Bitcoin Bill AB 1326 Does Not Pass in California Digital ...

Jerry Brito on Twitter: "Happy to say that AB 1326, CA’s bad digital currency bill, has been dropped by the sponsor and will no longer be pursued this year. #bitcoin"

Jerry Brito on Twitter: submitted by neerajka to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Dababneh has re-introduced CA's proposed bitlicense as AB 1123 - same language we defeated twice as AB 1326. AB 1123 would outlaw startups, businesses that accept bitcoin, and the act of donating bitcoin. STOP HIM AGAIN.

Dababneh has re-introduced CA's proposed bitlicense as AB 1123 - same language we defeated twice as AB 1326. AB 1123 would outlaw startups, businesses that accept bitcoin, and the act of donating bitcoin. STOP HIM AGAIN. submitted by pcvcolin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Coin Center's Jerry Brito: "[California digital currency bill] AB 1326 passed out of committee with unanimous, bipartisan support. #Bitcoin"

Coin Center's Jerry Brito: submitted by intentional_feeding to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Dababneh has re-introduced CA's proposed bitlicense as AB 1123 - same language we defeated twice as AB 1326. AB 1123 would outlaw startups, businesses that accept bitcoin, and the act of donating bitcoin. STOP HIM AGAIN.

Dababneh has re-introduced CA's proposed bitlicense as AB 1123 - same language we defeated twice as AB 1326. AB 1123 would outlaw startups, businesses that accept bitcoin, and the act of donating bitcoin. STOP HIM AGAIN. submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

AB 1326, CA's Anti-Virtual-Currency Bill, About to Be Heard by CA Senate Banking and Financial Institution Committee /r/Bitcoin

AB 1326, CA's Anti-Virtual-Currency Bill, About to Be Heard by CA Senate Banking and Financial Institution Committee /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Jerry Brito on Twitter: "Happy to say that AB 1326, CAs bad digital currency bill, has been dropped by the sponsor and will no longer be pursued this year. #bitcoin"

Jerry Brito on Twitter: submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Revised California Bill AB 1326 Makes BItLicense Look Soft

Revised California Bill AB 1326 Makes BItLicense Look Soft submitted by fearofhellz to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin for real

In late 2014, years before the recent brouhaha over Coinbase's latest debacle in re. their decision to utilize someone from HT and all the negative implications of that - I stopped using CoinBase and BitPay.
Note: my original post could not be made in cryptocurrency nor in bitcoin until I self-censored by removing explicit proper spelling of Coinbase and Bitpay. This original post used alternative words to circumvent subreddit limitations on posting about these firms. This post has now had the spelling changed to refer to these firms by the proper spelling of their names.
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/2kmpmopen_letter_to_bitcoin_businesses_why_im_closing/
The main reason for me leaving? Coinbase, Bitpay, Bitstamp and a ton of other companies at the time in 2014 openly and explicitly announced their support for the Windhover group's 'Proportionate Enforcement and Risk Based Regulation,' which contained a terrible pill suggesting that all identity - even future identities based solely on bitcoin blockchain, or similar technologies - should be deemed under sole purview and control of governments.
Your identity, of course is regulated and monitored. Any country's passport or state DL is a classic example. But the state no longer has sovereign control and monopoly over money. Why should it for identity either?
This is to speak out against exchanges or brokerages that don't respect our agency and ability to create our own identity. This is a ramble on why we shouldn't use Coinbase, Bitpay, Stamp, or other exchanges that fundamentally have acted against people's best interest, not once or twice but persistently over years.
So what transpired then?
submitted by pcvcolin to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Governor Brown just signed AB 1460 - an anti bitcoin bill - into law. Brief explainer, background, what's next.

1) This bill, which is now law in California, would make it illegal to pay for certain insurance premiums or bail - except through a bank.
2) The bill was written by Dababneh (the author of the failed California bitlicense bills, AB 1326 (2015-2016) and AB 1123 (2017-2018 - still pending but dying in committee).
3) My letter of opposition to AB 1460 was shown at: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6npxe4/my_letter_today_sent_opposing_legislation/
It was reasonable to ask for a veto.
4) I believe it is fair to say that next the Democratic legislature and the Governor will incrementally attempt to limit bitcoin usage in California by targeting further classes of transactions as prohibited or attempting to make them subject to license. The only logical path forward is to vote against these people "at the booth" and of course to keep running whatever software you damn well please. You heard it here first.
Here are the people who voted for AB 1460 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1460 Notice how many of them pushed it through the Assembly and Senate.
Here are the people who voted for the "California bitlicense" (written by the same author of AB 1460) that so far has failed to pass: for AB 1326 (the CA Bitlicense that failed to pass): https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1326 See how many of them voted for it?
for AB 1123: (the CA Bitlicense that also is failing to pass and is dying in committee) https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1123 (Doesn't have any votes yet)
IF YOU ARE IN CALIFORNIA AND YOU STILL VOTE AT THE VOTING BOOTH FOR STATE ELECTIONS: Please don't vote for any of these people (see those legislators above who voted for AB 1460, AB 1326 etc.) EVER AGAIN. Supporting them is how we get into problems like New York has right now.
THANK YOU 4 UNDERSTANDING
submitted by pcvcolin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Biicoin for real: a little history of what transpired after ditching the worst exchanges and brokerages

