Bitcoin On The PayPal Network

By Jon Matonis
Forbes
Saturday, May 4, 2013

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2013/05/04/bitcoin-on-the-paypal-network/

PayPal has recently entertained the notion of accepting and clearing the bitcoin unit on its pervasive platform. It’s a bit like the prince joining the revolution. Is this a good thing?

Naturally, some bitcoin businesses will see this as PayPal moving in to usurp bitcoin’s popularity and momentum in the marketplace. But, depending on your outlook, it may not be all negative and it raises the identical issues that a bank would face if embracing bitcoin, especially since PayPal is now viewed as part of the legacy apparatus.

Speaking as if PayPal represented some sort of global payments umbrella, CEO John Donahoe told the Wall Street Journal, “It’s a new disruptive technology, so, yeah, we’re looking at Bitcoin closely. There may be ways to enable it inside PayPal.” I find this statement funny, particularly in light of the fact that WordPress’ reason for accepting bitcoin was that PayPal disabled certain parts of the globe for them.

Let’s examine what it could mean when something like Bitcoin, that is both platform and unit, is absorbed into something like PayPal that is just platform. Phil Archer writing at The Genesis Block categorized the four areas of likely impact — online wallets, escrow services, merchant processing, and exchange services. PayPal account funding alone is not exactly bitcoin sitting on the PayPal payments network, so that use case is not included in the analysis. Archer concludes that PayPal’s immediate advantage would be in the first two areas with eventual game-changing impact probable in the latter two.

While I tend to agree with the category choices, the analysis overlooks what the PayPal-Bitcoin world would not be getting (or, what it would be losing).

Firstly for the consumers, the new PayPal paradigm would look like a Coinbase on steroids with massive connectivity into your bank accounts and even more intrusive data collection. As a fully-regulated money services business (MSB) and licensed money transmitter, PayPal would be the undisputed gorilla in the U.S. marketplace with online wallets and fast exchange services. Of course, escrow services would be welcomed because this model is almost always needed in a free market and banks could look to provide this functionality as well.

However, what would consumers not be getting in this bitcoin nirvana? Not a huge fan of transactional privacy, PayPal would have to link your identity to your account and eliminate the user-defined privacy aspects of bitcoin. This has the effect of reducing bitcoin’s important cash-like qualities. While it may be convenient for exchange services to be an integrated part of your personal online wallet, it is fundamentally unnecessary.

Furthermore, it’s unlikely that PayPal would reach into many new countries that it doesn’t serve today because it would need the banking infrastructure to do so. By the way, that is the same situation for Coinbase too. So consumers would not gain anything in terms of worldwide access. Also, consumers would not get unimpeded access to their funds because it’s doubtful that PayPal will modify any of their current policies on account suspension.

Secondly for the merchants, the new PayPal paradigm would offer merchant processing services similar to BitPay with exchange rate guarantees for conversion into national currencies. As BitPay is more nimble with first-mover advantage and low-cost pricing, they are considered a likely acquisition target. PayPal’s distinct advantage in this area comes from leveraging its installed merchant base, however it is unclear how fee savings with bitcoin could be passed on to merchants due to the potential cannibalization of PayPal’s other revenue streams.

Larger merchants maintaining their balances in bitcoin and managing currency risk internally seems like the most efficient practice, but it’s unlikely that PayPal would offer that option for free. As part of the PayPal network, merchants would not enjoy the attractive bitcoin benefit of “no account freezing,” because without segregated bitcoin balances, a merchant’s overall funds could be ensnared in an account suspension.

Also, when it comes to specific merchant categories being restricted like online casinos or prescription drug sites, a PayPal-Bitcoin world is unlikely to remove the blocks on those merchants. It is a symptom of having one foot in the old banking and credit card world and one foot in the new decentralized and nonpolitical currency world. Perhaps, the PayPal executives view bitcoin as creative destruction but somehow I don’t think so.

My advice to PayPal and other conglomerates “looking into” Bitcoin with a shoehorn approach is to understand how authorization, clearing, and settlement occur nearly simultaneously within the Bitcoin distributed transaction network. Enhancing, rather than diminishing, that feature is the key to success. Bitcoin doesn’t need PayPal to be mobile, but PayPal probably needs Bitcoin to become seamlessly mobile.

About the best that could be said of any potential arrangement between PayPal and bitcoin is that it would bestow public credibility on bitcoin as a “unit of account” or new currency code. However, squeezing only the monetary unit portion into a legacy payments platform inserts an intermediary into a decentralized system and dilutes the value of the whole. Not to mention that Bitcoin will simply outlast PayPal.

Bitcoin Exposes Financial Regulation As Political Favoritism

By Aaron Lasher
Real Virtual Currency
Saturday, April 27, 2013

https://chralash.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/bitcoin-provides-an-opportunity-to-expose-financial-regulation-as-political-favoritism-and-not-consumer-protection/

Bitcoin is, at present, almost entirely unregulated, save for a few vague guidelines from FinCEN.  The only real regulations imposed upon the exchange markets are those of supply and demand, at least for now.

This is not the case regarding the large conventional markets that we are more accustomed to dealing with. Muddled among the actual consumer sentiments are layers upon layers of structures, rules, and hidden costs that obscure the information that the market is trying to convey.

In many ways, financial regulation for the sake of stability is like damming a river. You may succeed in stopping the yearly flood that ruins a couple of houses, but you also ensure that when it does eventually flood, that the river will probably wipe out the whole village.

For lack of a better term, investors have been coddled into complacency with regards to their financial decisions. When was the last time that you checked the solvency of the bank where you leave your deposits? Do you even care about its financial health? Of course not, because your deposits are insured. Surely, you would never have to take a haircut like our friends in Cyprus did. That is, of course, until the flood.

When you deal in Bitcoin, you have to wear your big-boy pants. Nobody is there to help you if you make a poor decision. You have to do your own research and sink or swim on those terms. For instance, I keep a small but non-trivial amount of Bitcoins on the securities trading platform Havelock Investments. Recently I reached out to the owner, James, to inquire about his security precautions. He was gracious enough to describe his protocols (by the way, they are top-notch) and put my mind at ease. Conversely, I have no idea at all how imprudent that Bank of America may or may not be with my US dollars.

When the markets go bonkers, and Mt. Gox begins to lag, remember that people can only manipulate you if you let them. The panic selling that ensues after a DDoS attack has become less and less pronounced because Bitcoin owners are wising up. We don’t need an uptick rule, we just need experience. We’re learning all sorts of things that we never could with the Dow, the FTSE, or the Nikkei.

Take, for instance, the Bitcoin-only gambling game Satoshi Dice. It pays a monthly dividend in the form of 13% of net profits. In the world we are accustomed to living in, SD would be subject to all sorts of reporting and insider trading regulations. But in the Bitcoin world, the story is refreshingly simple. There are no rules to follow or break, no guarantee that insiders won’t trade the stock for certain periods of time. Personally, I love it. It means that I can trust the current price a lot more assuming that people in-the-know have affected it already. I get more information from the price and can therefor make better decisions about whether I think it is a good time to buy or sell. As a bonus, the absence of regulatory cost burdens means higher profits and more money in my pocket.

If you follow the regulatory paper trail, you will often end up at the doorstep of large banks such as JP Morgan Chase or Goldman Sachs. This is because they have very effective lobby groups that know how to get legislation passed. Regulations are sold to the public as necessary for the protection of consumers and the ferreting out of fraud and money laundering. But you shouldn’t be surprised to notice that the side effects of many bills serve to make large financial institutions larger and to raise the barriers to enter and thus compete.

