Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New York State Proposes Sweeping Bitcoin Regulations

samzenpus posted about two weeks ago | from the we've-got-some-rules-around-here dept.

Bitcoin 121

An anonymous reader writes On Thursday, Benjamin M. Lawsky, the superintendent of financial services, announced proposed regulations for virtual currency companies operating in New York. The "BitLicense" plan, which includes rules on consumer protection, the prevention of money laundering and cybersecurity, is the first proposal by a state to create guidelines specifically for virtual currency. "We have sought to strike an appropriate balance that helps protect consumers and root out illegal activity—without stifling beneficial innovation," he said in a statement.

cancel ×

121 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Translation (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47478935)

"We have sought to strike a regulatory balance so that we can collect taxes from this growing industry without killing the golden, tax-paying goose."

Re:Translation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47479047)

Translation Translation:

"These fucking hookers ain't gonna pay for themselves! fuhgeddaboudit!"

Re:Translation (3, Insightful)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about two weeks ago | (#47479319)

Translation translation translation:

People are a problem. - Douglas Adams

Re:Translation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47479097)

Of course, and so they should. Why should bitcoin be exempt from taxes?

Re:Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47479581)

It isn't and never was. There are also money laundering and fraud laws already in existence.

Re:Translation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47480819)

Because free markets! How are the Libertarians/anarchists going to use their psuedoanonymous monetary system when they decide to go Galt and become the new supermen of the world when the government has got their hand in that till.

Re:Translation (2)

nurb432 (527695) | about two weeks ago | (#47479105)

I would agree, but they tend to kill, cook and eat the goose.

Re:Translation (2)

StripedCow (776465) | about two weeks ago | (#47479205)

"Also, we like the tracking capabilities of these virtual currencies, which is another reason for nurturing this industry."

Re:Translation (2)

MobSwatter (2884921) | about two weeks ago | (#47479247)

Banks: But the banks will lose their control of money and who makes it, we will regulate this out of existence.

People: Go pass ur fiat and always suspect counterfeit paper money elsewhere, and put ur bank interchange withdrawal fees where the sun don't shine.

Re:Translation (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about two weeks ago | (#47479543)

I suspect that someone will challenge this on constitutional grounds as the state coining money.

Re:Translation (2)

DerekLyons (302214) | about two weeks ago | (#47479409)

Anyone with an IQ above room temperature has long known that if Bitcoin was accepted as a medium of exchange it would be treated like any other and subject to the appropriate taxes and has no problems with being so.

Re:Translation (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about two weeks ago | (#47481101)

Part of the idea behind bitcoin is that regulations would be difficult to enforce. Not impossible, because if you're buying Stuff with bitcoins than you still need a delivery address. But difficult. If I want to, say, hide my illicit income, or shuffle funds off to a country under embargo, or donate to an organisation no bank is willing to do business with, or hide a big pile of wealth while declaring bankruptcy, or do some online gambling in violation of a law forbidding such businesses, or pay someone under-the-table to avoid taxes, then it's very difficult to detect - providing a few precautions are taken with disposable addresses and wallets.

Re:Translation (1)

green1 (322787) | about two weeks ago | (#47481231)

Party of the idea behind cash is that regulations would be difficult to enforce. Not impossible, because if you're buying stuff with cash then you still need a delivery address. But difficult.

I could go on, but the point is that none of this is new with Bitcoin. Cash, which has been around a lot longer without society collapsing, has all the same regulatory problems.

Re:Translation (1)

jythie (914043) | about two weeks ago | (#47482343)

I have heard people make the same argument about self reporting taxes in general, easy to lie and hide income, unless you get audited of course. That is where enforcement will probably happen, they are not going to track and tabulate every transaction, but just like every other business and individual there will be a chance of audit. So using BTC will have the same basic risk as any tax avoidance, works fine unless the dice roll against you. It does not impart any significant extra security.

