmation. if you look around enough though there are a fair number of licensed exchanges, you just have to go and find them because most of them won't be advertising themselves. |
|
|
|
|
|
LiberOptions
|
|
June 11, 2016, 02:38:24 PM |
|
Unfortunately, there are still a lot of unlicensed exchangers in the world of cryptocurrency. It is still pretty risky dealing with such kind of exchanges, but many people do't have any other options, and as so their forced to use these sites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Superbitzz
|
|
June 16, 2016, 08:46:50 PM |
|
i think its not good to do dealing with unlicenced exchange. there is always a chance that they will take your money . so they are difficult to believe on them . i think we should avoid to do business with them. or to do any exchange through them .
|
|
|
|
|
mayax (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1004
|
|
August 13, 2016, 08:24:37 PM |
|
Yes, it's not good to deal with unlicensed exchangers but many people are choosing without thinking. Bitfinex just "borrowed some cash"(over 30 MIL USD) from its clients as I warned a while ago. I am sorry that i had right  |
|
|
|
|
|
Senor.Bla
|
|
August 13, 2016, 08:30:10 PM |
|
Yes, it is not go to deal with unlicensed exchangers. Bitfinex just did it as I warned a while. I am sorry that i had right i think licensing would not have saved bitfinex. most would even say that bitfinex system that was hacked was a result of some changes made because of some kind of licensing. so as a result an unlicensed exchange might be safer. |
|
|
|
|
Jannn
|
|
August 13, 2016, 08:37:31 PM |
|
Hundreds of licensed banks failed in the crisis. Licenses did not prevent that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
marky89
|
|
August 13, 2016, 08:40:23 PM |
|
Yes, it is not go to deal with unlicensed exchangers. Bitfinex just did it as I warned a while. I am sorry that i had right i think licensing would not have saved bitfinex. most would even say that bitfinex system that was hacked was a result of some changes made because of some kind of licensing. so as a result an unlicensed exchange might be safer. That bit is not true, though. They made these changes before the CFTC probed and fined them. And it's not clear whether they were even in compliance with the CFTC at the time of the hack -- they don't tell you when you are "in compliance." They only fine you (or worse) when you aren't. The whole "segregated wallet" BS was just some marketing gimmick for customers IMO. "You can see your coins on the blockchain!" (But per their terms, you can't control them, since even if you have a key and initiate a tx, BitGo can't sign unless compelled by law) |
|
|
|
Sharma
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000
GATCOIN : The New Currency Of Digital Marketing
|
|
August 13, 2016, 08:52:22 PM |
|
They obviously dont have choice.Unless governments regulated bitcoin and accept it as currency,they will not give license to bitcoin exchanges |
|
|
|
btvGainer
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 854
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 13, 2016, 08:56:42 PM |
|
Yes you are right, unlicensed exchanges can run away with our coins and can't be booked in case they scam.But unfortunately many countries would not give license to bitcoin related exchanges. The best option for these exchanges is to register their firm under some kind of digital business |
|
|
|
|
|
nejibens
|
|
August 13, 2016, 08:58:06 PM |
|
There is always a big risk when we use those unlicensed exchangers, but sometimes people just don't have another choice and need to exchange their money fast, that's why this exchangers keep running till now
|
|
|
|
|
mayax (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1004
|
|
August 13, 2016, 09:00:03 PM |
|
They obviously dont have choice.Unless governments regulated bitcoin and accept it as currency,they will not give license to bitcoin exchanges wrong. BTC is like a commodity. Any broker/forex/exchanger must get a financial license according to the local/international laws(if they want to operate internationally). More, if they want to operate in USA, the exchanger must get a license from each state(50 licenses in total). If the exchanger wants to deal in European Union, it must get a license in any state from EU and this license will be passported to other EU countries. If the exchanger want to deal in Australia, it must get an license from there too.If it wants to deal in China, it's the same...and so on. This is the way an exchanger is fully in compliance with the law. Be sure that a such exchanger will run over night and it won't make haircuts like Bitfinex did and then to offer you shit tokens. |
|
|
|
|
Decoded
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1030
give me your cryptos
|
|
August 13, 2016, 09:06:24 PM |
|
None of them are in America or places that don't allow unlicensed money exchangers.
|
looking for a signature campaign, dm me for that
|
|
|
mayax (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1004
|
|
August 13, 2016, 09:20:44 PM
Last edit: August 13, 2016, 09:34:15 PM by mayax |
|
None of them are in America or places that don't allow unlicensed money exchangers.
any exchanger who is dealing with US clients, it is considered as making business on US soil ,so they must get a financial license(MSB). This is a FINCEN rule. I will only say: XAPO, KRAKEN, POLONIEX. All of them are based in USA and they have NO financial license. Conclusion : they can be shutted down overnight |
|
|
|
|
|
illyiller
|
|
August 13, 2016, 09:27:55 PM |
|
None of them are in America or places that don't allow unlicensed money exchangers.
