Bitcoin: Lawsky kündigt Neuigkeiten zur BitLicense an

XRP Isn’t A Security, Declares Former CFTC Chairman

XRP Isn’t A Security, Declares Former CFTC Chairman
https://preview.redd.it/8yehv8lzsce51.jpg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=69f0a6eb4973a5a9974e42d15709434719a26a81
When Chris Giancarlo was the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission he became a rock-star of sorts in certain corners of the cryptocurrency community, helping establish criteria that eventually led to bitcoin and ethereum being declared commodities, more like coffee or sugar than stock in a company. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission largely followed suit, eventually also declaring that bitcoin and ether, the cryptocurrency powering the ethereum blockchain weren’t securities.
Now chairman emeritus Giancarlo, who was deemed “Crypto Dad” following an impassioned speech he gave to Congress where he credited bitcoin for finally getting his kids interested in finance, is at it again, having co-written a detailed argument published this morning in the International Financial Law Review for why XRP, the cryptocurrency formally known as “ripples,” was also not a security. The only problem is he’s no longer a regulator. In fact, his employer is on the payroll of Ripple, the largest single owner of XRP, whose co-founders actually created the cryptocurrency.
The bombshell paper, titled, “Cryptocurrencies and U.S. Securities Laws: Beyond Bitcoin and Ether,” co-authored by commodities lawyer Conrad Bahlke of New York law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, methodically reviews the criteria of the Howey Test, established by the SEC in 1946 to determine whether something is a security, and point-by-point argues that XRP does not qualify. Rather, the paper argues, like its name would indicate, cryptocurrency is a currency of perhaps more interest to the Federal Reserve and central banks than securities regulators.
What’s at stake here to the cryptocurrency world cannot be overestimated. XRP is now the fourth largest cryptocurrency by market cap, with $5.9 billion worth of the asset in circulation according to cryptocurrency data site Messari. While Ripple was valued at $10 billion according to its most recent round of funding, the company continues to fund itself in part by selling its deep war chest of 55.6 billion XRP, coincidentally valued at the same amount as the company itself.
Not only could an eventual decision by the SEC to classify—or not classify—XRP as a security impact the untold individual owners of the cryptocurrency, but other clients using Ripple services that don’t rely on the cryptocurrency, including American Express, Santander, and SBI Holdings could stand to be impacted positively or negatively depending on the decision. After all if XRP were to be rescinded it would be a huge cost to their software provider. If Giancarlo is right though, Ripple could end up being one of the most valuable startups in fintech.
“Ultimately, under a fair application of the Howey test and the SEC’s presently expanding analysis, XRP should not be regulated as a security, but instead considered a currency or a medium of exchange,” Giancarlo and Bahlke argue in the paper. “The increased adoption of XRP as a medium of exchange and a form of payment in recent years, both by consumers and in the business-to-business setting, further underscores the utility of XRP as a bona fide fiat substitute.”
Giancarlo was nominated to be a commissioner of the CFTC by then-President Barack Obama in 2013. In 2015, he helped lead the thinking behind the CFTC’s decision that bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies were commodities, paving the way for the SEC’s related comments that neither bitcoin nor ethereum are securities. Then, at the height of the 2017 cryptocurrency bubble President Trump nominated him to be Chairman of the CFTC, where he oversaw the creation of a number of bitcoin futures projects, including at CME Group and the short-lived effort at Cboe.
While many blame the creation of bitcoin futures for popping the 2017 price bubble, which almost hit $20,000 before halving today, others have seen the works as a fundamental process of maturity, helping pave the way for more sophisticated crypto-enabled financial offerings. Giancarlo’s last day in office at the CFTC was in 2019, after which he promptly got involved helping envision the future of assets issued on a blockchain. In November he joined as an advisor to American Financial Exchange, using ethereum to create a Libor alternative. The following January he co-founded the Digital Dollar Project leading the push to use blockchain at the Federal Reserve and now it would seem he’s hoping to influence the classification of XRP as he did for bitcoin and ethereum, but from the other side of regulation.
Importantly however, a footnote in the report discloses that not only is Giancarlo and Bahlke’s firm, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP counsel to Ripple Labs, but they “relied on certain factual information provided by Ripple in the preparation of this article.” While it’s impossible to parse what information came from the co-authors and what came from Ripple, the resulting legal argument is fascinating, even if it does leave room for doubt.
The Howey test Giancarlo uses to bolster his arguments is a three-pronged definition used by the SEC, none of which he says apply to XRP. The first prong, is that an investment contract should be implied or explicitly stated between the issuer of the asset, in this case XRP and the owner, in which money exchanges hands. “The mere fact that an individual holds XRP does not create any relationship, rights or privileges with respect to Ripple any more than owning Ether would create a contract with the Ethereum Foundation, the organization that oversees the Ethereum architecture,” he writes.
This does however overlook the fact that OpenCoin, credited on Ripple’s own site in 2013 for creating XRP (then tellingly described as “ripples”), was run by many of the same people that founded Ripple. The original creators of XRP then donated the vast majority of the assets to Ripple, which they also ran, creating a sense of distance, tacit though it may be. The actual data around the creation of XRP was also muddled by a glitch in the code that means unlike bitcoin and ethereum the crucial genesis data is no longer attached to the rest of the ledger. The rebranding of “ripples” as XRP further extended the sense of distance between XRP and Ripple, followed by an aggressive campaign to get media to stop describing the cryptocurrency as “Ripple’s XRP.”
With so much distance between the company that actually created XRP and the company that now owns more than half of it, one would be forgiven for wondering, if there was an implied contract between OpenCoin and XRP owners, does the donation from one group of people at one company to a very similar group of people at another company sever that responsibility? In spite of the sense of distance created by Ripple between itself and the cryptocurrency its co-founders created, a number of active lawsuits alleging securities violations have been filed. In all fairness though, Giancarlo appears to recognize this prong may not be Ripple’s strongest defense and concludes the section, hedging: “Even if XRP were to satisfy one or two of the “prongs” of the Howey test, it does not satisfy all three factors such that XRP is an investment contract subject to regulation as a security.”
The second prong of the Howey test stipulates that there can be no “common enterprise” between shareholders or a shareholder and the company. While refuting both relationships, Giancarlo curiously goes onto to write that “given the juxtaposition between XRP’s intended use as a liquidity tool, its more general use to transfer value and its potential as a speculative asset, XRP holders who utilize the coins for different purposes have divergent interests with respect to XRP.”
Ironically, there has always been a widely held belief that owning a cryptocurrency would unify interests around a single goal: to co-create the infrastructure that lets the cryptocurrency exist and ensure it was vibrant and diverse. Meanwhile, XRP, in spite of its aggressive supporters on social media, is one of the least diverse ecosystems, with the vast majority of serious development being done within Ripple. If XRP owners aren’t expecting an increase in value from the work being done by Ripple, they certainly aren’t nearly as involved in helping build that future as are owners of bitcoin and ethereum.
In a related issue, the third prong of the Howey test stipulates that “no reasonable expectation of profit should be derived from the efforts of Ripple,” according to the paper. Supporting this position, Giancarlo writes: “Though Ripple maintains a sizable stake of the XRP supply and certainly has a pecuniary interest in the value of its holdings, it is not enough to suggest that a mutual interest in the value of an asset gives rise to an expectation of profits as contemplated by Howey.” Again, this strains credulity.
According to its own site, Ripple currently has access to 6.4% of all the XRP ever created. But that doesn’t count the 49.2% of the total XRP Ripple owns, but is locked in a series of escrow accounts that become periodically available to Ripple and Ripple alone. Adding those two percentages together leaves a float of only about 44% of XRP that has been distributed for public ownership. For some comparison, Facebook went public the same year XRP was created and has a 99% float, according to FactSet data, meaning almost all of its stock is in the hands of traders.While Ripple does also have more traditional stock, this distribution shows that Ripple might not be as distributed as it claims.
While it’s perhaps no surprise that Giancarlo would come out on the side of his own client, there’s also plenty of other reasons to believe his argument may in fact hold water. In February 2018, the notoriously compliant exchange Coinbase added support for XRP, something it would unlikely do if it were concerned it might accidentally be selling an unlicensed security. Perhaps most tellingly though, Ripple has also been granted a difficult-to-obtain BitLicense from the New York Department of Financial Services, giving it the blessing of a respected regulator. However, while the license was granted after then-superintendent Benjamin Lawsky stepped down from the regulator, it's perhaps no coincidence that a year later he joined Ripple on its board of directors and is now active in the cryptocurrency space. Perhaps a similar fate is in store for Giancarlo.
Editor’s note: This article has been updated to clarify that Ripple Labs is a client of Giancarlo’s law firm.
submitted by wazzocklegless to u/wazzocklegless [link] [comments]

My thoughts on Ben Lawsky's proposal from the point of view of a startup with no funding

