Global Bitcoin Regulations

Blockstream, Bitgo, Bitnet, Chain, Gem, Mirror, and Xapo comment on proposed California Bitcoin legislation

Blockstream, Bitgo, Bitnet, Chain, Gem, Mirror, and Xapo comment on proposed California Bitcoin legislation submitted by nullc to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Time to fire up a million angry kitt3hs again: California legislators launch an assault against bitcoin ownership for the fourth time since 2015 (bitlicense has never passed in CA) - this time the zombie returns as AB 1489. Kill it with Fire.

Time to fire up a million angry kitt3hs again: California legislators launch an assault against bitcoin ownership for the fourth time since 2015 (bitlicense has never passed in CA) - this time the zombie returns as AB 1489. Kill it with Fire. submitted by pcvcolin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

California legislators launch an assault against bitcoin ownership for the fourth time since 2015 (bitlicense has never passed in CA) - this time the zombie returns as AB 1489. Kill it with Fire.

California legislators launch an assault against bitcoin ownership for the fourth time since 2015 (bitlicense has never passed in CA) - this time the zombie returns as AB 1489. Kill it with Fire. submitted by VladimirrorPoutine to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Time to fire up a million angry kitt3hs again: California legislators launch an assault against bitcoin ownership for the fourth time since 2015 (bitlicense has never passed in CA) - this time the zombie returns as AB 1489. Kill it with Fire.

See all of the angry Butter rants here:
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/aupvig/time_to_fire_up_a_million_angry_kitt3hs_again/
So, what is this bill about ? Why is Butter's so angry ??
Here is the main gist of the bill (key parts highlighted):
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1489
This bill would enact the Uniform Regulation of Virtual Currency Businesses Act. The bill would prohibit a person from engaging in virtual currency business activity, or holding itself out as such, unless licensed or registered with the Department of Business Oversight, subject to a variety of exemptions. The bill would define “virtual currency” as a digital representation of value that is used as a medium of exchange, unit of account, or store of value, and that is not legal tender, whether or not denominated in legal tender, except as specified. The bill would define “virtual currency business activity” as exchanging, transferring, or storing virtual currency or engaging in virtual currency administration, whether directly or through an agreement with a virtual currency control services vendor, among other things. The bill would prescribe requirements for licensure, which would include provisions for recognition of a license from another state. The bill would also prescribe an alternative process of registration for businesses that have an annual virtual currency business of less that a specified dollar amount, as defined. The bill would establish requirements for security, net worth, and reserves for licensed and registered businesses. Among other things, the bill would prescribe requirements for examinations of these businesses, data sharing with other states, mergers and consolidations by licensees and registrants, and disclosures to be provided to customers. The bill would grant the department specified enforcement authority over these businesses, including specified civil penalties.
So, it's all about preventing fraud, tax evasion, scamming, theft, bogus claims, and other shenanigans to try and ensure everything is "above board".
And of course, Butters HATES it because his pyramid coinz are unlikely to go to the MOON if the government is doing this.
submitted by Crypto_To_The_Core to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

Dababneh, the CA anti bitcoin legislator who tried and failed to pass bitlicense in California three times before being forced out in disgrace, appears to be poised to attempt to return to the Legislature.

Dababneh, the CA anti bitcoin legislator who tried and failed to pass bitlicense in California three times before being forced out in disgrace, appears to be poised to attempt to return to the Legislature. submitted by pcvcolin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The Problem with North Carolina bitcoin legislation, and how we can prevent that from happening in California

