Banks trying to pull the rug from under us

[damnek]

Anyone know David Rothschild?  If the Rothschilds get interested, they can call off the attack dogs.  After all, they founded the whole concept of a medium of exchange with no intrinsic value.

Can't tell if serious..

[1714963013]

1714963013

[1714963013]

1714963013

[1714963013]

1714963013

[1714963013]

1714963013

[1714963013]

1714963013

[1714963013]

1714963013

[Bitsaurus]

good. banks tied to exchanges just make things traceable.

Want to buy BTC? sell a physical good to someone that has it. Want to sell btc? buy a physical good. Fuck the banks.

Just the way Fincen wants it. Use BTC for bartering essentially - don't mess around with fiat.

[ex-trader]

Anyone know David Rothschild?  If the Rothschilds get interested, they can call off the attack dogs.  After all, they founded the whole concept of a medium of exchange with no intrinsic value.

Can't tell if serious..
[/quote]

Clearly not. People who quote Rothschilds as bring people of influence are digging it out of a manual of financial paranoia or a history book. The Rothschilds (I've met a few) were a family of huge influence in the past centuries, but like most of the 'old families' have little influence in todays financial world. Global finance is dominated by large global firms and they are almost all exclusively run by random professionals with no historic ties to the 'families' and who get shifted about with regularity. The most 'controlled' global firm is Santander from Spain, which is the largest bank in Europe and has been controlled by the Botin family for decades.

[ex-trader]

banks are not pulling the rugs from under exchanges.

exchanges dont even bother making rugs.. they just stand on the cold floor.

meaning they dont bother reading the regulations, getting authorised, keeping records or following any of the rules of handling fiat.

its like a majority of these exchanges are run by amateurs that have no previous experience in finance.

the community needs to up its game. its not difficult.

but being lazy by ignoring the laws and then blaming the regulators like its a total surprise is just reasons why i see the half assed attempts of making exchanges always fail.

+1000 couldn't have put it better.

[freedomno1]

Virtex is having a few problems same with Canadianbit with banks but their is still a market there
However it will be a battle for sure
Banks are trying to defend a banking monopoly and an upstart like Bitcoin that has growing traction is a big banks worst fear
Since it is undefined in the Bank Act in Canada regarding finance I would say a schedule IV would need to be added
Since its not really a schedule II or III
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Act_(Canada)
Monetary policy will not be the same if they can't print more money to get out of short term problems and ignore long term ones
Also this strengthens international trade without having sovereign debt loads in case of economic collapses so no fractional reserve banking and EU style crisis perhaps a Japan style deflationary bubble is still possible but with Japan's debt the debt is mostly owned by Japanese and is domestic so their is no sovereign debt crisis like Greece in the EU, this keeps nations accountable to their money supply and that's why banks are afraid of it as less money is to be had from trading.

[Lethn]

Adopt Bitcoin entirely and set up services like Bitspend to get round the problem, time for the movement to begin in earnest.

[freedomno1]

banks are not pulling the rugs from under exchanges.

exchanges dont even bother making rugs.. they just stand on the cold floor.

meaning they dont bother reading the regulations, getting authorised, keeping records or following any of the rules of handling fiat.

its like a majority of these exchanges are run by amateurs that have no previous experience in finance.

the community needs to up its game. its not difficult.

but being lazy by ignoring the laws and then blaming the regulators like its a total surprise is just reasons why i see the half assed attempts of making exchanges always fail.

+1000 couldn't have put it better.

True enough but laws tend to be behind when it comes to innovations

[loanexpress]

good. banks tied to exchanges just make things traceable.

Want to buy BTC? sell a physical good to someone that has it. Want to sell btc? buy a physical good. Fuck the banks.

good, but not everyone are miners, how can you sell something to a non miner if he can't get bitcoins?

You think the $1,000,000,000+ market cap is all just miners?

[Its About Sharing]

I think as another mentioned we need exchanges to be a bit more professional and to follow the sometimes rules as closely as possible. In a sense some banks are protecting us from fraud but in a sinister way some banks are indeed probably trying to limit bitcoins effectiveness. I don't think it is any coincidence that England, a banking powerhouse, is trying to limit Bitcoin.

But, in the meantime for those exchanges without bank accounts (or with them), as I mentioned in another thread a very effective method (which is used at bitcoin.de + requires 2 factor Google authentication) is to just have account holders register their bank accounts and when coins are bought/sold they are frozen in an account until the money is transferred and received by the buyer. It is slower and not without pitfalls but it is also very very effective. It is a terrible setup if you want to daytrade as you can't, the coins are essentially frozen from 1 - 4 days or so (however long the transfer takes). You basically have 12 hours to mark your transfer as sent and then the receiver marks it as paid once the money is in their account.