Re:Translation (2)

green1 (322787) | about two weeks ago | (#47481215)

And the appropriate way to treat it is like cash. Can you do untraceable cash deals and avoid taxes? Yes, but it's not legal to do so. Bitcoin is the same. I believe that the law already covers this anyway, technically you must pay tax even when bartering. Will people abuse this? Of course, but no more so than they do with cash today.

The thing is, I don't see why any new law is needed. If I pay you cash to fix my sink, tax is supposed to be paid, likewise, if I trade you supper for you fixing my sink, legally tax is supposed to be paid on the value of the meal. So why do they think a new law is needed just because it's Bitcoin? Do they need to write another law for litecoin separately? How about one for the next currency that comes along tomorrow? There are already laws, use them.

Re:Translation (1)

jythie (914043) | about two weeks ago | (#47482369)

Since there seems to be confusion and disagreement regarding how to treat BTC and other virtual currencies, I imagine all a new law would really contain is explicit clarification of existing laws so businesses and courts have a clear unambiguous base to work from.

Re:Translation (2)

Dan1701 (1563427) | about two weeks ago | (#47483473)

They're doing this because legislators are effectively being paid to legislate, rather than use the existing laws to their best advantage. A previous government in Britain created one new criminal (felony) offence for every day that it was in office, with a significant proportion bordering on the silly, insane or just plain stupid. It is, for instance, now illegal to explode nuclear weapons in Britain.

I do suspect though that were anyone to actually do this, the Victorian laws forbidding the unauthorised use of explosives like dynamite would be used instead, because lawyers tend to conservatism, and stick to what they know works.

The idea that not taxing people would permit them to be more honest has never occurred to any legislator, ever.

Re:Translation (4, Funny)

Yoda222 (943886) | about two weeks ago | (#47481343)

Anyone with an IQ above room temperature

Kelvin or Celsius ?

Re:Translation (1)

jythie (914043) | about two weeks ago | (#47482313)

yeah, but a lot of people believe that if you make something difficult to regulate somehow that makes it legal. Kinda like installing hidden compartments in cars, it does not make transporting drugs and less illegal and advertising that you want to help people break the law does not put your garage in a good place.

Re:Translation (1)

meta-monkey (321000) | about two weeks ago | (#47483149)

That's fine. It will never happen, but it would be amazing if you could pay your income taxes with bitcoin. That's how the banks getcha. You have to use their dollars to pay your taxes, and you can't get around that, which means you always have to deal with the bankers, and they always get their taste. If you could remove them from the equation, that would free mankind.

What would actually happen, though, is you'd still have to pay taxes on bitcoins you received as income, just with the value converted to dollars. Still, nice to dream...

Re:Translation (0, Flamebait)

rtb61 (674572) | about two weeks ago | (#47479669)

Only need one bit of legislation, declare it a ponzi currency, which it is and let the real asset seizures begin.

Re:Translation (1)

itzly (3699663) | about two weeks ago | (#47480293)

If it were a ponzi currency, why would you even want to seize it ?

Re:Translation (1)

Mathinker (909784) | about two weeks ago | (#47480691)

No, I won't bite on the Ponzi flamebait. But <sarc>I'm sure Satoshi is quaking in his boots</sarc>.

Er, reality check?

  • Your "little bit of legislation" is only going to affect people in your little bit of jurisdiction.
  • Except for someone who actually is stupid enough to directly declare he has bitcoin, it is trivial to conceal it, and trade/spend it outside problematic jurisdictions.

Are you one of those who also believe that we just have to pass stricter laws and piracy will disappear?

Re:Translation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47480693)

It's worse than that, actually: It's done from the idea that regulation is "naturally" inherently necessary, and that they are competent to pick the right rules. When the very genesis of bitcoin in large part stems from regulatory over-reach, like with the "anti-money laundring" witchhunts, as if money stinks. It doesn't, but dealing with any money at all has become an onerous task for everyone, moreso for people doing legit things, because of all the fear that it might.

So what this really is, is a push to bring bitcoin into the orthodox fold, and so not good news for innovation or even basic use of bitcoin. IOW, the goose will be kept nearly starved on a tight leash, but neither allowed to roam free nor actually die.