EDIT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_deposit_box
When you store money in a safety deposit box essentially, you, the bank and the government have signature on the box. With the government having final say on seizing the funds.
EDIT: Are we actually securing virtual currency?- i'm not so sure.
Our users backup one of their keys offline and hold the password to decrypt the other one. essentially, THEY are securing it.
So, Ninki Wallet enters alpha testing then, this bomb drops:
(n) Virtual Currency Business Activity means the conduct of any one of the following types of activities involving New York or a New York Resident:
(1) receiving Virtual Currency for transmission or transmitting the same;
(2) securing, storing, holding, or maintaining custody or control of Virtual Currency on behalf of others;
(3) buying and selling Virtual Currency as a customer business;
(4) performing retail conversion services, including the conversion or exchange of Fiat Currency or other value into Virtual Currency, the conversion or exchange of Virtual Currency into Fiat Currency or other value, or the conversion or exchange of one form of Virtual Currency into another form of Virtual Currency; or
(5) controlling, administering, or issuing a Virtual Currency.
In the development of Ninki Wallet we wanted to bring a new level of security and usability to Bitcoin, we decided on a 2 of 3 multi-signature architecture in order to give the user of the wallet ultimate control, provide a layer of services ourselves via countersigning and at the same time limit our exposure in the event of a server hack, ie. even if they get our key, they can't spend our user's funds.
Under the definitions proposed by Mr. Lawsky
(2) securing, storing, holding, or maintaining custody or control of Virtual Currency on behalf of others;
I am not 100% sure, but it does appear we fall into the above category, as do other web wallets
Storing: we technically store 2 of the 3 private keys but can only access one. The other is AES256 encrypted by the user's password via a salted pbkdf2 and using a CSPRNG to generate the IV for the encryption itself. ie. from our point of view we are storing nothing!
Question: Is storing encrypted data the same as storing data? Are we actually storing virtual currency?
Securing: We are definitely securing virtual currency
Transmitting: We countersign the transactions and broadcast them to the Bitcoin network, we are definitely transmitting.
It appears we need a Bitlicense, even if one of our users in Japan sends Bitcoin to a user in New York, we are in breach of these regulations.
Given our wallet can send and receive to/from external Bitcoin addresses, how can we possibly ever comply! Someone sets up a wallet account, provides their address and ID, full compliance etc., then someone sends them money from a Bitcoin qt client running in NY which is received in our wallet, we are in breach!
So, where to go from here:
Option 1:
Exclude US IP addresses altogether
Users can always use VPN to use our service. All it would take is one incident of a NY user using our site, and we are in breach.
Option 2:
Try and comply.
The demands are way too much for what is essentially a project that aspires to develop into something bigger, we are not in a position to appoint compliance officers etc. I mean, get real!
Some of the demands could be automated quite easily, things like reporting transactions over $10,000 involving a NY resident, however we then need to take an address and ID from every user who joins our site- just to prove they don't live in NY!
We are not in a position to do that, i mean, think about the logistics there. All kinds of ID from all over the world.
Option 3:
Give up. Not an option.
Also, I guess once these come into effect, blockchain.info and other web wallets, bitgo etc. will be breaking the law as they currently don't ask for addreses/identification.
Does anyone have any ideas?
submitted by Ninki-Ben to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Questions on Satoshi Roundtable? Not secret, just AMA

Some questions on social media after today's Coindesk article.
Anyone with questions, feel free to ask.
I'm pretty transparent, if you are on my Facebook etc.
A couple points:
Why private? I mentioned on Bitcoin Talk -- there is value in private meetings, just like when people meet at their office or for dinner or a group ski trip. One example: I'm a very vocal critic of Ben Lawsky. Some CEOs might feel the same way but would not discuss it publicly due to fear of regulatory punishment. (I'm not saying this is the case with anyone on the list, just an example.)
Will this secretly harm Bitcoin or work on new regulation? Absolutely not.
submitted by bruce_fenton to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

BitLicense isn't bitcoin regulation, it is a de facto bitcoin ban, coupled with the introduction of a whitelist-based altcoin run by governments but utilizing the bitcoin blockchain.

It's tough to accept, but we might be facing the first attempt at seriously enforcing a total ban on all bitcoin transactions. The fact that it will be enforced simultaneously with the introduction of a government-controlled NYCoin just makes it even more dangerous.
This is probably the first time bitcoin has ever been in real danger of being supplanted by something else. NYCoin might become USACoin, which might then merge with ChinaCoin and EUCoin to become something I imagine will commonly be called WhiteCoin - a global surveillance based currency with a worldwide monopoly on trading legal goods and services.
I think it is important that we realize that the BitLicense is what can best be described as an "attack" - a deliberate attempt to hurt bitcoin users - and we should fight back with everything we have. The fact that Ben Lawsky tricked us into thinking his main concern was to ensure a good environment for startups shows that the people attacking us are not holding back, but are willing to use any tricks necessary to crush us.
I can't think of much that can be done right now, but my best bet is that we need to try to attack the value of this WhiteCoin wherever it pops up, NYCoin being the first. It will be tough, and a boycott will not be enough because this is the coin that big money will be investing in.
Perhaps it will be possible for bitcoin users to force miners to choose between mining transactions for one of the two coins, thus making sure that as long as bitcoin is the dominant digital currency by transaction fees, whitecoin transactions will be really slow. We can be absolutely certain the opposite would happen instantly should whitecoin ever become the dominant currency.
submitted by Rune_And_You to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

There is a 30 day comment period for the current Bitlicense proposal. Unless there are substantial changes, New York will be a Bitcoin dead zone

The 30 day comment period starts next week. Bitlicense, as proposed will force most companies that store customer BTC deposits to block New York IP addresses. There is very little chance that Lawsky will make any further changes to it, so what will this mean for Bitcoin around the world?
EDIT, as a reminder:
This is how the Bitlicense will affect Bitcoin businesses, taken from here:
http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/2aycxs/hi_this_is_ben_lawsky_at_nydfs_here_are_the/cizyqyz
(I've added modifications in light of changes in the new proposal and information that I found was missing in the original write-up)
Entities are considered dealing in virtual currencies if:
.. to any resident in New York. Web services, even those incorporated overseas, must either comply or block access for NY users. (200.2n)
Entities 'dealing in virtual currency' must:
Added:
The (only?) good news: Merchants do not need a BitLicense to accept Bitcoin for a good or service. (200.3c2).
> This post was created for general guidance, and does not constitute legal advice. You should not act upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining specific advice from a professional. No representation or warranty (expressed or implied) is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this post.
EDIT 2, targetpro suggested expressing any concerns you may have about the proposed regs to the NY Dept. of Finan. Services:
submitted by aminok to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Truth you don't want to hear. Bitcoin Price Matters. Grow the fk up.

Listen, I am a Crypto-anarchist. I've read all those books you've read - Ayn Rand, Friedman, listened to the Molyneux podcasts and all that.
And I just went full time on Bitcoin. So yeah I am in this boat with all of you.
But I also worked on Wall Street for many years and all I see is amateur hour in the bitcoin community and people with no fucking business sense.
You want to extend the commenting window for Ben Lawsky to set regulations for NY? Yeah go fucking do that. And watch every startup in the space run out of money waiting 2 years to get clarity while you write your letters of 'truth'.
You want to keep being 'intellectually smart' and go to meetups about Stellar this week, Ethereum last week, Bullshit coin next week and watch Bitcoin startups fail in the meantime? Then go ahead.
You want to keep showing up at Bitcoin conferences spewing your bullshit to make yourself sound hard saying stuff like "Ethereum is Bitcoin 2.0. I see a world of many successful altcoins each with their own purpose" or "I will die defending freedom and I don't care how much it costs me, I will never get in bed with those evil regulators" Go right on ahead.
But remember this: Currencies are winner take alls. The only reason we have many different 'healthy' fiats is because these countries all have a military to defend their own paper. That's why GBP, USD, EUR, CNY etc can coexist for now.
In Crypto space however, there are no borders or guards. You can freely switch from one coin to another. That means 1 crypto will win and only 1. If you spend any time or money on altcoins, it means you either don't understand how money works, or you have left Bitcoin. The first thing you should say then to other people you see at a Stellar meetup is "My name is Bob. I hate fiat and I hate Bitcoin." You can't believe both Bitcoin and Stellar can have monetary value. Believing that just shows you're an amateur. Stripe, you're anti-Bitcoin.
Here's my message to you all: Stop fucking supporting 18 year old engineers with no idea of how money works who come up with fancy new features for some new bullshit Ethereum coin. Stop thinking it's fun and funny to get some Doge. Stop thinking somehow that because Stellar is being distributed in a more fair way than Ripple that it's going to end up being worth any monetary value. If you trade on an exchange that also supports litecoin, that means they have no idea what they are doing.
Bitcoiners and Altcoiners are enemies not friends. If you want to convince me your Ethereum is 2.0, then show me your skills by breaking Bitcoin first. Otherwise, you are a supporter of the state. You are as big a harm to Bitcoin as anybody in government. The people that should be giving you Bitcoin for Ether are the corrupt politicians.
Bitcoin's Price is why there is even a conference for you to get paid to speak at. Bitcoin's Price is what pays your salary at your startup. Bitcoin's Price is the only reason VCs have poured money in.
If you believed in Bitcoin, you'd let the regulators pass whatever they want - paying no attention to them. If you believed in Bitcoin, you'd let anyone invent their own coin - paying no attention to them. The sooner regulators can help take it mainstream by making it 'safe' the sooner you can get to work finding a workaround for Bitcoin. Letting Lawsky play the delay game means a ton of bitcoin startups will fail.
The only thing you should focus on is 'what can I do today to help the Bitcoin price go up'. Cause the honest truth is unless the price keeps going up, there isn't going to be more jobs, more conferences, more startups, more freedom, more prosperity, more people in this reddit thread. So either help the cause by hoarding Bitcoins, developing for the Bitcoin ecosystem and the Bitcoin ecosystem only, or GTFO.
Nothing else matters.
submitted by btcgrowup to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin 2017 a Comprehensive Timeline

Some of the most notable news and events over the past year:
Jan 3:
Jan 10:
Jan 17:
Jan 19:
Feb 8:
Feb 9:
Feb 24:
Mar 1:
Mar 2:
Mar 10:
Mar 12:
Mar 14:
Mar 15:
Mar 23:
Mar 28:
Apr 1:
Apr 5:
Apr 6:
Apr 12:
Apr 20:
Apr 26:
May 2:
May 9:
May 10:
May 21:
May 22:
May 23:
May 31:
Jun 2:
Jun 14:
Jun 29 - Jul 1:
Jun 30:
Jul 12:
Jul 16:
Jul 17:
Jul 22:
Jul 23:
Jul 24:
Jul 25:
Jul 27:
Jul 28:
Jul 31:
Aug 1:
Aug 2:
Aug 3:
Aug 10:
Aug 12:
Aug 15:
Aug 17:
Aug 21:
Aug 22:
Aug 24:
Aug 25:
Aug 28:
Aug 29:
Aug 30:
Aug 31:
Sep 1:
Sep 2:
Sep 3:
Sep 4:
Sep 5:
Sep 6:
Sep 7:
Sep 8:
Sep 9:
Sep 10:
Sep 12:
Sep 13:
Sep 14:
Sep 15:
Sep 17:
Sep 19:
Sep 20:
Sep 21:
Sep 23:
Sep 24:
Sep 25:
Sep 26:
Sep 27:
Sep 28:
Sep 29:
Sep 30:
Oct 4:
Oct 7:
Oct 9:
Oct 10:
Oct 11:
Oct 12:
Oct 13:
Oct 14:
Oct 16:
Oct 27:
Oct 30:
Nov 1:
Nov 2:
Nov 3:
Nov 4:
Nov 7:
Nov 8:
Nov 9:
Nov 10:
Nov 12:
Nov 13:
Nov 20:
Nov 21:
Nov 27:
Nov 28:
Dec 2:
Dec 5:
Dec 6
Dec 7
Dec 9
Dec 10
Dec 11
Dec 12
Dec 13
Dec 14
Dec 15
Dec 16
Dec 17
Dec 19
Dec 20
Dec 21
Dec 22
Dec 23
Dec 25
Dec 27
Dec 29
Dec 30
Dec 31
submitted by BitcoinChronicler to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin In 2018

