[2014-07-17] Bitcoin regulation in state of New York is announced.

[xyzzy099]

I don't think that's true - at least this article: http://www.businessinsider.com/nydfs-bitlicense-draft-2014-7 claims that this clause does not effect miners.  I believe that's accurate because miners don't issue bitcoin in any meaningful sense.  All 21 million bitcoin that will ever exist are defined by the protocol itself.

That is one way to look at it.  What matters is how regulatory (or more importantly old people in black robes) look at it.   Mining pools (other than those like p2pool and Eligius) would probably fall under 202 (n) 2.

Yeah, it's sufficiently vague that it can definitely be read in different ways.  This is probably a good time to comment on these overly vague clauses, so what actually gets enacted is more concrete

[1715595172]

1715595172

[1715595172]

1715595172

[froggyfeels]

  *that's the embarrassed smiley, I am using it for the first time in my life on any board.
I am embarrassed by the comments from some of the users on this board.

kingcolex > Doesn't seem too bad, I am sure with their name they give an address they will accept with and that way customers can prove they bought merchandise and get BTC back when it is defective and the retailer is breaking merchant laws.

runam0k > Exactly what people were expecting, I think - certainly no worse and it provides some certainty going forward.

DeathAndTaxes > A quick reading didn't find anything particularly unusual.  One nice provision is the regulatory is required to approve or deny an application within 90 days.  

howardb > No matter what the content, this is a Major milestone on the road to legitamacy for bitcoin, i'm amazed the price has not reacted more than it has. Perhaps word is slow to leak out, though it's been mentioned on CNBC already, interviews with the guy later today also.
> a milestone of what, everything that BTC doesn't stand for?

Cicero2.0 > This actually doesn't seem too bad after a cursory reading. It could have been much worse. The specifics on merchants not needing a license is a very good thing.

DannyElfman > This is great at it gives businesses more certainty regarding AML and other reporting requirements. It makes things very black and white.
> really great...you know the source code of btc was written for KYC/AML compliance. I am sure Satoshi is smiling and feeling great satisfaction.

LiteCoinGuy > good move, we should be glad that it is so positive.
> HAHA

Bit_Happy > Bitcoin prices are moderately higher, so the market seems to like this news. ???Moderately / The Market

Ragnarly > "I'm shocked at the comments on this thread. Do you all work for JP Morgan or FinCen? The reddit thread has a deeper, broader analysis: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2aycxs/hi_this_is_ben_lawsky_at_nydfs_here_are_the/"
>exactly bro...who are you guys saying how great this is? BTC was made to for the exact opposite of these rules.
I do feel for all the companies in the US that now have to deal with this, I would be pissed and scared.

souspeed > "Finally!"
Yes it's awesome isn't it? Lulz.

"The folks over at Reddit would be complaining with any kind of regulation that even mentions bitcoin. This is a pretty reasonable compromise. Basically it just applies existing KYC/AML rules to bitcoin companies that are exchanging currency. The fact that it doesn't apply onerous regulations to the average person buying something with bitcoins, or the average company accepting bitcoins in exchange for goods is huge. It sets a good precedent that won't hamper bitcoins growth."
> Haha, I love it, especially this part. "It sets a good precedent that won't hamper bitcoins growth."


>>I feel like I just found out I was adopted, or that my wife is a lesbian. What I did find out for sure is that a lot of the people here are not really in it for more than $. Who are you guys? If I was Satoshi I would fire you. BTC is officially dead. There is no reason to use it without the freedoms that it brings. We are talking about the same guys who run the US dollar, created the banking/housing crash of 2008, the ones who manipuate inflation, energy prices, politics, etc.

[billyscuz]

is this what regulation will look like in all states/federally? looks kind of burdensome for businesses....

[cbeast]

*tongue lashing snipped*

Here's the thing. Honeybadger don't care. NYCDFS can try to regulate all they want, their intention is to set folks up to fail. These regulations aren't about protecting the consumer, they're about protecting the status quo of failure. What they don't realise is that only the dumb businesses will try to comply without an exit strategy. The rest will decentralize.