Re:Translation (1)

jhantin (252660) | about two weeks ago | (#47480809)

Doesn't this create an awkward tension between two objectives of lawful authority? On the one hand, collecting taxes on income generated by commerce; on the other, extinguishing that commerce that tempts the wrath of other laws of the land (and with it the taxable income that commerce ostensibly generates).

Re:Translation (1)

jythie (914043) | about two weeks ago | (#47482253)

And what is wrong with that? Sounds like encouraging economic growth.

Re:Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47483477)

It's actually hampering economic growth by introducing deadweight losses [wikipedia.org] . The government is getting more of the goose feathers but fewer are being produced overall.

Interstate Commerce Clause (4, Insightful)

pubwvj (1045960) | about two weeks ago | (#47478991)

NY State may run afoul of the Interstate Commerce Clause which bans them from interfering with the Universe outside their borders.

Re:Interstate Commerce Clause (2)

mysidia (191772) | about two weeks ago | (#47479107)

Yes..... since Bitcoin transactions involve the public ledger and miners which are all stored out of state, every time bitcoin changes hands it is simultaneously interstate commerce and foreign commerce, because the internet itself is inherently interstate.

Re:Interstate Commerce Clause (3, Insightful)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about two weeks ago | (#47479135)

NY has a unique position among states because so many finance-related companies are headquartered there.

Re:Interstate Commerce Clause (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about two weeks ago | (#47480151)

Which is exactly why they are doing this. NY was also the state that most strongly favored carbon credits......why? Because anytime there is something to trade, NY gets a piece of it.

Re:Interstate Commerce Clause (1)

PPalmgren (1009823) | about two weeks ago | (#47481523)

Not really. North Carolina has a ton, Charlotte having the 2nd most financial HQ's in the company only behind NY, with San Fran as a distant third. Both of these locations, even including super-blue San Fran, aren't as meddlesome when it comes to this kind of stuff.

Re:Interstate Commerce Clause (1)

PPalmgren (1009823) | about two weeks ago | (#47481535)

company should be country :(

Already covered? (1)

Eddi3 (1046882) | about two weeks ago | (#47478997)

Aren't there already laws on consumer protection, money laundering, fraud, abuse, and cybersecurity? I'm honestly wondering why they need extra laws to outlaw actions that are already illegal.

If this is about taxes (can't tell from TFA), aren't these business already taxed on their profits like any other business? It seems to me that this is all a bit unnecessary, and likely to drive away people who seek to start Bitcoin based companies.

Individuals are to be taxed too ... (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about two weeks ago | (#47479029)

Its not just about taxing business. Individuals are to be taxed too.

A recent IRS advisory said virtual currency is to be treated as an assent not a currency. So lets say you receive some bitcoins. At some future date you spend these bitcoins. Since these bitcoins are an asset you have to account for their gain or loss in value for the days that you held them and declare a loss or gain on your taxes. In short spending bitcoins has the paperwork overhead of selling stocks, its not like spending dollars at all.

Ex. You buy one coin at $500 and another at $600. Coins are priced at $800 at the time of a future purchase. You buy something for $1,200, 1.5 coins. Using FIFO (first in first out) your basis for the outgoing 1.5 coins is $500 + $300 = $800, and the basis for the returning 0.5 coins is still $300. You experienced a gain of $400 on the 1.5 coins at the time of the sale and that $400 would seem to be taxable income. Apologies if I botched the math, hopefully the point gets across.

Re:Individuals are to be taxed too ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47479661)

Apologies if I botched the math, hopefully the point gets across.

You didn't botch the math, you botched the accounting. Inventory accounting methods such as FIFO wouldn't apply.

Would probably actually use LIFO ... (2)

perpenso (1613749) | about two weeks ago | (#47480047)

Apologies if I botched the math, hopefully the point gets across.

You didn't botch the math, you botched the accounting. Inventory accounting methods such as FIFO wouldn't apply.