It's February 19th, 2018. I wake up, check my phone. Good, bitcoin is up another 5% overnight to around $18k per coin. The world is starting to come around to the notion of decentralized currency, but us early adopters know there's still more to come. A lot more.
I've been accumulating coins since 2014 with each paycheck. Not to brag, but I've got quite the nest egg. Best of all, nobody knows it but me. No bankers. No stock brokers. Just me and the blockchain.
I shower and get dressed. I take my dog for a walk. The sun is shining and all of the drones are headed to their lousy jobs. My phone beeps. Ha, Roger Ver just tweeted that Western Union is getting bought by Coinbase. Nice.
After a short breakfast I head to the car dealership where I test drive the latest from Tesla. Think I'll wait a bit. After world markets started quoting the price of oil in bitcoin, I don't really sweat the ups and downs of gas prices. Think I'll stick with what I have. Besides, I don't want my neighbors to realize that the scruffy guy next door is one of the richest people in town.
I drop by my office (literally MY office since I own the whole building). Bitcoin is up another 2% on the WU news..sweet! Most of my tenants pay their rent in bitcoin. Every month they each swing by with a Trezor. No need for a shady middle man or bank. Ah, forgot to mention that my office building is actually an old bank. They seem to be closing up left and right these days.
After a little work (have to keep up appearances, right) I close up and head over to the bar. Things are a little slow so I fire up some satoshi dice on the ol' android phone. Too bad IOS fell off the map...such a shame that ApplePay took the whole thing down. Over in the corner of the bar some goobers play video poker. Good luck fellas have fun putting your cash in uncle sam's wallet.
With not much going on around town I head home and watch Rise and Rise of Bitcoin Part 7 on Netflix. Man I love that movie. The part about Lawsky's trial is my favorite part. Afterwards I fire up the grill and cook up some prime steaks from the butcher, paid for in bitcoin of course. I love getting a 20% discount for paying in bitcoin. Just as the delicious smoke starts drifting away from the grill, the neighborhood suckers start coming home from their jobs. Bet you guys wish you hadn't bet on fiat.
Edit: Wow a lot of people think I'm nuts. I'm not saying that every single thing I predicted will come true. Also contrary to the negative comments I'm not obsessed with the price of bitcoin. This is just a thought exercise. It was Dwight Eisenhower that said "plans are useless, but planning is indispensable"
Edit2: Trolls are jumping on my 20% discount prediction. What you fail to understand is that when bitcoin starts to take off people are not going to want to hold fiat because the value will drop. So business owners will have an incentive to be paid in a strong currency and willing to accept less of it relative to fiat. After all why would someone accept something that rises in value on par with something that loses value? Econ 101
submitted by tryBitcoinDude to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

A few thoughts - Monday, August 18, 2014

Good afternoon! A few thoughts for lunch today:

bit_by_bit's thoughts on "social capital"

bit_by_bit made an interesting post on the idea of "social capital," which I thought was worth mentioning here. At http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/2ds548/what_is_going_on_with_the_rise_and_rise_of/cjsmm5q, he talks about the death of his grandfather, for which I offer my sincerest condolences. Having attended the funeral, he mentions how friends and family have caused him grief about his support of bitcoins. bit_by_bit is incorrect in his posts where he writes bitcoins off as "dying." At the same time, if bitcoins were "dying" right now, then my least concern would be about what my friends think of me.
What bit_by_bit says about "social capital" is completely true. If your goal is to make lots of friends, then you can approach the problem scientifically by following rules. For example, a good way to make friends is to talk to lots of people and to never share controversial opinions. Toastmasters has a good template for this in one of their advanced communications manuals; there is a four-step process they suggest on how to introduce yourself to someone you've never met before. Following the process, you can move from talking about the weather to politics to discussing your divorce in ten minutes. I imagine it would be possible to attend lots of parties and use this technique on many people, making lots of people one might misinterpret as friends.
Once you have those friends, then the best way to keep them is to agree with them as much as possible. Some people are shallow creatures and turn against their friends easily. I mentioned the situation with the family member and the damaged property in a previous post, and the core issue in that situation preventing action was the family member's worry of what friends of friends would think should a stand be taken on repayment.
For good or bad, unlike bit_by_bit, I don't worry about "social capital." I worry about whether I treat people fairly and about what is right and wrong, not about how many friends I will lose or gain by taking actions. People who live their lives worrying about what other people think end up with legions of shallow acquaintences, like the people I know who do little with each other except go out on Fridays and get drunk. Even if bitcoins were dead, friends and family members who would make rude jokes at someone's expense are lesser people who aren't worth associating with. Why should bit_by_bit (or you or I) place the same level of credence in what they think as in someone who is caring and treats others with respect? Rather than losing respect, bit_by_bit has actually gained valuable information, because the respect of such people doesn't matter, and because he now has a smaller number of friends who he deserve more of his time and attention.
If bitcoins were to die, I would not be concerned whatsoever about what colleagues or friends thought of my discussions about them. I would be profoundly disappointed that I live in a world where people are so stupid and closed-minded that they were not able to recognize how bitcoins could have improved the lives of everyone so dramatically.

Some comments on the recent decline

sqrt7744 has an interesting comment about the ongoing decline at http://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/2duufu/daily_discussion_monday_august_18_2014/cjti1za. In it, he mentions that markets are irrational and also talks about how the falling prices make it difficult to convince newer people to invest. But I don't think that this selloff is irrational like he does.
One thing that's noteworthy about his comment is where he discusses the impact of Ben Lawsky on bitcoin prices. It's reasonable to make a case that this decline was directly caused by Lawsky's regulations. There are some issues with the timing of that argument, so readers can consider for themselves whether Lawsky singlehandedly caused these declines.
The selloffs during the last cycle every time there was some Chinese news were irrational, because bans in China never represented a fundamental threat to bitcoins. While there are still a few posts that continue to claim the fundamentals have not changed (moral_agent has firmly sided with the people who think that we are still in the previous cycle by not changing his charts), some people in /bitcoinmarkets are finally starting to wake up now. The current selloffs are rational, because they are based on fear of one of the two things that can cause bitcoins to fail: that people simply don't want to use them. The question for this cycle is not whether governments will allow bitcoin usage but whether people will use them, and the cycle won't end until that is proven one way or the other months from now. What happened is very simple: people aren't using bitcoins at the same rate as before, July 24 came without adoption having increased, and people who see they can make more money in stocks and other investments left.
As an aside, I should note that the transaction volume has remained unchanged compared to the number of transactions, so it looks like the increasing number of transactions is a false indicator. Anyone can increase the number of transactions by spending a small amount to send a little money to lots of people. The chart to look at is "transaction volume," which hasn't moved.
My bottom line: I remain bearish, just as I did at every step since $620. This downturn does not end tomorrow or next week and because this crash was caused by a change in the fundamentals, there needs to be another change in the fundamentals before recovery begins. The only exception to this rule would be if the price reaches $150 or some unlikely absurd value in a matter of a day, in which case it would make sense to buy huge even if it is just to make short-term gains.

Redefining "speculation"

I think it's worth redefining the term "speculation" to mean "wealth storage." People who buy bitcoins and don't spend them are not leeches upon the network. In addition to providing liquidity, they are using bitcoins for one of their intended purposes: storing their wealth away from the hands of governments and everyone else so that it is available anywhere in the world.
Spending bitcoins on products and services is only one use of the bitcoin network. People who say that bitcoin is "overvalued" for its current uses based on spending alone are adhering to a very limited view of the network's usefulness. I argue that the most useful feature of the network is its ability to store huge amounts of wealth, and that is even more useful than the transactional features. When we redefine the value of bitcoins to include wealth storage, then we have to also redefine the "basic value" of the network to determine whether it is overbought or oversold.

PETA "changes its mind" about switching to P2Pool

On Friday, PETA changed its mind about switching to P2Pool, stating that its hardware wasn't compatible and that they could achieve lower variance by not switching. Such an action is likely illegal, as over 90% of shareholders voted for the switch. If I owned shares or had any association with them whatsoever, I would be selling and would get out immediately with whatever I can salvage.
The company made headlines a few months back when they announced that they would be switching to promote decentralization, and received huge support (and huge money) from the community. A post on Friday attracted quite a bit of negative publicity, so hopefully people who read it will stop supporting them and the company will pay for its duplicity.

Gavin Andresen makes over $206,000

I wanted to make a quick note that it was revealed last week that gavinandresen makes over $206,000 for his work as a bitcoin developer. I've never heard of a software engineer who makes anywhere close to that much; it's almost three times what I make.
As a genius, this is the one case where I can say that he deserves every cent he makes. Most of the time, you hear about stories of CEOs who earn $3m or $10m in cash and bonuses and stock options - but these CEOs don't actually produce any work for the company. Andresen works hard and actually produces meaningful stuff that advances the purpose of his organization. A company can survive without a CEO, but it can't survive if it doesn't have deveopers producing a product. It's good to see the right people getting rewarded for their work, rather than CEOs leeching off others' hard work.

Other

submitted by quintin3265 to BitcoinThoughts [link] [comments]

Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A.

Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A.
This is gonna be a long one.
"You don't have to know how much a man weighs to know he is fat."
Background:
Altisource Portfolio solutions "Altisource" was spun off from Ocwen Financial in 2009. Ocwen financial is a mortgage servicer. Of all the mortgage servicers, Ocwen is the most cost efficient, best run, and best capitalized. As a mortgage servicer, Ocwen acquires mortgage servicing rights (MSRs). Owners of MSRs collect a small fee from every mortgage payment it is servicing. Ocwen may service a mortgage by handling day to day tasks of servicing a loan, process payments, keep track of principal and interest paid, manages escrow accounts, initiate foreclosure, modify loan payments for subprime and delinquent loans and so on.
The reason Altisource was spun off from Ocwen in 2009 is because Ocwen's Chairman Bill Erbey knew the software division of Ocwen was not being valued properly within the business. Altisource is now incorporated in Luxembourg for tax reasons but it basically does everything a United States company would do. It files with the SEC, gets audited and does almost all business in the United States.
Thesis:
What does Altisource do?
From the 2013 10k-
"Altisource®, together with its subsidiaries, is a premier marketplace and transaction solutions provider for the real estate, mortgage and consumer debt industries offering both distribution and content. We leverage proprietary business process, vendor and electronic payment management software and behavioral science based analytics to improve outcomes for marketplace participants."
If you figured out what they did from reading that, congratulations, because I couldn't. I own the company and I still do not know all of the services they provide. What I do know is that more than half of Altisource's revenue is derived from Ocwen. Ocwen uses Altiosurce's state of the art servicing technology to service their loans. Altisource's technology allows Ocwen to be such a low-cost servicer. Altisource only provides their technology to Ocwen and no other servicers.
http://oraclefromomaha.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/1.png
In the above link, you can see the ways Altisource generates revenue. The main thing to know here is that Altisource generates a huge portion of their revenue from Ocwen. When Ocwen makes less modifications on loans, they use Altisource's services less so Altisource makes less money. When Ocwen modifies more loans then Altisource makes more money because Ocwen uses their serivices more. It provides a hedge against parts of their business that may struggle in a recession like any other business. During the natural economic cycle if there is a recession and Ocwen is modifying more loans because more homeowners cannot make payments then Altisource is making more money than they would during good economic times because Ocwen uses their services more. The more MSRs Ocwen acquires, the more Altisource makes.
Ocwen's growth (basically a quick long thesis on Ocwen)
When a bank loans money to an individual to buy a house, a mortgage is originated and an MSR is created. The bank then keeps the mortgage on its books or sells the mortgage to another entity. Perhaps Fannie or Freddie. But what happens to the MSR? The MSR is then sold to a servicer such as Nationstar, Walter Investment Management Corp, or Ocwen. The reason the banks or originator of the mortgage sell the MSR is because they cannot service it properly and/or they would lose money in the process of trying to service it. Because of Dodd Frank, banks are trying to get MSRs off their books even faster because they cannot service them efficiently as previously mentioned and because they will have to hold 250% more capital against the MSRs. All banks are moving away from owning MSRs and non-bank servicing is becoming a larger industry, and Ocwen is leading the way. Due to the high supply of MSRs that are wanting to be sold by banks the MSRs can currently be bought at a 20-30% yield. Ocwen can buy the most MSRs because they are the best capitalized and they use the most conservative balance sheet. Ocwen being the lowest cost operator provides them with a huge competitive advantage when bidding for MSRs as well. Ocwen will continue to lead the non-bank servicers in buying MSRs. Ocwen currently has $464 billion of unpaid principle balance of loans they are servicing and another trillion dollars of subprime (Ocwen specializes in subprime) UPB is expected to get into the hands of non bank servicers by 2018 (3-4 trillion in UPB of regular MSRs). Ocwen will get the most of that trillion dollars of UPB of any servicer because of their competitive advantages.
Another competitive advantage of Ocwen is their relationship Home Loan Servicing Solutions Ltd. HLSS was also created by Bill Erbey. HLSS provides the capital for Ocwen to service loans so Ocwen does not have to tie up their capital. In the future, HLSS will acquire more loans and allow Ocwen to sub-service them through a unique financing strategy. This strategy called the accretion model is a genius way to get capital for HLSS to afford a virtually unlimited amount of MSRs. HLSS pays a huge dividend and because of this dividend, HLSS trades above its tangible book value due to fixed income hungry investors who want a fat dividend. HLSS then issues more shares above tangible book value to then acquire more MSRs. Issuing shares above book value actually creates value for HLSS shareholders also instead of diluting value as many people would think issuing shares does. Those MSRs are then sub-serviced by Ocwen, who still uses Altisource's technology.
Ocwen is also getting into foreword and reverse mortgage origination so they can have a constant stream of MSRs.
Basically, Ocwen and HLSS are going to acquire more MSRs and Ocwen will be servicing more mortgages. More mortgages serviced by Ocwen = more revenue for altisource.
All MSR transactions have currently been stopped by a New York financial regulator but we will get to that issue later.
Share Repurchases
Up until a few months ago the laws of Luxembourg restricted the amount of shares that Altisource could repurchase. Altisource recently created a foreign subsidiary that does nothing called "MidCo" to hold all other parts of the business so there would legally be no restrictions on share repurchases. Until Altisource did this, they were repurchasing the maximum amount of shares that Luxembourg would allow.
Here is Altisource's entity structure to bypass Luxembourg share repurchase laws http://i.imgur.com/J6LPEc0.jpg
The highlighted dark blue entity will be the entity repurchasing unlimited shares because MidCo, its parent company is not in Luxembourg. How smart is that.
Altisource currently authorized the repurchase of up to 2.9 million shares. 2.9 million shares is 13% of their market cap. They could easily repurchase that amount. Altisource also just finalized a loan with BAC for $200 million to repurchase shares so the share repurchases will really start to kick into high gear with the new liquidity and cheaper price. Up until the sharp share price drop, Altisource was repurchasing for the past several months around $110. That shows the board and management think the company is undervalued at $110 and now it is at $84 and nothing fundamentally changed about the company.
Insider Purchases
During the past 6 months, 3 insiders have purchased at $102, $103, $106, and $120. Between 20% and 43% above current market prices. Bill Erbey also owns 30% of Altisource and 13% of Ocwen. His views are directly in line with other shareholders.
Bill Erbey and his Capital Allocation
Bill Erbey is the Chairman of Ocwen, Altisource Portfolio Solutions, Altisource Asset Management Corporation, Altisource Residential, and Home Loan Servicing Solutions. Bill has done a great job of creating shareholder value for Ocwen and Altisource shareholders. Bill has also greatly benefited from this because of his stakes in thise companies. Before the sharp share price drop due to outside forces, Bill compounded Ocwen's stock at 30% per year since 2002 WITHOUT including the Altisource spinoff which compounded itself since 2009 at almost 75% a year. Altisource then spunoff Altisource Residential and Altisource Asset Management. Every spinoff is a value creating machine. At one point AAMC had compounded 430% in a year and a half, although it was due to a stretched valuation. Bill is dedicated to doing whatever it takes to create shareholder value. He relocated to the Virgin Islands just to save Ocwen some money on taxes.
I once read a story about Bill in his Virgin Islands home and his electric bill for the air conditioning. Keep in mind, Mr. Erbey is a multi billionaire. Bill got his electric bill and saw his costs had skyrocketed due to his air conditioning. Bill then sat there after that baking and sweating in the heat in his home so he could save a couple thousand on his electricity bill. He will do anything to save a dollar.
Hubzu
Hubzu is owned by Altisource. Hubzu is currently an online marketplace to buy and sell foreclosed homes. Like Zillow and Trulia but for foreclosed homes. Hubzu takes foreclosed homes from Ocwen and lists them on their website Hubzu.com. Hubzu is trying to get into the non-distressed house listing like other real estate websites like Zillow and Trulia. This will grow Hubzu at an even faster rate. Altisource states Hubzu gets about 1 million unique new visitors per month. When you buy Altisource you are also buying the jewel of Hubzu. Bill Erbey claims that Hubzu makes "as much money in one quarter as Zillow does in 4 quarters" Zillow has a market capitalization of $5 billion. Zillow's market capitalization is definitely stretched but a spinoff would create a lot of shareholder value even if the market gave Hubzu a fraction of Zillow's valuation.
Why is the company undervalued?
All this greatness in one company so why is it so undervalued? Remember how Altisource's earning were pretty much directly tied to how well Ocwen does? A New York State Financial Department regulator named Benjamin Lawsky halted a $2.7 bilion ($39 billion in UPB) Wells Fargo MSR transfer to Ocwen. This also halted all of the other MSR transactions between banks and servicers. Benjamin Lawsky is probing into Ocwen and other servicers. He states that he wants to make sure Ocwen and other servicers have the capacity to service loans efficiently because they are "growing too fast". The relationships these 5 companies share though is somewhat sketchy. They have a lot of the same board members and they all work with each other and make money off each other. Ocwen is the best servicer of them all though. They provide more loan modifications than anyone else and they have the lowest re default rate.
A slide from an investor presentation shows how they compare to others http://i.imgur.com/YkIKD2O.png
Even if Lawsky did find that some servicers do not have the capacity to service loans then Ocwen would be the last one in question because it is easy to see they are doing the best for their consumer compared to anyone other servicer.
Benjamin Lawsky is doing this for his own political reasons. He wants his name on the news. He wants people to see his name. Perhaps he wants to run for governor or something. Why would he schedule an interview with CNBC about the probe into the mortgage servicers right after it is announced. Why would he send a letter to Altisource and at the same time send it to the press, therefore ruining Altisource's reputation without giving them a chance to respond. He is also really into regulating bitcoin in New York which is just another vehicle to get his name in the news.
There are very recent updates with the regulatory pressure and basically the probing is narrowed down to an issue with force placed insurance and Altisource. Ben Lawsky could not find anything else. He sent this letter on Aug. 4th to Ocwen. So this is what the probe is narrowed down to.
http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/press2014/pr140804-ocwen-letter.pdf
Basically, if a homeowner is struggling to make payments and can't pay their insurance, Ocwen has the right to force place insurance into their payments so the mortgage owner does not incur massive losses if a catastrophe happens. Ocwen has to outsource whoever force places the insurance and the issue that Ben Lawsky was worried about was why Altisource was appointed to find someone to force place that insurance, why Altisource received commission for basically doing nothing, and why Bill Erbey did not consult with any of the Ocwen board before making this decision to allow Altisource to find an insurer.
Altisource will probably get a one time fine settlement and they will go on doing business as usual. I believe this because an almost identical situation happened with Assurant and the New York State Financial Department and they settled for $14 million. There is also an interview on CNBC with someone who talks to the CEO of Ocwen and they are sure that Ocwen and Altisource will just settle with a deal with Lawsky and that will be the end of it.
Interview:
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000298804
Risks Benjamin Lawsky actually finds something else that Altisource was doing wrong. Bill Erbey Dies. He is in his 60s and overweight.
Conclusion
In conclusion Altisource is extremely cheap. Remember that quote about not knowing how much a man weighs but knowing he is fat? That is the case with Altisource. Altisource is definitely undervalued but there are a range of possibilities of the valuation with Hubzu, regulatory matters, growth, etc.
submitted by nomcow to SecurityAnalysis [link] [comments]

