Quote from: marky89 on August 01, 2017, 01:09:11 AM

Quote from: mayax on July 31, 2017, 11:23:14 PM

Quote from: marky89 on July 31, 2017, 10:15:55 PM

Quote from: bj9k on July 31, 2017, 09:29:35 PM

Quote from: bonker on July 31, 2017, 09:17:06 PM

Quote from: bj9k on July 31, 2017, 09:09:56 PM

This situation with BTC-e is not important just to BTC-e but for the whole crypto exchange system.

For example, SimpleFX (exchange?) is not allowing transfers between crypto and hard currency balances. You can trade crypto-hard pairs but you can't: deposit crypto then buy usd and then use that usd to fund mt4 account or to withdraw that usd bought onto EXCHANGE(?). FXOpen does not allow US citizens. Will the rest of exchanges follow those rules?

If theres one thing I've learnt from all this bullshit is that the biggest problem is crypto is fiat. If a viable living economy can exist purely based on crypto, then the ties to fiat can be cut and these government shakedowns can end

That's the problem only with USD cash because US gov thinks that if you accept or send USD that you are doing business with USA. And you are actually doing business with them because dealing with any foreign fiat you are actually influencing their country payment system by freezing or releasing their own funds onto which they have no legal influence (if there were not those AML and so USA treaties). It just depends the scale of that business when they will react.

I'm pretty sure the legal justification used is that they were serving US customers while acting as an unlicensed money services business. If they had (like many other exchanges) prohibited US residents --- or at least asked customers to confirm they weren't US residents and IP restrict based on region --- maybe this could have been avoided. Or not; maybe it's highly political and this is really about US and USD hegemony.

Kraken, Poloniex and many others are registered in USA and they are unlicensed money services business.

they will be next.

Yes, that's possible. They aren't properly registered in each state that they serve IIRC. But I don't think that necessarily means that they will get shut down in the same way as BTC-e. With the latter, the money laundering charge and association with Vinnik's activities seemed to greatly overshadow any emphasis on the unlicensed MSB charge. Since they both have stricter AML/KYC procedures, and because Poloniex doesn't have fiat deposit/withdrawal, I suspect it would go down very differently. I think there's a good chance in those cases that the government simply levies a hefty fine and forces them to implement new KYC procedures and/or prohibit US residents.

Polo cut off service to some States in the U.S. back in april or may