41–50 of 62 posts
Say a Craigslist service exclusively for bitcoin. Would the glorious state of Virginia have a problem with this? An eBay auction exclusively for btc? Where service wets beak with $$ only, or also/with btc micro payments? A problem?
One thread: Bitcoin is the future of money
Other thread: Bitcoin is not money, so why apply money rules?
It either is or isn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't even understand the comparison. They were buying (not selling) Bitcoins directly from sellers. Western Union is specifically engaged in the business of enabling people to send money to others.
They were taking money from customers, in exchange for which the customer received some sort of token of value, which could be used as a medium for exchange or reconverted to USD later.
Governments are terrified of Bitcoin and are trying to destroy the value by eliminating providers of liquidity. No buyers, no value. As to some of the comments stating that they have not been "suspended by the state" - that is a disingenuous argument that only a lawyer could love. The state sent them a letter accusing them of violating laws that carry the organizational equivalent of the death penalty, and possible j…
Alternative interpretation: governments couldn't give a rat's ass about Bitcoin, but care deeply about financial institutions (at least, those too small to purchase legislators) actually following the rules. This company is transmitting money, Virginia requires companies that transmit money to be licensed, this company is not licensed, seems pretty straightforward to me. One can argue about the merits of the regulati…
For example: instead of "I exchange 3 bananas for 3 apples" to "I exchange 3 bananas for 3 btc which I can exchange for 3 apples".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alternative interpretation: governments couldn't give a rat's ass about Bitcoin, but care deeply about financial institutions (at least, those too small to purchase legislators) actually following the rules. This company is transmitting money, Virginia requires companies that transmit money to be licensed, this company is not licensed, seems pretty straightforward to me. One can argue about the merits of the regulati…
but care deeply about financial institutions (at least, those too small to purchase legislators) actually following the rules Might want to ask Elizabeth Warren about that one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were taking money from customers, in exchange for which the customer received some sort of token of value, which could be used as a medium for exchange or reconverted to USD later.
It's not a token or store of value. Bitcoins only have value to the extent that others will buy them. There is not a person on the planet that has a contractual obligation to exchange or buy Bitcoins for anything.
Things with easily accessible, live-updated exchange rates have value. We're not talking about baseball cards here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alternative interpretation: governments couldn't give a rat's ass about Bitcoin, but care deeply about financial institutions (at least, those too small to purchase legislators) actually following the rules. This company is transmitting money, Virginia requires companies that transmit money to be licensed, this company is not licensed, seems pretty straightforward to me. One can argue about the merits of the regulati…
Wrong. This company does not sell Bitcoins - they buy them (the state's "initial investigation" - which likely consisted of reading a complaint filed anonymously by a competitor - had this entirely wrong). They are only "transmitting money" in the same way that people who buy things from Amazon or eBay are when they buy products. By your definition, I guess I need to become a licensed MSB next time I buy a replacemen…
Per the FinCEN guidance on virtual currencies [1], " An administrator or exchanger that [...] buys or sells convertible virtual currency for any reason is a money transmitter under FinCEN's regulations, unless a limitation to or exemption from the definition applies to the person."
So, no, the situation isn't the same in the eyes of the federal regulator, and its not really surprising that state regulators whose scope of authority is set by the federal rules view things the same way as the federal regulators.
[1] http://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
but care deeply about financial institutions (at least, those too small to purchase legislators) actually following the rules Might want to ask Elizabeth Warren about that one.
I don't understand what you're getting at, can you elaborate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a token or store of value. Bitcoins only have value to the extent that others will buy them. There is not a person on the planet that has a contractual obligation to exchange or buy Bitcoins for anything.
Bullshit. Things with easily accessible, live-updated exchange rates have value. We're not talking about baseball cards here.
You're right, we are literally talking about the buying and selling of random numbers. However, once again, Bitcoins have zero inherent value. There is no person or organization that has any obligation to buy or otherwise exchange them. They only have value to the extent that others will buy them.
Bitcoin supporters on HN: One thread: Bitcoin is the future of money Other thread: Bitcoin is not money, so why apply money rules? It either is or isn't.