No one said you had to use FIFO. You have to pick the coins you are using somehow, FIFO is one of various options. Personally I would probably use LIFO, spend the newer coins first, hang on to your oldest coins. That way if I hold any for over a year they can be cashed out and taxed at a lower rate, long term capital gains. Hopefully, have to check with an accountant on that.

Re:Individuals are to be taxed too ... (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about two weeks ago | (#47480251)

So now a number is magically an "asset" ???

The government has -zero- jurisdiction digital bits, er, BitCoin.

Fuck the IRS and their archaic mindset.

Re:Individuals are to be taxed too ... (1)

itzly (3699663) | about two weeks ago | (#47480299)

So now a number is magically an "asset" ???

Basically yes. Because of the structure of the bitcoin network, some numbers are assets. That was the whole point, wasn't it ?

Re:Individuals are to be taxed too ... (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about two weeks ago | (#47481123)

The government has -zero- jurisdiction digital bits

You think your bank has a little box with your name on it and all your money inside in paper and coins?

Re:Individuals are to be taxed too ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47481345)

I think I worked out where the negative mass is kept.

Re:Already covered? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47479063)

Yeah its not like millions of dollars worth of bitcoins disappeared from Mt Gox without anybody being held to account ... oh wait!

Re:Already covered? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47479245)

Yeah its not like millions of dollars worth of bitcoins disappeared from Mt Gox without anybody being held to account ... oh wait!

That happens with US dollars too. Former NJ Governor and former US Senator John Corzine lost/misplaced hundreds of millions of dollars at the financial company that he ran. He did not go to jail. Of course it helps to be a leading Democrat and friend of the President of the United States. He was on Obama's short list for a cabinet position and Obama had publicly cited Corzine as one of his best allies in the Senate. For some reason the US Justice department didn't feel a need to send him to jail.

Re:Already covered? (1)

Smauler (915644) | about two weeks ago | (#47479491)

Who modded this AC up?

If there's one thing I'm sick of with slashdot, it's the constant party bickering. Yes, we understand Republicans don't like Democrats, and Democrats don't like Republicans. We get it.

If there are political points to be made (like there are in this story), make them about the story, not some obscure deal someone else made.

Or better yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47479629)

Make the salient point without putting in the (D) or (R), and let the reader discover it and be enraged themselves when they research it on their own.

Bipartisan infuriation can be generated by allowing them to discover the root causes of the offense during their own reading rather than you telling them and them dismissing it as a partisan rant.

Quite frankly anyone who's still cheering for either the Democrats or Republicans at this point should probably be interned and then shot as a traitor to the country, along with all the officials they have elected, past and present.

If you want to clean up a mess like we have the easiest way to excise the cancer. And that may mean losing a few 'healthy' cells along with the sick. Although if they voted either D or R they're probably not that healthy to begin with.

Re:Already covered? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47479657)

What is political about the post?

Someone mentioned bitcoins disappearing and no one going to jail. Someone else points out that this happens with dollars too and offers a very recent example. The example includes the apparent reason why no one went to jail.

Just because the parties involved happened to be power politicians in one political party does not make the post inherently political. The post offered a concrete parallel and example of exactly what the original poster mentioned.

If anyone is being political is you? Can't mention financial corruption in a post about financial corruption if politicians are involved, only CEOs are allowed to be mentioned.

Re:Already covered? (1)

jythie (914043) | about two weeks ago | (#47482411)

There will always be corruption and favoritism, but it is still better to have a framework for addressing misdeeds then simply leaving it at 'well, rich people will get away with it anyway, so why bother making it illegal?'

Re:Already covered? (1)

meta-monkey (321000) | about two weeks ago | (#47483179)

John Corzine lost/misplaced hundreds of millions of dollars

He should check his other trousers.

Merchants do not need to touch bitcoins ... (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about two weeks ago | (#47479081)

... likely to drive away people who seek to start Bitcoin based companies.

A business can accept bitcoins for payment and never touch a bitcoin nor ever be at risk for price fluctuations.