So how can we show the world that Bitcoin doesn’t need regulating? At the very least, don’t ask for it. Don’t blame anybody but yourself if you lose money trading, or your coins are stolen because you were careless. Become your own financial advocate. Do your research, learn about the companies you choose to trust with your money, and when the trading bots start flittering around the Mt. Gox order book, or somebody sells a big chunk of coins, go for a walk. You’ve got your big-boy pants on, and big boys don’t panic.

If bitcoin works without regulation, then it will have the potential to invalidate many claims that “regulation is for your own protection,” leaving the alternative explanation that regulation in general is little more than a blunt anti-competitive tool.

Reprinted with permission.

Patrick Murck Discusses Bitcoin With Financial Crime Specialists

General Counsel at the Bitcoin Foundation and VP of Business Development and General Counsel at CoinLab, Patrick Murck, recorded a podcast on April 26th, 2013 with the Association of Certified Financial Crime Specialists, a group connecting the global financial crime community. The talk was entitled: "Bitcoin’s promise and perils: What financial institutions should know about the new virtual currency."

From the ACFCS website:

Until recently, the virtual currency of Bitcoin may have had almost as many critics, skeptics and naysayers as it had actual users. Much has changed in the past few months. With the value of Bitcoins exploding, its exchanges doing a lively business, and more and more merchants accepting it as payment, Bitcoin now seems close to fulfilling its potential as a widely used, decentralized online currency.

One thing that has not changed, however, are the concerns over money laundering and financial crime risks that have swirled around Bitcoin since its inception. To delve into the mechanics of the online currency and explain how it interfaces with financial institutions worldwide, ACFCS is joined by Patrick Murck, General Counsel of the Bitcoin Foundation, on this Financial CrimeCast. He explains the inner workings of Bitcoin, and describes what steps the currency and its exchanges are taking to mitigate financial crime risks.

He also analyzes the impact of recent guidance by the US Financial Crimes Enforcement Network that lays out suggested regulations for virtual currencies for the first time, and explains what financial institutions should know about doing business with Bitcoin users.

Fincen's New Regulations Are Choking Bitcoin Entrepreneurs

By Jon Matonis
American Banker
Thursday, April 25, 2013

http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/fincen-regulations-choking-bitcoin-entrepreneurs-1058606-1.html

More than a decade ago, regulators nearly suffocated PayPal. Now it looks like they’re trying to squelch another disruptive, innovative payments system.

At least three exchanges in the U.S. that traded the digital currency Bitcoin have shut down, apparently as a result of guidance issued last month by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. That agency has emerged as the top threat, at least in in the United States, to the decentralized Bitcoin network – moreso than the widely reported price volatility and hacker attacks.

"They've been the single biggest factor for stomping out currency competition," says Bradley Jansen, a former assistant to Rep. Ron Paul and director of the Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights. Speaking recently on The Daily Bitcoin podcast with Adam Levine, Jansen expressed surprise at how little focus bitcoin business leaders are putting on Fincen, especially considering how regulators thwarted earlier emerging payment systems like PayPal and e-gold. PayPal obviously survived and prospered – but only after selling itself to eBay and agreeing to put restrictions on its service. E-gold was not so fortunate.

"Fincen was able to stop currency competition with technical innovations in the 90s even before their expanded powers under the U.S. Patriot Act. And, what we've got now is a Fincen on steroids without clear restrictions from Congress," Jansen says.

The guidance requires certain intermediaries that handle virtual currency to register with Fincen as money services businesses, which entails recordkeeping and reporting responsibilities. And it says some of those businesses may additionally be money transmitters, which would mean fingerprinting of directors and officers and compliance with a patchwork of state licensing requirements.

Jansen postulates that the recent Fincen virtual currency guidance was issued ex post facto as a way to set the stage for potential prosecutions in the future.

"It's a failure of Congress to do its job. We knew that these guidelines and these prosecutions were in the works even last Congress. Ron Paul was the chairman of the House subcommittee that had jurisdiction over Fincen and he never had a single hearing on this."

In a recent speech, Fincen Director Jennifer Shasky Calvery said the new guidance aims "to protect [digital currency] systems from abuse and to aid law enforcement in ensuring that they are getting the leads and information they need to prosecute the criminal actors." She reiterated that the guidance does not apply to everyday users who pay or accept bitcoin for goods and services.

But by saddling startups with compliance requirements, and making them unattractive clients for regulated banks that despair of serving MSBs, Fincen is choking these businesses that facilitate conversion of bitcoins into dollars. Fewer exchanges and more red tape will make it harder for merchants or consumers (who, after all, must still pay the bills with dollars) to take advantage of the Bitcoin payment system’s speed, privacy and competitive costs.

On March 20 – just two days after the guidance from Fincen came out – the bitcoin exchanger bitme.com suspended operations indefinitely. Bitme was a relatively small operation, but it was widely suspected among bitcoin users in online forums that this closure resulted from difficulties related to potential regulatory compliance.

BTC Buy, another bitcoin exchange site, suspended services and closed permanently in early April, specifically citing the legal uncertainty brought up by the Fincen guidance.

Most recently, the largest bitcoin exchange to halt trading was Bitfloor, run by Roman Shtylman, who blamed "circumstances outside of our control." His New York operation had average daily trading volume of about $300,000 (depending on the exchange rate), with U.S. dollar deposits and withdrawals running through a Capital One bank account – which the bank unilaterally closed.  "I had very little time to act between receiving the account closure letter and the account being closed," Shtylman told PaymentsSource.

In this case, the regulatory guidance may have had an indirect effect. Bitfloor was registered with Fincen as an MSB but was not licensed as a state money transmitter. Shtylman surmised that Capital One had judged his business to be "not worth the risk."

Across the Atlantic and presumably unrelated to Fincen, Poland-based Bitcoin-24 suspended trading after the government there froze its bank account. It reportedly did so because a bank in Germany complained of compromised accounts transferring stolen money without identification to Bitcoin-24. Also, U.K.-based TransferWise, a foreign currency intermediary, ceased transfers to any bitcoin exchanges at the request of its banking partners. TransferWise had mostly been servicing customers in the U.K., Poland, and Spain.

It will be interesting to watch how Fincen intends to treat one-way, fixed-rate brokers that either buy or sell bitcoin at a fixed price. Since a two-way exchange market is not involved it could be seen as merely a typical commodity purchase or sale.

Tangible Cryptography LLC, which registered as an MSB this month, operates FastCash4Bitcoins for selling bitcoins and Bitcoins Direct for private off-exchange purchases. The two businesses function independently of each other and neither is technically an exchange. Bitcoins Direct is frequently closed to new clients and its cash deposit feature was recently cancelled.

The fact that bitcoin survives at all with so many powerful forces lined up against it is a testament to its resiliency and tenacity. Now, in addition to the vicious press coverage and persistent denial of service attacks on exchanges, the emerging cryptographic money has to contend with onerous and targeted regulation.

With respect to bitcoin and financial regulation, Jansen warns: "I think the lesson from the 90s was that you either become what Fincen wants you to be or you're not going to be."

Not in the U.S., that is. But jurisdictional competition will kick in and overseas exchanges will gain market share and liquidity. They just may not have U.S. customers.

Tradehill Exchange Adds Dark Pools Of Bitcoin Liquidity

By Jon Matonis
Forbes
Thursday, March 28, 2012

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2013/03/28/tradehill-exchange-adds-dark-pools-of-bitcoin-liquidity/

This week the bitcoin exchange Tradehill launches dark liquidity, or dark pools, for client institutions and individuals that do not want to reveal their trading size and identity. In trading on dark pools, market participants have the ability to execute large block trades without adversely impacting the price in either direction.