[froggyfeels]

...

It has little or nothing to do with regulating Bitcoin, its about regulating businesses within a certain jurisdiction that deal with both fiat currency and bitcoin, where's the problem in that? Fiat's involved so their government has a right to make rules, that's practically the definition of fiat.

Your sig - "In the future, in the Internet generation, every country will slowly relax sovereign control and even dilute the concept of sovereignty." How about we be cereal.

[froggyfeels]

*tongue lashing snipped*

Here's the thing. Honeybadger don't care. NYCDFS can try to regulate all they want, their intention is to set folks up to fail. These regulations aren't about protecting the consumer, they're about protecting the status quo of failure. What they don't realise is that only the dumb businesses will try to comply without an exit strategy. The rest will decentralize.

+~9000

[acoindr]

is this what regulation will look like in all states/federally? looks kind of burdensome for businesses....

The regulation one state adopts, especially one like NY regarding finance, can set precedent/framework for other states to follow.

Let's try to get a bit organized. A problem with the decentralized nature of Bitcoin is lack of default leadership on some potentially key issues. I propose we start highlighting particularly offensive aspects of this framework, say on a scale from 1-10 with 10  being worst. This can help focus our collective objections.

(5)  controlling, administering, or issuing a Virtual Currency.

This seems a definite 10 for horribleness. How do they figure this? It means if I decided to open a Chuck E. Cheese's shop and issue game tokens redeemable in store or online I'd need a Virtual Currency license first?!? Ridiculous! That's a free country?

[hollowframe]

*tongue lashing snipped*

Here's the thing. Honeybadger don't care. NYCDFS can try to regulate all they want, their intention is to set folks up to fail. These regulations aren't about protecting the consumer, they're about protecting the status quo of failure. What they don't realise is that only the dumb businesses will try to comply without an exit strategy. The rest will decentralize.

The regulations seem to be pointed at exchanges, not at businesses that accept bitcoin, nor at people that use bitcoin.

It appears the regulations are to prevent money laundering at the exchange level.

[taylortyler]

Could be way worse, but this is still kinda of annoying.

[birr]

It has little or nothing to do with regulating Bitcoin, its about regulating businesses within a certain jurisdiction that deal with both fiat currency and bitcoin

As written, the regulations apply to operations in the crypto space that never come in contact with fiat.

[Djo]

This whole regulation thing is kind of scary... that`s just one step. What will be the next one ... worse case scenario will e : Ok now you must store your Bitcoin wallet in a official banking system ... BACK TO ZERO.

don`t want the gouvernment to get too much involved bitcoin.

[devphp]

So, it's ok for exchanges to put a sign:

"NY residents are not welcome here" and not get the license?
Wouldn't NY residents feel discriminated? If they feel discriminated, what can they do? Move to another state?

[shkiser]

I dont feel this is good news. Many are pointing out these regulations dont adhere to the average consumer, or merchant, but in time these regs will be directed to all. This is an early stage, and rules seem to change as we all know. I dont like the idea. These regulations go against everything that bitcoin is supposed to be, and sounds fair in writing now, but what about later on down the road. Ive been really wondering about the real creator of bitcoin and its real purpose. Its becoming much clearer now, and my intuition tells me it wasnt some anon japanese guy. I agree with monitoring and regulating the exchanges, but I feel like this is a bad direction as bitcoin is not theirs, wasnt supposed to be. Just another way to put their hands in the pockets of business owners. Im just now reading into this, but I dont like the direction its heading.

[Soros Shorts]

I wonder how this would effect face-to-face trading in NY? I used to do a lot of this.

[aztecminer]

200.3 c 2 is nice and clear:

(c) Exemption from licensing requirements. The following Persons are exempt from the licensing requirements otherwise applicable under this Part:
...
(2) merchants and consumers that utilize Virtual Currency solely for the purchase or sale of goods or services

Yeah, this is key. The regs overall basically formalize, into a Virtual-Currency specific charter, what is already required to comply with existing AML/KYC/BSA regs for money-transmitting/exchanging businesses. Thus, the uncertainty is removed, but nothing *really* changes; however, the explicit assurance that consumers and merchants are free to transact without regs is huge - that's really the only avenue a western gov would likely use to attack/constrain bitcoin, so the explicit carve-out is very nice.