A few thoughts - Friday, July 11, 2014

Good afternoon! A few thoughts for lunch today:

Dark Wallet making waves

There's a cover story at Wired today about the Dark Wallet software that aims to completely anonymize transactions. Built on top of bitcoin, Dark Wallet merges transactions through a method known as CoinJoin, making it impossible to trace the destination of funds. The creators state that the goal of Dark Wallet is to make bitcoin transactions completely anonymous.
I like Dark Wallet because it is built on top of the bitcoin protocol. Darkcoin, an alternative system that aims to accomplish the same thing, is more centralized (it has masternodes). Darkcoin also suffers from the simple fact that it is an altcoin, which is reason enough to believe that it is unlikely to succeed.
Dark Wallet's success is more likely, because it theoretically could be used interchangably with the existing protocol. Since money flows over bitcoin and there are no colored coins representing larger values, a Dark Wallet coin is worth the same as a bitcoin. Should people start to use Dark Wallet, I predict that the Dark Wallet protocol becomes implemented by all major providers within a year of that. Should that happen, Dark Wallet will eventually become the default protocol, since traditional bitcoin has no advantages over Dark Wallet (who doesn't want to protect their privacy?) We could see it integrated into the reference client, just as the reference client uses new change addresses now to protect privacy. Ironically, the only use the non-Dark Wallet protocol would have then is for transparency purposes like proofs of reserve and huge bank transfers, so that straight bitcoin suddenly goes from the evil anonymous currency to the transparency enforcer.
Pay attention to Dark Wallet. Because it is not an altcoin, and because it is so interchangable with straight bitcoin, it could eventually become the standard protocol should people start using it.

The difference between good news and actual products

I wonder if some of the discrepency between actual prices and the amount of good news that seemingly appears is because much of the good news is not actually what it seems. I was surprised to discover this morning, for example, that 1-800-flowers isn't actually accepting bitcoins. They only announced that they will be doing so later in the year, which adds them to a string of companies which stated they would be accepting bitcoins but turned out that only a small segment of the business was doing so, or that these companies' bitcoin acceptance wasn't live yet.
It's also worth considering that many press releases have no real product behind them. Circle, which issued a release in mid-May, said that they were going to allow people to buy bitcoins with a credit card for no charge. Two months later, we have yet to hear a single person who has been accepted into their beta testing program.
Therefore, I propose that one reason that good news has little effect on the markets is that it isn't actually good news. Perhaps the big time investors who actually make a difference see through the press releases more easily than the people on reddit do.

Why go bearish so early?

Some people questioned why I would have a negative outlook on bitcoins several weeks before we can confirm that this bubble cycle failed to launch. After all, the expected time that this bubble would peak isn't close to arriving yet.
Over the past year, market movements have tended to occur about 10 days before the majority of people on reddit believed that they would happen. You can see this correlation in the crashes and rises last November pretty clearly. I've predicted that things aren't turning out the way many people believed, and that such an outcome would likely produce a downturn (but not kill bitcoins). Because things happen often happen before everyone believes they will, I would imagine that the fallout would occur before the expected timeframe of this bubble elapses.

On the New York regulations

Much has been made about how Benjamin Lawsky's proposed regulations will have a significant impact if they are released in a few weeks. I predict no impact at all.
First, any regulations that are released are not going to be final; they still need to be discussed and approved. Therefore, companies will not be able to act upon them without fear of the rules changing before they are finalized months from now. Second, these regulations were to have been completed several weeks ago, and are still outstanding. As people in /bitcoinmarkets say, it's always coming "in two weeks." Finally, even if these regulations were finalized two weeks from now, there aren't any companies ready to pounce on them. Other regulations like money transmitting licenses, and simply not having the software ready, are greater hindrances at this point to these companies.
Lawsky's regulations are important, but the timeframe in which they will have an effect is going to be drawn out well into the future. When they are finally approved, there probably wouldn't be much splash, since the splash always is made on the initial announcement. Their approval will set the stage for growth, but not until they are finalized and the companies are ready to go.

Litecoins are like bitcoins of the altcoin world

It occurred to me recently that people separate cryptocurrencies into two areas: bitcoins and everything else (altcoins). In some ways, altcoins can be separated into litecoins and everything else.
In these contexts, bitcoins and litecoins share many characteristics. Both were the first, and most widely used, in their fields. Both use proven algorithms and provide a barebones framework, rather than attempting to experiment with extra features like anonymity or using 6 algorithms. Both serve as a reserve currency against which other cryptocurrencies are measured. Both have established uses that people need to hold them for to conduct real commerce. And both can be traded directly for dollars.
This is why I do not believe that litecoins are going away. The idea of "silver and gold" is not a misdirection; the simple fact that litecoins are worth less than bitcoins has made them valuable in a number of instances where eight decimal places of bitcoins is not granular enough. Just as bitcoins' most important attribute is their network effect, litecoins have a smaller, but similar network effect. Convincing people to switch out litecoins for Darkcoins or whatever flavor of the day comes up next will be just as difficult as it would be to convince people to drop bitcoins in favor of some other currency.

Uses for the sockpuppet accounts

It's worth paying attention to flairs in /bitcoinmarkets for unusual activity. One thing those sockpuppet accounts could be used for is to influence the bulls-to-bears ratio. In yesterday's comment, I referred to the "weighted bulls to bears ratio," which is a better metric that minimizes the effects of such accounts.

Other

submitted by quintin3265 to BitcoinThoughts [link] [comments]

Novauri's comments on the BitLicense

Hello, this is Will from Novauri. You almost certainly haven't heard of our company before. We are not planning on releasing it for use until 2015, and we haven't spent a dime on marketing. Still, our team feels strongly about the emerging BitLicense regulations in New York, and I wanted to share the letter we sent to the DFS with the community today.
We already shared our views within days of the proposal being released here, but we've had much more time to craft a formal response. You'll find an abbreviated version below, and a full copy of our letter on our website here.
I know this is a somewhat 'dry' topic, but it's important to the future of bitcoin in the US. Our thoughts on this topic are below. Thank you.
About Novauri
Novauri is a virtual currency startup based in Denver, Colorado and San Francisco, California. Novauri will allow bitcoin users to purchase and sell bitcoin using ACH debits and credits from their bank accounts. The service will be available initially to US consumers in early 2015.
We are different from our competitors in that Novauri will not control the private keys to our customers’ bitcoin addresses. Not only will Novauri never have access to customers’ private keys, but our systems are designed so we will never see private keys in unencrypted form.
We intentionally built this feature into our service as a risk protection measure for our customers. Novauri cannot suffer from the catastrophic failures and massive internal thefts we’ve witnessed at services that pool customer bitcoin and control their private keys because Novauri never has control of our customers’ funds, bitcoin or US Dollars. We feel strongly that this feature is both safer for our customers and cheaper for us as a service provider. Our design requires no expensive security layers around pooled wallets, no insurance for massive, pooled wallets that are vulnerable to insider theft, or regulatory responsibility as a fiduciary holding retail customer deposits like a bank.
Innovation, bitcoin, and concerns about the proposed rules
We believe bitcoin and its underlying blockchain technology is the most significant invention of the century. Bitcoin allows for unique digital information that can exist safely on the open Internet without the protection of a central authority. Bitcoin’s unique combination of cryptography and “hashcash”-based proof of work consensus with an integrated economic incentive to participate in the consensus that also creates an automated, and fully predictable monetary policy is something we’ve never dreamed of before 2009. The applications for this technology extend far beyond payment systems, and have the capability to uniquely identify anything digitally; a possibility that becomes exponentially more exciting when it intersects with other emerging technologies, such as the Internet of things, drone applications, or holograph-based UI and peer-to-peer communications.
That being said, we believe the proposed BitLicense regulation falls short in three key areas:
1) Redundancy with existing regulation, and creates an unfair playing field
Novauri believes that the BitLicense regulation is written in such a way that it will greatly stunt growth and drive innovation to other States or Countries entirely. The regulation contains provisions that exclude existing banks from the rules entirely.
Novauri recommends removing the provisions that exempt banks entirely, and replacing the redundant and overreaching language in these areas with a simple statement: The rules and regulations applying to bitcoin at a Federal level (especially from FinCEN) shall apply to all applicable virtual currency businesses with activities in New York State.
2) KYC provisions and ineffective cyber security provisions are dangerous for consumers
Perhaps the most dangerous aspects of the proposed regulations are the identity verification processes. We’ve already seen the disasters that the data retention provisions in the Bank Secrecy Act have caused in terms of the ongoing identity theft epidemic. Every week another bank is hacked, and more and more personal information goes up for sale on the darknet. We feel that these issues are an unintended consequence of the data retention requirements in the BSA, as well as the decision by certain companies to monetize “big data”. Novauri feels that these are misguided regulations and business decisions, and is vehemently opposed to corporations storing and selling personal information. The economic costs of identity theft greatly outweigh any advertising revenue made by these companies, and the cost to taxpayers in reimbursing billions and billions of dollars in stolen tax refunds each year, to say nothing of the stress these unintended consequences cause normal people when they discover their identities have been stolen.
This issue will be far worse with bitcoin, which features a public ledger. As soon as personal information is leaked, it can be associated with the blockchain and the entire financial history of individuals will be viewable by anyone. As written, Novauri feels the proposed KYC provisions in the BitLicense proposal constitute a potential threat to our National security.
Novauri recommends that the NYDFS delay the requirements around KYC until a more elegant solution evolves that doesn’t risk massive identity theft incidents or violations of personal privacy. We recommend full synchronization with existing regulation, and revision such that an individual’s right to privacy is balanced against the needs of law enforcement. This synchronization should also include checks and balances that are non-existent today.
Regarding “cyber security”, Novauri believes that the regulations are ineffective, as technologies are continuously evolving. Novauri recommends that the NYDFS require businesses that act as fiduciaries for customer deposits and maintain control of private keys to hold deposit insurance for 100% of the value of all fiat and virtual currency deposits. If the business has faulty security, the insurance company can make that determination and increase their premiums. In the event that the business’s security is unsafe, the insurance companies will not issue insurance at all. This is a “future proof” way to ensure cyber security without politicizing the topic or risking that rules and regulations become ineffective and anachronistic with time, as they almost certainly will as written.
3) Failure to create a risk-based system that scales with the risk of the service
The proposed regulation doesn’t differentiate between businesses that exchange fiat for bitcoin while taking control of deposits, those that exchange fiat for bitcoin and do not take control of deposits, or even businesses that exchange no currency at all and have no responsibility as a fiduciary. This will effectively kill all small businesses and startups in the State of New York, and if these rules are used as a model in other States, will drive the industry offshore entirely.
Novauri recommends creating at least two types of businesses under the proposed BitLicense regulation:
Virtual Currency Retail or Investment Banking Providers would be regulated in a manner similar to banks, but Virtual Currency Retail or Exchange Service Providers would be subject to minimal regulation. Again, Novauri highly recommends using insurance as a way to “future proof” the areas of cyber security and KYC provisions.
In closing, given the possibilities presented by this emerging technology, Novauri requests that the NYDFS consider revising the rules heavily, adopting a progressive and risk-based approach that uses insurance in lieu of prescriptive measures, removes duplicative rules and regulations, and gives the technology the room it needs to grow and evolve.
Sincerely,
Will Madden Founder & CEO Novauri, LLC
For a full version of our comments on the BitLicense proposal, please visit our website here.
submitted by MrMadden to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Why Reddcoin is going to the top, part 2