Based in San Francisco, Tradehill Inc. has relaunched successfully as a business-to-business bitcoin exchange for institutional investors and individuals qualifying as accredited investors. The original Tradehill founded by CEO Jered Kenna in 2011 had operations in the U.S. and Chile and maintained a consistent second position in daily trading volume after Mt. Gox.

Offering both a transparent open order book and a dark order book, the Tradehill service Prime will be critical for both large investors on the buy side, such as funds and institutions, and commercial participants on the sell side, such as merchant processors and bitcoin mining operators.

As “liquidity” and “market impact” can be synonymous in many cases, the market impact, especially on price, is a key consideration for those larger institutions that are regularly shifting assets between financial markets. If a large trade is executed incorrectly, the market impact can be several percentage points in addition to the typical transaction costs of commission and/or spread.

“Whether you’re trying to sell a large amount of bitcoin above market, or trying to buy without losing your shirt to slippage, dark orders on the Prime platform provide an important tool for larger traders,” said Kenna.
In one week, over 100 new accredited investors signed up for Tradehill Prime. The company requires a $10,000 minimum initial deposit (in bitcoin equivalent or U.S. dollars) and dark orders will be priced in BTC, trading in micro-lots of $1,000. New clients also receive a $75 account credit to test the integrated trading platform on the open order book.

Tradehill is a U.S-based exchange that falls within the definition of FinCEN’s regulations for virtual currency exchange operators. “Bitcoin’s primary use is value transmission and financial technology in the U.S. is a very regulated space,” according to Tradehill COO Ryan Singer. The company has anticipated this regulation and the recent guidance from FinCEN “really helps the startups in the space build a compliance game plan,” he added.

In offering dark pools of bitcoin liquidity within an exchange infrastructure, institutional clients gain the benefits of anonymity and non-display of orders but without losing any of the efficiencies associated with trading on an exchanges’ public order books. With bitcoin, it is difficult to gauge how much large-block trading occurs off a publicly visible exchange. By comparison, research firm Tabb Group estimates that off-exchange and dark pool trading in the U.S. equity markets accounted for 32% of trades in 2012.

Emma Quinn, AllianceBernstein’s Head of Asia Pacific Trading for equities, says ” We use dark pools to access liquidity for orders we would not normally place in the central limit order book. I think dark pools aid price discovery. There has to be post-trade transparency but once that happens you’ve actually got more transparency on a market than you normally would.”

MIT Professor of Finance Haoxiang Zhu agrees with that assessment writing that “dark pools can improve price discovery in open exchanges.” He also said, “Adding a dark pool alongside an exchange tends to concentrate price-relevant information into the exchange and improve price discovery. Improved price discovery coincides with reduced exchange liquidity.”

This is precisely where the Bitcoin market needs to be heading and it is a necessary prerequisite for Bitcoin’s evolving role in global trade. Wholesale trading exchanges like Tradehill Prime represent an evolution from the floating-rate and fixed-rate retail exchanges. They can also be considered a precursor to bitcoin-based forex markets as well as more sophisticated derivatives markets for bitcoin futures and options.

Bitcoin Foundation Reacts To FinCEN Guidance

By Patrick Murck
Bitcoin Foundation
Tuesday, March 19, 2013

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/today-we-are-all-money-transmitters-no-really/

FinCEN shook us all from our Monday afternoon stupor by dropping some provocative “guidance” for those involved in the business and use of digital currencies and, in particular those of us involved with the grand experiment that is Bitcoin.

You can and should read what FinCEN had to say for yourself here.

Upon an initial reading two things struck me:

1. FinCEN firmly believes that virtual currency in general, and bitcoin in particular, does not fall under the prepaid access rules.
2. FinCEN seems intent on recreating and expanding the prepaid access rules for virtual currency and bitcoin under the mantle of money transmission.

I was happy to see FinCEN issue some clarity around the overly-broad prepaid access rules and definitively state that they do not apply in the context of bitcoin. This is quite interesting because in my conversations with seasoned payments and digital currency lawyers, prepaid access seemed to be the most likely trigger for FinCEN regulation – closely followed, of course, by money transmission.

That’s about where my happiness ended as the clear guidance quickly devolved into something a little less comprehensible.

In particular, I’m a little disheartened that FinCEN appears to be creating an entirely new regulatory scheme under the guise of “guidance.” Of course, FinCEN cannot rely on this guidance in any enforcement action, as they must readily acknowledge. Simply put, under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), FinCEN can’t promulgate new rules without going through a notice and comment proceeding whereby the public may have their voices heard. If FinCEN would like to expand its statutory authority over “money transmitters” to include brand new categories such as “administrators” and “exchangers” of digital currency it must do so through proper rule making proceedings and not by fiat. I welcome that conversation.

State Money Transmitter Issues

It should also be noted at the outset, in case there is any confusion, that FinCEN’s rule-making and interpretations have no practical effect on State money transmitter laws (although FinCEN or Congress may preempt such State laws in the future). State MTB laws and enforcement is something that should be discussed, and to some degree worried about, but it’s a separate issue.

FinCEN Overreaches

Read closely FinCEN’s guidance implies that every person who has ever had any virtual currency and has ever exchanged that virtual currency for real currency may now be considered a money transmitter under the Bank Secrecy Act. That is, of course, an untenable position.

FinCEN starts going off the tracks early on, as they carefully define a “User” (not subject to MSB registration) as “a person that obtains virtual currency to purchase goods or services” as opposed to an “Exchanger” who is “a person engaged as a business in the exchange of virtual currency for real currency, funds, or other virtual currency.” Left unsaid are any specifics around the facts and circumstances that would constitute “engaging as a business.”

What is crystal-clear is that once a person sells a single Satoshi for real currency that person is no longer a “User” and therefore not categorically exempted from MSB registration.

Later in the document as FinCEN turns its attention to discussing decentralized virtual currencies we get the money paragraph.

In a bizarre shot across the bow at miners, FinCEN states unequivocally that “a person that creates units of convertible virtual currency and sells those units to another person for real currency or its equivalent is engaged in transmission to another location and is a money transmitter.”

And then, for good measure, FinCEN completely muddies the waters by stating: “In addition, a person is an exchanger and a money transmitter if the person accepts such decentralized convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person as part of the acceptance and transfer of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency.”

FinCEN’s position as it relates to bitcoin can be summed up as follows:

1. A person may spend money to purchase bitcoin or mine bitcoin and then exchange the currency for goods and/or services without having to register with FinCEN as an MSB.
2. If a person receives real money in exchange for their bitcoin they MAY have to register with FinCEN.
3. If a miner exchanges their mined bitcoin for real money they MUST register with FinCEN.
4. Anyone transacting bitcoin on someone else’s behalf MUST register with FinCEN.

This framework would wildly expand the reach of FinCEN and the BSA, and would be infeasible for many, if not most, members of the bitcoin community to comply with. An individual or micro-business cannot be expected to create a robust AML/KYC program anytime they sell 1 or 100 bitcoin on an exchange or in-person. The BSA was never intended to apply this broadly and reach this far into people’s everyday lives. Perhaps a little more guidance is needed.

Patrick Murck is general counsel at the Bitcoin Foundation. Reprinted with permission.

For further reading:
"The War On Bitcoin—and Anonymity", Eli Dourado, March 20, 2013
"FinCEN sounds death knell for US based Bitcoin businesses", Irdial, March 19, 2013

A New Challenger in the Bitcoin Merchant Processing Race

By Jon Matonis
PaymentsSource
Friday, March 8, 2013

http://www.paymentssource.com/news/a-new-challenger-in-the-bitcoin-merchant-processing-race-3013477-1.html

The large payment brands fiddle while Rome burns, seemingly unaware of the approaching bitcoin onslaught that is free of processing fees and political boundaries.