In North Carolina, due to the enactment of bill H289 on June 30, 2016, the sale or issuance of any payment instruments or stored value primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, or even receiving of money or monetary value primarily for personal, family, or household purposes (including bitcoin or any cryptocurrency) is considered a crime unless you have a permit from the state or fall under one of very limited exemptions. As such, H289 in North Carolina was very similar to California's proposed AB 1326, but the difference was that California's bill failed twice due to overwhelming opposition from both residents of the state and EFF, and H289 (North Carolina) seemed to slip through the cracks and get passed by the Governor despite that the content of the bill makes it so horrible (not to mention unenforceable). Perhaps the only redeeming quality of H289 was that it stated that "For the purposes of this Article, a person is considered to be engaged in the business of money transmission in this State if that person solicits or advertises money transmission services from a Web site that North Carolina citizens may access in order to enter into those transactions by electronic means," so you'd have to advertise a service on a website in order for the act to be applicable to you. However, that also meant that North Carolina residents would be unable to put up a website and advertise that they are accepting bitcoin as payment for goods or services, without running the risk of having someone from the State demand they get a license for money transmission (the cost of which is at least $1,500 for the application, and there are likely other costs for the applicants). Altogether, H289 is a horrible bill, yet it managed to get enacted.
So let's examine how we can prevent such a bill from being passed in California. We managed to kill AB 1326 the first time it was brought up, and the actions of people across California, the EFF, the Bitcoin Foundation, and many others, helped kill AB 1326 the second time it reared its ugly head.
But despite all this, Assemblymember Dababneh in California plans on bringing a similar bill back in January 2017.
So, what are we going to do about this? Really, what are you going to do about this? We can't let the likes of Dababneh create financial censorship for everyone. It's already happened in New York and arguably in North Carolina as well. We have to draw the line here in California or else it will happen everywhere.
Here's my suggestion:
1) Don't wait until January 2017, when Dababneh's legislation comes out. If you are in California, start contacting not only Dababneh, but your state legislator now to tell them what you do and don't want.
How to contact your California Legislator on this issue
As a bit of a backgrounder, it seems there is always talk about the "necessity" to provide certification of one's identity (in a traditional sense, using government-created identification methods) in order to maintain "security" when using exchanges. This notion leads to a false sense of security and actually exposes users to a larger possibility of attack due to the scope of data that might be granted to a service provider in these circumstances.
It is important to remember that the notion that a user should provide some form of identity to a service provides absolutely no additional security to that service. The underlying structure of the service remains just as secure or as vulnerable as it was before. And if it was vulnerable in any way, the additional data you provide if you consent to a request to provide identity of some form, means that this identity information will one day soon be divulged to someone else. It may even happen instantaneously before any hack even occurs, due to provisions relating to how third parties are treated in US law. As many people have conveniently forgotten, the passage of the "cromnibus" bill in December 2014 included a sneakily passed provision of financial surveillance which allows the government to basically do full surveillance on any transaction routed through a bank, credit card company, or any associated 3rd party service to which your data is passed in the process of financial transactions, SARs, or any related processes really. This is one more reason why you should not use web-based exchanges, and should not use web wallets also, but rather should use fully decentralized exchanges and wallets which are installed on your computer and give you full control over both the application and your keys (no service, no corporation, no login required, etc.).
1) As a user, who has no control over what the exchanges will and will not do, and assuming for a moment that the exchanges make no improvements in their security practices, you can nonetheless approach the market in a way that will protect you (and your friends, colleagues, family, etc.) simply by using more secure tools. I've detailed some ways to do this in a recent post here.
You'll note that the above recommendation doesn't require (if you do it right) that you provide anyone with any identification (with the exception of certain circumstances where there is a dispute which would require moderation, I believe) but it will allow you to exchange one currency for another.
2) Now let us assume that you wish to try to make a dent in what exchanges will do. You can write them of course and encourage them to improve their security practices in different ways, but in reality the number of exchanges and the variation in the security practices each one utilizes would make this task meaningless. Fortunately, with the defeat of AB 1326 (CA), twice, the worst possible legislation (which could have been used as a model for the nation, actually) was stopped in its tracks, but similar legislation may be revived in new proposals in California in January, because in California, legislators do not learn. They understand only fascism, and how to oppress and tax people until people flee the state (which has been occurring in California more or less since 1990 in a process of outmigration).
So then, what can you do in the legislative front on this issue? It's actually rather simple. If you are writing California legislators (because CA legislator Dababneh has promised to bring back something like AB 1326 in January 2017), and you should be writing them now on this subject, remind them of the first two attempts they made to pass this bill ended in giant flaming failures, for good reason, because a bill that proposes to add permitting requirements to exchanges, startups / startup accelerators, bitcoin businesses, and individuals, merely for them to use their currency of choice, simply has no chance at passage, ever.
Instead, when they next try to pass a cryptocurrency bill (and they will), they should simply pass a minimum security standard that exchanges would have to meet in order to operate. (The requirement would be applicable to web-based exchanges, which function as MSBs and are already required to be licensed in the US by the US Treasury / FINCEN. There's no need for state level licenses... but if the state passes additional legislation, it should focus only on specifying security requirements for web-based exchanges. The regulation or standards would be required for MSB / FinCEN licensed exchanges and advisory (voluntary only) for decentralized exchanges and exchanges that are not web-based exchanges, because there are limits to enforceability of a security standard. This would not require any permitting or fees, but simply setting of standards for consumer safety.)
Wait, you say. This would be impossible to set a standard. Each state would want to have its own standard and say that its own is best! We'd simply be back in the same situation as we are now, right?
Well, maybe not. Why? Because some of the best minds in bitcoin, including Andreas Antonopoulos and others, have already made some security standards. So those standards could be worked up a bit by the Cryptoconsortium folks who made them, tailored for the purposes of securing web-based exchanges, adopted by states and that could be what the basis would be for protecting consumers. If it proved inadequate (and no doubt any standard will be tested by someone trying to break it) then someone can always improve it.
Also, you can propose your own changes to the Cryptoconsortium standards. Here are a couple (1, 2) that I've proposed. (My proposed changes mostly suggest distinguishing between government-issued ID and background requirements for exchange operators, versus standard users of exchanges who should not be required to provide government-issued ID, but rather should be able to utilize pseudonymous or decentralized (blockchainMe / blockchain ID) identification options.
Again -- How to contact your California Legislator on this issue
Don't wait until January 2017 when Dababneh comes out with his own version of how he thinks you should live your life. Tell legislators now what you want (and don't want) now. Remind them that legislation like AB 1326 won't work and we've defeated it twice -- and that applying new licensing requirements for use of cryptocurrency to individuals and businesses has no benefit for the public. Tell them that security standards for exchanges are what any new legislation in the area should focus on, and they should rely upon experts who have developed open standards such as the Cryptoconsortium model.
Thanks for reading this long ramble.
submitted by pcvcolin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