So, a typical exchange looks like this. I buy bitcoins from a seller. But before I confirm it I make sure they have a good record (just like on Ebay, etc.). Likewise, the seller can make sure I have a good record before they sell to me. I check my email and send the money via an online transfer to the recipient, noting the transaction code in the online form. I have 12 hours to do this and then mark it as sent. The receiver can't use the bitcoins they sold me, they are frozen in "reserve". Once the money arrives and the seller marks it as such, the coins are tranferred into my account. Both a German transfer or EU Sepa transfer are accepted and FREE. (at least at many banks).

In this manner the banks are not dealing with bitcoin exchanges directly. Rather, sellers meet buyers. There is mostly low risk and the biggest problem is that the exchanges are just overwhelmed right now. I have had one person not transfer the money as the price dropped after I sold them and he chose to just get a bad star rating. (He will have to deal with the Karma of that.  ) Bitcoin.de changed the wait time for sending payments from a then 24 hours to a now 12 hours. It would be nice if they change it to one hour but that would then mostly rule out paper transfers at banks and require things to be done almost exclusively online, which they probably are anyway.

Anyway, the banks can't stop person to person transfers. There is nothing in the transaction associated with an exchange and no mention of bitcoin, just a random code.

These "growing pains" are to be expected, really, does anyone expect a revolution in economics to take place without a struggle? The thing we have on our side is that currencies all over the world are collapsing as we speak. In the process (for years now actually) central banks are selling gold puts to artificially suppress the gold price so that people think things aren't too bad with paper money. They have also been "leasing" gold (actually selling it as it is never coming back) to make up the supply demand difference. Cypress actually has to sell like 400 million of their gold due to the "bail in" (theft), at now lower prices! That will probably follow suit in other countries... Spain, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Greece, etc. are on our side. The people are on our side for the most part. Those that aren't have just not yet been effected. As more banking crisis happen, the banks will have problems trying to control bitcoin, and letting it survive might actually help save their lives as there are going to be many unhappy people wanting at those criminals.

No more banks, no more wars...

It's About Sharing

[franky1]

good. banks tied to exchanges just make things traceable.

Want to buy BTC? sell a physical good to someone that has it. Want to sell btc? buy a physical good. Fuck the banks.

Just the way Fincen wants it. Use BTC for bartering essentially - don't mess around with fiat.

finally smart people yay. this is how bitcoin was envisioned.

if you want bitcoin.
you search "drop shipping" or "wholesalers" in google. find some products (legit of course) that will sell. and you start up a business / shop.

you price items in bitcoin. and as the orders come in you pay the dropshipper/wholesaler with your fiat and the products get delivered to your customers. while you keep the bitcoin.

if you have bitcoin but want fiat
you search out localbitcoins for someone that can trade you them or atleast meet you at the car fuel station to pay for your fuel and you pay them bitcoins. or at a grocery store to pay for your grocerys and you give them bitcoin.

[franky1]

banks are not pulling the rugs from under exchanges.

exchanges dont even bother making rugs.. they just stand on the cold floor.

meaning they dont bother reading the regulations, getting authorised, keeping records or following any of the rules of handling fiat.

its like a majority of these exchanges are run by amateurs that have no previous experience in finance.

the community needs to up its game. its not difficult.

but being lazy by ignoring the laws and then blaming the regulators like its a total surprise is just reasons why i see the half assed attempts of making exchanges always fail.

I thought it cost like $1M for each state to get a money service business license, and that is just in the US.  Right?  Wrong?  You at least pretend to know something about it.

There is a balance of reason, and the cost of an MSB looks a bit more to me like something which is designed by those who already have their foot in the door to stifle competition rather than a legitimate expense required in keeping us safe from those 'evildoers'...or whatever the excuse for monitoring/managing the serfs happens to be at the moment.

if you cant afford to get the licences/insurance (FDIC) then maybe your not the right person to be looking after peoples investments

[FlappySocks]

How are bitpay and bitspend operating? They must need UK and Canadian bank accounts. Maybe they will be next.

[franky1]

How are bitpay and bitspend operating? They must need UK and Canadian bank accounts. Maybe they will be next.

bitpay have a secret way of how they convert the bitcoin into pounds. but i am hoping they are atleast following the regulations.

[tvbcof]

banks are not pulling the rugs from under exchanges.
...

I thought it cost like $1M for each state to get a money service business license, and that is just in the US.  Right?  Wrong?  You at least pretend to know something about it.
...

if you cant afford to get the licences/insurance (FDIC) then maybe your not the right person to be looking after peoples investments

I don't have much interest in looking after other people's 'investments'.  OTOH, it seems like there are probably a fair number of talented people who could make a positive contribution to certain usability issues, but having them locked out by a banking/regulatory cartel because they don't have $50M excess funds kicking around is wrong.  It detracts from my ability to select value-adds for my investment by quashing them before they start.