One of those barbarians at the gate, formerly known as WalletBit, has broadened its functionality and cut its pricing to expand directly into merchant processing. The company, based in Denmark, has rebranded itself Bitcoin Internet Payment System, or BIPS.

Best of all is that BIPS’ merchant tools and digital wallet services will be free unless, of course, conversion to national currencies is required, in which case it will charge 2.5% to convert out of bitcoin. Denmark and Canada have special reduced cash-out rates with same-day interbank transfers for Canadian accounts, says BIPS Director of Marketing Adam Harding. The strategy is to make it easy for merchants to get started and then aggregate their bitcoin balances with the company, which will make money over time providing foreign exchange conversion and premium services to the client.

This approach directly challenges the leading bitcoin merchant processor, BitPay, which just received yet another follow-on round of funding, and U.S.-only Coinbase, which appears to have a good future on the merchant side of the business.

Bitcoin's appeal to merchants is not only the lack of chargebacks and interchange fees but also the broadening of the customer base to include consumers from about 60 countries not served by PayPal. Also, traditional credit card products are typically not available in many countries either for political reasons, higher fraud rates, or lack of retail credit infrastructure.

The business model for bitcoin merchant processing was bound to mature and evolve, because an intermediary processor is not inherently required in this alternative payment system. In the world of Visa and MasterCard, it makes sense to have someone process transactions because authorization and settlement services are needed. But with bitcoin, the pure merchant processors are an interim step at best since third-party authorizations and chargebacks are not part of the architecture due to the distributed nature of transaction confirmation on the bitcoin block chain.

What's important to merchants is the coin management with various mobile apps and shopping cart plug-ins as well as the optional foreign exchange conversion. This is where the industry is headed and BIPS realizes that.
Merchant plug-ins are becoming commoditized and foreign exchange options are driven by strong partnerships with domestic and international financial institutions. This leaves the wallet technology as the wedge for innovative differences, such as management reporting capabilities and online secure access. All of the current so-called merchant processors offer online wallets that are under the control of the operator, meaning that bitcoin private keys are stored and protected by the operating company.

Smartly deploying two-factor authentication for wallet account access with a one-time passcode technique, BIPS (the former WalletBit) uses Secure Card and Google Authenticator, BitPay uses Google Authenticator, and Coinbase uses Authy.

I believe that online wallets, or eWallets, that do not store the client’s private key, such as BlockChain's My Wallet and StrongCoin, have an advantage in the long term because this setup removes the need to trust and audit the company's procedures. Although performing the cryptographic operations in the browser has its own challenges, the risks are reduced substantially compared to a localized breach since the threats to non-private-key-holding wallets are limited to a man-in-the-middle attack or a court order demanding “rogue” javascript delivery (the browser equivalent of a wiretap).

As bitcoin wallet functionality becomes more mature and robust, merchants will simply elect to partner with the best standalone client wallets and the best eWallets. If and when those accumulated bitcoin balances need to be exchanged for national currencies, then the wallet providers with the most attractive conversion options and limits will be the leaders.

BIPS has an advantage here because it supports 42 different currencies for converting out of bitcoin at 2.5%, whereas BitPay supports 11 different currencies at 2% fee, and Coinbase offers cash-out only in U.S. dollars at 1% with strict limits. Additionally, the cost of conversion has to be looked at in conjunction with the merchant processing fees. On that score BIPS and Coinbase are free while BitPay charges 0.99%. So, for merchants choosing to store bitcoin with the processor rather than convert it to government currency, BIPS and Coinbase are zero charge. (For a merchant that takes in 10% or less of its monthly sales in bitcoin, storing it with the processor can be an inexpensive way to acquire the currency and have a market position.)

Looking towards the future, barriers to entry are very low for the bitcoin merchant processing business. The differentiators for success will be online wallet security configurations, foreign exchange conversion options, and merchant software tools – in that order. With the market spread regionally now, it's still a jump ball.

Coinbase: Swapping Bitcoin Privacy for Banking Convenience

By Jon Matonis
PaymentsSource
Tuesday, February 19, 2013

http://www.paymentssource.com/news/swapping-bitcoin-privacy-for-banking-convenience-3013278-1.html

I've always had this nagging feeling about Coinbase’s exchange service and I just couldn't quite put my finger on it.

The San Francisco startup receives praise for its simple method of acquiring and selling bitcoins, a digital currency, via one’s U.S. bank account. In fact, Coinbase, founded in June 2012, is now selling over $1 million worth of bitcoins per month. The firm apparently ran out of inventory last week.

Then, it hit me. This is just like buying bitcoins from your bank – or from the Internal Revenue Service. If a bank offered a bitcoin purchasing option from its website, it would look like Coinbase. If Coinbase cut them in on the commission, it could probably white-label the service directly to banks.

Nothing wrong with that, but it means Coinbase fails to leverage the unique financial privacy aspects of the Bitcoin network. I do not fault founder and CEO Brian Armstrong, because he’s launched a much-needed Bitcoin service at a critical point in the digital money's evolution. Here's the rub: to address the fraud and compliance issues around the irreversible sale of a privacy product, Coinbase has simply removed the privacy.

Currently, Coinbase provides its exchange service in the U.S. only and it offers two methods for linking a bank account, “instant account verification” and “challenge deposit verification.” For those who are uncomfortable providing their private online banking usernames and passwords to Coinbase, the alternate method offers a typical challenge deposit process similar to linking a bank account to PayPal. (In challenge verification, a company makes two small deposits to the user’s account, and the user proves she is the accountholder by entering those amounts into the company’s site.) Coinbase does not allow for other less-intrusive payment methods, such as a cash deposit at a bank branch, via an intermediary like TrustCash, or cash bill payment at a retail location, through a network like ZipZap.

(Coinbase also signs up merchants to accept bitcoin and landed Reddit as a client last week.)

Coinbase is not licensed as a money transmitter in any state, nor is it registered as a money services business with the U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. I applaud the company for dispensing with these formalities because, since it is only selling a cryptographic token and not a financial instrument, such registration and licensure is not legally required.

The company says it has an anti-money laundering program, but it was not listed on their web site, and again, it is not a legal requirement for this business. Besides, the majority of what constitutes an AML program is already covered via Coinbase's strong relationship to the user's financial institution, with one of the exceptions being the identification of aggregated transactions from multiple bank accounts. But even this would be easy enough for Coinbase to determine based on the additional user data collected.

According to its privacy policy, Coinbase collects data about visitors to the site sent by their computer or mobile phone (e.g. IP addresses) and device information including but not limited to identifier, name and type, operating system, location, mobile network information and standard web log information. Those who sign up for the service may have to provide their name, address, phone number, email address, and bank or credit card numbers. Before using the service, customers may further have to give a Social Security number or birthdate, and they are subject to credit checks or identity verification by third parties.

Furthermore, there is no indication that Coinbase deletes the internal bitcoin wallet transfer logs or the associated bitcoin address logs. With more observable data points, the privacy of all bitcoin transactions can become cumulatively degraded.

By criticizing the collection of personal information for the purchase of bitcoin, a harmless cryptography product, I am not simply "letting the perfect being the enemy of the good." Caution is strongly advised when dealing with Coinbase. The potential exists for enhanced surveillance and network traffic analysis enabled by the supreme identity management that comes built-in with Coinbase. For instance, it would not be advisable to play Bitcoin casino games or poker with Coinbase-acquired bitcoins that weren't properly "mixed."

