Virtual Currencies Now Permissible ... - Bitcoin News
Virtual Currencies Now Permissible ... - Bitcoin News
Bitcoin Regulation by State (Updated 2018) - Bitcoin ...
Global Bitcoin Regulations
Bitcoinist.com - Bitcoin Legislation
Blockchain Innovation Act heads to US Senate CoinJournal.net
Bitcoin - The Currency of the Internet
A community dedicated to Bitcoin, the currency of the Internet. Bitcoin is a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Bitcoins are issued and managed without any central authority whatsoever: there is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin. You might be interested in Bitcoin if you like cryptography, distributed peer-to-peer systems, or economics. A large percentage of Bitcoin enthusiasts are libertarians, though people of all political philosophies are welcome.
What Bitcoin legislation should we lobby for / against.
I know there was a spate of hearings, but there seems an endless supply of articles to try to digest the outcome. I have an appointment with my Congressman coming up for another matter, but would like to pitch the idea of crypto-friendly legislation for him to back. I've done this before, and it goes much easier if I can point him to a specific measure in the House that he can back or oppose. Is there anything on the docket or in committee in either house of congress that I can bug my reps about? Like something specifically on house.gov or senate.gov? Example:
Bill 31415 - Reclassify IRS like-kind classification to include all concurrency so BTC/DAI transactions are not taxable events.
The Problem with North Carolina bitcoin legislation, and how we can prevent that from happening in California
In North Carolina, due to the enactment of bill H289 on June 30, 2016, the sale or issuance of any payment instruments or stored value primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, or even receiving of money or monetary value primarily for personal, family, or household purposes (including bitcoin or any cryptocurrency) is considered a crime unless you have a permit from the state or fall under one of very limited exemptions. As such, H289 in North Carolina was very similar to California's proposed AB 1326, but the difference was that California's bill failed twice due to overwhelming opposition from both residents of the state and EFF, and H289 (North Carolina) seemed to slip through the cracks and get passed by the Governor despite that the content of the bill makes it so horrible (not to mention unenforceable). Perhaps the only redeeming quality of H289 was that it stated that "For the purposes of this Article, a person is considered to be engaged in the business of money transmission in this State if that person solicits or advertises money transmission services from a Web site that North Carolina citizens may access in order to enter into those transactions by electronic means," so you'd have to advertise a service on a website in order for the act to be applicable to you. However, that also meant that North Carolina residents would be unable to put up a website and advertise that they are accepting bitcoin as payment for goods or services, without running the risk of having someone from the State demand they get a license for money transmission (the cost of which is at least $1,500 for the application, and there are likely other costs for the applicants). Altogether, H289 is a horrible bill, yet it managed to get enacted. So let's examine how we can prevent such a bill from being passed in California. We managed to kill AB 1326 the first time it was brought up, and the actions of people across California, the EFF, the Bitcoin Foundation, and many others, helped kill AB 1326 the second time it reared its ugly head. But despite all this, Assemblymember Dababneh in California plans on bringing a similar bill back in January 2017. So, what are we going to do about this? Really, what are you going to do about this? We can't let the likes of Dababneh create financial censorship for everyone. It's already happened in New York and arguably in North Carolina as well. We have to draw the line here in California or else it will happen everywhere. Here's my suggestion: 1) Don't wait until January 2017, when Dababneh's legislation comes out. If you are in California, start contacting not only Dababneh, but your state legislator now to tell them what you do and don't want. How to contact your California Legislator on this issue As a bit of a backgrounder, it seems there is always talk about the "necessity" to provide certification of one's identity (in a traditional sense, using government-created identification methods) in order to maintain "security" when using exchanges. This notion leads to a false sense of security and actually exposes users to a larger possibility of attack due to the scope of data that might be granted to a service provider in these circumstances. It is important to remember that the notion that a user should provide some form of identity to a service provides absolutely no additional security to that service. The underlying structure of the service remains just as secure or as vulnerable as it was before. And if it was vulnerable in any way, the additional data you provide if you consent to a request to provide identity of some form, means that this identity information will one day soon be divulged to someone else. It may even happen instantaneously before any hack even occurs, due to provisions relating to how third parties are treated in US law. As many people have conveniently forgotten, the passage of the "cromnibus" bill in December 2014 included a sneakily passed provision of financial surveillance which allows the government to basically do full surveillance on any transaction routed through a bank, credit card company, or any associated 3rd party service to which your data is passed in the process of financial transactions, SARs, or any related processes really. This is one more reason why you should not use web-based exchanges, and should not use web wallets also, but rather should use fully decentralized exchanges and wallets which are installed on your computer and give you full control over both the application and your keys (no service, no corporation, no login required, etc.). 