Where is Bitlicense Now? A Brief Overview of Who is Attacking Bitcoin in the United States, and Viable Alternatives to Bitlicense. - Cryptocurrency Reporters - A Light To Cryptocurrency World

Saturday, 14 April 2018

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


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 r/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: https://ift.tt/2GZnJe9) 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://ift.tt/2HyXjkk and here are the group of banksters that are promoting this one: NONE OTHER THAN THE CONFERENCE OF STATE BANK SUPERVISORS. https://ift.tt/2GZWRKX 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://ift.tt/2HyMSNP TO DUMB LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS LIKE THOSE ABOVE1) CryptoCurrency Security Standard. https://ift.tt/1JlF3bu 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. via /r/Bitcoin https://ift.tt/2GWA6Yh

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 r/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/r/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.

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 r/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: https://ift.tt/2GZnJe9) 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://ift.tt/2HyXjkk and here are the group of banksters that are promoting this one: NONE OTHER THAN THE CONFERENCE OF STATE BANK SUPERVISORS. https://ift.tt/2GZWRKX 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://ift.tt/2HyMSNP TO DUMB LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS LIKE THOSE ABOVE1) CryptoCurrency Security Standard. https://ift.tt/1JlF3bu 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.

No comments:

Post a Comment