Of course, not everyone requires privacy in their transactions, so Coinbase may suit some users’ purposes just fine. However, Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin, didn't sit down and code the decentralized protocol because he was upset about banking efficiency and trusted third parties. He wrote Bitcoin as a value transfer system that could survive hostile attacks.

When Armstrong says, "our goal is to make [B]itcoin easier to use, and (longer term) to help bring fast, cheap, international payments to the whole world" and "Bitcoin represents a fundamental leap forward in payment technology and it’s going to bring massive efficiencies to many areas of commerce," he's playing only to the low-fee, frictionless attributes of Bitcoin. He doesn't mean that Coinbase's goal is to facilitate payments for the anonymous and safe purchase of WordPress features in authoritarian countries or to bypass a politically-motivated blockade against WikiLeaks.

When it comes to the financial privacy and censorship-resistant payment attributes of Bitcoin, Coinbase falls short, and that, I think, is likely to impede the startup’s growth. The firm seems not to care. Its privacy policy states, "We may share your personal information with law enforcement, government officials, or other third parties when we are compelled to do so by a subpoena, court order or similar legal procedure."

When that time comes, you better believe that Coinbase will have a lot to share.

Largest Bitcoin Payment Processor Raises $510,000 Angel Round

By Jon Matonis
Forbes
Monday, January 7, 2012

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2013/01/07/largest-bitcoin-payment-processor-raises-510000-angel-round/

BitPay, Inc. announced today that they have completed a seed funding round of $510,000 from several angel investors demonstrating that bitcoin can attract the capital necessary to encroach upon legacy payment methods. Similar to merchant processors for credit and debit cards, BitPay is a Payment Service Provider (PSP) specializing in eCommerce, B2B, and enterprise solutions for virtual currencies.

Investors participating in the seed round include SecondMarket founder Barry Silbert, Spotify investor Shakil Khan, Jimmy Furland, Roger Ver, and other Internet entrepreneurs. Specific terms of the deal were not disclosed but co-founders Anthony Gallippi and Stephen Pair will retain majority ownership. Investors Silbert and Ver also participated in the April 2012 funding round for mining pool operator CoinLab.

CEO Anthony Gallippi says, "BitPay plans to use the funds to move the headquarters from Orlando to Atlanta and to hire additional developer talent for enhancement to the BitPay platform." With proximity to other financial technology companies and several leading universities, Atlanta provides an excellent base for expansion.

Gallippi added that the WordPress decision to begin accepting Bitcoin via BitPay for certain features is "what really accelerated this funding round because investors saw it as the ideal time to move forward." Since the November 2012 WordPress deal, BitPay has seen new merchants increase by nearly 50% to over 2,000.

The total dollar value of all bitcoin transactions processed by BitPay in 2012 was over $3 million, which represents average quarter-to-quarter growth of 50% over the past four quarters for transaction volume.

"With very little resource, BitPay has already taken the place as market leader in the bitcoin payment processing ecosystem, and along with the other investors, I am very excited to help the founding team scale up and take it to the next level," said London-based Shakil Khan, an early investor in Spotify and SecondMarket.

The value proposition to merchants is clear -- eliminate fraud and chargeback risk, accept transactions from any country in the world, and increase profitability by saving on processing fees and PCI Compliance costs.

"Credit cards were never designed for the Internet," stated Gallippi. Using a credit card over the internet is a situation known as card-not-present.  "It was never intended when credit cards were designed, and when we try to use them this way it carries higher processing fees and substantially higher risk. Payment fraud represents nearly 1% of our GDP [$100 billion] in the United States." Shockingly, the large majority of that is a direct hit to the retailers.

So far, BitPay's notable competition in the space is Denmark-based WalletBit and Colorado-based Paysius. Also, the proof-of-concept AcceptBit solution takes things in a different direction altogether with a trust-free payment processor.

Although BitPay is the worldwide leader now with payment plugins for the most common eCommerce shopping carts and multilingual support in over eight languages, they will have to continue innovating with superior features and expanded settlement currency options.

The overwhelming majority of BitPay merchants settle in U.S. dollars because the company does not yet offer direct settlement into other currencies. Furthermore, as almost all merchants start out converting 100% of their Bitcoin proceeds into U.S. dollars, the company acknowledged that the trend is heading towards 50% or less as merchants increasingly decide to maintain proprietary Bitcoin balances.

While that may be good for the future of bitcoin, it alters the business model for payment processors like BitPay because they are forced to rely more on the Bitcoin-only processing spread which is justified by customer support and user-friendly plugins. Also, they risk being seen as just an unnecessary intermediary.

In a bitcoin-only world for selling and buying without conversion to national fiat currencies, the line between processors and wallets becomes blurred. If the bitcoin payment processing industry is indeed headed towards sophisticated, feature-rich deterministic wallets and built-in risk management functionality, the leading processor should have a great advantage in steering the transition.

ECB: “Roots Of Bitcoin Can Be Found In The Austrian School Of Economics”

By Jon Matonis
Forbes
Saturday, November 3, 2012

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2012/11/03/ecb-roots-of-bitcoin-can-be-found-in-the-austrian-school-of-economics/

The ECB (European Central Bank) has produced the first official central bank study of the decentralized cryptographic money known as bitcoin, Virtual Currency Schemes. Ignoring for a moment the ECB's condescending and derogatory use of the virtual currency phrase and scheme phrase, the study produced at least one landmark achievement.

In claiming that "The theoretical roots of Bitcoin can be found in the Austrian school of economics," the ECB forever linked Bitcoin to the proud economic heritage of Menger, Mises, and Hayek as well as to Austrian business cycle theory. This recognition is also a direct testament to the monetary theory work of Friedrich von Hayek who inspired many with his 1976 landmark publication of Denationalisation of Money.

Bitcoin fully embodies the spirit of denationalized money as it seeks no authority for its continued existence and it recognizes no political borders for its circulation. Indeed according to the report, proponents see Bitcoin as "a good starting point to end the monopoly central banks have in the issuance of money" and "inspired by the former gold standard."

Economists from the 19th and mid-20th centuries can be forgiven for not anticipating an interconnected digital realm like the Internet with its p2p distributed architecture, but modern economists cannot be. From their own conclusions (on page 48) which inaccurately lump Bitcoin together with Linden Dollars, here is what the modern-day economists at the ECB are still not getting:

1. ECB concludes that if money creation remains at a low level, bitcoin does not pose a risk to price stability. This is incorrect on two levels. One, the creation of new bitcoin is capped at 21 million with eight current decimal places so it grows through adoption and usage rather than monetary expansion. And two, as with gold, silver, and other commodities having a monetary component, price stability is a function of the market not central planners;

2. ECB concludes that bitcoin cannot jeopardize financial stability due to its low volume and limited connection with the real economy. Conversely, bitcoin will tend to increase financial stability and overall soundness. Bitcoin's connection with the real economy is only a concern for the regulated and taxed economy, whereas bitcoin independently may thrive in the $10 trillion shadow or "original" economy. Besides, with its repeated market interventions, no one has done more to jeopardize financial stability than the ECB itself;

3. ECB concludes that bitcoin is currently not regulated and supervised by any public authority. It would be more accurate to say that State-sponsored regulation is largely irrelevant because of the inherent design properties of a peer-to-peer distributed computing system. But happily, this is still a conclusion that I can agree with and recommend that it remains the case;

4.  ECB concludes that bitcoin could represent a challenge for public authorities, given the legal uncertainty and potential for performing illegal activities. While public authorities will certainly be challenged by the introduction of a monetary unit that cannot be manipulated for political purposes, bitcoin in some cases does have the ability to provide tracking capability that far exceeds that of national cash or money substitutes. What authorities will find most troubling though, with bitcoin, is that money flows between individuals and businesses will no longer be exploitable for purposes of unlimited identity tracking and unconstitutional 'fishing expeditions';

5. ECB concludes that bitcoin "could have a negative impact on the reputation of central banks, assuming the use of such systems grows considerably and in the event that an incident attracts press coverage, since the public may perceive the incident as being caused, in part, by a central bank not doing its job properly." Pretentious as it may seem, the ECB is stating here that central banks as protector of the general public with respect to payments have a role to play because it is their reputation that suffers in the event of a bitcoin-related security incident. Firstly, that is an assumed responsibility -- not a delegated responsibility; and reputational impact aside, I would prefer to rely on lex mercatoria;

6. ECB concludes that bitcoin does indeed fall within central banks' responsibility as a result of characteristics shared with payment systems. Of course it does not. Central banks are a form of centralized economic planning so their stated responsibilities are suspect from the outset. Bitcoin represents an intangible math puzzle whose existence is solely restricted to transfer rights on a cloud-based public ledger. It more closely resembles an air guitar than a payment system for purposes of oversight.