Why Reddcoin is going to the top, part 2
Yesterday I posted part 1 of my article, “Why Reddcoin is going to the top”:
http://www.reddit.com/reddCoin/comments/2bspjm/why_reddcoin_is_going_to_the_top_part_1/
In the first part of the article, I separated the top 20 altcoins on coinmarketcap into three groups, and provided some argument as to why all the coins in the group “Decentralised something-or-other coins” are going to grow slower than Reddcoin.
Today I am moving on to the reasons why coins in the category “Anon currency coins” are not going to be able to keep up with Reddcoin.
Anon currency coins
Ingenious, daring, mysterious... yes. Wanted and desired by your average everyday person? Not really.
Anonymous cryptocurrency projects are and will remain at the fringe. But why? Who is interested in them?
And there are strong indications that the hype bubble is now bursting. Look at the flagship of anonymous coins, Darkcoin. This project has a dedicated dev team and community. I applaud them for their tireless effort to get the complicated functionality of Masternode payments and Darksend working correctly. And it looks like their efforts have paid off. And the code is about to be vetted by a respected cryptographer. So why is the price not taking off? Why does it continue to stagnate and fall? Because Darksend and Masternode Payments have already been priced in, meaning that in the collective mind of investors Darkcoin should have already been fully functioning as planned for a while now. The reason then for the continued decline in prices is that the market is still returning to where it should be after an almighty hype pump.
But there is another reason to doubt the long-term viability of anonymous coin projects: the Darkwallet project, set to launch very soon. Darkwallet will provide anonymising functionality to a Bitcoin wallet, and so as well as being considered short-term or fringe projects, anon currency coins look set to become obsolete in one fell swoop, when the main selling point of all these coins, the fact that Bitcoin transactions are not anonymous, is snuffed out with Darkwallet.
When considering the above factors it is easy to see how Reddcoin has a target audience far, far greater than anonymous cryptocurrency, and also how anonymous coins are likely to face certain significant threats to their survival, threats that Reddcoin will not be subject to.
Of course the above is a general overview of anonymous cryptocurrency. I respect the sincere efforts being undertaken for these projects and readers of this article may know of particular features offered by anonymous coins that they believe will gain traction over the long term. If so I would really appreciate your comments.
The final part of this article comes tomorrow!
submitted by reddibrek to reddCoin [link] [comments]

A few thoughts - Monday, July 21, 2014

Good afternoon. A few thoughts for lunch today:

The market will reach an equilibrium

There are too many laws in our society, so many that it is impossible to live without breaking them constantly. While I don't live in fear, I do get anxious occasionally that someday cops will show up and start questioning me. For example, perhaps someone used my wireless network to access child porn sites without my knowing about it. Or, one of the programs I'm using for my mining pool had a license agreement that unintentionally prohibits its usage in the way I used it. Because I know that it is impossible to fully comply with the law, the best I can do is to minimize my risk of violation as much as possible.
What Benjamin Lawsky did was to cause people to disrespect the law even further. When you make laws that are difficult to enforce and cover every possible type of behavior, people don't respect lawmakers. Some crimes, like murder, are avoided not only because of the penalty, but because people agree that killing people is ethically wrong. However, manufactured crimes like the ones Lawsky is creating are not generally respected by the population and therefore people will willingly take a limited amount of risk in breaking them because they are not ethically wrong.
The state of the market does not change overnight from everyone in noncompliance to everyone in 100% compliance. Instead, the result of the regulations will be a fragile balance that CEOs agree is where the risks are outweighed by the possibility of making money. For example, most people would gladly spend a year in jail to make $1m. It doesn't make sense to spend a year in jail to make $100k, however, as I could do that elsewhere. Therefore, if the business makes $10m and the risk of going to jail is less than 10% ($10m * 10% = $1m) (and nobody is actually going to be harmed by your actions) then it makes sense to operate your business.
Suppose that the risk of going to jail for operating an unlicensed exchange in Vermont that blatantly serves New York customers is 25%. However, maybe you could reduce the risk to 20% by placing a notice stating that New York customers are banned from using the service. You could further reduce the risk to 15% by banning New York IP addresses, and to 10% by ceasing all ties with and punishing users who are determined by be from New York. You could reduce the risk to 5% if you paid $100k to hire lawyers to file paperwork, but at this point your expected value is past the point where your risk of jail is low enough to justify your continuing operations. Therefore, the equilibrium for you (and the market) is stopping before filing that expensive paperwork, but taking the other measures.
Other exchanges might have factors that make themselves more or less likely to be prosecuted, so they will adjust their compliance actions appropriately until they get to the right level of risk their operators are willing to take. This is the same way it works in drugs; traffickers will raise their prices until the benefits outweigh the risks; the prices go up when the government seizes drugs and go down when there are fewer seizures.
The BTC Guild created a rather arrogant drama over the past few days, stating that they were possibly going to shut down, and that they needed to talk to their lawyers, and so on. As the last part of that shows, it might have made sense to actually talk to the lawyer first before plastering what they were going to do if their lawyer told them to do something. However, most businesses are not likely to follow in the BTC Guild's footsteps. Instead, they will remove themselves from New York, and then evaluate their methods for avoiding New York customers. They will settle on the minimum level of compliance to reduce their risks of being fined to justify the money they are making. Since there is only one state trying to assert its authority, Lawsky isn't going to get anywhere close to 100% compliance. I'd be surprised if 50% of the bitcoin businesses took even token steps to get rid of New York customers.

False bubble is over; long period of stagnation ahead

Some people looked to these regulations as being some sort of catalyst. I think that they could have been, had they been favorable to everyone. Remember, the big complaint of banks was that there wasn't clarity in the regulations, not that they needed certain regulations to operate. Reasonable regulations would have made both banks and everyone else happy enough to start a run. However, these unfavorable regulations and the immense blowback against them creates the most uncertainty bitcoin has had in years.
Every once in a while, there is a period of time where everyone waits for something to happen before making moves. I'd say that this is the beginning of yet another of those periods, perhaps the longest one in bitcoin's history. The regulations need to be published, 45 days needs to pass, the legislators probably need another month to make changes, and then there will be another announcement, and even then there may still be more comments. That means that this period of uncertainty will last at least until October.
That means that we are again in a bear market. The bubble was one of those smaller false bubbles. It arrived earlier because many people wanted to get in on the action before the rise. Now, there are months ahead of stagnation and panics, as always happens on the downcycles.
I don't think these rules will take effect this year because even after all the time elapses, there is still more. Even if he does come out with a final version on time, it is likely that someone will sue, an injunction will be granted, and the parties will fight it out in court for some time. Whatever is looked back upon as the catalyst for the next bubble, it isn't going to be these regulations. If it is true that big exchanges like Circle just want any regulations to be passed as soon as possible, then this delayed bitcoin development because the court battle now needs to play out.

What was Lawsky thinking?

