NY just announced a MANDATORY Bitcoin license - if this concerns you sign this.

[DaFockBro]

If you lost money in "MyBitcoin.com,  Bitcoinica.com,  BitcoinSavings and Trust, GLBSE, inputs.io" it was your own fault for taking risks with your coins.

I agree 100% and if you were up on this topic you would know that part of Lawsky's regulation will probably included requirements that Bitcoin businesses inform consumers that Bitcoin is highly speculative and highly volatile.  That is great consumer protection.  You can do want you want with your money.  We are just warning you that you should understand that you are putting your money at risk.

Makes no sense at all.  We need more regulation so we can start requiring warning labels on Bitcoin for idiots?

[Mrrr]

'New York regulates Prostitution, Pimps petition against'

Better accept that BTC will be subject to regulation, and find political support to mold the regulations in a manner that favours crypto.

[BCB]

Makes no sense at all.  We need more regulation so we can start requiring warning labels on Bitcoin for idiots?

DaFockBro,

I didn't say it made sense.  That is just how it works in America.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Makes no sense at all.  We need more regulation so we can start requiring warning labels on Bitcoin for idiots?

DaFockBro,

I didn't say it made sense.  That is just how it works in America.

... after the lawyers showed up.

Crypto currency was doing just fine before that, now the people making the rules basically have no clue how it works.

Tell me how that isn't a recipe for disaster?

Do you want a lawyer flying your airplane, operating your local nuclear reactor or fixing that gas pipeline at the end of the street?

This IS a highly tuned technology ... just get the feck out of the way and let us handle this one, ok?

[Melbustus]

...There is no way a $8B + USD economy is going to go unregulated.

The conversation is not NO regulation.  The conversation has to be about prudent regulation.  And Lawsky has shown in his public statements and these hearings that he wants input from the community to keep illicit activity out of the us financial system and to protect consumers from fraud and incompetence while creating a framework that will allow this new technology to thrive in the New York.

Agreed. They are going to regulate, and that shouldn't really come as a surprise. Now is the time to try and shape that regulatory effort. I liked Fred Wilson's suggestions about "safe harbor" and an on-ramp, so that startups with little volume/impact wouldn't be subject to any onerous regs. I think that's a reasonable approach. Allow the innovation to happen, see what works, and as companies scale, apply the reg burden as they level up. New bitcoin startups shouldn't need two lawyers for every one engineer, plus millions in capital requirements or surety bond coverage... But if a startup succeeds and starts to do huge volume, then their compliance burden goes up.

Bruce - I agree with your point that once regulation happens, it'll just grow and grow. That's kinda the nature of government looking across large timescales. Unfortunately it's unrealistic to assume there's a path to zero regulation. Thus, as stated above, the goal should be to help shape it in the most productive way possible. Obviously I think you're aware of this, and that's your overall goal here.

[BCB]

I liked Fred Wilson's suggestions about "safe harbor" and an on-ramp, so that startups with little volume/impact wouldn't be subject to any onerous regs. I think that's a reasonable approach. Allow the innovation to happen, see what works, and as companies scale, apply the reg burden as they level up. oductive way possible. Obviously I think you're aware of this, and that's your overall goal here.

This is a great idea and makes absolute sense. But this onerous regulation protects the existing player.

So you know who is going to fight this?


Ezra C. Levine, The Money Services RoundTable  and its members:
Western Union
Money Gram
American Express

[BruceFenton]

I appreciate people who commend Lawsky for having hearings and accepting input on Twitter etc.

But not to beat the "trust me I know what regulation is really like" drum too much..... but most people within the financial industry have a MUCH more skeptical view of regulators.

For example, do we think it was a coincidence that Charlie Shrem was arrested 48 hours before the hearing and then used repeatedly as a rally cry proving why we need new regs?  

How about the timing of the announcement for more regulation coinciding with the exchange shutdowns?

We don't see these announcements made on days like the Overstock announcement.

Regulators quite often use the weight of their office to essentially shakedown players who can afford fines but don't want bad publicity.

Remember the "market timing" crusade by Elliot Spitzer?   Show me a law which says "market timing" is illegal.   It's not.   But firms won't fight regulators who have unlimited legal budgets....they settle and move on.

I would like to believe Mr. Lawsky is different but I think it's naive to assume that any politician, no matter how good they are, will objectively learn and consider what's best for everyone.    Politics rule and politics is driven by the fear and greed of voters, by special interests and money.

This is no criticism against any one regulator, it's reality.   If he agrees to meet I'll talk to him about things he cares about from his office and his angle.

[Phrenico]

Someone needs to explain to Lawsky that even if the government makes it illegal to use Bitcoin, it will still have a market value and can still be used to launder money.

This was kind of the point: government cannot gain by regulating Bitcoin; all they can do is restrict its use for legal purposes.

[bomb7]

In order for Bitcoin to go mainstream licenses are necessary. The average person will never use Bitcoin if they have to hand over their fiat money to some shady motherfucker who might run off with it, or some incompetent outfit that doesn`t know what it`s doing.

If you want the libertarian dream of unregulated money which requires a lot of vigilence and self-protection, then Bitcoin won`t be growing.

[LAMarcellus]

Prudent state regulation

That's the most severe oxymoron I've ever seen!   

[BCB]

Prudent state regulation

That's the most severe oxymoron I've ever seen!   

pru·dent /ˈpro͞odnt/ adjective 1. acting with or showing care and thought for the future.

Seems to be what Lawsky is doing.  Time will tell.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Unless you are making commits to github https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin , polemics, politics and parasiticism is essentially all you have to contribute (i.e. next to worthless in the great sweep of the arc of history.)