Now, in affirming the superior attributes of bitcoin in the role of financial innovation, the ECB correctly identifies why the profligate issuers of national fiat currencies will ultimately feel threatened by such a decentralized nonpolitical unit. The report acknowledges the following with respect to bitcoin: (a) "higher degree of anonymity compared to other electronic payment instruments," (b) "lower transaction costs compared with traditional payment systems, and (c) "more direct and faster clearing and settlement of transactions" from the absence of intermediaries.

Overall, the fear of the monetary overlords is palpable as the study concludes by basically promising continued scrutiny and oversight. Also forecast for the plebeians is a possible remedy to the global scope and unclear jurisdiction of the regulatory challenge:

"One possible way to overcome this situation and obtain some quantitative information on the magnitude of the funds moved through these virtual currency schemes could be to focus on the link between the virtual economy and the real economy, i.e. the transfer of money from the banking environment to the virtual environment. Virtual accounts need to be funded either via credit transfer, payment card or PayPal and therefore a possibility would be to request this information from credit institutions, card schemes and PayPal."

However, Michael Parsons, a former executive with Emirates Bank (Dubai), Moscow Narodny Bank, and KPMG Moscow, believes that those efforts will prove futile and he explains, "Bitcoin is 'regulated' by its peers and mathematics. And Bitcoin is not a currency like fiat money. It is a value  transfer system which is given value only by its users. So the ECB, FED, etc. have no mandate to control a 'virtual currency' just because they call it (bitcoin) that! It will just go underground. Bitcoin is like Light and Air. Free to use and transfer. Owned and issued by the people and NOT the State!"

It evokes an image of central bankers huddled comfortably on the safe shoreline as they look out into the horizon and see the dangerous, unstable virtual currencies approaching. The opposite is actually the truth because it is the central bankers who are floating precipitously out at sea. As James Turk famously said about bitcoin's analog cousin, "When standing in a boat and looking at the shore, it is the boat (currencies) – and not the land (gold) – that is bobbing up and down."

Bitcoin Cryptocurrency: Is "Digital Gold" The Future Of Money?

Jim Puplava, President of PFS Group and host of Financial Sense Newshour, welcomes Jon Matonis, an e-Money researcher and Crypto Economist focused on expanding the circulation of nonpolitical digital currencies. Jon explains the definition of "crypto-currency" and discusses Bitcoin, the first true crypto-currency, which he describes as ''digital gold." Jon and Jim discuss the potential of Bitcoin, if it will eventually compete against government monopoly currencies, and if crypto-currencies could in fact become the future of money itself (10/31/2012).

Jon Matonis on Bitcoin CryptoCurrency: Is "Digital Gold" The Future Of Money? The audio file is hosted below or you can download here.

http://www.financialsensenewshour.com/broadcast/insider/fsn2012-1031-1-insider-i8mw5o3.mp3


Articles referenced during the interview:
Bitcoin Foundation Launches To Drive Bitcoin's Advancement (9/27/2012)
Brainwallet: The Ultimate In Mobile Money (3/12/2012)
Key Disclosure Law Can Be Used To Confiscate Bitcoin Assets (9/12/2012)
The Bitcoin Richest: Accumulating Large Balances (6/22/2012)

Bitcoin, Dollars and Pot-Banging Protests in Argentina

By The Blue Market

Thursday, October 18, 2012

http://thebluemarket.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/bitcoin-dollars-and-pot-banging-protests-in-argentina/

200.000 people in the Plaza de Mayo

This post is a peep into the underground exchange markets for dollars and bitcoins in Argentina. For the last couple of weeks, I have experienced the informal exchange of bitcoin and dollars on first hand in Buenos Aires. Furthermore, I have realized how both locals and expats may reap significant gains by using bitcoins as a medium of exchange.

Inflation and Monetary Restrictions

Before we dive into the details of the underground markets in Argentina, let me try to paint the picture of the current economic situation in Argentina.

For several years the Argentine inflation rate has been bumping around 25-30% per annum, according to figures published by independent institutions. The Argentine government doesn’t recognize the independent estimates and has allied with INDEC, the National Statistics Institute, to calculate inflation figures 2-3 times lower than the independent figures. The interesting fact is that the peso’s fixed exchange rate with the dollar is only taking into account INDEC’s inflation rate of 8-12%, causing overvaluation of the peso by not incorporating the true higher inflation rate. INDEC is indeed a neat implementation of an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth”, and the magic calculations have raised concerns with IMF who is threatening to expel Argentina from the organization.

Naturally the high inflation rate has caused capital flight out of Argentina, and every Argentine with a bit of savings is looking to exchange their pesos into something more secure. In order to stop the capital flight and fortify the central bank’s reserves, the government has implemented strict measures to prevent Argentines from obtaining foreign currencies. For example, only if you are travelling abroad are you allowed to exchange pesos for dollars legally, but there is a limit of 100$ per day abroad. Recently the government also imposed a 15% tax on all foreign credit card purchases, and a 50% custom duty on any goods which Argentines purchased abroad. Aside from the outrageous taxes, this legislation completely flashes your personal banking details to government officials, who can then snoop on your shopping list.

The complex regulatory environment has caused Paypal to suspend all domestic transactions in Argentina. Ebay and Amazon has followed suit with similar restrictions.

The Blue Dollar

In Argentina the dollar you care about is blue. The reason is that the difficulty for locals to acquire dollars through traditional means has fueled a secondary dollar exchange market. The unofficial exchange rate, known as the “blue dollar rate”, is approximately 25% higher than the official rate.

For expats, it’s a no-brainer that you are being ripped-off by withdrawing cash at ATMs from established banks, where the withdrawal is conducted at the official exchange rate currently around $ARS 4.70 pesos per dollar. In comparison, if you exchange USD on the “blue market” you get around $ARS 6.20  pesos per dollar.

Luckily before travelling to Argentina, my girlfriend and I were tipped off to this news and carried along dollars in cash when entering the country. One can exchange dollars at the blue market rate simply by heading to Bs. Aires main shopping street, Calle Florida. Here lots of street vendors are drifting around advertising their business to anyone who looks like a potential customer. The street vendors here are known as arbolitos by locals. Arbolitos means “little trees”, a reference to the street vendors are full of “green leaves”. If you are looking to exchange dollars the street vendors will quickly approach you and provide a quote. If you accept the quote, you just head to a nearby jewelry or electronics shop and complete the transaction.

Above approach is generally safe but I wasn’t too keen on exchanging dollars with street vendors. Instead I posted a small note on an online forum and got in contact with a couple living in Buenos Aires, who were eager to exchange dollars for pesos at the blue market rate. The snapshot below is the result of this exchange – and what an underground dollar market looks like.

