Fund Manager Got NY BitLicense 11 Months After Hiring Its ...

NVIDIA is engaged in a proxy war for future of proof of work. They call it "progPOW" and the first target is Ethereum. We must stop it now before it reaches Bitcoin Cash. [censorship] [conspiracy]

I tried to post this in /ethereum, but was censored. My post was immediately flagged and the /etheruem subreddit moderators told me that I should post it in a mining subreddit. I have reason to believe that the Ethereum foundation, some of the /ethereum moderators, and some Ethereum developers have been compromised by NVIDIA through proxy agents/assets.
Since this subreddit was founded in anti-censorship, I felt it relevant to post here.
Furthermore, Bitcoin Cash will be in danger if progPOW is merged into the Ethereum codebase. If Ethereum forks to this new PoW algorithm, its proponents will use that as an excuse to lobby for its inclusion in Bitcoin Cash.
If you are interested in this topic, bookmark my username ugtarmas and read my previous posts on this topic. I will be posting more.
First up, my previous posts:
Archive: http://archive.is/kK1lE
Archive: http://archive.is/ZikY4
Next up, my post that was censored:
Now that my posts have put me on Kristy's Leigh Anne Minehan's radar, she and her various shills have begun to manufacture a smear campaign against me, and have attempted to implicate my company in "just someone else protecting their hardware investment".
I would like to address this head-on. Neither I, nor my company, have purchased ETH ASICs or any meaningful quantity of AMD GPUs. In fact, I bought over $100,000 worth NVIDIA GPUs {invoices}, and I am still arguing against progPOW.
As I have mentioned in my previous posts, progPOW will not stop ASICs, it will only increase the R&D cost of making them such that only the people closest to the algorithm will benefit. How do I know this? Well, because Kristy is already offering consulting to ASIC manufacturers who have already claimed that ASICs can be 8x faster than GPUs on progPOW.
Kristy and her team will have no shortage of work available helping ASIC manufacturers develop progPOW ASICs, and get paid handsomely for it. She has already proposed to work together with Linzhi. She has already worked on ASIC designs for Genesis Mining, Bitmain, and NVIDIA.
Imagine that you are an ASIC manufacturer and you want to complete with Bitmain, Linzhi, and NVIDIA. You do the R&D, which costs a few million. Then, right before you take your product to market, NVIDIA's influence in progPOW destroys your entire company. Now imagine that this happens to all potential ASIC competitors.
Meanwhile, Kristy's team offers paid consulting for all incumbent ASIC manufacturers. What could have been a healthy and competitive ecosystem is now dominated exclusively by a select few. The push for progPOW is nothing more than a cash grab by special interests. It reminds me of when Benjamin Lawsky pushed for the BitLicense bill, then immediately retired from the public sector and went to work for Ripple/XRP to help the private sector circumnavigate his very own BitLicense.
My only hope is that, before the ETH developers decide on forking to progPOW, they look at more than just its technical aspects, and look at the economic aspects. There are some people out that claim we must judge projects solely by its merits, but doing that misses the bigger picture. progPOW would not exist without the team responsible for making it, who stands to benefit massively from its inception.
Onward:
The connection between Core Scientific, NVIDIA, and progPOW (and possibly CSW/Coingeek)
submitted by ugtarmas to btc [link] [comments]

All cryptocurrencies are down... except for Ripple. This seems like a big bank scam to me.

The big bankers are behind Ripple.
Fucking Benjamin Lawsky, the man who nearly destroyed Bitcoin in New York, sits on their board of directors.
Ripple is a centrally-controlled "coin"... it shouldn't even be considered a cryptocurrency.
Ripple owns your coins and they own your accounts... they can freeze your accounts, withdraw money from your accounts, reverse transactions... just like a bank. Ripple has full control.
Ripple handed out millions of free coins to their executives. Talk about the epitome of "pre-mining".
Yet ALL cryptocurrencies are DOWN... except for Ripple?!? (Which shouldn't even be considered a cryptocurrency in the first place!)
Yep... smells like banker manipulation to me.
These bankers are not going down without kicking & screaming & fighting unfairly... just like the bankers have always done throughout history.
The "powers that be" will do all they can to try to stop cryptocurrencies from gaining a foothold. They are using the BCH availability on Coinbase as an opportunity to trash BTC and BCH (as well as all cryptocurrencies) by sowing fear and confusion amongst the masses. Typical of the “old and tired" institutions when the “new” idea comes along.
Fuck you, bankers!
Freedom shall win in the end.
submitted by scotty321 to btc [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]

