UK's Plans to Regulate Bitcoin

[NyeFe]

"the government's plan to apply anti-money laundering (AML) regulations to digital currency exchanges." As a possible UK-based firm, this would impact me hugely! I'm not saying this isn't a good idea, however, isn't the purpose of Bitcoin to get away from the government control, fiat currencies, corruption, and taxes? How will they go about regulating me?

[gentlemand]

What type of firm do you operate?

There's zero reason why digital currencies should be AML exempt if you're exchanging fiat for them.

Were I to start a used tampon exchange, if pounds were involved I'd have to do exactly the same. It's a fact of life for everyone.

[pedrog]

Exchanges already apply those directives, well, at least Bitstamp does.

It would be nice not just AML/KYC but also insurance and proof of solvency, AML/KYC does shit when exchanges get robbed or run away with our coins...

[clubsofsteel]

it seems whenever something gets TOO BIG (the man) governments always have to get thier hands in it...its sad really,seems we cant have anything BIG without regulation and such..its a shame

[NyeFe]

What type of firm do you operate?

There's zero reason why digital currencies should be AML exempt if you're exchanging fiat for them.

Were I to start a used tampon exchange, if pounds were involved I'd have to do exactly the same. It's a fact of life for everyone.

That's the problem, users would be exchanging with each other, in a decentralised format. I do not want to be forced to centralise our system. So i'm guessing It's a comply, or you're out of business sort of thing?

[gentlemand]

That's the problem, users would be exchanging with each other, in a decentralised format. I do not want to be forced to centralise our system. So i'm guessing It's a comply, or you're out of business sort of thing?

I guess you'll need to consult yourself an expert. If you're not touching the money yourself, perhaps that's a different ball game. It would be more of a platform connecting buyers and sellers than an exchange where you're the entity taking and sending out money.

I can't imagine Autotrader or Gumtree has anything to do with AML and there's millions flowing through there every day. Perhaps they'd keep a closer eye on it if it was digital currency.

[medUSA]

"the government's plan to apply anti-money laundering (AML) regulations to digital currency exchanges."

It is always better to quote a source, so members know what regulations we are talking about:
http://www.coindesk.com/breaking-uk-treasury-issues-landmark-digital-currencies-report/

I understand hard-core Bitcoin users do not want ANY government control. The reality is, once money is involved, governments want in on it. The good news from this Treasury Report is that they do not wish to ban Bitcoin, but to:

to create an environment for digital currency entrepreneurs to "flourish",
including gaining access to banking and other professional services,
which UK bitcoin businesses have so far struggled to obtain.

This is fairly encouraging. We have heard so many UK bank accounts was closed without any explanation from the bank staff, this "plan" to apply AML might actually open doors for businesses and individuals to freely and legally engage in Bitcoin operations.

[Decksperiment]

They started with the u-turn on Tor.. I'm still trying to figure out why they would allow something that is so called 'secure' - they dont like anyone getting one over on them, and by allowing

[deisik]

Exchanges already apply those directives, well, at least Bitstamp does.

It would be nice not just AML/KYC but also insurance and proof of solvency, AML/KYC does shit when exchanges get robbed or run away with our coins...

This would obviously incur additional costs and expenses for the exchanges that decide positively on insurance or agree upon external audit. In this case they will have to volens-nolens raise the fees which their clients will have to pay...

[pedrog]

Exchanges already apply those directives, well, at least Bitstamp does.

It would be nice not just AML/KYC but also insurance and proof of solvency, AML/KYC does shit when exchanges get robbed or run away with our coins...

This would obviously incur additional costs and expenses for the exchanges that decide positively on insurance or agree upon external audit. In this case they will have to volens-nolens raise the fees which their clients will have to pay...

A small price to pay for not getting goxxed, vircurexed, GBLed, and many others.

Amateur hour is over!

Study: 45 percent of Bitcoin exchanges end up closing: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-04/26/large-bitcoin-exchanges-attacks

[scribe]

From what I've noticed, this is a good thing. The movement is regulation and control, sure, but it's also more about setting out some certainty about the rules that businesses (including banks) can operate in. Without that, support from legal financial organisations is always going to be paranoid. Anyone that has seen exchanges like Intersango jump from bank account to bank account, or just try to get a startup loan, knows this kind of state move is needed to make Bitcoin legally-plausible.

[NUFCrichard]

"the government's plan to apply anti-money laundering (AML) regulations to digital currency exchanges." As a possible UK-based firm, this would impact me hugely! I'm not saying this isn't a good idea, however, isn't the purpose of Bitcoin to get away from the government control, fiat currencies, corruption, and taxes? How will they go about regulating me?

Government control and taxes won't be avoidable with bitcoin if it does go mainstream.
At some point governments will come up with consensus rules about the taxation of bitcoin. At the moment bitcoins saving grace is that the falling price means no one has to worry about capital gain tax, next time the price rises, I think they will really start to look at who is making money from bitcoin and tax accordingly.

[elvizzzzzzz]

I am surprised to see the report. I think I keep a reasonable eye on the bitcoin space,
and I heard nothing about the Treasury consultation before its publication. 

Reading the list of contributors suggests that the report will be heavily biased toward
those who have no interest in bitcoin's success. It seems that HMG expects the
bitoin community to be grateful that they are "only" being hit with AML and KYC
regulations. The problem with their consultation is that many of the contributors
think in terms of millions of pounds - for example the £10,000,000 for research would
have bought every bitcoin on the planet a couple of years ago.

So, on the one hand KYC and AML regulation will do nothing to prevent another
MtGox from happening, while ensuring that barriers to entry are raised. And
don't get me started on the hypocrisy of state sponsored terrorism and criminality.