The Bitcoin Hero

The dollars we brought into Argentina are soon running out, and we have been looking for alternatives to increase our dollar reserves. One approach is to cross the border to Uruguay – but you have the hassle of ATM withdrawal limits and the risk of travelling with lots of cash. There is also a service called Xoom, which allows you to transfer money from abroad to various pick-up locations in Bs. Aires. The magic of Xoom is that they somehow manage to provide the blue dollar exchange rate. Unfortunately they also require a US bank account to use its services.

Another possibility is Bitcoin, a new electronic currency, which has been flourishing online for the last couple of years. In our situation Bitcoin has turned out to be a great vehicle to transfer money into Argentina and achieve the blue dollar exchange rate. I completed my first bitcoin to pesos transaction last week and gained 25% in comparison to the official exchange rate.

The way it works is that you simply buy some bitcoins online through one of the many bitcoin exchanges. Mt.Gox is by far the largest but there are local alternatives as well, such as Bitcoin Nordic. Once you have your bitcoins you identify an Argentine who is on the market for bitcoins at the blue dollar rate. Given the economic situation there are lots of Argentines who are looking to get rid of pesos in exchange for other more secure assets.

In my case I circulated a note to Eudemocracia’s bitcoin mailing list announcing that I was interested in selling bitcoins. The price I offered was the Mt.Gox USD price converted to pesos at the blue USD exchange rate. Based on the number of replies this was an attractive offer, and after some email correspondence, I agreed  to meet up with one contact and conduct the transaction. After getting the agreed pesos in cash I made a one-click transfer of bitcoins to his online bitcoin wallet. A bitcoin transfer is instant and non reversible, and the picture below shows how we could confirm completion of the transaction on the spot.

Because of the dollar restrictions and the escalating inflation the demand for bitcoins in Argentina is greater than our personal need for pesos. Therefore, if you are an expat or just travelling through I encourage you to explore bitcoin as an alternative to finance your stay. Not only will you get a 25% higher exchange rate but you will also help locals protect their savings from being hollowed by inflation.

I believe the bitcoin adventure is just kicking off in Argentina. Also I’m keen to see how the 200.000 Argentines demonstrating for libertad in the Plaza de Mayo might use bitcoin to fight the monetary restrictions themselves. Maybe it’s an even better approach than banging a pot?

Bitcoin, Gold and Competitive Currencies

You don't want to miss this thought-provoking James Turk interview with economist and trader Félix Moreno de la Cova.

Gold is simply analog bitcoin and, as gold bugs become more aware of that fact, two things will become more apparent. First, that specie-backed digital currencies will always be subject to trust in the custodial issuer, and more importantly, trust that the specie won't be confiscated or seized. Second, a transfer of wealth from national currencies to cryptocurrencies is occurring which will dwarf the transfer of wealth occurring in the precious metals sector. Enjoy.



For further reading:
"Ding, Ding, Ding! James Turk Gets It!", BitcoinMoney, September 20, 2012
"GoldMoney: James Turk in conversation with Félix Moreno de la Cova", Bitcoin Forum, September 14, 2012

Lex Mercatoria: The Emergence of a Self-Regulated Bitcoin

By Jon Matonis
Forbes
Monday, May 28, 2012

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2012/05/28/lex-mercatoria-the-emergence-of-a-self-regulated-bitcoin/

As the Bitcoinica brokerage saga metastasizes yet again with the shocking revelation that no recent database backups exist, earlier security warnings to the company's founder are being reviewed.  One observer suggested that "as the potential payoff of a hacker approaches $1 million, the likelihood of being hacked approaches 90%."
Over eight months ago, another reviewer posted:

"I've worked on financial systems before. As others have stated, if you're dealing with real money, then you have a big bulls-eye painted on your forehead, and you need to make sure that your system is hardened. Make sure you understand attack vectors and protect against them -- XSS, SQL Injection, man-in-the-middle, etc. Make sure your passwords are salted and hashed. Auditing. Can't emphasize this enough. Things will go wrong, and when they do, you need to be able to tell when, where, and why. In our case, we had shadow tables in our database where we logged changes, and then consolidated and exported that data into an auditing system. We could confirm that a user made X change at Y time from Z IP address."

Large financial system websites are some of the most lucrative online targets and bitcoin has the added dimension of a target-rich environment that rarely results in prosecution. Not only is it difficult to prosecute the individual or individuals responsible for the hack, it is difficult to prosecute the financial site itself for negligence due to the many disclaimers inherent in voluntary and unregulated service providers or due to complicated offshore circumstances (although New Zealand does offer a dispute resolution scheme for Bitcoinica retail clients). Additionally, there is always the possibility of an artificial hack staged by an insider. Therefore, self-regulation is the order of the day and in the sometimes jurisdiction-less environment of the Internet, bitcoin entities and their customers currently operate under their own brand of lex mercatoria to enforce accountability.

Lex mercatoria wine merchants

Lex mercatoria is Latin for "merchant law" and it is the body of commercial law used by merchants throughout Europe during the medieval period emphasizing contractual freedom and alienability of property. Like an air guitar, bitcoin is arguably the ultimate form of intangible alienable property. The difference being, of course, that air guitar transactions are not publicly recorded on a distributed and enforced ledger.

Merchants relied on this legal system developed and administered by them while shunning legal technicalities and deciding cases ex aequo et bono. We are actually in the midst of such a case right now as the leading Bitcoinica parties attempt to sort out the claims process to the best of their abilities with limited account records. There is no court. There is no judge. Bitcoin is not defined as legal property. Deliberation is currently focused on the most fair and just method of separating the legitimate claims from the fake claims. But this is new ground for a bitcoin-related settlement and undoubtedly it will set an early benchmark for future cases. The prior hack involving Linode servers was settled in full via Bitcoinica customer reimbursements.

As for the attacking hacker, it will most likely go unprosecuted since fungible bitcoins possess many of the characteristics of physical cash and even if the attacker had been sloppy, the amount involved does not really justify expensive network traffic analysis that would potentially link an IP or bitcoin address to a real-world identity.

The investment adviser for the transfer of Bitcoinica LP, Tihan Seale, posted that "Bitcoin Consultancy was first retained to perform a comprehensive security audit on March 27th and they became owners and operators of Bitcoinica LP on April 24th." This latest security breach at Bitcoinica occurred on May 11th. In a separate email, Seale reiterated, "I'm responsible for deal selection and due diligence for the fund that invested in Bitcoinica. I expect the Bitcoin Consultancy members will continue to operate the business going forward. They have expressed their commitment to seeing things through, and they have my respect for this."

Whatever becomes of the Bitcoinica margin trading entity in the future, it is clear that a sort of 'digital' lex mercatoria is emerging -- one that recognizes the complete voluntarist nature of the bitcoin protocol in commerce. We don't have to imagine The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State because we are living through it now.

Self-regulation may be the only available option as authorities are in a quandry. Specifically regulating bitcoin imbues it with legally-recognized value and that is something that the State will resist for as long as possible. So, happily we continue to trade our air guitars.

To the bitcoin detractors, these various security breaches are not a fault of the peer-reviewed bitcoin cryptographic protocol but a lapse of security experience and poor judgment by the respective administering companies. The beatings will continue until security improves. Trust in the overall connected infrastructure may have been fractured temporarily, but just as the guild structure flourished the improved lex mercatoria that evolves as a result will strengthen bitcoin in the end.