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]

States put heat on Bitcoin. (WSJ - 6/26 - article cut & Paste for w/o Subscription)

By ROBIN SIDEL and ANDREW R. JOHNSON State regulators are warning virtual-currency exchanges and other companies that deal with bitcoin that they could be closed down if their activities run afoul of state money-transmission laws, according to people familiar with the matter.
According to people familiar with the situation, banking regulators in California, New York and Virginia in recent weeks have issued letters telling the companies that they need to follow the state rules or prove that the rules don't apply to them.
The warnings fall short of formal "cease and desist" orders, which would demand that the companies immediately stop engaging in their business, these people said.
Still, the moves show that state regulators have moved beyond merely scrutinizing virtual currencies and now are taking steps to prevent people and companies from using them for illegal activities. Federal regulators already are cracking down on virtual currencies.
Similar actions are expected from other states in coming weeks and months, according to people familiar with the matter. California, New York and Virginia are three of the 48 states that require the companies to obtain money-transmission licenses to operate. South Carolina and Montana don't have such rules.
The money-transmission rules vary among states, but most require detailed financial data, business strategy and information about the company's management. States also typically require companies to put up a bond that could run as high as several million dollars.
Bits and Pieces
Read about Bitcoin's evolution.
The actions aren't related to the announcement last week that Mt. Gox, the largest bitcoin trading exchange, has halted withdrawals of customer funds in U.S. dollars. The Tokyo company said it was making system improvements.
Unlike dollars or euros that are backed by a central bank, bitcoin users can create the units in a process called "mining." Users also can trade the currency on a number of exchanges or swap it privately.
The state actions come three months after federal regulators issued guidelines placing virtual-currency exchanges under the same comprehensive anti-money-laundering requirements as traditional money-transmission businesses such as Western Union Co. Since then, a handful of bitcoin exchanges have registered with the U.S. Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
The California Department of Financial Institutions has issued at least three warnings to bitcoin-related companies in recent weeks, according to people familiar with the actions. One of the recipients is the Bitcoin Foundation, an industry-backed group that promotes the digital cash.
Patrick Murck, general counsel for the Bitcoin Foundation, said it is a nonprofit organization and doesn't engage in money transmission. The group is formulating its response to the letter it received from regulators last week.
A spokeswoman for the California banking department declined to comment on the warning letters, saying the communications are confidential and "the goal is safety and soundness and compliance with the laws that DFI enforces."
California is particularly important to the bitcoin community because many of the startup companies that are tied to the virtual currency are based there. California and New York are known for having stricter money-transmission laws than other states.
Bloomberg News Bitcoin supporter Peter Vessenes
"Bitcoin businesses are spending a lot of time and energy figuring out how to stay out of California," said Peter Vessenes, chief executive of CoinLab, a Bainbridge Island, Wash., company that has registered as a money-services business with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. CoinLab is waiting to launch any exchange-related services until it gets its "state licensing strategy sorted," said Mr. Vessenes, who also is chairman of the Bitcoin Foundation.
The New York Department of Financial Services issued a similar letter to BitInstant, a New York company that allows customers to buy and sell bitcoins. The company earlier this month alerted customers on its website that it wasn't accepting cash deposits "as we make steps to transition to our new website."
Charlie Shrem, chief executive of BitInstant, couldn't be reached for comment. The company has registered as a money-services business with federal regulators.
"Virtual currency firms inhabit an evolving and sometimes murky corner of the financial world," Benjamin Lawsky, superintendent of New York's Department of Financial Services, said in an interview.
"The extent and nature of their operations morph constantly, so it's important for regulators to ask the hard questions and stay ahead of the curve in order to root out dangerous or illegal activity," he said.
In Virginia, a company called Tangible Cryptography suspended the purchase of the currency through its service called FastCash4Bitcoins after receiving a letter from state regulators who received a complaint that the company was operating as an unlicensed money transmitter, according to a notice on its website. Company representatives couldn't be reached for comment.
Tangible Cryptography said on its website that its activity is exempt from licensing requirements and that the commission's initial assessment contained factual errors.
"While we respond to the commission's notice, the prudent action is for the company to suspend all new transactions," the company said.
A spokesman for the Virginia Bureau of Financial Institutions declined to comment on whether it has issued similar notices to other companies.
Write to Robin Sidel at [email protected] and Andrew R. Johnson at [email protected]
A version of this article appeared June 26, 2013, on page C1 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: States Put Heat on Bitcoin.
submitted by siamesefightingfish to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin could be viable money alternative in 5 years -Lawsky Benjamin Lawsky Keynote - Money 2020 - Nov 2, 2014 - #bitcoin #regulation Q&A - Benjamin Lawsky Keynote - Money 2020 - Nov 2, 2014 - #bitcoin #regulation Ben Lawsky releases BitLicense at the BITS Emerging Payments Forum (full video) Ripple adds Benjamin Lawsky to its Board to help get more Banks to use XRP - Huge Win for Ripple!