Let me make a suggestion : so long as the amounts in bitcoin are less than those
handled by the UK's Small Claims Courts - currently circa £3000, no regulation is
needed beyond that already in place. For amounts above that, and for example
exchanges, quarterly reporting of the state of the accounts in addition to the normal
company requirements.

And think about capital gains and bitcoin. If Bitcoins go to £10,000,000 ea, it will
be because the UK government has totally failed in in its fiscal responsibilities.
And They want bitcoin to bail them out?

[Amph]

How will they go about regulating me?

they will regulate you when you exchange your btc for fiat, no way they can regulate bitcoin directly, for example if you do a trasaction above 1k in btc to buy a thing always in btc, i doubt they can do anything

[countryfree]

I'm not afraid, I'm sure there will be a minimum. Say if you want to buy 50 BTC, you will have to explain where your money comes from, but if you just buy 2 BTC, nothing will be checked, nor required.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

Exchanges already apply those directives, well, at least Bitstamp does.

It would be nice not just AML/KYC but also insurance and proof of solvency, AML/KYC does shit when exchanges get robbed or run away with our coins...

This would obviously incur additional costs and expenses for the exchanges that decide positively on insurance or agree upon external audit. In this case they will have to volens-nolens raise the fees which their clients will have to pay...

A small price to pay for not getting goxxed, vircurexed, GBLed, and many others.

Amateur hour is over!

Study: 45 percent of Bitcoin exchanges end up closing: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-04/26/large-bitcoin-exchanges-attacks

True, but wouldn't a decentralized exchange fix issue tho? In any case im not leaving a single satoshi in any of the exchanges even if I trust them (like Poloniex). Unfortunately I cant do day trading because of the fear.

[pedrog]

Exchanges already apply those directives, well, at least Bitstamp does.

It would be nice not just AML/KYC but also insurance and proof of solvency, AML/KYC does shit when exchanges get robbed or run away with our coins...

This would obviously incur additional costs and expenses for the exchanges that decide positively on insurance or agree upon external audit. In this case they will have to volens-nolens raise the fees which their clients will have to pay...

A small price to pay for not getting goxxed, vircurexed, GBLed, and many others.

Amateur hour is over!

Study: 45 percent of Bitcoin exchanges end up closing: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-04/26/large-bitcoin-exchanges-attacks

True, but wouldn't a decentralized exchange fix issue tho? In any case im not leaving a single satoshi in any of the exchanges even if I trust them (like Poloniex). Unfortunately I cant do day trading because of the fear.

How does a decentralized exchange work?

I also have serious trust issues.

I do some trading but, but I only left a small value on exchanges for daytrading, usually less than 0.5 BTC.

[r0ach]

I'm not afraid, I'm sure there will be a minimum. Say if you want to buy 50 BTC, you will have to explain where your money comes from.

This is why in China, they started to buy mining gear instead of Bitcoin itself in order to get money out of their country once the government came down on it.  Even if the profitability of mining decreases, hash keeps going up from things like this (as well as technical advances obviously).

So just how effective are these AML laws when people can just buy hardware instead?

[teukon]

Exchanges already apply those directives, well, at least Bitstamp does.

It would be nice not just AML/KYC but also insurance and proof of solvency, AML/KYC does shit when exchanges get robbed or run away with our coins...

This would obviously incur additional costs and expenses for the exchanges that decide positively on insurance or agree upon external audit. In this case they will have to volens-nolens raise the fees which their clients will have to pay...

A small price to pay for not getting goxxed, vircurexed, GBLed, and many others.

Amateur hour is over!

Study: 45 percent of Bitcoin exchanges end up closing: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-04/26/large-bitcoin-exchanges-attacks

That's your opinion.  Can you not be content to patronise those exchanges which actively invite proof of solvency and insurance?  Must you work towards forcing your model of the ideal exchange on everyone else?

True, but wouldn't a decentralized exchange fix issue tho? In any case im not leaving a single satoshi in any of the exchanges even if I trust them (like Poloniex). Unfortunately I cant do day trading because of the fear.

How does a decentralized exchange work?

I also have serious trust issues.

I do some trading but, but I only left a small value on exchanges for daytrading, usually less than 0.5 BTC.

If people have trust issues with decentralised exchanges or completely unregulated exchanges then they will favour the exchanges which provide a safer, highly regulated environment.  If many people feel this way then such exchanges will thrive, while the sketchy exchanges will remain illiquid and collapse regularly.

All government regulations achieve here is to remove some freedom from the people.  People are being denied the freedom to experiment.  This is defended as: "The people should not be allowed to experiment and fail" but what is left unsaid is: "The people should not be allowed to experiment and succeed".

If you feel that when you know better than other people how they should handle their money and further that you have a moral duty to control these people for their own good then we're opposed in principle and will likely never agree.

[pedrog]

That's your opinion.  Can you not be content to patronise those exchanges which actively invite proof of solvency and insurance?  Must you work towards forcing your model of the ideal exchange on everyone else?

Not an opinion, it's fact!

Scammers will scam!

If people have trust issues with decentralised exchanges or completely unregulated exchanges then they will favour the exchanges which provide a safer, highly regulated environment.  If many people feel this way then such exchanges will thrive, while the sketchy exchanges will remain illiquid and collapse regularly.

All government regulations achieve here is to remove some freedom from the people.  People are being denied the freedom to experiment.  This is defended as: "The people should not be allowed to experiment and fail" but what is left unsaid is: "The people should not be allowed to experiment and succeed".

If you feel that when you know better than other people how they should handle their money and further that you have a moral duty to control these people for their own good then we're opposed in principle and will likely never agree.

I still don't know what a decentralized exchange is...