1) As a user, who has no control over what the exchanges will and will not do, and assuming for a moment that the exchanges make no improvements in their security practices, you can nonetheless approach the market in a way that will protect you (and your friends, colleagues, family, etc.) simply by using more secure tools. I've detailed some ways to do this in a recent post here. You'll note that the above recommendation doesn't require (if you do it right) that you provide anyone with any identification (with the exception of certain circumstances where there is a dispute which would require moderation, I believe) but it will allow you to exchange one currency for another. 2) Now let us assume that you wish to try to make a dent in what exchanges will do. You can write them of course and encourage them to improve their security practices in different ways, but in reality the number of exchanges and the variation in the security practices each one utilizes would make this task meaningless. Fortunately, with the defeat of AB 1326 (CA), twice, the worst possible legislation (which could have been used as a model for the nation, actually) was stopped in its tracks, but similar legislation may be revived in new proposals in California in January, because in California, legislators do not learn. They understand only fascism, and how to oppress and tax people until people flee the state (which has been occurring in California more or less since 1990 in a process of outmigration). So then, what can you do in the legislative front on this issue? It's actually rather simple. If you are writing California legislators (because CA legislator Dababneh has promised to bring back something like AB 1326 in January 2017), and you should be writing them now on this subject, remind them of the first two attempts they made to pass this bill ended in giant flaming failures, for good reason, because a bill that proposes to add permitting requirements to exchanges, startups / startup accelerators, bitcoin businesses, and individuals, merely for them to use their currency of choice, simply has no chance at passage, ever. Instead, when they next try to pass a cryptocurrency bill (and they will), they should simply pass a minimum security standard that exchanges would have to meet in order to operate. (The requirement would be applicable to web-based exchanges, which function as MSBs and are already required to be licensed in the US by the US Treasury / FINCEN. There's no need for state level licenses... but if the state passes additional legislation, it should focus only on specifying security requirements for web-based exchanges. The regulation or standards would be required for MSB / FinCEN licensed exchanges and advisory (voluntary only) for decentralized exchanges and exchanges that are not web-based exchanges, because there are limits to enforceability of a security standard. This would not require any permitting or fees, but simply setting of standards for consumer safety.) Wait, you say. This would be impossible to set a standard. Each state would want to have its own standard and say that its own is best! We'd simply be back in the same situation as we are now, right? Well, maybe not. Why? Because some of the best minds in bitcoin, including Andreas Antonopoulos and others, have already made some security standards. So those standards could be worked up a bit by the Cryptoconsortium folks who made them, tailored for the purposes of securing web-based exchanges, adopted by states and that could be what the basis would be for protecting consumers. If it proved inadequate (and no doubt any standard will be tested by someone trying to break it) then someone can always improve it. Also, you can propose your own changes to the Cryptoconsortium standards. Here are a couple (1, 2) that I've proposed. (My proposed changes mostly suggest distinguishing between government-issued ID and background requirements for exchange operators, versus standard users of exchanges who should not be required to provide government-issued ID, but rather should be able to utilize pseudonymous or decentralized (blockchainMe / blockchain ID) identification options. Again -- How to contact your California Legislator on this issue Don't wait until January 2017 when Dababneh comes out with his own version of how he thinks you should live your life. Tell legislators now what you want (and don't want) now. Remind them that legislation like AB 1326 won't work and we've defeated it twice -- and that applying new licensing requirements for use of cryptocurrency to individuals and businesses has no benefit for the public. Tell them that security standards for exchanges are what any new legislation in the area should focus on, and they should rely upon experts who have developed open standards such as the Cryptoconsortium model. Thanks for reading this long ramble.
Dababneh, the CA anti bitcoin legislator who tried and failed to pass bitlicense in California three times before being forced out in disgrace, appears to be poised to attempt to return to the Legislature.