Regulation will have zero impact on making bitcoin better or worse money in regards to the 'protecting the great unwashed' claim your arguments are hiding behind. Observe how they have gotten screwed over for decades by the 'regulated' financial predators currently in charge, none less than the Federal Reserve themselves.

Bury your heads in the sand as much as you like but bitcoin is about something bigger than petty turf wars in the financial shakedown racket, that more and more of you appear to hail from.

I have not heard a more ridiculous notion than the "licensing of bits" in a long time by an official agency, but vested interests knows no bounds it seems.

Good luck with your appeals to stupidity but all you are doing is crapping in the nest of the homeland for your children, to further your own greedy interests or at best in misguided do-gooding attempts.

And here's the final inescapable truth, the bits are totally oblivious to your precious "licenses". Your efforts are already futile and all in vain.

[BruceFenton]

In order for Bitcoin to go mainstream licenses are necessary. The average person will never use Bitcoin if they have to hand over their fiat money to some shady motherfucker who might run off with it, or some incompetent outfit that doesn`t know what it`s doing.

If you want the libertarian dream of unregulated money which requires a lot of vigilence and self-protection, then Bitcoin won`t be growing.

There are a thousand ways that this can be accomplished without government regulation:  people can set up consumer reports style objective evaluation services, there can be online voting services and feedback like eBay, there can be voluntarily industry associations, voluntary insurance, proof of binding or assets, open books and audits etc etc.

[misternanyte]

If the regulation of Bitcoin concerns you, please sign this letter to regulator Ben Lawsky


http://bitcoinfinancialassociation.org/regulation/

I thought the whole point was to get Bitcoin finally regulated

No you fucking moron. The whole reason bitcoin was invented was to AVOID government tampering. Now we can't use bitcoin for it's intended purpose - which was to GET AROUND THE BANKS and their control of the value of the money.

Good job, you fucking morons.

[Robert Lewandowski]

Convenient last name, Lawsky

[BlueNote]

The US States regulate financial institutions for  safety and soundness and consumer protection.  Look at MyBitcoin.com,  Bitcoinica.com,  BitcoinSavings and Trust, GLBSE, inputs.io.  The short history of bitcoin is littered with massive fraud and operator incompetence.  There is no way a $8B + USD economy is going to go unregulated.

Oh, they control us for our safety and protection? The nicest thing I can say about that sentiment is that it's utterly delusional. In the real world, governments are corrupt to the core and the financial system is one gigantic fraud regardless of how it's "regulated." Regulation is, in fact, one of the primary tools of tyranny and is typically used to create barriers to entry in order to preserve the existing power structure. Why do you think the Fed can create 85 billion dollars a month and hand them out to their buddies in secret without being bothered by anyone? Is that to protect you and make you safe?

You're whining about actual crimes committed in the bitcoin world? Well, there are already laws (not "regulations") against fraud and stealing. Do you see the state tracking down actual criminals who defrauded people of bitcoin? No. You see them arresting innocent people on fake charges of "money laundering," which is a completely made-up non-crime with NO VICTIM. If there is an actual victim to crime involving bitcoin, they don't do anything because they don't gain control over markets that way. It's just an expense. It doesn't grow the power base.

This idea that the state is your buddy and that it loves you and protects you is beyond childish. And let me clue you in on something, free people don't need a license to buy and sell. Buying and selling is not a crime.

[TheButterZone]

If you lost money in "MyBitcoin.com,  Bitcoinica.com,  BitcoinSavings and Trust, GLBSE, inputs.io" it was your own fault for taking risks with your coins.

I agree 100% and if you were up on this topic you would know that part of Lawsky's regulation will probably included requirements that Bitcoin businesses inform consumers that Bitcoin is highly speculative and highly volatile.  That is great consumer protection.  You can do want you want with your money.  We are just warning you that you should understand that you are putting your money at risk.

Makes no sense at all.  We need more regulation so we can start requiring warning labels on Bitcoin for idiots?

Need to change all the Federal Reserve notes first, to have a disclaimer - "every second, this Note decreases in value." Or something to that effect.

pru·dent /ˈpro͞odnt/ adjective 1. acting with or showing care and thought for the future.

Seems to be what Lawsky is doing.  Time will tell.

All totalitarian sociopaths begin violating liberties with honey. At the end, if we don't have the epi pen of trillions of dollars held by the federal reserve and regulatory capture, we're left dead on the floor, from anaphylactic asphyxiation after thousands of stings.

[BlueNote]

Prudent state regulation

That's the most severe oxymoron I've ever seen!   

pru·dent /ˈpro͞odnt/ adjective 1. acting with or showing care and thought for the future.

Seems to be what Lawsky is doing.  Time will tell.

Forcibly stripping human beings of their right to trade freely does not sound like prudence to me.

Can you enlighten us on why you think voluntary exchange is a crime?

[marcus_of_augustus]

Just going leave an example of what "bank-sponsored regulation" has wrought ...

Vampire Squid strikes again

Today, banks like Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs own oil tankers, run airports and control huge quantities of coal, natural gas, heating oil, electric power and precious metals. They likewise can now be found exerting direct control over the supply of a whole galaxy of raw materials crucial to world industry and to society in general, including everything from food products to metals like zinc, copper, tin, nickel and, most infamously thanks to a recent high-profile scandal, aluminum.

[BCB]

Prudent state regulation

That's the most severe oxymoron I've ever seen!   

pru·dent /ˈpro͞odnt/ adjective 1. acting with or showing care and thought for the future.

Seems to be what Lawsky is doing.  Time will tell.

Forcibly stripping human beings of their right to trade freely does not sound like prudence to me.

Can you enlighten us on why you think voluntary exchange is a crime?

I don't make the laws.

I just try to obey them.