Given that the regulations came out of left field, it's worth considering how Lawsky could have been so off the mark. Let's consider the likliehood of some possibilities:
  1. Lawsky was unconsciously influenced by big business. You may remember that he invited lots of big bankers and big names in the bitcoin industry to the meetings he held over the past few months. These guys have lots of money and undoubtedly suggested regulations to him that favor their companies. If this is true, nobody is at fault for what came out of the meetings: Lawsky just listened to the advice, and the people he interviewed didn't know enough about the troubles faced by startups and non-financial firms because they weren't employed by them. The result is that the end regulations will contain exceptions for startups.
  2. Lawsky or a politician supporting him accepted contributions to bend the rules. If this is true, then corruption led him to add things into the regulations even though he himself opposed them. He decided that the political support was necessary for his future ambitions or because he cared more about some other issue on his desk and was willing to "trade" political capital in exchange for that other issue. The result is that the end regulations will be unchanged and most bitcoin businesses will leave New York, or he is sued with a later court battle.
  3. Lawsky is ignorant of how bitcoins actually work. The simplest explanation of them all, Lawsky simply is not well-informed as to how the protocol operates. He created a set of rules that is applicable for every currency that came before, when bitcoins are vastly different and can also function as more than a currency. He had no idea of the number of different types of business models other than exchanges that operate in the state. He also was not knowledgable about how software engineering works. If true, his ignorance led him to overlook the severe consequences the regulations would have on other areas of society unrelated to bitcoins. He was completely taken aback by the reaction in /bitcoin after he posted the regulations, and you can argue that if he were truly informed, he would have announced the regulations through the normal channels to prevent the embarassment of what happened. The result is that the end regulations will be a complete rewrite that is dramatically different than what is proposed.
  4. Lawsky is engaging in a PR campaign. If this case is true, then Lawsky purposely and deceitfully went overboard by placing regulations in the proposal that he knows are unreasonable. He appeared on TV repeatedly and posted on reddit to bolster his credentials and get people to mistakenly trust that he is a good guy before the release, knowing exactly what would happen later. Doing so will allow him to later argue that other members of the Department forced him to add the worst rules, and that he understands small business and supports freedom in open source development. He will apologize for the committee's conduct and then propose new regulations with half as many rules, which still make it infeasible to operate a business in New York. By that time, members of /bitcoin will change their minds and accept these new rules because they aren't as bad and because "they always expected that bitcoins have to be regulated." The result is that crippling regulations are still enacted, with modifications that make them just barely feasible for some types of businesses to comply.
  5. Lawsky is directly trying to suppress bitcoin adoption. If true, while he appears on TV and posts online, Lawsky simply is lying. He just wants to reduce the usability of bitcoins like China tried to do. The result is that the end regulations will be unchanged and most bitcoin businesses will leave New York, or he is sued with a later court battle.
I'm not going to make a suggestion as to which of the five is accurate. I think that more information will come out over the next few weeks to clarify exactly where these rules came from, and it will help in narrowing down what happened here.

Other

submitted by quintin3265 to BitcoinThoughts [link] [comments]

Bitcoin in 2018

It's February 19th, 2018. I wake up, check my phone. Good, bitcoin is up another 5% overnight to around $18k per coin. The world is starting to come around to the notion of decentralized currency, but us early adopters know there's still more to come. A lot more. I've been accumulating coins since 2014 with each paycheck. Not to brag, but I've got quite the nest egg. Best of all, nobody knows it but me. No bankers. No stock brokers. Just me and the blockchain.
I shower and get dressed. I take my dog for a walk. The sun is shining and all of the drones are headed to their lousy jobs. My phone beeps. Ha, Roger Ver just tweeted that Western Union is getting bought by Coinbase. Nice.
After a short breakfast I head to the car dealership where I test drive the latest from Tesla. Think I'll wait a bit. After world markets started quoting the price of oil in bitcoin, I don't really sweat the ups and downs of gas prices. Think I'll stick with what I have. Besides, I don't want my neighbors to realize that the scruffy guy next door is one of the richest people in town.
I drop by my office (literally MY office since I own the whole building). Bitcoin is up another 2% on the WU news..sweet! Most of my tenants pay their rent in bitcoin. Every month they each swing by with a Trezor. No need for a shady middle man or bank. Ah, forgot to mention that my office building is actually an old bank. They seem to be closing up left and right these days.
After a little work (have to keep up appearances, right) I close up and head over to the bar. Things are a little slow so I fire up some satoshi dice on the ol' android phone. Too bad IOS fell off the map...such a shame that ApplePay took the whole thing down. Over in the corner of the bar some goobers play video poker. Good luck fellas have fun putting your cash in uncle sam's wallet.
With not much going on around town I head home and watch Rise and Rise of Bitcoin Part 7 on Netflix. Man I love that movie. The part about Lawsky's trial is my favorite part. Afterwards I fire up the grill and cook up some prime steaks from the butcher, paid for in bitcoin of course. I love getting a 20% discount for paying in bitcoin. Just as the delicious smoke starts drifting away from the grill, the neighborhood suckers start coming home from their jobs. Bet you guys wish you hadn't bet on fiat.
Edit: Wow a lot of people think I'm nuts. I'm not saying that every single thing I predicted will come true. Also contrary to the negative comments I'm not obsessed with the price of bitcoin. This is just a thought exercise. It was Dwight Eisenhower that said "plans are useless, but planning is indispensable"
Edit2: Trolls are jumping on my 20% discount prediction. What you fail to understand is that when bitcoin starts to take off people are not going to want to hold fiat because the value will drop. So business owners will have an incentive to be paid in a strong currency and willing to accept less of it relative to fiat. After all why would someone accept something that rises in value on par with something that loses value? Econ 101
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/2weevu/bitcoin_in_2018/
submitted by desantoos to circlejerkcopypasta [link] [comments]

A few thoughts - Saturday, July 19, 2014

Good morning! A few thoughts for today:

Another Internet rebellion is needed

The last piece of legislation that was this important to Internet freedom was the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), in 2012. Back then, activists were able to get major websites to "black out" their pages to draw attention to the problem, and even asked questions of Presidential candidates in a debate. Eventually, they made the bill so poisonous that nobody was willing to have their name attached to it and the bill was shelved.
SOPA demonstrates that Internet activism can defeat bad laws. If this law is to be defeated, people need to start organizing ways to get attention. The problem faced here that SOPA did not face is that these regulations are being created by unelected bureaucrats, rather than elected representatives. Lawsky and people like him have little incentive to act appropriately because they can't be voted out of office or recalled directly. Instead, members of the other party would have to be elected to the legislature, an effort that requires huge resources across many districts.
Another issue is that the regulations here are purported to be aimed at bitcoins, so ignorant people may not read further into how they will affect all areas of their lives. They may believe that the restrictions in open source software development are fine because they are limited to bitcoins, but won't make the connection that Linux contributors will be forced to exclude bitcoin from their package distribution sites to be in compliance. They may also not recognize that it becomes easier to add more types of software to these restrictions once a precedent is set that financial software development is limited.

Why we won't do business in New York

Some contributors are theorizing on what the most harmful consequences of the legislation will be in regards to "undercapitalized" (that word was used in an article yesterday) businesses. I thought it would be helpful to provide a case study of our pool will withdraw from New York if these regulations are passed.
Note that the reasons why we would withdraw are different than the most dangerous aspects of the law. Here's why we will withdrawal:

Effect of regulations on price

The effect of these regulations on price is likely to be positive, because the people who move the markets are the people for whom this regulation is designed. I rarely, if ever, make recommendations, but I would recommend that anyone who was considering creating a bitcoin product to instead buy bitcoins and hold them until this situation is more settled. The profit potential of simply buying bitcoins is higher than working on a product, at least for now.

Other

submitted by quintin3265 to BitcoinThoughts [link] [comments]

The New York State Attorney General lives in Alternate Reality !

Dear Friends,
Legal Parallel Universe is the first thing that came to my mind when I read this final legal reply.
Pierre says it in a different way:
According to Defendants-Respondents’ response to Plaintiffs-Petitioners’ Cross-Motion for Limited Discovery, they should be entitled to live in a legal world where virtually no one has standing to challenge a regulation involving new technology or new markets, and where no plaintiff ever has grounds to seek limited discovery.
Now that all the documents are filed there shouldn’t be any more delays and as you can read in the rest of Pierre’s brief (which is located: http://www.article78againstnydfs.com/docs/Index-101880-15/17-ReplyMemoLimitedDiscovery/01-ReplyMemoLimitedDiscovery.pdf) we are requesting experts.
Ben Lawsky is a Lawyer and a politician. He is a good one but he is not an economist. Nothing in Benjamin Lawsky background predispose him to lead the NYDFS. It was just the best illustration of cronyism within the New York and Wall Street democratic establishment. His testimony is to explain why he ignored Professor Williams’ comments.
During the hearings on the proposed regulation, Mark T. Williams’s written testimony establishes that Bitcoin should be treated as a commodity, and not as a currency, yet Defendants-Respondents did not address Mark T. Williams’ position. Additionally, supposedly, the Defendants-Respondents conducted “extensive research at analysis” when they proposed the Regulation, yet the research and analysis has never been produced so it is unclear how Defendants-Respondents came to the conclusion that Bitcoin could be regulated by them.
As New Yorkers, we might understand that it’s bad politics to listen to Bostonians professors. We know that our Public University professors might not be the most distinguished but we will settle for one that is been quoted by the Attorney General.
We need to have a professor in economy and the state of New York has so many on their payroll, we are simply asking the judge to make CUNY professor available to us since his conclusions are being quoted by the Attorney General.
The citation to Mr. Krugman’s article was taken from the following passage in DFS’s opening brief: These terms—“medium of exchange” and “form of digitally stored value”—are commonly used to describe financial products and services. See, e.g., United States v. Faiella (observing that “money” in ordinary parlance means “something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment”); Paul Krugman, The Int’l Role of the Dollar: Theory and Prospect in Exchange Rate Theory & Practice 8.2 (John F. Bilson & Richard C. Marston eds., 1984) (noting that money generally “serves three functions: it is a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value”); see also United States v. E-Gold, Ltd. (holding that “a ‘money transmitting service’ includes not only a transmission of actual currency, but also a transmission of the value of that currency through some other medium of exchange”).
Legal scholars might call the Attorney General logic a Legal Parallel Universe. I personally would simply ask what medicine those attorney representing the state of New York are on.
Defendants-Respondents cannot have it both ways -- have the Court believe that Plaintiffs-Petitioners discovery motion should be thrown out just because of the absence of any merit to Plaintiffs-Petitioners’ case and argue Plaintiffs-Petitioners’ petition should be dismissed on an unresolved threshold issue. Either Defendants-Respondents should not have filed their Cross-Motion to Dismiss or limited discovery is necessary on the threshold issue as to the economic nature of Bitcoin.
Please share the date of October 10, 2017 with everyone interested in attending. It’s going to be historic!
All the documents of the lawsuit are on the website here: http://www.article78againstnydfs.com/raw.php
See you on the 10 ! (and don't forget Morpheus waiting for his trial from his jail cell.)
Theo Chino http://AbolishTheBitlicense.com https://www.meetup.com/Article-78-Against-NYDFS
submitted by theochino to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Building a United Platform