Various exchanges provide merchant services where a merchant gives sale info to the exchange, the exchange converts the dollar amount to bitcoins and provides the merchant with the converted amount and a bitcoin payment address (one belonging to the exchange). The customer essentially makes the bitcoin payment to the exchange. When the exchange confirms the payment they credit the merchant's account with the exact amount of dollars that the merchant originally specified regardless of any fluctuation in bitcoin's exchange rate.

A business need never touch a bitcoin. They can continue to price in dollars, do all their accounting in dollars, never have to show a bitcoin on their federal or state taxes, etc.

Re:Merchants do not need to touch bitcoins ... (1)

Eddi3 (1046882) | about two weeks ago | (#47479159)

I'm not sure how that's relevant to my point. I was talking about Bitcoin based businesses such as exchanges, mixers, etc.

If you have a company that sells computer parts, but accepts Bitcoin via a third party merchant service among other payment methods, I would think they aren't directly subject to these regulations and certainly aren't reliant upon Bitcoin to survive. Perhaps the third party would have to charge more for the transfer if they were based in NY.

Re:Already covered? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about two weeks ago | (#47479315)

Of course there are already laws, but if the legislature didnt keep passing redundant laws like this, what else would they do?

And yes its about taxes, and squelching anonymity..

Re:Already covered? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47479625)

Aren't there already laws on consumer protection, money laundering, fraud, abuse, and cybersecurity? I'm honestly wondering why they need extra laws to outlaw actions that are already illegal.

These regulation seem to be mostly about keeping records and implementing extra protections for the users. E.g., you must keep records off your transactions, you must keep enough funds of hands to remain solvent.

So with these regulations, they can take legal action as soon as an exchange are underreserved, instead of suing after they have run off with your money.

Similarly, money laundering is already illegal, but these regulations strengthen the requirements to keep records and do due diligence, which means that failing to do would be 1. really fishy, and 2. illegal in itself.

Re:Already covered? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about two weeks ago | (#47482027)

Aren't there already laws on ... money laundering

Yes, and they need to be repealed.

Does New York have the authority to do this? (2)

schwit1 (797399) | about two weeks ago | (#47479001)

What could go wrong if 50 states and the feds decide on differing, possibly conflicting regulations. But maybe that's the point - regulate them into obscurity.

Re:Does New York have the authority to do this? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about two weeks ago | (#47479115)

If your within their Empire and practicing "money" changing you may have to:
have some bond or trust account in United States dollars
name and contact information to some expected level of ID standards
disclosures risks.
Anti-money Laundering Compliance and reporting and hire more staff.
and a few other new tasks
Think of it as been a "bank" somewhere that has just got a treaty request from the United States. Have fun filling out the new virtual forms.

Re:Does New York have the authority to do this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47479325)

Your grammar sucks to the point that I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Re:Does New York have the authority to do this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47479631)

In the case of guns, having 50 different sets of laws plus very often different laws in counties and cities means that it is very difficult for someone to own a gun without committing a crime. There are more than 3,000 counties in the US so the estimate you hear so often that there are over 40,000 different gun laws is probably low. This is a good thing, because we want to prevent gun ownership to reduce crime.

Re:Does New York have the authority to do this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47479947)

it is very difficult for someone to own a gun without committing a crime...This is a good thing, because we want to prevent gun ownership to reduce crime.

Just putting these bits together in the hopes that you'll see why you obviously haven't thought your position through.

balance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47479033)

"We have sought to strike an appropriate balance that helps protect consumers and root out illegal activity—without stifling beneficial innovation," he said in a statement.

We'll just see what Taaki [wired.com] and Wilson [wired.com] have to say about that balance...

The Death of Bitcoin? (0)

Irate Engineer (2814313) | about two weeks ago | (#47479099)

Wouldn't this basically be a stake in the heart of what makes Bitcoin Bitcoin - the ability to anonymize transactions?

If that goes away, then Bitcoin value will turn to vapor pretty quickly.