California legislators launch an assault against bitcoin ownership for the fourth time since 2015 (bitlicense has never passed in CA) - this time the zombie returns as AB 1489. Kill it with Fire.

California legislators launch an assault against bitcoin ownership for the fourth time since 2015 (bitlicense has never passed in CA) - this time the zombie returns as AB 1489. Kill it with Fire. submitted by scgco to GGCrypto [link] [comments]

Time to fire up a million angry kitt3hs again: California legislators launch an assault against bitcoin ownership for the fourth time since 2015 (bitlicense has never passed in CA) - this time the zombie returns as AB 1489. Kill it with Fire.

Time to fire up a million angry kitt3hs again: California legislators launch an assault against bitcoin ownership for the fourth time since 2015 (bitlicense has never passed in CA) - this time the zombie returns as AB 1489. Kill it with Fire. submitted by otman93 to u/otman93 [link] [comments]

Time to fire up a million angry kitt3hs again: California legislators launch an assault against bitcoin ownership f… https://t.co/Cb70nToLoR - Crypto Dynamic Info - Whales's

Posted at: February 26, 2019 at 06:05AM
By:
Time to fire up a million angry kitt3hs again: California legislators launch an assault against bitcoin ownership f… https://t.co/Cb70nToLoR
Automate your Trading via Crypto Bot : https://ift.tt/2EU8PEX
Join Telegram Channel for FREE Crypto Bot: Crypto Signal
submitted by cryptotradingbot to cryptobots [link] [comments]

Dababneh, the CA anti bitcoin legislator who tried and failed to pass bitlicense in California three times before being forced out in disgrace, appears to be poised to attempt to return to the Legislature.