Benjamin M Lawsky has rubbished the reports of him offering consultations on New York’s Bitcoin regulatory framework, the BitLicense.. The comments arrived during Lawsky’s first public appearance since his resignation as the superintendent of New York Department of Financial Services (NDFS). Developers, miners and individuals using bitcoin will generally not be regulated by the impending ‘BitLicense’ proposals, according to Benjamin Lawsky, superintendent of the New York Department Financial Services (NYDFS). Speaking at the Benjamin N Cardozo School of Law, New York, Lawsky[1] clarified that many individuals and companies working within the bitcoin space will not need ... Happening Now: Benjamin Lawsky AMA on Bitcoin Regulation. by newsbtc. 7 years ago. in Cryptocurrency news. Reading Time: 1min read A simple reminder that New York State Department of Financial Services Superintendent Benjamin Lawsky has begun to answer questions on social sharing website Reddit.com. The AMA (ask-me-anything), which is taking place here, is expected to focus on Lawsky’s work ... Lawsky: Bitcoin Developers and Miners Exempt from BitLicense. By cinerama October 15, 2014 Bitcoin Politics. No Comments. Click here to view original web page at www.coindesk.com. Ben Lawsky. Developers, miners and individuals using bitcoin will generally not be regulated by the impending ‘BitLicense’ proposals, according to Benjamin Lawsky, superintendent of the New York Department ... Benjamin Lawsky: ‘I’m Doing No Work in the Digital Currency Space’ Articles; Guides. What Is Bitcoin? How To Buy, Sell And Transact With Bitcoin; What is Bitcoin Mining? What Is the Lightning Network? Conference; Events; Store; Follow. RSS Feed. Facebook. Twitter. Instagram. Telegram. Youtube. Linkedin . Regulation Benjamin Lawsky: ‘I’m Doing No Work in the Digital Currency Space ...

[index] [27202] [19819] [2813] [20917] [14071] [2351] [6165] [45028] [43802] [36619]

Bitcoin could be viable money alternative in 5 years -Lawsky

Benjamin Lawsky, Sheriff of Wall Street, is taking off his badge. Pt2 Ripple Welcomes New Board Member, Benjamin Lawsky. Lawsky, the former superintendent of financial services for the state of ... http://www.ThinkingCrypto.com Ripple announced today that it added Banjamin Lawsky to its board. Benjamin is the former superintendent of financial services ... Support http://RRBI.co for sponsoring this show. Buy Silver and Gold -- for Bitcoin! BITCOIN COULD BE VIABLE MONEY ALTERNATIVE IN 5 YEARS -LAWSKY ANCHOR QUESTION OFF-CAMERA (ENGLISH) SAYING: Your agency is sort of actively taking a role in getting the regulations set for this and ... Live Bitcoin Liquidation Watch: June 1 2020 IntroToCryptos 206 watching Live now Kayleigh McEnany explains what it will take to stop antifa - Duration: 7:26.

#