Quote from: odolvlobo on December 14, 2013, 05:57:19 PM

Quote from: molecular on December 14, 2013, 12:06:52 PM

Quote from: odolvlobo on December 13, 2013, 05:49:25 PM

Quote from: molecular on December 13, 2013, 05:33:52 PM

Quite honestly I don't even understand the FINCEN claims. How is Mike a money transmitter if no USD ("real money") is touched?

I don't know what FINCEN's specific claims are, but he is literally a money transmitter. Someone sends him bitcoins ("convertible virtual currency") and he mails bitcoins to someone. I doubt they are concerned about him selling single small denomination coins, but he does sell large denominations (100 BTC bar) and coins in bulk (rolls of 20 or 50 BTC) that are worth multiples of $10,000.

That's just ridiculous, isn't it? Why would anybody who wants to transmit some bitcoins from point A to point B choose such a cumbersome method (buy overpriced physical token and have it snail-mailed somewhere, that's like printing out an email and faxing it to someone who OCRs it) when the virtual bitcoins can be sent to any address via the blockchain for a low transaction cost. Let alone the fact that the bitcoins aren't even on the coins during the shipping process. They're sent to the coins addresses via the blockchain afterwards, specifically to avoid customs trouble.
I think the only difference here is that they have a guy to pin this down on. Otherwise it would mean that any blockchain transaction constitutes money transmitting.

Bitcoins sent through the block chain are traceable, while bitcoins sent through Mike are not. Furthermore, transactions using his coins are as anonymous as cash, so they probably want to know who is buying his coins.

To avoid having to register with each state independently (and the additional due diligence/regulation that a small company often can't support) what would a "KYC Service" or "Provider" do to Mike's situation?

If FinCEN's goal in this scenario is a honest straight forward attempt to enforce Know Your Customer, what if a larger exchange or service provider type organization could take on that responsibility? Coinbase for example, already registered in all 50 states, providing apparently adequate KYC and due diligence. If they stepped in as a "KYC Provider" could my transaction, from CB verified account/wallet, sent directly to Cassascius, not be accompanied by an email with my registered shipping address and proof of identity?

Unfortunately this borders on adding a middleman, potential fees for said service ect. I do think it would allow a number of smaller niche companies to operate by passing most of the KYC responsibility onto someone else. I wouldn't mind seeing a well made browser wallet offer this.

I doubt a wallet or service like this would be necessary in most situations, but I do see occasions when both buyer and seller would benefit.