Dababneh, the CA anti bitcoin legislator who tried and failed to pass bitlicense in California three times before being forced out in disgrace, appears to be poised to attempt to return to the Legislature. submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Advocating for Fairness in Bitcoin Related State Legislation in California: A long, hard road

Here in California, we managed to kill AB 1326 the first time it was brought up, and the actions of people across California, the EFF, the Bitcoin Foundation, and many others, helped kill AB 1326 the second time it reared its ugly head.
Right, o.k., you say. But that's just stopping a bill... how are we going to get something passed that actually helps us?
Assemblymember Dababneh in California, who tried and failed twice to pass AB 1326, unfortunately plans on bringing a similar bill back in January 2017.
And, unfortunately, Dababneh's political friends now have supermajority in both houses of the California legislature - meaning they can pass almost anything they want so long as they agree to move it forward (and don't get it challenged in court promptly thereafter).
So, what are we going to do about this? Really, what are you going to do about this? We can't let the likes of Dababneh create financial censorship for everyone. It's already happened in New York and in North Carolina as well. We have to draw the line here in California or else it will happen everywhere.
Here's my suggestion:
1) Don't wait until January 2017, when Dababneh's legislation comes out. If you are in California, start contacting not only Dababneh, but your state legislator now to tell them what you do and don't want.
How to contact your California Legislator on this issue
1) As a user, who has no control over what the exchanges will and will not do, and assuming for a moment that the exchanges make no improvements in their security practices, you can nonetheless approach the market in a way that will protect you (and your friends, colleagues, family, etc.) simply by using more secure tools. I've detailed some ways to do this in a recent post here.
You'll note that the above recommendation doesn't require (if you do it right) that you provide anyone with any identification (with the exception of certain circumstances where there is a dispute which would require moderation, I believe) but it will allow you to exchange one currency for another.
2) Now let us assume that you wish to try to make a dent in what exchanges will do. You can write them of course and encourage them to improve their security practices in different ways, but in reality the number of exchanges and the variation in the security practices each one utilizes would make this task meaningless. Fortunately, with the defeat of AB 1326 (CA), twice, the worst possible legislation (which could have been used as a model for the nation, actually) was stopped in its tracks, but similar legislation may be revived in new proposals in California in January, because in California, legislators do not learn. They understand only fascism, and how to oppress and tax people until people flee the state (which has been occurring in California more or less since 1990 in a process of outmigration).
So then, what can you do in the legislative front on this issue? It's actually rather simple. If you are writing California legislators (because CA legislator Dababneh has promised to bring back something like AB 1326 in January 2017), and you should be writing them now on this subject, remind them of the first two attempts they made to pass this bill ended in giant flaming failures, for good reason, because a bill that proposes to add permitting requirements to exchanges, startups / startup accelerators, bitcoin businesses, and individuals, merely for them to use their currency of choice, simply has no chance at passage, ever.
Instead, when they next try to pass a cryptocurrency bill (and they will), they should simply pass a minimum security standard that exchanges would have to meet in order to operate. (The requirement would be applicable to web-based exchanges, which function as MSBs and are already required to be licensed in the US by the US Treasury / FINCEN. There's no need for state level licenses... but if the state passes additional legislation, it should focus only on specifying security requirements for web-based exchanges. The regulation or standards would be required for MSB / FinCEN licensed exchanges and advisory (voluntary only) for decentralized exchanges and exchanges that are not web-based exchanges, because there are limits to enforceability of a security standard. This would not require any permitting or fees, but simply setting of standards for consumer safety.)
Wait, you say. This would be impossible to set a standard. Each state would want to have its own standard and say that its own is best! We'd simply be back in the same situation as we are now, right?
Well, maybe not. Why? Because some of the best minds in bitcoin, including Andreas Antonopoulos and others, have already made some security standards. So those standards could be worked up a bit by the Cryptoconsortium folks who made them, tailored for the purposes of securing web-based exchanges, adopted by states and that could be what the basis would be for protecting consumers. If it proved inadequate (and no doubt any standard will be tested by someone trying to break it) then someone can always improve it.
Also, you can propose your own changes to the Cryptoconsortium standards. Here are a couple (1, 2) that I've proposed. (One of my proposed changes has been approved and merged.)
Although California legislators are unlikely to support this point of view, you could also suggest that bitcoin, and other decentralized, distributed virtual systems like it, should not be interpreted as money anymore by the state, and that California should take the path of Texas or Illinois, which have essentially declined to regulate bitcoin as money. This argument is unlikely to go over well with California legislators, but it could be fair to make it anyway. The more likely argument that they will listen to (if any) is that higher security standards are needed for exchanges.
Again -- How to contact your California Legislator on this issue
Don't wait until January 2017 when Dababneh comes out with his own version of how he thinks you should live your life. Tell legislators now what you want (and don't want) now. Remind them that legislation like AB 1326 won't work and we've defeated it twice -- and that applying new licensing requirements for use of cryptocurrency to individuals and businesses has no benefit for the public. Tell them that security standards for exchanges are what any new legislation in the area should focus on, and they should rely upon experts who have developed open standards such as the Cryptoconsortium model.
Thank you for helping to make whatever legislation we get in California on virtual currency fair for everyone. No Bitlicense! This has been a long, hard road, but the fight is worth it.
submitted by pcvcolin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Advocating for Fairness in Bitcoin Related State Legislation in California: A long, hard road /r/Bitcoin

