Sean G. Kings ariticle completely eviserates Lawsky's proposal.

[Xeldal]

Not really, he does make some errors. Bitlicense needs work but so far no one has offered a realistic alternative to it.

Unless I misunderstand you, I'd say I disagree with your premise that any 'Bitlicense' or anything of its kind are necessary to begin with.  The existing regulation is burdensome enough, and in my mind unproductive, inefficient and unnecessary for a self governing free people. Consumer protection through education, not the point of a gun.

The customer protections are good also. Do we really want Coinbase to use it's profits to buy Bitcoins for example? They could inflate the price of Bitcoins but that wouldn't help the customers who would have to pay higher fees.

Coinbase is a private entity.  They can do as they please with their profits. No gun is necessary here.

A lot of the regulations are routine. Stock brokers and bankers already have to get finger printed and background checked. Anyone managing other people's money should receive a background check to be honest so that isn't an attack on the Bitcoin community but more how things are done.

AML and KYC are also just how things are done. It might be debatable as to the scope of this but this is just to be expected in any regulation proposal.

However much I disagree with them, that's more what I'm saying.  These requirements already exist.

The main and worse part is that there is some weird ban keeping NY customers away from dealing with decentralized institutions. That could include Bitshares X itself and that part is a direct attack on decentralized banking institutions. It keeps the licensed entities from being able to deal with Bitshares X under the assumption that the technology isn't mature enough to bridge the gap.

The article speaks partially to this point, indicating how absurd, unenforceable, and unconstitutional it is.  Citing a case dealing with internet pornography and inter-state commerce. 

Judge Preska observed the following with regards to the Internet (all of which obviously applies equally to blockchain technologies):

"The Internet is a decentralized, global communications medium linking people, institutions, corporations, and governments all across the world.  [T]he Internet is a network of networks—a decentralized, self-maintaining series of redundant links among computers and computer networks, capable of rapidly transmitting communications without direct human involvement or control.  No organization or entity controls the Internet; in fact the chaotic, random structure of the Internet precludes any exercise of such control….Regardless of the aspect of the Internet they are using, Internet users have no way to determine the characteristics of their audience that are salient under the New York Act—age and geographic location.  In fact, in online communications through newsgroups, mailing lists, chat rooms, and the Web, the user has no way to determine with certainty that any particular person has accessed the user’s speech.  'Once a provider posts content on the Internet, it is available to all other Internet users worldwide'.  A speaker thus has no way of knowing the location of the recipient of his or her communication.  As the poet said, 'I shot an arrow into the air, it fell to the earth I know not where.'

This may be true that right now it's not mature enough but the way the BitLicense is written it could prevent innovation from ever reaching a point to where the decentralized institutions are more secure than the centralized. I think that specific part has to be changed to accept that Bitcoin 2.0 technologies do exist and at some point will need a way to interact with regulators.

The whole thing should be burned.

In our case we have delegates so perhaps in a worst case scenario we could use our delegates as representatives who interface with the formal financial institutions. I would prefer the BitLicense at least leave some room for possibilities like that but unfortunately it doesn't.

This wouldn't work.  Delegates would be liable for every jurisdiction on the planet.

[luckybit]

One of the best articles I've read in a long time. Very well articulated.  I wish everyone would explain bitcoin this way.  Quickly cuts to the meat of what is special/different about bitcoin and the technology it uses. 

Sean G. King completely dismantles/dismembers Lawskeys bitlicense proposal and ties in some very important/powerful legal precedents.

http://wefivekingsblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/here-are-my-official-comments-on-new.html

Found this article from this reddit post:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2bsfak/here_are_the_official_comments_of_sean_g_king_jd/

Not really, he does make some errors. Bitlicense needs work but so far no one has offered a realistic alternative to it.

The previsions which I disagree with is that we shouldn't have to get a license to issue a currency. That is a free speech right. The scope also has to be made narrow and clear so that mission creep is impossible. If it applies only to centralized exchanges and centralized banking institutions that is fine. If someone is holding our money they should be licensed, should hold full reserves, should pay for real cyber security, etc.

The customer protections are good also. Do we really want Coinbase to use it's profits to buy Bitcoins for example? They could inflate the price of Bitcoins but that wouldn't help the customers who would have to pay higher fees. That being said they probably should remove the prevision which says the institutions must invest specifically in certain things and merely restrict those institutions from investing specifically in cryptocurrency. We wouldn't want the NASDAQ investing in stocks for obvious reasons and I see it similar.

A lot of the regulations are routine. Stock brokers and bankers already have to get finger printed and background checked. Anyone managing other people's money should receive a background check to be honest so that isn't an attack on the Bitcoin community but more how things are done.

AML and KYC are also just how things are done. It might be debatable as to the scope of this but this is just to be expected in any regulation proposal.

The main and worse part is that there is some weird ban keeping NY customers away from dealing with decentralized institutions. That could include Bitshares X itself and that part is a direct attack on decentralized banking institutions. It keeps the licensed entities from being able to deal with Bitshares X under the assumption that the technology isn't mature enough to bridge the gap.

This may be true that right now it's not mature enough but the way the BitLicense is written it could prevent innovation from ever reaching a point to where the decentralized institutions are more secure than the centralized. I think that specific part has to be changed to accept that Bitcoin 2.0 technologies do exist and at some point will need a way to interact with regulators.

In our case we have delegates so perhaps in a worst case scenario we could use our delegates as representatives who interface with the formal financial institutions. I would prefer the BitLicense at least leave some room for possibilities like that but unfortunately it doesn't.

http://cointelegraph.com/news/112104/bitcoin-at-a-crossroads-tackling-the-bitlicense

[Xeldal]

One of the best articles I've read in a long time. Very well articulated.  I wish everyone would explain bitcoin this way.  Quickly cuts to the meat of what is special/different about bitcoin and the technology it uses. 

Sean G. King completely dismantles/dismembers Lawskeys bitlicense proposal and ties in some very important/powerful legal precedents.

http://wefivekingsblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/here-are-my-official-comments-on-new.html

Found this article from this reddit post:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2bsfak/here_are_the_official_comments_of_sean_g_king_jd/