No matter which coin you're backing (or how many), the regulations coming out of New York State have large, overreaching and severe consequences for all cryptocurrencies.
You can read the proposed BitLicense Regulations here.
AmericanBitcoin has put together a TL;DR of the proposed reglations
In response, you can read the in-progress GitHub Fork of those same regulations here.
If you'd like to see a quick breakdown of examples of what's wrong with the proposed regulations, I highly recommend you read this comment by MrMadden over in /Bitcoin, which is utterly fantastic.
Instead of standing 'against' these regulations, let's stand for:
The problems, right now:
These regulations are vague in some important areas and could have unintended consequences.
For example, here's a great breakdown from goldcakes (originally made here)
Entities are considered dealing in virtual currencies if:
.. to any resident in New York. Web services, even those incorporated overseas, must either comply or block access for NY users. (200.2n)
Entities 'dealing in virtual currency' must:
The (only?) good news: Merchants do not need a BitLicense to accept Bitcoin for a good or service. (200.3c2).
This post was created for general guidance, and does not constitute legal advice. You should not act upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining specific advice from a professional. No representation or warranty (expressed or implied) is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this post.
submitted by GoodShibe to CryptosUnited [link] [comments]

Member of New York Department of Financial Services posts proposed regulatory framework to /r/Bitcoin. A few buttery finds to be enjoyed

So Ben Lawsky is Superintendent of Financial Services at the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS). He's posted some regulatory frameworks for how certain entities dealing in Bitcoins might function in NYS legally. It goes about as well as you might expect.
YOU HAVE NO POWER HERE
Worship your rulers harder
At least we can rationally discuss the value of debate
Watch out plebeians
If you're looking for some decorum in conversation you might just be a concern-trolling asshole
submitted by lumpy_potato to SubredditDrama [link] [comments]

"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change" - Charles Darwin Have faith, for bitcoin is the evolution we seek.

Bitcoin was borne of Satoshi's labors, a plea for change amongst the oppressed. No longer can you beguile us with your corruptible monetary policies.
Remember that regardless of policies or regulations enacted around bitcoin, that the technology is 100% adaptable to change. It will bend, malleable to the public's consensus on what is right or wrong. So fear not the Lawsky's of the world, crying "terrorism" and "Safety" while only serving the interests of the elite to broaden their conglomerate establishment.
Fear not The Bitcoin Foundation, central in its supposed authority over decentralized technology, for regardless of its actions or intentions, bitcoin will mold and adapt to its needed environment.
The technology will eventually be heralded by the majorities of society as progressive positive change for the betterment of the world. Stay strong and ignore the price. It is not the whims of market speculators that determine the value of technology or utilization, but the incubators of progression, in their basements or VC funded tech desks, changing future economies line by line.
submitted by Cryptolution to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Lawksy's new regulations highlight the twin futures of Cryptocurrency. Whether you advocate for surveillance or fear it, we're all getting what we want.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
"I'm very excited about what the future could hold for this very powerful technology."
Writes BenLawsky, on bitcoin, 4 months ago in his AMA.
He also writes:
"We're hopeful that clear regulations, if done in a smart, modern way, may incentivize some of these exchanges to come ashore (hopefully here in NY)."
These are the words of a man eager to capitalize on the benefits of a new technology. Bitcoin has existed in a somewhat legal grey area, but Lawsky thinks if he can clarify a regulatory landscape then it will remove any uneasiness that interested but hesitant corporations have shown to adopting bitcoin.
In the same AMA where the word "Laundering" was mentioned 263 times, Lawsky was quick to lay out his own agenda on the issue. He's a regulator who staunchly believes that extensive KYC/AML policies will help stamp out terrorism and other forms of financial crime. Transactions need to be tracked in Lawsky's world, and he's more than willing to force the entire population to submit to that maxim in order to catch a few bad guys. He and others have been barking up the paper trail tree for a very long time, and there's nothing to suggest they will ever stop.
Regulatory clarity is an idea that makes sense on paper at least, and it will cause legitimate well-funded exchanges to spring up that submit to these extensive, and expensive, compliance checks. It will go on to cause 50 different U.S. states to create 50 different nuanced compliance schemes that each exchange will have to take into account. Such is the cost of doing business in the U.S. And yes, it will absolutely drive some business out of the US entirely and cause others to forbid american customers from participating.
It's also worth noting that Lawsky is attempting to prevent another MtGox fiasco by forcing companies that hold customers' bitcoin to provide adequate security measures, keep collateral on hand that effectively insures the deposits, and prevent them from holding any profit in bitcoin.
Bravo Mr. Lawsky. You can have your little regulated corner of the world, and the rest of us will be living in ours.
This is simply not the future of bitcoin. No one asks you for anything when downloading a wallet for yourself. No one asks for your permission, background information, or intentions when moving funds from one address to another. No one can freeze or seize the funds in an address you control. The type of rules being proposed here are the last bastion of federated economy attempting to impose control with the best of intentions. But it's exactly those intentions that will drive virtual currency usage away from government influence.
The truth is that effective money laundering control is impossible in the virtual currency world. Broad and intrusive regulation might catch some of the low hanging fruit at licensed exchanges, but users who are determined to skirt the rules can and will find ways around it, and many already have. While institutions and investors are busy sinking enormous sums of capital into the digital economy, others are busy setting up decentralized exchanges and services that fly free of regulatory scrutiny.
In Lawsky's eyes such activity might look like the golden age of piracy again, but this time it's largely a body of good actors operating under the banner of financial privacy. This is a group that is simply fed up with the big brother state. It does not trust 3rd parties, let alone their own government, to own and scrutinize their spending habits
Every modicum of value that enters the virtual currency ecosystem, even through well-regulated and compliant exchanges, increases the effectiveness of a system that operates entirely independent from this scrutiny. On a fundamental level Lawsky and I may agree that terrorism is heinous, but the days when we can trace financial transactions with any certainty are coming to a close. It's a hard pill to swallow, and it probably won't stop regulators from trying to clamp down extensively, but they're going to have to find other means to nab criminals who are engaging in harmful activities. And no, I don't mean more KYC/AML, I'll repeat this again: the more you try to push down on transaction tracking, the less effective it will be.
I firmly believe that virtual currency in some form, is here to stay, it's foolish to dismiss this. It's equally as foolish to think that all fiat currency may crumble overnight or become obsolete. Perhaps one may win over the other someday, but we're bound to see a lot of resistance to the death of either system and they will be living in tandem for a very long time. Lawsky and the regulators may claim some domain over the fiat world and transition points that convert between bitcoin and cash, but the time is quickly approaching when one is able to depart from the fiat world, and never return again.
submitted by TryAgain_NY to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Ripple Expands In The UAE, Ethereum Bonds And Lawsky Joins Ripple 148 XRP Update  Lawsky BFL Responds -- Lawsky’s Terms -- Bitcoin Europe -- Blockchain Wedding Charles Hoskinson on Ben Lawsky and Ripple The Future of Bitcoin: Price, Value, Mining, Exchange ...

On Bitcoin regulations he would like to see put in place, Ben Lawsky said: “We’d like to see consumer protection. So when people entrust their money to a bitcoin wallet or a bitcoin exchange or another service, that we don’t have a situation like we had in Japan last year with Mt. Gox…We want to see sufficient cyber security to prevent terrible hacking, and we want to see enough ... Morgen will NYDFS Superintendent Ben-Lawsky die heiß ersehnten Neuigkeiten zur Bitcoin BitLicense bekannt geben. BTC-ECHO. Krypto handeln $ $ $ $ $ 364.76 B $ BTC 11,446.79 $ 0.60%. ETH 373.94 $ 1.45%. BCH 246.21 $-0.08%. XRP ... Lawsky sammelte sowohl Lob als auch Kritik mit der Ausarbeitung der New York BitLicense, die den rechtlichen Rahmen für Unternehmen im Umgang mit digitalen Währungen stellen soll. Ein Sprecher der NYDFS teilte mit, dass die Agentur feste davon ausgeht, dass die finale Fassung der BitLicense noch im Mai veröffentlicht wird. Jun 12, 2015 - Ben Lawsky is having a hard time winning over the bitcoin crowd. ShapeShift, a Switzerland-based exchange for digital currencies, slammed the outgoing... r/Bitcoin: A community dedicated to Bitcoin, the currency of the Internet. Bitcoin is a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money … Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. Log in sign up. User account menu. 1.0k. Hi, this is Ben Lawsky at NYDFS. Here are the proposed BitLicense regulations. Close. 1.0k. Posted by 5 years ago ...

[index] [17422] [43407] [42041] [44518] [13345] [5033] [41325] [25115] [39982] [38531]

Ripple Expands In The UAE, Ethereum Bonds And Lawsky Joins Ripple 148

www.utilitysettlementcoin.co.uk Free Forum: Visit now and chat with other crypto currency enthusiasts. In 2013 some mainstream websites began accepting bitcoins. WordPress had started in November 2012, followed by OKCupid in April 2013, Atomic Mall in November... 🔴 Dave Ramsey Live: Total Money Makeover, Debt, Crypto, Bitcoin BTC Halving Dave Ramsey Live 65,350 watching Live now XRP will not fail CME Group Comex Rule 589 Facebook - Duration: 1:24:20. Sponsored by http://CoinHD.com Donate Bitcoins to MadBitcoins https://blockchain.info/address/1LAYuQq6f11HccBgbe6bx8DiwKwzuYkPR3 Join the MadBitcoins Patreon... Charles Hoskinson on Ben Lawsky and Ripple ... with Space X and selecting the K value - Duration: 0:23 . Crypto ADApter 124 views. 0:23. Charles Hoskinson on David Schwartz - Duration: 0:29 ...

#