In late 2014, years before the recent brouhaha over Coinbase's latest debacle in re. their decision to utilize someone from HT and all the negative implications of that - I stopped using CoinBase and Bitpay.
(( Old 2014 discussion on this which drew a lot of attention at the time at: https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/2kmpmopen_letter_to_bitcoin_businesses_why_im_closing/ ))
The main reason for me leaving? Coinbase, Bitpay, Bitstamp and a ton of other companies at the time in 2014 openly and explicitly announced their support for (by singing on to) the Windhover group's 'Proportionate Enforcement and Risk Based Regulation' concept for the industry, which contained a terrible pill suggesting that all identity - even future identities based solely on bitcoin blockchain, or similar technologies - should be deemed under sole purview and control of governments. You can see details and a link to what this Windhover proposal was at the old 2014 discussion, np link above.
Your identity, of course is regulated and monitored. Any country's passport or state DL is a classic example. But the state no longer has sovereign control and monopoly over money. Why should it for identity either?
This is to speak out against exchanges or brokerages that don't respect our agency and ability to create our own identity. This is a ramble on why we shouldn't use Coinbase, Bitpay, Stamp, or other exchanges that fundamentally have acted against people's best interest, not once or twice but persistently over years.
So what transpired then?
submitted by pcvcolin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Where is Bitlicense Now? A Brief Overview of Who is Attacking Bitcoin in the United States, and Viable Alternatives to Bitlicense.

Rather than a wall of text or another article on why I oppose bitlicense, including the variety which Coin Ctr and the ULC have been pumping - I've explained quite thoroughly in the past why their proposals are such a bad idea - this post will just explain the current status of Bitlicense in various states where it has emerged as well as a couple reasonable alternatives which, if pursued, could actually effectively squash most Bitlicense proposals.
(This is still a bit of a wall of text, but only because it takes a bit of text to summarize the various proposals for bitlicense pending in various U.S. states. If they hadn't proposed all these, this post wouldn't be as long.)
EDIT: I am noticing brigading against some of my posts. Please be civil and stop serially downvoting my posts, you have better things to do with your time. Mods of bitcoin if you notice this please observe those who are engaging in brigading, which is prohibited by reddit.
As a general observation and summary, Coin Ctr and other pro-bitlicense people saw how hard (and how successfully!) we fought against bitlicense in California, and so they realized eventually they might be more successful at getting bitlicense passed in smaller, less populated states, like Nebraska, Hawaii, or Alaska - in hopes that they would be able to sneak it through without much opposition and then claim a victory of sorts to then use as justification in other states where they are attempting state-level bitlicense. Unrepentant statists are nothing if not sneaky folk, and attempting to ramrod bitlicense through in smaller states (because they couldn't win in California) is an example of their vile nature in action.
1) New York bitlicense - passed by rulemaking bodies in that unenlightened state, and being challenged in the courts. Status here: http://www.article78againstnydfs.com/
2) California bitlicense - proposed three times, and under different bills (as AB 1326 (2015-2016) and as AB 1123 (2017-2018)), was repeatedly defeated with the aid of EFF, the Bitcoin Foundation, various other private and public organizations and nonprofits, and literally hundreds of thousands of individuals over multiple years. Better than that, we also got rid of the bills' primary advocate and "author," Dababneh (see this post about it), and he will not be coming back to the State Legislature in California. (Unfortunately, the bankers that funded him when he was in office, are still around.)
3) Connecticut -- bitlicense has been introduced in a joint effort by the Coin Center and the Uniform Law Commission. It's right now in a Banking Committee there. If you live in Connecticut and enjoy any sort of crypto, write your legislators and tell them to put that bill in the trash pile and now.
4) Hawaii bitlicense introduced, another one being pushed by Coin Ctr and ULC. This one the status of it is (for the moment) it didn't make it past committee and was deferred in early February 2018, but it could easily come back later for reconsideration. If you live in Hawaii, keep the pressure on your legislators to stop any form of this uncouth proposal. Kill it with fire of the magma of Hawaii.
5) Nebraska bitlicense introduced, another gross blot upon the earth and offense to humankind being pushed on a small state by Coin Ctr and ULC. It appears to have gone through a first reading and may have gone off to another committee for review, but it hasn't had any action since early February 2018. Please ensure you contact any friends you have in Nebraska to urge them to oppose LB 987, and if you live in Nebraska, please also oppose LB 987, as it is a most unpleasant insult on people's freedoms everywhere.
Lest we forget...
6) Alaska bitlicense, which has been introduced and referred to the Judiciary Committee by that State's legislature, and I suspect, by an effort involving the ULC. Alaskans have the distinction, like Californians, of having defeated bitlicense before -- and they can do it again. Please help spread the word about this terrible proposal, which involves and proposes bitcoin users would have to go through the "Nationwide Multistate Licensing System and Registry" -- in case you don't know what that is, it's basically a for-profit licensing and registration system run by -- you guessed it - banksters -- here it is: https://mortgage.nationwidelicensingsystem.org/Pages/default.aspx and here are the group of banksters that are promoting this one: NONE OTHER THAN THE CONFERENCE OF STATE BANK SUPERVISORS. https://www.csbs.org/about That's right, the banksters want to license Alaskan bitcoiners to death - no doubt, with the full backing of pro-bitlicense people in Coin Ctr and the ULC.
Here's an example of a small state which, because we failed to advocate hard enough for our bitcoiners there (maybe because we weren't paying attention to what was happening in that state), fell prey to just a horrible bitlicense proposal that managed to get passed: North Carolina's bitlicense, H289 -- which has been in effect since June 2016. https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/58e7ms/the_problem_with_north_carolina_bitcoin/
ALTERNATIVES TO DUMB LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS LIKE THOSE ABOVE
1) CryptoCurrency Security Standard. https://cryptoconsortium.org/standards/CCSS Developed by some of the brightest minds in bitcoin, could be adapted and modified by exchanges to be utilized by them voluntarily.
2) Some other voluntary standard, which could be adopted by major exchanges (and applicable worldwide). If people adopt their own standards voluntarily that establish more security where most people go to get their coins, it is harder for bitlicense proponents to make the argument that their state-level proposals make any sense.
Thanks for reading!
Edit: Please contact EFF and ask them politely to send letters to the State legislatures above to oppose the various bitlicense proposals.
submitted by pcvcolin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Attention Californians - Call your congressman/woman and let them know how you feel about AB-136!