Re:The Death of Bitcoin? (5, Insightful)

Eddi3 (1046882) | about two weeks ago | (#47479119)

Bitcoin is inherently the opposite of anonymous. Every single transaction is forever part of the blockchain, free for anybody and everybody to download, and even compulsory if you want to have a local wallet.

The only way to anonymize your coin is to use a service which mixes up your coins so that it's nearly impossible to trace where they went once they go into the system.

Re:The Death of Bitcoin? (2)

Kjella (173770) | about two weeks ago | (#47479767)

Create a new BitCoin account, transfer some funds there and claim "I don't know whose account that is and I don't remember why I sent money there" and you've got a weak plausible deniability, I mean it's not like I have to keep track of my cash that way, just because I was given a $20 bill with serial number 1234567 from the bank it doesn't prove anything when it shows up in some drug dealer's roll of cash. Or for that matter, that a $20 bill once used to buy drugs is now in my hands. Money kept in secret must be used in secret though, if you pay with then openly it'll expose your shadow account and all the money paid from it as yours all along.

Re:The Death of Bitcoin? (1)

itzly (3699663) | about two weeks ago | (#47480315)

You don't even need to transfer bitcoins there yourself. Whenever you receive bitcoins from someone, have them sent to a new wallet. If you can keep the transaction secret, the bitcoins can be kept secret too.

Re:The Death of Bitcoin? (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about two weeks ago | (#47479131)

That isn't the heart of bitcoin at all.

Fuck New York (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47479113)

Why don't they just change their state flag to the swastika? They couldn't be any more clear about how they want to fuck their subjects.

Re:Fuck New York (1)

mark-t (151149) | about two weeks ago | (#47479887)

Why is an invocation of Godwin modded as insightful?

Re:Fuck New York (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47480171)

The swastika is a symbol of peace. The star of David however...

Bitcoin Brought Down To Earth. (1)

westlake (615356) | about two weeks ago | (#47480459)

Why don't they just change their state flag to the swastika?

The one true faith.

The geek's emotional investment in Bitcoin can be frightening.

Bitcoins, which lost 45 percent of their value after skyrocketing to more than $1,100 last year, are poised to tumble further, according to the latest Bloomberg Global Poll of financial professionals.

Fifty-five percent of those surveyed said the virtual currency trades at unsustainable, bubble-like prices, according to the quarterly poll of 562 investors, analysts and traders who are Bloomberg subscribers. Another 14 percent said it's on the verge of a bubble. Only 6 percent of respondents said a bubble isn't forming. The remaining 25 percent were unsure.

Merchants including Expedia Inc., Dish Network Corp. and Overstock.com Inc. have decided to accept bitcoins. A total of 63,000 businesses now take the virtual currency, and people have set up more than 5 million wallets to keep their digital holdings, according to CoinDesk, which tracks its use.

That enthusiasm contrasts with opinions expressed by finance-industry leaders. JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon, 58, has said bitcoins probably won't last as a currency after governments subject them to rules and standards akin to those for other payment systems. Billionaire investor Warren Buffett, 83, has said he'll be surprised if bitcoins last 10 or 20 years.

A Bloomberg poll in January showed investor doubts in the virtual currency as well. Almost half of 477 international investors, analysts and traders who are Bloomberg subscribers were bearish on bitcoins and said they would sell them. At the time, bitcoins traded about 30 percent above current levels.

Bitcoins Can't Shake Bubble Image in Poll After 45% Drop [bloomberg.com] [July 17]

Thanks, but no thanks (3, Insightful)

h4ck7h3p14n37 (926070) | about two weeks ago | (#47479187)

we believe that setting up common sense rules of the road is vital to the long-term future of the virtual currency industry, as well as the safety and soundness of customer assets.(We think the situation at Mt. Gox, for example, made that very clear.)