It is also the case that I pay a fair amount of taxes without pitching to much of a bitch about it.  In addition to roads, I also want reasonable access to the legal system I pay for.  By locking out or forcing Bitcoin related businesses underground it becomes more cumbersome for me to leverage my legal system when I need to.  A side effect is that it opens up a huge market for criminal users who know that they have nothing to fear from law enforcement.

[hiltonizer]

good. banks tied to exchanges just make things traceable.

Want to buy BTC? sell a physical good to someone that has it. Want to sell btc? buy a physical good. Fuck the banks.

good, but not everyone are miners, how can you sell something to a non miner if he can't get bitcoins?

its not really any different... miners have to sell coins for them to be circulated do they not? Bank tied exchanges aren't any more necessary for them to trade than anyone else.

[franky1]

banks are not pulling the rugs from under exchanges.
...

I thought it cost like $1M for each state to get a money service business license, and that is just in the US.  Right?  Wrong?  You at least pretend to know something about it.
...

if you cant afford to get the licences/insurance (FDIC) then maybe your not the right person to be looking after peoples investments

I don't have much interest in looking after other people's 'investments'.  OTOH, it seems like there are probably a fair number of talented people who could make a positive contribution to certain usability issues, but having them locked out by a banking/regulatory cartel because they don't have $50M excess funds kicking around is wrong.  It detracts from my ability to select value-adds for my investment by quashing them before they start.

It is also the case that I pay a fair amount of taxes without pitching to much of a bitch about it.  In addition to roads, I also want reasonable access to the legal system I pay for.  By locking out or forcing Bitcoin related businesses underground it becomes more cumbersome for me to leverage my legal system when I need to.  A side effect is that it opens up a huge market for criminal users who know that they have nothing to fear from law enforcement.

no one is locking out bitcoin businesses!!!!!

in the UK it does not require holding $50M, this is the problem with people making exchanges. they simply dont know the regulations or requirements because they are too lazy to read them.

if your transacting less then £3mill a month then you only need to be FSA authorised... Over £3mill a month then you need to be FSA Accredited.
read the regs involved which mainly concern having code/policies inplace to recognise repeat customers to know how much they transact in FIAT to warn/avoid them going over limits. and require ID if they wish to continue over the limits. validate this information, either using 3rd parties services (credit agencies etc) or by requesting government supplied identification.
store the information as the regulations require of you and have policies to act/react to certain situations.

 if these past exchanges actually read the regulations and requirements they would see they are not being locked out at all, its not that hard to follow the regulations. and if they want to say they are secure and knowledgeable and experienced to look after millions of pounds of money. to actually prove it by following the regulations


the problem is that they dont bother, and then a small problem rears its head such as a scammer talking to their bank asking for a chargeback. which snowballs into bank investigations which lead to finding out an exchange has not even bothered to follow the guidelines. which manifests into the banks making a SARS report, which results in the exchange being shutdown.

simple solution. read the rules, follow them and you wont get shutdown.

it facepalms me to see all of these so called trusted exchanges cant even follow simple regulations. the banks /regulators are not out to get bitcoins. they are out to protect peoples FIAT.

[Lethn]

To be honest franky1 is both right and wrong, I agree with him on the main points but FSA wise I should tell you that these guys are out to screw everybody who isn't one of 'them' it isn't really to do with Bitcoin but more to do with elitism. The bank of Dave documentary pretty much showed the FSA to be a rich boys club and wouldn't even meet with the guy to approve his bank and it was due to some lawyer trickery that Dave got the bank set up.

 BS&L holds a consumer credit licence with the Office of Fair Trading (Licence No. 646136).BS&L is not regulated by the Financial Services Authority as its activities do not fall within the regulatory framework.

ooo here we are, found this on their website too.

[qwerty555]

A possible solution is to BUY THE FED and set regulations promoting bitcoin :

Buy with BTC for $450M

quoted from below article

By law (check the Congressional record), we can buy back the FED for the original investment of the FED's 300 shareholders, which is $450 million (Reference 1, P. 227, Reference 17, P. 36)

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/fed_reserve.htm

[tvbcof]

To be honest franky1 is both right and wrong, I agree with him on the main points but FSA wise ...

I actually do also with several caveats:

 - As long as the regulators are making a good faith effort to assist legitimate business

 - At the present time which we will probably look back on as calm financial seas at some point in the future.

As a consumer I would strongly favor a financial service provider who budgeted the resources to dot their 'i's and cross their 't's simply because it would indicate a reasonable level of professionalism.  When it is not reasonably practical to do this, I consider it a failure of the regulatory system more than a failure of the businesses.

[FlappySocks]

the banks /regulators are not out to get bitcoins. they are out to protect peoples FIAT.

Can you explain what has happened to TransferWise? Are they bluffing?