any exchanger who is dealing with US clients, it is considered as making business in US soil ,so they must get a financial license(MSB). This is a FINCEN rule. Yes, this is true. However, I think there is some discrepancy in opinion about this: I will only say: XAPO, KRAKEN, POLONIEX. All of them are based in USA and they have NO financial license. Conclusion : they can be shutted down overnight
I don't know about Xapo and Kraken. I would have thought Kraken would be licensed since they do fiat/crypto exchange and fiat deposit/withdrawals. I thought Xapo is just a wallet. Poloniex doesn't take fiat deposit/withdrawal, nor do they allow trading of fiat monies directly. They do allow trading against Tether USD, which is a digital asset backed by USD. That is legally murky and true, it may not cover them. However, I don't think we have precedent to draw on here. |
|
|
|
|
mayax (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1004
|
|
August 13, 2016, 09:44:30 PM |
|
None of them are in America or places that don't allow unlicensed money exchangers.
any exchanger who is dealing with US clients, it is considered as making business in US soil ,so they must get a financial license(MSB). This is a FINCEN rule. Yes, this is true. However, I think there is some discrepancy in opinion about this: I will only say: XAPO, KRAKEN, POLONIEX. All of them are based in USA and they have NO financial license. Conclusion : they can be shutted down overnight
I don't know about Xapo and Kraken. I would have thought Kraken would be licensed since they do fiat/crypto exchange and fiat deposit/withdrawals. I thought Xapo is just a wallet. Poloniex doesn't take fiat deposit/withdrawal, nor do they allow trading of fiat monies directly. They do allow trading against Tether USD, which is a digital asset backed by USD. That is legally murky and true, it may not cover them. However, I don't think we have precedent to draw on here. Xapo is offering debit cards for BTC withdrawals which is means of payment and bank wire for buying Bitcoin. So, Xapo is an exchanger based in USA without a financial license. Kraken is not licensed and it's registered in USA. Even it's so vocal in the BTC media, with a lot of bla bla, they have NO license. Any exchanger who is financial licensed will not keep hidden this thing . It will put in a visible place because : 1. it's requested by law 2. it's a very good marketing tool. it brings a lot of trust. Don't trust my words. Please do your researches. |
|
|
|
|
bitsoldiers
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
August 13, 2016, 09:59:31 PM |
|
good link about cryptocoinsnews..patiently feeding all.. |
|
|
|
|
|
Senor.Bla
|
|
August 13, 2016, 10:08:34 PM |
|
Yes, it is not go to deal with unlicensed exchangers. Bitfinex just did it as I warned a while. I am sorry that i had right i think licensing would not have saved bitfinex. most would even say that bitfinex system that was hacked was a result of some changes made because of some kind of licensing. so as a result an unlicensed exchange might be safer. That bit is not true, though. They made these changes before the CFTC probed and fined them. And it's not clear whether they were even in compliance with the CFTC at the time of the hack -- they don't tell you when you are "in compliance." They only fine you (or worse) when you aren't. The whole "segregated wallet" BS was just some marketing gimmick for customers IMO. "You can see your coins on the blockchain!" (But per their terms, you can't control them, since even if you have a key and initiate a tx, BitGo can't sign unless compelled by law) as i understood it bitfinex made the changes in order to be in compliance. but to be honest i maybe was poorly informed since i did not do a profound research on this, because i did not lose anything. |
|
|
|
|
illyiller
|
|
August 13, 2016, 10:11:39 PM |
|
Yes, it is not go to deal with unlicensed exchangers. Bitfinex just did it as I warned a while. I am sorry that i had right i think licensing would not have saved bitfinex. most would even say that bitfinex system that was hacked was a result of some changes made because of some kind of licensing. so as a result an unlicensed exchange might be safer. That bit is not true, though. They made these changes before the CFTC probed and fined them. And it's not clear whether they were even in compliance with the CFTC at the time of the hack -- they don't tell you when you are "in compliance." They only fine you (or worse) when you aren't. The whole "segregated wallet" BS was just some marketing gimmick for customers IMO. "You can see your coins on the blockchain!" (But per their terms, you can't control them, since even if you have a key and initiate a tx, BitGo can't sign unless compelled by law) as i understood it bitfinex made the changes in order to be in compliance. but to be honest i maybe was poorly informed since i did not do a profound research on this, because i did not lose anything. That may be true. That still just makes it a judgment call on Bitfinex's part -- obviously a bad call since it drastically compromised security and they still weren't in compliance as of a couple months ago. Compliance should never mean sacrificing cold storage security. Any other bitcoin firms doing that? If so, I am sure they are rethinking it. I hope businesses are leaving BitGo also. |
|
|
|
|
|