*AB-1326
A lot of calls can make a difference, I just called my local office and it took 2 minutes. Here's a site to check who your local Rep is, just go to their website and check out their contact info.
http://www.legislature.ca.gov/legislators_and_districts/legislators/your_legislator.html (Fixed link thanks to jerrybrito)
If you're in LA the number for Xavier Becerra is 213-481-1425.
Don't ask what Bitcoin can do for you, ask what you can do for Bitcoin. - John F. Kennedy, 1968
Here is the AB-1326 Bill - https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1326
submitted by mvg210 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

CoinCenter & Jerry Brito ASKED for AB1326 ...now are shocked that asking for Bad Regulation results in more Bad Regulation

This time last year, CoinCenter was making multiple blog posts singing the praises of AB1326, the bill they (by thier own admission) "helped craft".
On July 7 they posted a "Letter of Support for AB 1326 to the California Senate" and also on July 7 they cheered "California Updated its Digital Currency Regulation and it Looks Great"
This support continued through the summer.
The EFF knew this was a bad idea as did I and dozens of other people with actual experience with financial regulation.
CoinCenter doubled down on the bad idea and posted another post claiming that the EFF and everyone else who didn't want the new regs was wrong...only CoinCenter has the secret sauce of understanding how to get us less regulation...by asking for more regulation.
Their business model it seems is to raise funds from companies concerned about overreaching laws and to counter this by proactively asking for more new regulation in an effort to beat them to the punch. Last year the justification for AB1326 was essentially the claim that if thier bad bill wasn't passed that it would be worse for Bitcoin and crypto.
Well...as anyone who knows the first thing about regulations could have predicted: the efforts failed dismally and have now resulted in an even worse version of the bill.
Milton Friedman 101: asking for new laws results in the law of unintended consequences.
Has CoinCenter learned its lesson? Nope.
They now seek to solve this mess by changing the new bad wording back to the other bad wording they had pushed for earlier.
More stunning than this is that the industry members who write checks for CoinCenter to cause this kind of damage seem completely unaware of the harm thier donations are causing.
CoinCenter does an impressive marketing job at acting like it is working for industry.
It would be far better if we could donate funds to get CoinCenter to stay home.
Make no mistake: CoinCenter actively ASKS FOR new regulations like AB1326. They now try to distance themselves while simultaneously claiming to have helped craft the old reg but not supporting the new one (which is really just a ploy to get the original bad bill they wanted passed).
They have a "regulatory roadmap" on their website which is designed to be presented to lawmakers to ask for more regulation.
Without thier involvement it is possible AB1326 would not even exist. Even with CoinCenter's letters, blogging, outreach and lobbying...common sense of others prevailed and the bill still failed.
Now the entire industry suffers for CoinCenter's naive and reckless complete lack of understanding of how regulation and regulators work in the real world.
CoinCenter's experimentation in hopes that academic philosophy on regulation will somehow translate to positive results has utterly failed.
They can argue otherwise but the results speak for themselves: CoinCenter asked for bad regs...and we now have even worse regs as a result.
Instead of learning from this, CoinCenter is now engaging in some bizarre combination of cognitive dissonance and damage control while trying to spin the story as if they are now somehow against the very bill they originally supported and claimed credit for...
Their proposal to fix this worse Frankenstein monster of a bill? ...is to go back to the laboratory and try to again pass the same original bad bill that contributed to this mess (and was warned against by the EFF and others).
It's hard to figure out if Brito is actively trying to harm our industry or is just unbelievably naive and ineffective. In any event, he and CoinCenter are one of the most harmful forces affecting this industry right now.
Side note: By the way, Brito eagerly testified to the CTFC, encouraged them to become more involved with crypto and had numerous meetings and blog posts about his engagement -- just as we got a bad and worse California bill, Brito got more activity and engagement from the CFTC. One result of this was the CFTC asking BitFinex to not use cold storage...indirectly leading to the $70 million hack last week. Would the CFTC still have been so eager to meddle with Bitcoin if Brito & Co. hadn't been asking them to? We don't know. But can logically conclude that asking for a govt agency to be more involved doesn't likely make them less involved.
In more spin / damage control, Brito defensively tweeted that this hack wasn't even the fault of the CFTC. Sure it wasn't...but if not for Brito's friends at the CFTC "engaging", BitFinex customers would have thier $70 million today.
The other fact is that, without the amateurish pro-regulation meddling of Brito and CoinCenter with trying to support AB1326 - we now would not likely be fighting this bad bill yet again.
Does this mean we shouldn't engage with govt? Of course not. There is a happy medium between ignoring government and the other extreme of proactively asking for bad regulation.
While CoinCenter was asking for California to regulate more I and others met regulators in Massachusetts and asked the opposite. (I met Mass Banking Regulatory Head David Cottney and his team). We made the case that this tech is too early to regulate and to hold off on a Mass Bitlicence. So far it has worked and Mass has not yet passed new digital currency regs. This could change once CoinCenter more actively engages in that state.
In Dubai I and others met regulators and instead of asking for new laws encouraged a hands off approach. So far this has also worked and Dubai has even launched govt initiatives in support of this technology.
This isn't a question of whether govt engagement is a good idea or not ...but one of tactic and strategy.
So far the strategy of CoinCenter has proven to be a dismal failure - let's try something new: instead of asking regulators for more onerous regulation, lets ask them for less.
Note: I'm speaking as an individual, not on behalf of any industry group I am or have been involved with.
submitted by bruce_fenton to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