That isn't exactly true.  At the federal level FinCEN has provided guidance that the exchange of virtual currency constitutes money transmission under federal law and thus entities must register as a MSB with FinCEN.  FinCEN's "guidance" is actually very poor and contradicts existing guidance (exchanging USD for EUR is not money transmission).   It would have been preferable for FinCEN to do as NY has done and create a new regulated class (or expand "currency exchanger" to cover virtual currencies).  They didn't and what is done is done.  Still FinCEN's guidance doesn't apply to state regulations.  They opened the box and created a huge amount of uncertainty.

No two states even share the same definition of "money transmission" or "money" at the state level and thus the applicability of existing money transmitter regulations on entities that exchange virtual currency for real currency is a huge legal gray area.  Only a few states have provided any public information on the applicability of existing regulations.  In some states existing regs could apply although that probably won't be certain until after some court decisions.  In other states due to the wording it is highly unlikely that the existing regulations could cover virtual currency exchangers without a modification of the statute.  This is going to take years if not decades to play out.

Agreed that a federal framework which supercedes states regs would've been preferable....but as you note, that ship sailed already.

On another note, Reddit seems very upset with these regs: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2aycxs/hi_this_is_ben_lawsky_at_nydfs_here_are_the/

A couple valid points made (I'll have to read the regs closer to verify) are:
1) Entities like changetip would fall under this licensing
2) Companies must hold profits and retained earnings in dollars, not bitcoin.
3) Alt-coin exchanges fall under the regs.

I hope the above, plus the bonding issue, are addressed/contested strongly during the 45-day comment period. Also, one thing that would've been nice to see, and which can maybe be addressed in the comments period, is a scaling-up of regulatory burden with increase in business activity (ie, Fred Wilson's "on ramp" suggestion during the hearings in Feb) instead of the regs fully applying to all from day 1.

why ?? must hold profits and retained earnings in dollars, not bitcoin.

[justusranvier]

2) Companies must hold profits and retained earnings in dollars, not bitcoin.

Savvy companies have a plethora of methods for making their profits only appear in a country where it's advantageous to do so.

What will happen here is that Bitcoin companies will be created in NY, but won't actually be profitable because they are utilizing one of these techniques. The (BTC) profits will appear in some other country and will be distributed appropriately.

[howardb]

I think most people seem to be "not seeing the wood for the trees". The important takeaway from this development is that in New York at least, government is prepared to declare bitcoin "legal". The fear that has lurked in the shadows that all governments would declare it illegal is gradually fading, and this is just one more significant step in that direction, ensuring bitcoins future.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I think most people seem to be "not seeing the wood for the trees". The important takeaway from this development is that in New York at least, government is prepared to declare bitcoin "legal". The fear that has lurked in the shadows that all governments would declare it illegal is gradually fading, and this is just one more significant step in that direction, ensuring bitcoins future.

There was never any realistic fear that a state would declare Bitcoin illegal once FinCEN issued guidance on virtual currencies (almost two years ago).

[howardb]

I would say open your business in switzerland and put a sticker "no bussiness with NY" (or even US)

You can do business with US from another country, just don't need to pay any attention to their laws as a business, it's the US citizens problem. If you don't have operations there, there is little they can do other than turn to their usual cronies (banks/visa/mastercard) to enforce their laws for them.
And actually I would pick the Isle of Man as bitcoin capital.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I would say open your business in switzerland and put a sticker "no bussiness with NY" (or even US)

You can do business with US from another country, just don't need to pay any attention to their laws as a business, it's the US citizens problem.

That strategy didn't work for Full Tilt Poker.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Scheinberg

And actually I would pick the Isle of Man as bitcoin capital.

Interesting choice. Isle of Man was one of the 14 countries outside the US that Full Tilt poker kept servers and bank accounts.  When the DOJ said jump they said how high and rubber stamped seizure warrants.