For further reading:
"Bitcoin: The Cryptoanarchists’ Answer to Cash", Morgen Peck, IEEE Spectrum, June 2012
"Taking the law online: Judge.me’s plan to build the future of legal systems", Zachary Caceres, May 29, 2012
"Interview with Zhou Tong", Coinabul, May 29, 2012

Bitcoin Funded Debit Cards

By Jon Matonis
Forbes
Monday, May 7, 2012

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2012/05/07/bitcoin-funded-debit-cards/

Yes, it's entirely possible to fund your existing debit card, or credit card, with your accumulated bitcoin. And I don't mean that you are shipped a generic, low-limit prepaid VISA or Mastercard from some anonymous reseller. I mean that you convert bitcoin online to dollars or euros and the funds are available to spend with a card that you are most likely already holding in your wallet.

Why is this so significant? It's important because it leverages a little-known type of transaction that is available on the VisaNet system called 'Original Credit Transaction'. The other major card payment networks have a similar feature too. These transactions act like a refund or credit transaction when you return an item to a store except that they don't have to be associated with an original purchase. Essentially, they enable your card to be a two-way payment device. Surprisingly, not many financial institutions have taken advantage of this feature yet but I expect that to change.

Visa Personal Payments, already offered by financial institutions outside the U.S., became available in the U.S. market last year marking the first time that a major payment network has introduced a global requirement for account issuers to accept incoming funds. It's the technology behind now-merged P2P service providers ZashPay and Popmoney.

Previously, it was cumbersome for bitcoin account holders to transact in national currencies because they had to go through one or more exchanges and then wait further for funds to arrive in a bank account or other intermediary like the formerly bitcoin-friendly Paxum. Now these personal payments are being offered by e-currency exchanges as a way to provide easy worldwide access to e-currency account balances most notably by AurumXchange. The digital currency exchange operated by Dominica-based Aurum Capital Holdings, Inc. supports bitcoin as well as Liberty Reserve, Pecunix, Perfect Money, and c-gold and they offer two choices for cashing out into a card-based product.

The first option is the Withdraw2Card service that does not require any sender identity verification. Requiring only the destination card number and expiration date (name and CVV code are not required), funds can be transferred to any credit or debit card in any country in the world. If the destination account currency is not dollars or euros then it will be converted to the native currency automatically. Service fee is $9 plus 1.99% (for MtGox USD) with a $1,000 maximum transfer amount and you should not send more than the credit card's limit. The bitcoin portion of the transaction is accomplished through the use of redeemable coupon codes from the popular bitcoin exchanges that act as digital bearer certificates. According to AurumXchange, they plan to offer direct two-way convertibility for bitcoin in the near future so you won't need the redeemable code.

This service is ideal for regions of the world where a large majority of the population may not have bank accounts or where international wires are cost-prohibitive. AurumXchange's General Manager Roberto Gutierrez explains, "The service so far has been tremendously popular. Just counting countries alone where people don't have access to bank accounts or foreign wires are highly taxed or scrutinized, such as Africa, Brazil and China to name a few, we have processed over 3,000 orders since we started a few weeks ago. North American and European customers have been using the service quite a lot as well especially for small transactions that would otherwise be too expensive to conduct through means such as international wire transfers."

The second option is the AurumXchange Premium Mastercard issued through North Carolina-based Four Oaks Bank which comes with instant funds availability. After a $24.99 two-year membership fee, the card will be shipped for free anywhere in the world via first class mail.

OKPAY is another interesting provider in the bitcoin debit card space. They offer the OKPAY Debit Card which is issued by CSC24Seven.com Limited, a financial institution licensed by the Central Bank of Cyprus to issue cards. Founded in 2007, OKPAY, Inc. is a subject of British Virgin Islands (BVI) regulations.

Now that they have completed their bitcoin integration into the OKPAY system, it is possible to fund your OKPAY account directly with bitcoin, withdraw via bitcoin, and use bitcoin as a payment option for purchases of goods and services. Although, they do not offer the Original Credit Transaction feature to any card, they will provide timely and direct conversion of bitcoin to their proprietary Mastercard product.

By removing friction from the process, bitcoin becomes easier to spend overall because not every merchant will accept bitcoin directly for payment yet and not all transactions demand irreversibility and privacy. Logically as a consumer, you may still want your VISA chargeback rights for certain purchases. The Original Credit Transaction is an excellent way to leverage the legacy card payment network to facilitate the growth of the bitcoin network and these two exchangers are in the vanguard.

CoinLab Attracts $500,000 in Venture Capital for Bitcoin Projects

By Jon Matonis
Forbes
Tuesday, April 24, 2012

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2012/04/24/coinlab-attracts-500000-in-venture-capital-for-bitcoin-projects/

In the first official venture capital raise for a direct investment in bitcoin, CoinLab secured $500,000 today from seed stage Silicon Valley firm Draper Associates and others, including Seattle angel investor Geoff Entress, former assistant treasurer at Microsoft Jack Jolley, and familiar bitcoin investor Roger Ver. Jolley will also join the company as its Chief Financial Officer.

Based in Seattle, CoinLab is an emerging umbrella group for cultivating and launching innovative bitcoin projects. Until now, they have been relatively quiet regarding their initiatives but they are credited with releasing a comprehensive Bitcoin Primer in January 2012. The founders are startup entrepreneurs Peter Vessenes, Mike Koss, and Tihan Seale, each with a strong passion for the broad advancements enabled by a decentralized currency.

CEO Vessenes said, "if there is a currency that can trade around the world, it's semi-anonymous, it's instant, it's not controlled by government or bank, what's the total value of that currency? The answer to that is, if it works, it's gotta be in the billions. It just has to be for all the reasons you might want to send money around the world."

Apparently, seasoned investors are starting to agree. Draper Associates partner Tim Draper explains the allure of the decentralized bitcoin, "The idea of a private currency has always been appealing to me as a way to diversify away from holding currency in irresponsible governments. It is more relevant now than ever." Hopefully bitcoin will maintain its current exchange value and appreciate, especially since this investment represents over 1% of the total $45 million worth of existing bitcoin in the world.

CoinLab intends to go into serious hiring mode as they build out their development team and launch new bitcoin projects. Although an SMS bitcoin texting service called Bitsent was announced briefly on their site, a greater focus has been on the concept of MMORPG mining, leveraging bitcoin to monetize players for the online gaming companies like World of Warcraft and EVE Online. Two companies have already agreed to participate in a beta for the CoinLab mining concept -- Wurm Online, an independent MMO that allows players to dig, flatten, raise and shape the land and create the frontier world they live in, and graFighters, the first online fighting game for your hand drawn characters.

The business model is clever. A few whales, or big spenders on virtual goods, make up the majority of gaming company revenue while the infrequent casual players constitute the bottom 10%. "CoinLab wants to grab that 80% in the middle," says Vessenes. They intend to accomplish this by offering a configurable app that players download from the gaming site which would allow bitcoin mining jobs to run on these beefy GPU-outfitted client computers.

Like DropBox, the CoinLab app will reside in the background so that the players are not even aware of the mining that occurs during the gaming session. To the gamer, certain virtual items or level upgrades would be obtained. This is a new revenue stream for online game companies as they monetize the free-to-play gamers via cluster compute work and a win for CoinLab as they convert the mined bitcoin to dollars or euros that are passed on to the companies after a tidy spread of course.

Vessenes doesn't want to refer to CoinLab as 'just another mining pool' because they have a distinctly different type of payout, but you can certainly imagine some non-gaming miner opportunities entering the CoinLab platform. After all, bitcoin miners and the mining pools collectively gain clout by virtue of the fact that a majority of miners is necessary to accept changes and slight variations to the protocol. It is easy to view the bitcoin mining pools as guardians of the free and open monetary system of the future -- powerful de-central bankers if you will.  CoinLab is poised to earn a seat at that table.