Will this hurt Second Life/its users?
An act to amend Financial and Corporations Codes relating to digital currency
41–50 of 61 posts
Re: An act to amend Financial and Corporations Codes relating to digital currency
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's vague on purpose, as vagueness gives the appointed bureaucrats more power in their rule-making processes. Strict, detailed laws don't give them any extra leeway to make rules that favor rent-seekers and friends.
On the flip-side flexible rules allow for regulatory agencies to adapt and respond to changing conditions without having to wait on a legislative body to get around to updating its rules.
In other words, it turns those agencies into legislative bodies.
Re: An act to amend Financial and Corporations Codes relating to digital currency
#43Can imagine this will be impossible to force with the rise of decentralized exchanges for BTC and ETH like Bitsquare and EtherEx. But still... "The bill would prohibit a person from engaging in the digital currency business without enrolling in the program and would prohibit the conduct of digital currency business through an unenrolled agent. The bill would require a person seeking enrollment to pay a nonrefundable…
Truly fuck this law. Not even sure how they are going to enforce this rubbish.
The usual way, I imagine: by having more guns than you do.
Re: An act to amend Financial and Corporations Codes relating to digital currency
#44I hope this will provide an impetus for the community to organize and stop this.
I hope this will provide an impetus for more tech businesses to diversify their operations to places outside of California.
It's a bit like seeing your best friend in an abusive relationship. You almost want to see it go too far, so your friend will finally wise up and break it off. Almost.
Yeah, organize and stop this. But also read this pamphlet on how to get help from an abused industry shelter near you.
Re: An act to amend Financial and Corporations Codes relating to digital currency
#45If you disagree with the proposed legislation, you can very easily contact your CA Senator and let them know here:
Re: An act to amend Financial and Corporations Codes relating to digital currency
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the flip-side flexible rules allow for regulatory agencies to adapt and respond to changing conditions without having to wait on a legislative body to get around to updating its rules.
In other words, it turns those agencies into legislative bodies.
No, it makes them into regulatory bodies. Would you really trust Congress to legislate the minute details of FDA clinical trials or EPA pollution regulations? How about transportation safety codes or allocation of NSF/NIH funding for basic research?
This is a fundamental feature of most modern democratic bureaucracies: the power of regulators flows directly from the legislature which sets the goals and scope of each agency but it is up to the individuals in each organization, who have spent most of their lives in the relevant fields gaining direct experience, to decide on the specific implementation of the legislators' vision.
Re: An act to amend Financial and Corporations Codes relating to digital currency
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Playing dumb only makes you look dumb. Judges/legislators/basically everyone can see right through this kind of pretense and aren't particularly sympathetic to the "b...but I'm technically correct!" stance.
> and aren't particularly sympathetic to the "b...but I'm technically correct!" stance. That stance is called the rule of law and being technically correct matters. That's the whole point of that court thing. http://time.com/money/4421955/bitcoin-miami-judge-money-laun...
> the rule of law and being technically correct matters
As one of many factors. The rule of law does not suspend human reason and common sense. SCOTUS recently ruled in favour of original intent over a strictly structural in an ACA case, where the later would have meant literally interpreting a likely typo [1].
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/obamacare...
Re: An act to amend Financial and Corporations Codes relating to digital currency
#48So what constitutes a digital currency? I mean, I've heard arguments that BTC is really an asset being traded. Didn't see that Also: looks like proposed fee has been increased to $5000 from $500 (didn't look for other details). Amusing that legalese is essentially similar to code, but without variable declarations (ie, $digitalcurrency := "currency that's traded online, including but not restricted to BTC, etc") it's…
From the proposed law: “Digital currency” means any digital representation of value that can be digitally traded and is used to facilitate the sale, purchase, and exchange of goods, services, or other digital representations of value among its users. Digital currency does not include fiat currency, e-money, or currency value of which was fixed by its issuer to the value of a fiat currency.
So do things like Microsoft points or rewards work the same way? What about stocks/bonds?
I find it amusing that the exempt e-money while targeting "digital currency". What exactly is the distinction?
Re: An act to amend Financial and Corporations Codes relating to digital currency
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the proposed law: “Digital currency” means any digital representation of value that can be digitally traded and is used to facilitate the sale, purchase, and exchange of goods, services, or other digital representations of value among its users. Digital currency does not include fiat currency, e-money, or currency value of which was fixed by its issuer to the value of a fiat currency.
Missing is a definition of what "value" is. My Bitcoin is a digital representation of the bits needed to solve a particular block. It doesn't represent value, but a numerical solution to a mathematical problem.
> Missing is a definition of what "value" is.
Laws typically don't incorporate definitions of words used when they aren't used in a special sense in the law.
> My Bitcoin is a digital representation of the bits needed to solve a particular block.
No doubt.
> It doesn't represent value,
The "X needed for Y" have value to the extent Y has value; I would suggest that there is considerable evidence which might be marshaled that solving Bitcoin blocks has value.
So, I would think that your explanation of what Bitcoin does represent supports the conclusion that it is a digital representation of value, not that it is not such a representation.
Re: An act to amend Financial and Corporations Codes relating to digital currency
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the proposed law: “Digital currency” means any digital representation of value that can be digitally traded and is used to facilitate the sale, purchase, and exchange of goods, services, or other digital representations of value among its users. Digital currency does not include fiat currency, e-money, or currency value of which was fixed by its issuer to the value of a fiat currency.
So do things like Microsoft points or rewards work the same way? What about stocks/bonds? I find it amusing that the exempt e-money while targeting "digital currency". What exactly is the distinction?
> So do things like Microsoft points or rewards work the same way?
Well, they might be digital currency under the definition, but that kind of rewards program appears to be excluded from the (rather lengthy) definition of "digital currency business", which would mean the regulations would generally not apply to them.
> What about stocks/bonds?
What about them?
> I find it amusing that the exempt e-money while targeting "digital currency". What exactly is the distinction?
Again, from the proposed bill at the link:
“E-money” means a digital representation of fiat currency used to electronically transfer value denominated in fiat currency.