It seems to me the Bitcoin community has been doing just fine without regulatory "assistance". Sure some people got burned by Mt. Gox, but I'm okay with that being one of the risks if it allows me to avoid government meddling. The State is a hell of a lot more of a threat to me than some shyster like Karpeles.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47479317)

All you have to do is visit /r/bitcoin to see how ridiculous your statement is. Bitcoin is far, far, far from doing fine

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47479383)

What's really ridiculous is your claim that you can accurately gauge the state of anything from its reddit topic.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47479365)

Sure some people got burned by Mt. Gox, but I'm okay with that being one of the risks if it allows me to avoid government meddling.

That's nice, but the people who got burned didn't take it that stoically.
In fact, a lot of them seemed surprised and angry at discovering that putting their stuff in a shady unmonitored site for trading children's online card game cards was a risky thing to do.

Between the scams and incompetence these incidents are so common that I don't know by what measure you could say the community is "doing fine". Though I suppose the scams at least keep up the velocity a bit.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (1)

AchilleTalon (540925) | about two weeks ago | (#47482481)

In fact, that's not nice at all. If the Bitcoin is to be a currency, it should not be viewed as a risky investment or something like that. Otherwise, the chances are null it will become a real player in the currencies market. On another hand, if you are to provide some kind of guarantees to eventual users, you also have to cover the charges for that service.

And at the end, why should someone use bitcoins if they are equivalent to any other trading system? Given the charges to offer some legal guarantees, given the charges to exchange your money into this currency, given the volatility of this currency, why should someone decide to use it in first place instead of any other payment options out there?

Bitcoin is doomed to fail or to become equivalent to any other credit card, direct payment, currency exchange business.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (1)

eWarz (610883) | about two weeks ago | (#47479381)

Aren't most of the bitcoin companies out there foreign anyway? State law isn't going to do a thing for companies that don't operate within the US.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47479499)

Like who? The only ones who matter are Coinbase and Bitpay for legal commerce, and the exchanges for speculation and money laundering.

They can all be controlled effectively by locking down the flow of real money, which shouldn't be hard with a legal ruling.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47479607)

Along with the Feds, they CAN cut those companies off from doing USD transactions with any financial institution that operates in the USA in any form, though. BTC by itself isn't useful at 99.999% of merchants.

Hmmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47479211)

I'm from the government. I am here to help.

Back off assholes

prevention of cybersecurity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47479215)

prevention of cybersecurity? what?

Fsck NY (1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47479287)

This is typical of NY arrogance. Schumer, Guillani, Bloomberg, petty tyrants all. They manage their sheeple, denying them arms, sodas, and freedom from the banking establishment.

NY is a bump on the cryptocurrency freeway.

Fsck NY (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47479603)

According to Fox Newz their new governor is a commie socialist.

Re:Fsck NY (2)

rcb1974 (654474) | about two weeks ago | (#47479807)

Totally. Mod parent up. I've lived in NY for almost 40 years and am so sick of this place. It has become a cesspool for parasite socialists.

Re:Fsck NY (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47479875)

Totally. Mod parent up. I've lived in NY for almost 40 years and am so sick of this place. It has become a cesspool for parasite socialists.

So STFU and GTFO asshole! Don't let the door hit you on the way out, motherfucker!

Oh, and have nice day!

Re:Fsck NY (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47482497)

I wish I could, but I have to stay here in order to be with my children who live with my ex.

Virtual currencies? (3, Insightful)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about two weeks ago | (#47479395)

It sounds so broad as to include my Final Fantasy XI gil, World of Warcraft gold and Star Trek Online credits.

Will they try to tax my Steam achievements too?

Re:Virtual currencies? (2)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about two weeks ago | (#47480183)

I never really got into Bitcoin, but now I have an urge to acquire lots of Dogecoin to make taxday more fun. Such paperwork. So doge. Such write off. Much deductions.

Get a letter from the IRS: Bad Shibe, don't try and doge taxes.

Re:Virtual currencies? (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about two weeks ago | (#47481515)

Use the "Doge" link in my sig to get free Doge.