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.
submitted by pcvcolin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

ICYMI: California legislature STILL doesn't understand bitcoin (surprise!), is pushing forward not one, but two anti-bitcoin bills. [Details enclosed]

1) Previously covered in bitcoin - how the California legislature was (is still) pushing AB 1123, the proposed California bitlicense -- basically a rehash of AB 1326 which we've defeated twice before.
2) The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is opposing Dababneh's AB 1123, like it did AB 1326, another anti-bitcoin bill in a prior California legislative session. It seems like AB 1123 doesn't have the votes to continue on, but the bill remains live and could be brought to the floor at any time over the course of the year (something Dababneh tried to pull with AB 1326 before we shut that bill down), so AB 1123 should be watched closely.
3) Surprise! The California Legislature is moving forward a bill that would attempt to limit what you can use bitcoin (and other distributed, decentralized systems like it) for. The bill is called SB 741 and it's being authored by Mendoza. It's scheduled for a June 13, 2017 hearing. It proposes that "A raffle ticket shall not be sold in exchange for Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency."
4) TL;DR: Go to the CA Governor's contact form at https://govnews.gov.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php and fill it out, in the message field, just ask him to "Veto AB 1123 and SB 741 if these arrive at your desk, we defeated California's bitlicense twice previously as AB 1326 and don't want or need AB 1123 or SB 741 either." Anyone can do this anywhere in the world.
And then go contact EFF by e-mail and thank them for opposing AB 1123 so far, and ask them to continue to oppose AB 1123 and also to oppose SB 741.
submitted by pcvcolin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Not trying to be the bad news bear of r/Bitcoin, but Dababneh just managed to pass an anti Bitcoin bill. Here are details.

The basics of this:
Dababneh's approach, long reviled and opposed by basically everyone (including, but not limited to the EFF, Bitcoin Foundation, and tens of thousands of vocal opponents across California) led to his "CA Bitlicense," AB 1326 being defeated twice in 2015 and 2016 (withdrawn, ordered to inactive, and then killed ultimately in 2016). Not learning, Dababneh, urged probably by his friends in the banking industry, introduced AB 1123 in 2017, which has the same language essentially as before (the "new" CA bitlicense proposal). Thus far it has been defeated in Committee but it may need to be defeated again as the bill is not formally dead yet - thus we literally may need to organize a fourth time to defeat CA's bitlicense.
However, unbeknownst to many bitcoin users, Dababneh got a bill passed that was anti-bitcoin that did not mention bitcoin or "virtual currency" or "digital currency" terminology at all. Instead, Dababneh got his bill AB 1460 passed by the California legislature quite easily.
You can see the votes here: legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1460
The text of the bill is here: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1460
This seemingly innocent bill, like so much of Dababneh's nonsense which he does for the banking industry, has an interesting provision buried in it. It states that "Any fiduciary funds, as defined in Section 1733, received as cash, lawful money of the United States, or freely tradeable currency of any foreign government, by any person licensed, whether under a permanent license, restricted license, temporary license, or certificate of convenience, to act in any of the capacities specified in Section 1733, shall comply with Section 1734, but shall initially be maintained in a trust account in a bank or savings and loan association in California, licensed by the State of California or the United States government and insured by the FDIC."
(Edit: This would apply to, under California Insurance Code Sec. 1733, "All funds received by any person acting as a licensee under this chapter, Chapter 5A (commencing with Section 1759), Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1760), or Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 1800), as premium or return premium on or under any policy of insurance or undertaking of bail, are received and held by that person in his or her fiduciary capacity." This would not apply to BitcoinIRAs or any kinds of funds (including bitcoins) used for any other purposes, but you can see where the State is clearly intruding into the space of how people wish to hold and manage their funds.)
Of course, the bill does delete the reference or requirement to the fiduciary funds being in a custodian or trust account in California (which already existed in law) and the definitions for a bank and a savings association and would require evidence of the funds to be maintained at all times in a trust account in a bank or savings and loan association within any state of the United States, but it's still silly, because we are moving to a world where people shouldn't have to have any requirement to hold any of their funds in a bank. And quite frankly it's unlikely that people will.
If you thought those words "lawful money" were easy to miss you were right. Note in 2013-2014, a law was passed in California that allowed people to (if they wanted to) use bitcoin (and other similar things) as "lawful money." The text of that bill (now law) is here: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB129
TL;DR - Dababneh is a shill for banks. If you want to, go to Governor Brown's website at https://govapps.gov.ca.gov/gov39mail/ and ask him to veto AB 1460. (There is in fact still time to do so as of my posting of this item in bitcoin.)
submitted by pcvcolin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Remember California Shibes, Take Action Against the Bitcoin License!