I'm a third year LL.B. student at Laval University's faculty of law and I've been looking into cryptocurrencies and more particularly into Bitcoin for an article I must write. I have had an introductory course in tax, banking and securities law as well as in macroeconomics which prompted my interest in the question of Bitcoin legislation. I am aware that some users may be hostile to any formal particular legislation on the subject or any form of government control as part of their broader positions in economic policy and I respect that. I however am of the opinion that some form of legislation should be enacted in order to address some issues that have been made apparent even to to the uninitiated such as I in the last few months. However, in order to insert Bitcoin into a proper legal framework which would take into account its inberently private nature, its potential for innovation but also the protection of the national economy and that of the individuals, it is necessary to agree on the legal qualification of crypto currencies. From what I understand Bitcoins are somewhat analogous in law to the reward points that are issued by gas stations and can be redeemed for in-store items but are not issued by a central authority but rather "mined". It could also be qualified as a commodity in which case transactions would be qualified as "bartering" for tax purposes. It is generally accepted that Bitcoin is used as a currency and is, if not legal tender, at least economically a currency. However, it does not yet provide sufficient security and is not sufficiently stable in value to effectively store value and make it liquid enought so that it can be used to buy goods and services. On the contrary, it is often a better economic decision to hold on to Bitcoins because of the expectation of growth or because of a sudden and important loss of value. In this regard it can be regarded as a form of investment which is consistent with the behavior of the market and some of its bigger players. Even though this does happen with national currencies, the this activity is much more important in the Bitcoin economy which could however be a simple symptom of infancy (when more retailers accept Bitcoin and can pay their suppliers I suspect that the importance of currency trading will diminish) or the result of a design flaw (concentration of wealth in the hands of the founding few) or even simply cultural to the Bitcoin community (which I doubt). It is important to qualify Bitcoin as either a new form of currency that is and should be private because of the inherent transnational nature of the Internet and the new globalized economy, a simple intangible personal property or a new kind of security in order to attach Bitcoin to existing legal institutions before Parliament decides on the basis of alarmist reports that it is one gigantic Ponzi scheme or a threat to the national economy. I would like to get the community's feedback on the following questions in particular but I would also like your thoughts or explanations on everything related to Bitcoin and its regulation: What do you think Bitcoin should be qualified as and how keeping in mind it is unlikely that any government will recognize it as legal tender or will ever recognize it as *libératoire (extinguishes tbe debt). *Regardless of your previous answer, do you think that special legislation should impose obligations to the companies that offer financial services in the Bitcoin industry to provide information and warn future users of the volatility of the Bitcoin economy and the many financial risks involved? *Should there be general obligations similar to that of banks for Bitcoin exchanges and deposit institutions (security, to act in thr interest of their client etc.)? *How should Bitcoin be taxed? *How should large Bitcoin transfers be handled? Should there be a software limitation imbedded in the system (is thst even possible?)? *Should there be a maximum amount an individual can withdraw in one day on the exchange platforms and can such a prohibition be enforced? *Is it possible in practice to create a system that detects market manipulation and can force the reversal of the operations in question? *How should go about making it easier to trace funds in Bitcoin to avoid money laundering and tax evasion? *What should happen to funds that are inactive for long periods of time when it is impossible to contact or even identify the owner? *Would you be in favor of the creation of a fund to compensate the victims of fraud or theft while the funds are held by a third party and which would be funded by said third parties? Feel free to answer this post or PM me anything you want to say about Bitcoin regulation. I will take all your feedback in consideration and will make sure to post the finished article when it's done. My professor seems to think Bitcoin has no use and should be strictly regulated if its economy becomes too large and either threatens the effectiveness of national economic policy or reaches vulnerable people. I agree with the general orientation of his position but I think what Bitcoin needs is legislation inspired by that of securities with regards to obligations of information and targeting companies rather than the whole system or the individual users. I thank you in advance for your replies. English is not my first language so please excuse any spelling mistakes.
Breaking news about Bitcoin Legislation. Search. MENU MENU. Bitcoin. News; Price; Businesses; Acceptance; Technology; Investment; Regulation; Reviews; All Bitcoin News; Bitcoin Hits 5-Week High Ahead of Q3 Earnings Season... There was no major stimulus announcement, but Bitcoin was still able to hit a five-week high on the first day of the week. The benchmark cryptocurrency established an ... Bitcoin ( BTC) Regulation news, research and in-depth posts by BTCMANAGER cover the most current developments in the legal status of cryptocurrencies across the year. Bitcoinregulation.world is here to bring you the different, ever-changing and sometimes complicated Bitcoin regulations from countries around the world. Supporting over 50 countries globally and constantly adding more. Blockchain, bitcoin, and new innovations from the fintech sector are showing that they can improve the status quo, but also advance the concept of digital currency, making it a real contender to ... The legislation detailed these types of records are deemed as “authentic” within business and litigation matters. The state of Arizona has a similar bill in motion which aims to legally ...
Bitcoin Regulation in South Africa - Duration: 5:47. ThankfulAllanThöle 503 views. 5:47. US Assemblyman: Crypto Is a Golden Goose, Regulation Could Save It - Duration: 16:50. ... 🛑 Cryptocurrency Enforcement Framework Announced by the US Department of Justice. Bitcoin in Spanish Parliament: All 350 ‘Deputies of 👉🏾👉🏾Click "SHOW MORE" f... An interview with Trace Mayer about Wyoming and the future of Bitcoin Regulation - Duration: 26:18. World Crypto Network 4,995 views. 26:18. Annie Jacobsen, "Operation Paperclip" - Duration: 57:03 Bitcoin attorney Adam S. Tracy explains the regulations surrounding Bitcoin ATM and starting a Bitcoin ATM business.---A former competitive rugby player, serial entrepreneur, trader and attorney ... Remove all; Disconnect; The next video is starting