ZeroCoin: won't need to mix shit shortly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47479439)

These regulations will be irrelevant shortly. While bitcoins is not anonymous the zerocoin protocol is mathematically proven. Implemented properly it just won't matter how you get your money into and out of fiat currencies. Once you've bought the coin the exchange won't know what you've done with it. Want to pull your money out? They won't know where you got it. All they're going to know is how much. That may send up red flags if your pulling money out and not reporting it on your income taxes. However your transactions will be anonymous and any purchases you can can be relatively anonymous. The only problem will be the NSA, but in theory they'll stay out of your business in most cases. Unless that is your an international drug smuggler, dealer, etc.

We do have to worry about the NSA still as they're already overstepped whats legal and it's a short hop to going after criminal enterprises. At this very moment the majority of people are probably not going to be impacted by the NSAs illegal actions. However we already know the NSA has been tipping off law enforcement agencies and instructing the to do parallel construction. It appears to be the case this is exclusive to high profile drug related cases- at the moment. Too much of this would eventually reveal facts the NSA can't afford to reveal about the program. And it's this reason they aren't tipping in numbers.

Re:ZeroCoin: won't need to mix shit shortly (0)

profplump (309017) | about two weeks ago | (#47479535)

FYI: Zerocoin is also a fiat currency.

Re:ZeroCoin: won't need to mix shit shortly (1)

ComputersKai (3499237) | about two weeks ago | (#47479933)

...car jokes incoming...

Work Around (1)

Jim Sadler (3430529) | about two weeks ago | (#47479985)

If NY does this a new type of business will be created in which transfers of cash flow to branches outside of NY and are then converted to or from bitcoins. One could even work this into a charge card in an automated way. In other words NY will have the lead yanked out of its pencil.

They are killing bitcoin (1)

mtthwbrnd (1608651) | about two weeks ago | (#47480391)

The whole point of bitcoin is that it is an anonymous currency which the government can't track. Once it is "regulated" nobody will need to use it! They will find another way to exercise their right to transact in private.

Re:They are killing bitcoin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47480879)

you don't know what you are talking about.

bitcoin isn't anonymous, only pseudonimous. In some situations it might work the same. Against a goverment actor, probably, you have to consider the transaction not private. it is a tool for privacy, its NOT a guarantee.

on the side of tracking you are completely wrong. Actually bitcoin is perfectly tracked. dowload the whole blockchain (20GBs currently) and you can see all transactions in bitcoin history. only pseudonims there. but if you ever manage to give an identity to a pseudonim. not prove it, just infer it with some reasonable plausibility, you can actually see all the transactions in history for that person, and as with a social graph analyse the hell out of it ....

Re:They are killing bitcoin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47481271)

If they are all traceable, where are they going when they're stolen?

Enter Bitcoin 2.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47482991)

If they can't control it, I don't see how they can tax it.

New York is only trying to steal a piece of the pie, and I for one will do everything in my power to disrupt them or anybody else.

Popcorn, anyone? (1)

rebelwarlock (1319465) | about two weeks ago | (#47480657)

Things that get the bitcoin "community" riled up are pretty amusing. Bitcoin is going to be a tax nightmare if you actually bother to file for it. Isn't it subject to capital gains tax in the US too?

PHAWK U NY!!! i hate this state (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47481457)

yes Litecoin & Dodgecoin are better for miners of course.. but an attack on bitcoin is an attack on all digital currencies.

Whos is lobbing this? who's not getting votes next election?

gah..

Can someone please fly more planes into this (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47481933)

joke of a city? Sick of hearing about these authoritarian fucks banning and frisking everything.

Just tax the shit out of it, NY (1)

gelfling (6534) | about two weeks ago | (#47482539)

That's really the only thing you're talking about.

No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47482929)

Sorry New York, but the Internet is OUR domain and we are not going to tolerate ANY encroachment.

The power of regulation (1)

kowala (1707988) | about two weeks ago | (#47482977)

So the regulations that allowed fraudulent investment products( leading to the 2008 housing bubble and subsequently global financial collapse) worked so well. Obviously these regulations will be equally as efficient in *crowding out new industry players*cough cough... Rooting out illegal behaviors and * shafting cough cough* protecting consumers. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=... [youtube.com]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>