If you haven't yet, I highly recommend you read this article, preferrably before you take action. You can only take action if you're a resident in California.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/08/license-kill-innovation-why-ab-1326-californias-bitcoin-license-bad-business
submitted by UniversalSuperBox to dogecoin [link] [comments]

If you follow bitcoin, are in CA and you left an employer that provided PERS contribution (and you have service credit in CalPERS), you've been thinking about what to do, right?

Remember you have the ability to rollover into a Bitcoin IRA. This is not hard and has been covered by other redditors, and you have various choices outside of PERS. Let too much time go by though and you risk having CA Legislature (or PERS) getting more grabby with your resources. Think I'm being paranoid? Then look at the following anti-bitcoin bills either passed into law or that were attempted to be passed in California recently:
AB 1460 - BECAME LAW. TL;DR on this bill: "Your financial resources must first go to / through a bank." Another anti-bitcoin bill from Dababneh. Do you see a pattern here?
SB 741 A bill which was designed to prohibit certain classes of virtual currency transactions. - Failed to become law, but they tried pretty hard.
AB 1123 (2017-2018) - basically an attempt to prohibit virtual currency use in CA via a "bitlicense," nearly exactly like what they have in NY, with language copied and pasted from the defeated AB 1326. It only looks like this bill has been defeated, but it could be brought up by the rabid and anti-crypto majority in the Legislature at any time. The EFF has taken a position against this bill in a similar way as it did against AB 1326, but the only way to stop this bill and others like it from happening is to run against the bill's author, Dababneh, who has strong relationships with the banking industry, and defeat him in an election for his seat.
AB 1326 (2015-2016) - Dababneh's first try at getting NY bitlicense passed in California. If my memory serves me correctly, we actually had to beat this bill not once, not twice but three times because he kept dredging it back up even after it got put on suspense. It did not become law.
All this fervent anti-crypto activity (by not only Dababneh but by the majority of the Legislature and even by the Governor) should tell you one thing, and one thing only:
The State of California has decided to put itself in the stone age with respect to digital currency, even while other states and countries have eased regulation and pursued adoption without resorting to attempting to require licensing for individual participants.
And:
We can defeat further efforts like CA's and NY's to harm digital currency users, but to do that we must run against and defeat Dababneh, who is the author of the anti-bitcoin bills in California. That is, for those who do not know, Assemblymember Dababneh of District 45 in CA. So if you live in that district and are pro-bitcoin, please consider running against Dababneh in the next election where he will have to run to defend his seat.
But in the meantime, I think that many Californians literally have only months to (if they haven't already) get their stuff out of CalPERS (if they are eligible to do so) and into a bitcoin IRA of some sort, before the Legislature starts trying to pass yet another law to limit how you can use your resources.
p.s. Since you are here, please also visit this: http://www.article78againstnydfs.com/
submitted by pcvcolin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

My letter today sent opposing legislation unfriendly to bitcoin - help by demanding a veto of the insanity. Thank you

