2013-09-03 contrariancompliance.com: No Banking, No Bitcoin

[juanbllanos]

http://contrariancompliance.com/2013/09/03/no-banking-no-bitcoin/

[1714800408]

1714800408

[1714800408]

1714800408

[1714800408]

1714800408

[1714800408]

1714800408

[1714800408]

1714800408

[ninjabanker]

There are other solutions to the problem beyond the ones you have expressed. We can build resilient, distributed and unregulatable networks that can provide individuals and businesses with a superior and less expensive alternative to compliance with the arbitrary and capricious whims of bureaucrats.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1lmtjt/announcing_project_praesto/

[TraderTimm]

It is the arrogance of the banking system that will be their downfall. I'd love them to think that they're unassailable, invulnerable, etc.. That is where the real weakness lies, the "monsters in the dark", if you will. They are so sure, so absolutely ear-to-ear smiles about their position that they'll miss the fatal blow.

Death comes in many forms, and in business and finance - it is the missed opportunity that hurts most, other than strategic blunders. Their refusal so far to work with Bitcoin fairly will be their end.

Of course, you can turn the tables and say bitcoin collectively is as proud - although I'd say we have the advantage of not depending on systemized corruption to get our business done.

[Stephen Gornick]

http://contrariancompliance.com/2013/09/03/no-banking-no-bitcoin/

Individuals are today selling bitcoins by accepting cash deposits (e.g., using Bitcoin-Brokers.org) through their bank account.  Some of them might be considered money transmitters by FinCEN, I suppose.   Will banks need to scrutinize every account that sees a cash deposit to try to figure out if the transaction was for a digital currency trade?

[marcus_of_augustus]

juan is here pushing his compliance racket barrow incessantly now ...

... these posts are really not much better than those Ponzi ads pirate@40 was running in the "Projects" section, the racket is less transparent and definitely more sophisticated though I suppose.

[juanbllanos]

http://contrariancompliance.com/2013/09/03/no-banking-no-bitcoin/

Individuals are today selling bitcoins by accepting cash deposits (e.g., using Bitcoin-Brokers.org) through their bank account.  Some of them might be considered money transmitters by FinCEN, I suppose.   Will banks need to scrutinize every account that sees a cash deposit to try to figure out if the transaction was for a digital currency trade?

Unfortunately, the answer to your question, Stephen, is probably yes.  I think the government will let Bitcoin be only when all the potential use cases for money laundering have been covered, which may mean an incredibly invasive level of control of each public key and even wallet. 

[justusranvier]

Unfortunately, the answer to your question, Stephen, is probably yes.  I think the government will let Bitcoin be only when all the potential use cases for money laundering have been covered, which may mean an incredibly invasive level of control of each public key and even wallet. 

Good luck with that.

[foggyb]

Unfortunately, the answer to your question, Stephen, is probably yes.  I think the government will let Bitcoin be only when all the potential use cases for money laundering have been covered, which may mean an incredibly invasive level of control of each public key and even wallet. 

Good luck with that.

Sure I'll give them my public key....after I generate 10,000 new ones in a second, and never use the registered one again.

[Stephen Gornick]

Sure I'll give them my public key....after I generate 10,000 new ones in a second, and never use the registered one again.

Yup -- Bitcoin can be used in ways that are not impacted by AML regulations.  Just as can cash.

[cypherdoc]

juan is here pushing his compliance racket barrow incessantly now ...

... these posts are really not much better than those Ponzi ads pirate@40 was running in the "Projects" section, the racket is less transparent and definitely more sophisticated though I suppose.

sounds expensive.

[juanbllanos]

juan is here pushing his compliance racket barrow incessantly now ...

... these posts are really not much better than those Ponzi ads pirate@40 was running in the "Projects" section, the racket is less transparent and definitely more sophisticated though I suppose.

That's one way to see it, marcus_of_augustus, but not at all what I really mean. All I'm trying to do is make crypto-currencies viable in my lifetime, at least.  There are dozens of self-appointed compliance consultants with inexistent credentials actually selling what I offer for free in my blog.  I choose to give it out for free.  For years and completely pro bono, I've been advising start-ups and businesses (here is the list of unpaid gigs I've done over the past 9 years: https://juanllanos.backpackit.com/pub/1499894-juan-llanos-aml-compliance-and-risk-management-credentials )on how to navigate the inexorable regulatory minefield that the U.S. society, through its republican institutions, has imposed upon itself.

Many companies are unable to launch their products because they have been ill-advised, even by very expensive lawyers who, being paid by the unit of time, have the incentive to procrastinate rather than provide solutions fast; or are ignoring the free advise I'm providing. 

Had it been read with comprehension, my very first bitcoin post of April 14, 2013 http://contrariancompliance.com/2013/04/14/is-us-regulation-the-single-biggest-threat-to-bitcoin/, would have given a company an edge, and they might be in the market by now, at least in some jurisdictions.  Some consultants charge $25,000 for a less comprehensive Virtual Currencies Compliance Program than this one: http://www.slideshare.net/juanbllanos/2013-0814-new-york-presentation-vccc.

You choose what food to eat, marcus_of_augustus.  For your own good, I hope you make the right choices.