look at bitcoinx.  Imagine a bunch of different xxxcoin currencies, all trading on the same blockchain.  Most of them are backed by someone for something (like USD).  Now, you pay the backer 50 BTC (say) and he gives you 250 usdCoins.  First trap... are you "printing" (counterfeiting) USD b/c your usdCoins are not really USD?  Ok this may be avoidable by issuing DUScoins (some other name).  But you have the reputation paradox -- anyone with a good enough reputation and $ to back DUScoins doesn't want to risk going to jail.  And cannot be anonymous.

But let's say it happens.  Someday someone wants to return DUScoins to the backer and get real physical bills (or a wire transfer) of USD.  I'd imagine that that would be the moment when you as the backer need to comply with AML and insist on ID.  

BTW, IANAL.

Did you know JP morgan and Mastercard run the Electronic Benefit Transfer in the US and are funding lobbying groups here in the UK to implement a similar benefits card, obviously profiting from the poor is not new for J P Morgan there are possibilities of such a program turning into an Orwellian nightmare as our economies falter and more people look to the state for help. When things like this are viewed in the context of increasing globalisation and militarisation of police you have to be a dumb ass to not consider the possibility of a conspiracy.


The Rothschild also became majority bond holders in the bank of England or Treasury as may have been at the time, I'm sure you are familiar with the popular story of the the Rothschilds faster courier horseman bring back news of a British victory at the battle of Waterloo and how Nathan Rothschild promptly sold his bonds to create a fire-sale, thereby buying up everybody else's at much reduced price.

JPM controls about half of the EBT cards in the US. If the US govt. lets JPM fail, the 25% or so of Americans that depend on JPM's EBTs would be out of luck. Imagine LA, Chicago, NYC, etc. within two weeks of no EBTs. Cities would burn. JPM has the government, and Americans, by the short hairs.

It's simple extortion as any occupier does to a servant state: prop us up or we'll burn your cities.  

For practically everything but bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin->$0.01, no MSB/MT=criminal.

While it's true that it's a "guidance" statement, such statements generally indicate how they intend to apply regulations.  The validity of their interpretation of regulations is rarely tested because most businesses can't afford the cost of the legal challenges which would be required.  Services agree to civil forfeitures or to become licensed because the potential sanctions they would face if they lost a court challenge are absolutely staggering - in the millions of dollars per offence (and a single transaction can involve multiple offences).

We've possibly seen the end of the era of under-capitalised exchanges - and that's certainly not a bad thing.  Compliance imposes a significant administrative burden, though, and that may ultimately be reflected in fees charged by exchanges.


The transaction itself may be reportable by whoever sells you the Bitcoins, though.

So now I'm wondering; is anyone free to use bitcoin? Or, is it only for those granted special permission by FinCEN to use in a specified way?  

I suppose if this community endeavors to interface with the establishment, it will have to get used to being constrained by its rules.  

Wow you are correct.  Thats retarded.

The way I read this is that mining for bitcoins and selling those for USD is now illegal unless you are a corporation with the right licenses (which cost many thousands) and hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of dollars for bonding requirements, etc.

+1

We are still too small to take on uncle sam just yet. Too much btc trade is concentrated in the US. Though as someone pointed out, this isn't a new law but rather FinCen clarifying what they think current regulations mean, we really need to get more decentralized such that uncle sam doesn't have us by the cojones.

Long Live BITCOIN!