The following letter was sent to Governor Brown of CA who has not yet acted on AB 1460 (2017-2018). The bill is sitting on his desk as of the date of this post, July 16, 2017. The CA Governor can be written (please encourage him to veto AB 1460) at: https://govapps.gov.ca.gov/gov39mail/ -- anyone around the world can contact him through that form.
------(The below letter in full is under the 6000 character limit for the Governor's contact webform.----
Dear Governor Brown,
I write you with my sincere concerns about AB 1460, which passed the Legislature and has been sitting on your desk since July 5, 2017.
Today is July 16, 2017. Thus seven whole weekdays have passed (I am not counting weekend days) since the legislation was sent to your desk for signature or veto.
I absolutely urge you to veto this bill.
Before I explain exactly why, let me tell you a brief story. This story is regarding the Swiss canton known as Zug. Back in 2008, according to the government of the canton, or region, of which Zug is the capital, there were 27,000 companies on its commercial register - one for every man, woman and child in the town, leaving a few hundred to spare. Today, Zug has recently become the first town in the world to accept bitcoin for public services. That town is an innnovator in many economic respects. People have been able to pay in bitcoin for whatever they want to there, including government services, without restraint, without licensing requirements, other limitations, or reprisal by the state. It's a great situation and should be replicated in other places. Furthermore, recently news has come out about Bitcoin Suisse AG, a regulated crypto financial broker, asset manager and service provider based in -- you guessed it -- Zug, Switzerland. They have made it so that people across Europe will be able to buy and exchange bitcoin directly through that bank. People don't have to use Bitcoin Suisse AG -- they can transact in bitcoin (or other decentralized, distributed systems) directly peer to peer with each other without intermediaries. However, entities such as Bitcoin Suisse are now one option that people there have.
Why did I tell you this story in the context of AB 1460?
Because Dababneh is trying to destroy California's economy and limit it with useless bills like this one, AB 1460.
This seemingly innocent bill, like so much of Dababneh's nonsense which he proposes in the Legislature for the banking industry, has an interesting and rather problematic provision buried in it.
It states that "Any fiduciary funds, as defined in Section 1733, received as cash, lawful money of the United States, or freely tradeable currency of any foreign government, by any person licensed, whether under a permanent license, restricted license, temporary license, or certificate of convenience, to act in any of the capacities specified in Section 1733, shall comply with Section 1734, but shall initially be maintained in a trust account in a bank or savings and loan association in California, licensed by the State of California or the United States government and insured by the FDIC." This is what Dababneh wanted in the bill, but it is also why I am asking you to veto it.
As you know, in 2013-2014, a law was passed in California that allowed people to (if they wanted to) use bitcoin (and other similar things) as "lawful money." (That was AB 129 (2013-2014).) Thus, what Dababneh (who is very anti bitcoin) has done with AB 1460 is made it so that people can only initially maintain funds received by licensees (under the California Insurance Code) premiums or return premiums on or under any policy of insurance or undertaking of bail, in a trust account in a bank or savings and loan association in California.
In other words, if I wanted to use bitcoin to directly pay a licensee for a premium amount relating to insurance or bail in California, AB 1460 is saying that this is illegal and I can't do it, because the money will have to go through a bank first. And since (unlike in Switzerland) there are no banks in the United States that allow customers to make exchanges in currencies directly through the bank, then basically that means that Dababneh's 1460 makes various classes of transactions completely illegal in California.
It should also go without saying that since there are more than 900 cryptocurrencies available over the internet as of 11 July 2017 and growing, and these are distributed and decentralized, that Dababneh is literally through AB 1460, directly classifying transactions peer to peer from any of these (for the purposes of premium payment for insurance, or bail) as ILLEGAL in California. I wonder how the State of California will enforce such a law?
Yes, another unenforceable law, attempting to limit what we spend in order to pay for services.
If you do not veto AB 1460, and if you allow it to become law, what kind of message will that send to Dababneh - and the rest of the California legislature? They will feel as though they should have free rein to keep us from being able to pay directly for other services, also.
If AB 1460 is allowed to pass, the State Legislature might return with another bill like AB 1460, but one designed to target BitcoinIRAs or any kinds of funds used for any other purposes. The State is clearly intruding into the space of how people wish to hold and manage OUR funds.
Dababneh's view is that our transactions should be controlled by bank monopoly. The people of the State have already overwhelmingly rejected Dababneh's proposed bank monopolies in California when we rejected Dababneh's AB 1326 (2015-2016) and when we, the people of the State also rejected AB 1123 (2017-2018), which is anticipated to simply die in committee. Because many people didn't understand the wording of AB 1460 (2017-2018), it was allowed to pass because it was not so explicit as the prior bills by Dababneh that we've defeated, but it is evident AB 1460 has the same kind of problems conceptually as did AB 1326 (2015-2016) and AB 1123 (2017-2018).
We do not want the people of California and the people of the world to be restrained in economic decisions about how they choose to pay for services.
I urge you to veto AB 1460.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Colin Gallagher Chair, Education Committee, Bitcoin Foundation
Member, Advisory Boards, Lifeboat Foundation:
Complex Systems Board
Human-Nonhuman Relationship Board
New Money Systems Board
Philosophy Board
submitted by pcvcolin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Trading Intelligence

