Lawsky: Bitcoin Developers and Miners Exempt from BitLicense

[xeroc]

Did anyone really think they would try to regulate software development? They tried to do that in the 90s against the author of PGP, and the case went nowhere. Software source code is free speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States

wow .. didn't know that .. thanks for the clarification! 
Kudos to Bernstein

[speedy]

Did anyone really think they would try to regulate software development? They tried to do that in the 90s against the author of PGP, and the case went nowhere. Software source code is free speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States

[cass]

 

[bytemaster]

This is great news! 

[lakerta06]

hmm.. does btsx <-> bitusd/bitasset count?

Not sure how a DAC / blockchain is supposed to get a license   

This.

I mean the DAC is all around world. On the internet. So who is going the issue a license? UN?

[donkeypong]

hmm.. does btsx <-> bitusd/bitasset count?

Not sure how a DAC / blockchain is supposed to get a license   

It's P2P, decentralized. There's no entity there. As long as individuals are moving money on their own behalf, as I understand it, they are not money transmitters.

[xeroc]

hmm.. does btsx <-> bitusd/bitasset count?

Not sure how a DAC / blockchain is supposed to get a license   

[cube]

"exchanging virtual currency"

hmm.. does btsx <-> bitusd/bitasset count?

[donkeypong]

That's the way I've understood his proposed regs. Glad to see he came out and said it.

[xeroc]

summary:
 - delegates are safe
 - I3 (and all the other) developers are safe
is that about right?

However, Lawsky stressed that companies involved in safeguarding customers’ money will not be exempt. “We do not, for example, let someone run a bank out of their garage,” he said.

Ha ... luckily I3 is working in a bunker .. bam ;-) ... (for those in fear: I3 is not a bank .. nor is DSL - that rule just doesn't apply here IMHO)

To the extent the miner engages in other virtual currency activities, however – for example, hosting wallets or exchanging virtual currency – a license may be required for those activities.

As soon as that law passes it's out-dated .. however, that last quote makes me nervous

[Stan]

From coindesk.com

Sanity prevails?   

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 clarified that many individuals and companies working within the bitcoin space will not need regulatory approval or a BitLicense to operate in New York State.

“We are regulating financial intermediaries. We are not regulating software development,” he said, adding:

“To clarify, we do not intend to regulate software or software development. For example, a software developer who creates and provides wallet software to customers for their own use will not need a license. Those who are innovating and developing the latest platforms for digital currencies will not need a license.”

However, Lawsky stressed that companies involved in safeguarding customers’ money will not be exempt. “We do not, for example, let someone run a bank out of their garage,” he said.

Banking and tech ‘collide’

According to Lawsky, the banking industry and the tech industry are starting to “collide” and create new challenges for regulators.

The NYDFS was forced to operated with money transmitter regulations drafted at a time when there was no Internet or cryptocurrencies, he said, explaining that the department has an obligation to license and regulate such companies.

On a positive note, Lawsky said the NYDFS quickly recognised the potential of block-chain technology:

 “As we began looking at bitcoin last year and getting deeper into it, we began to see the power of the technology that underlies it.”

The technology has the potential to provide cheaper fees and remittances, he said.

New York residents who send money abroad usually pay fees of 8-9%, while digital currencies could operate with fees of about 1%, Lawsky pointed out. Digital currencies do not require people to disclose their credit card information and offer faster transactions, he added.

Lawsky clarifies provisions

The NYDFS started working on the first controversial BitLicense drafts following the fall of Mt Gox, earlier this year, said Lawsky.

The comment period for the original proposal was extended following requests from industry leaders. The revised proposal will take those comments into account and, once published, a new comment period for the revised regulation will begin.

He made it clear that the NYDFS does not intend to request more than once license for digital currency businesses and, in most cases, they will not have to obtain money transmitter licenses. Like developers, individual bitcoin users will not be affected by the regulation.

Lawsky went on to dismiss a number of criticisms of the original proposal as unsubstantiated, saying they were the result of misunderstandings.

One complaint alleged that banks would not have to comply with the new regulatory framework, but that is only true if banks do not choose do deal in digital currencies, he explained.

Regulation with benefits

Lawsky also addressed speculation regarding the department’s position on bitcoin mining:

“Mining per se will not be regulated. To the extent the miner engages in other virtual currency activities, however – for example, hosting wallets or exchanging virtual currency – a license may be required for those activities. For mining itself, there will be no license requirement."

Read the rest at http://www.coindesk.com/lawsky-bitcoin-developers-miners-exempt-bitlicense/