Hope all is well guys. We wanted to share our first Bitcoin Trading Intelligence newsletter with all off you.
Feedback and any other comments are welcome.
Bitcoin Trading Intelligence 08.10.15
Long Term
On a weekly scale, the market has been in a bearish trend for a long time before finding some support at the start of this year. From then on it has been predominantly sideways with choppy moves from 200-300. The market is moving in mini-swings as indicated by the red arcs in the weekly chart. For the bearish part of the swing, 5 SMA has been a hard resistance and has pro- vided some good shorting opportunities at the highs. The Bollinger bands in the weekly chart have become parallel and con- tracted to a great extent, which means there is great scope for break out trades from this point.
On a long term scale, market hasn’t been able to break middle Bollinger band and 34 SMA for some time, but in June and July market has successfully overcome these resistances respectively and has been trading above them for 5th consecutive week. Though RSI remains around 50 without giving much indication, MACD has been trading above the signal line for some time now and is ready to cross the zero line. If the MACD crosses and remains above the signal line, it is a double con- firmation for the launch of the bullish trend and would be an opportunity to capture good bullish moves. The proper entry points for such trades would be around 250-255 region, which has 34 SMA and middle Bollinger band as points of support. The targets could be high of previous month, upper Bollinger band of weekly and weekly 100 SMA.
If the market breaks out on the downside, then it would find good support around 214-227 region which houses weekly 200 SMA and lower Bollinger band. These prices have proven to be strong points of support in the past and are good targets for break out shorts at 250.
Mid Term
In the daily chart, the market has rallied considerably from 217.26 in June to 317.50 in July and now is in a state of correction for the move. On marking the Fibonacci retracement levels for the move, it can be observed that market is trading in between the 50%-61.8% retracement price levels. The region between 250-255 has daily 100 and 200 SMA’s and also the 61.8% re- tracement level at 255.16. Hence this zone can be considered as Zone of heavy support as it also backed by 34 SMA and Mid- dle Bollinger band from weekly chart.A crucial aspect which might indicate a trend reversal would be the ‘Golden Crossover’ of 100 and 200 SMA’s in July. The last time a 100-200 SMA crossover happened, the market continuously traded below the two SMA’s resulting in a completely bearish trend which was supported by fundamentals, Now that market is trading above the crossover, this might be the onset of the trend. Though the MACD is showing a bearish signal owing to the short term fundamental affects, RSI has been approaching the oversold region. In the medium term, it appears that 255 could be tested before the anticipated bullish move.
The decision of Bitfinex to leave New York because of BitLicense has resulted in a negative sentiment among the market par- ticipants which prompted a bearish move on Saturday with comparably low volumes. This move as shown in the hourly chart, was opposed by heavy support at 261. The lower Bollinger band flattened at this point, indicating a possible trend reversal and a good short covering rally. The MACD indicator has just crossed the signal line and even the RSI has been in the oversold region for some time now which implicates impending bullishness in the market. The possible entry points for quick momen- tum (short covering) trades would be around 262 and possible targets would be hourly middle Bollinger band and 34 SMA. With change in the trend patterns of SMAs and Bollinger bands supporting, these short term trades can be converted to medi- um term trades with targets taken from daily chart.
Fundamental Analysis
The fall of Mt.Gox was the onset of a bearish trend that has plagued the market sentiment for more than a year in Bitcoin trading. While the question about the missing coinage is still unanswered, Former CEO of Mt.Gox, Mark Karpeles was arrested in Japan on 1st of August on the suspicion that he has illicitly added a million dollars to an account under his control. While any news regarding Mt.Gox will continue to have a negative impact on the sentiment, adding to the existing woes BitLicense in New York and AB-1326 : California’s Bitcoin License have affected the market in the later part of last week. Major Exchanges like Bitfinex, Kraken, ShapeShift and many other Bitcoin related startups have blocked residents of New York from their services. While AB-1326 is engrossing similar opposition, these regulation imperative road blocks are expected to have a short term effect on Bitcoin Trading as of now. The representatives at G7 summit which was held at Germany this year in June, have pledged to support for the ‘appropriate regulation’ of virtual currencies. How would these regulations affect the current setup and crypto currency trading is to be seen.
On the positive front, NASDAQ adopting Blockchain Technology to for its stock trading platform to improve the efficiency of financial transactions has been one of the major news in the Bitcoin Circle. Launch of tØ(tee-zero) by Patrick Byrne, Chairman and CEO of Overstock.com at Nasdaq headquarters on 5th of August has fortified the sentiment among the Bitcoin community. tØ is a blockchain-powered private and public equities trading platform that can work with any decentralized ledger. Symbiont, a bitcoin startup has come up with the innovation of ‘Smart Securities’, which uses the blockchain technology to make it quicker and easier to prove the ownership of assets or transfer them between buyers and sellers. Quant specialists from Wall-Street giants are now opting to join Bitcoin startups which is a strong indication that the potential of Bitcoins and Blockchain technology has been acknowledged by Wall-Street and further applications of the same in further asset classes is not a distant dream.
From a political standpoint, US Presidential candidate Rick Perry has revealed his stance on bitcoin by saying that he supports ‘regulatory breathing room’ for digital currencies such as bitcoins. London’s Mayoral candidate Galloway has openly suggested the idea of tracking the city’s budget by putting it on blockchain and letting people know how the funds are being directed. British Prime Minister, David Cameroon’s inclusion of bitcoin company, Blockchain in the trade delegations with Asia, is an indication that UK Government maybe positioning to take up a critical role in the field of cryptocurrencies. With Australian senate’s recognition of Bitcoins as a form of currency, any news regarding the acceptance of bitcoins on the political front can reinforce positive sentiment in the market in the coming days.
Across the borders, Brazil has recorded its highest volumes last month. Brazil which is the world’s major exporter of soft commodities has seen rising levels of inflation over the years. Also with July-August being the harvest months for the crops, it might be possible that the increased volumes might be the result of the merchant transactions being carried out in bitcoins. Countries with weakening economies would likely see Bitcoins as their exit option for future. With the release that major banks like Barclays, BNP Paribas experimenting with altcoins and the Dutch ABN AMRO executives positive statements about blockchain, further adoption of Bitcoins into the existing financial services system looks more likely and is definitely going to be positive news for the Bitcoin Market Participants.
submitted by blockstreet_ceo to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

Letters to Editor successfully published against ACA 22 -- one letter published unmodified and in its original savage and uncensored state, the other shortened, but solid (message intact). If you got your letters published in a newspaper, post them in comments to show us how it's done.

Here's the (uncensored, full) letter to the editor in a local newspaper that incredibly posted my entire rant against ACA 22, and other things. I was unaware until now that this local newspaper was so fed up with California legislators that it would actually publish me. Learn something new every day!
http://www.thecalifornian.com/story/opinion/2018/02/05/letter-editor-stop-aca-22/307667002/
Apparently this above letter that I wrote, which is fairly savage and really honest in its evaluation of the CA Legislature, is now being incorporated into blogs across the State. Sounds good to me! The more, the merrier.
It's starting to draw comments (such as one from a person who implied by her statements that I only opposed some of California's past laws, like the failed AB 1681 and AB 1326 which we defeated in 2015-2016, and AB 1132, a 2017-2018 bill in CA which we also defeated, because of my support for Bitcoin. Well of course I support the bitcoin project (and other decentralized virtual systems which allow for all kinds of amazing things to happen through public cryptography), but that's not the real reason why I opposed those bills. It was because they would have substantially limited people's freedom and further sent California spiraling down the drain into a sick sort of condition where everybody's ability to communicate and even transfer information from one person to another would have been subject to backdoors and licensing from a state commissioner, and subject to payment of fees, not to mention it would have made pretty much everybody in the state into a criminal just for existing -- something that California legislators apparently think is o.k. to do. It's not. If the State legislators had their way, you wouldn't be able to use cellphone technology (that would have been effectively banned under AB 1326 from 2015). You wouldn't even be able to communicate with, develop a startup, or donate anything to anyone without a license from the state (AB 1326 which we defeated in 2015-2016, and AB 1132, the 2017-2018 bill which we defeated which also proposed the same thing). What the commenter doesn't understand is at the root of all this, is defending people's freedom, to be people, instead of to be subject to the whims of California. There is really no other principle at work here and it's why we have been able to defeat these bills again and again in a State utterly controlled by mindless Dems in the Legislature (who until recently have had a supermajority).
The commenter also resorted to a typical fallacy used by Dems in this state - she implied in her comments that I was suggesting that Dem legislators be removed forcibly. Of course, that's not what the letter said at all. To quote it, it said in part, "End the supermajority - that means replacing at least a couple Democrats with someone from a more reasonable party (could be Green, Libertarian, Republican, just not Democrat, thank you very much)" -- but as usual, the Dems will twist any language calling for removal of members of their own party by claiming such a call should be construed as a violent threat. When they have no logical argument left to present, they simply push fallacy after fallacy, which is the case with the Dem who commented on my post.
Curiously though, the Dems have been removing themselves from office. As they fight and squabble with each other over minor ideological issues, and sometimes major ones, it seems like they've been pushing out members of their own party who they've accused of various types of sexual impropriety. There may be some legitimacy to these arguments that the legislators should not be in office because of that but whether it happened should be left to a court to decide. And since they are in the business of removing themselves from office,they may as well all resign, since none of the Dems have upheld their oath to defend the U.S. Constitution, which is required for those who take office. But apparently enough of them have resigned since late last year (2017) that they no longer have a supermajority at present, which I didn't know at the time I wrote my letter to the editor!
Here's another local newspaper that published my letter of opposition to ACA 22:
http://www.montereyherald.com/article/NF/20180203/LOCAL1/180209951
Short but sweet. I think this was originally submitted as an "under 150 words" letter.
Feel free to copy and paste this text post and create your own (I can't post to some other subs on reddit, so feel free to attempt a cross-post or copy and paste job to create your own post, and / or feel free to draw from the language in the letters published above to submit a letter to the editor in your own area / your local newspaper).
This is how we get it done!
submitted by pcvcolin to The_Donald_CA [link] [comments]

Advocating for Fairness in Bitcoin Related State Legislation in California: A long, hard road

Here 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.
Right, o.k., you say. But that's just stopping a bill... how are we going to get something passed that actually helps us?
Assemblymember Dababneh in California, who tried and failed twice to pass AB 1326, unfortunately plans on bringing a similar bill back in January 2017.
And, unfortunately, Dababneh's political friends now have supermajority in both houses of the California legislature - meaning they can pass almost anything they want so long as they agree to move it forward (and don't get it challenged in court promptly thereafter).
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 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
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. (One of my proposed changes has been approved and merged.)
Although California legislators are unlikely to support this point of view, you could also suggest that bitcoin, and other decentralized, distributed virtual systems like it, should not be interpreted as money anymore by the state, and that California should take the path of Texas or Illinois, which have essentially declined to regulate bitcoin as money. This argument is unlikely to go over well with California legislators, but it could be fair to make it anyway. The more likely argument that they will listen to (if any) is that higher security standards are needed for exchanges.
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.
Thank you for helping to make whatever legislation we get in California on virtual currency fair for everyone. No Bitlicense! This has been a long, hard road, but the fight is worth it.
submitted by pcvcolin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Rock - YouTube chris tomlin - YouTube

California State Senator Holly Mitchell has dropped the recently proposed AB-1326 on September 9, a regulatory bill intended to monitor and restrict the operations of digital currency startups, exchanges and organizations. The controversial AB-1326 bill received harsh criticism from the Bitcoin community throughout its short period of existence. Seite 1326 der Diskussion 'Bitcoin oder doch Shitcoin?!' vom 05.07.2015 im w:o-Forum 'Bitcoin'. Bitcoin is a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money … Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. r/Bitcoin. log in sign up. User account menu. 340. California's Anti-Virtual Currency Bill, AB 1326, IS BACK. Kill It With Fire. Close. 340. Posted by. u/pcvcolin. 3 years ago. Archived. California's Anti-Virtual Currency Bill, AB ... With assistance from Joseph Bonneau, Lee Tien, and Jamie Williams Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto would never have qualified for a license under California’s proposed virtual currency regulation A.B. 1326 (Dababneh) is a bill that would require “virtual currency businesses” to apply for and obtain... California’s AB 1326 Bitcoin Bill. It goes without saying that any form of Bitcoin regulation is faced with much scrutiny. Given the status of BitLicense in New York and all of the havoc it has created on Bitcoin operations in the state, there was a lot of concern regarding California’s AB 1326 Bitcoin Bill. In fact, some experts went as far as calling it the “BitLicense of California ...

[index] [33173] [21412] [12019] [28156] [32112] [14187] [20758] [20468] [14425] [8539]

Rock - YouTube

This video is only for educational purpose. No copyrights intended. All rights goes to their respective owner. Thank You. Selbstverständlich gibt es auch ein kostenloses nordbuzz-Print-Magazin (die erste Ausgabe liegt ab dem 24. Juni aus) sowie die die beliebten Fotostrecken von Partys, Konzerten und weiteren Events ... Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. Yoo was geht ab :) Videodreh mit Jenny, wie viel wiege ich nach der Kur? Fotoalbum basteln... :) Mit 'YOON20' spart ihr 20€ auf euren ersten Einkauf :) ... Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

#