Advocating for Fairness in Bitcoin Related State Legislation in California: A long, hard road /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

The Problem with North Carolina bitcoin legislation, and how we can prevent that from happening in California /r/Bitcoin

The Problem with North Carolina bitcoin legislation, and how we can prevent that from happening in California /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

California Lawmaker Shelves Bitcoin Legislation - CCN: Financial Bitcoin & Cryptocurrency News

California Lawmaker Shelves Bitcoin Legislation - CCN: Financial Bitcoin & Cryptocurrency News submitted by reminesjoseph to DeepDotWeb [link] [comments]

California Lawmaker Shelves Bitcoin Legislation - CCN: Financial Bitcoin & Cryptocurrency News

California Lawmaker Shelves Bitcoin Legislation - CCN: Financial Bitcoin & Cryptocurrency News submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

California Legislators Protecting Consumer Privacy and Opposing Bitcoin Bill

California Legislators Protecting Consumer Privacy and Opposing Bitcoin Bill submitted by acoindr to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

California Legislators – Protecting Consumer Privacy and Opposing Bitcoin Bill

California Legislators – Protecting Consumer Privacy and Opposing Bitcoin Bill submitted by VivaLaPandaReddit to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

California Legislators Protecting Consumer Privacy and Opposing Bitcoin Bill

California Legislators Protecting Consumer Privacy and Opposing Bitcoin Bill submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

morning prepper

Flurry of dealmaking
Bayer (OTCPK:BAYRY) is paying as much as $4B for U.S. biotech firm Asklepios BioPharmaceutical, bolstering its pharmaceuticals division as it continues to reel from its acquisition of crops giant Monsanto (and cancer-related Roundup lawsuits). The latest deal, which includes upfront consideration of $2B and potential milestone payments of up to $2B, is a bet on cutting-edge gene therapy, which offers the potential to cure a wide range of often-rare diseases by editing errors in the body's instruction manual. Drugmakers including Novartis (NYSE:NVS), Roche Holding (OTCQX:RHHBY) and Bristol-Myers Squibb (NYSE:BMY) have also made big bets on the industry, snapping up gene therapy makers.
Dunkin' may sell and go private
Dunkin' Donuts and Baskin Robbins chains owner Dunkin' Brands (NASDAQ:DNKN) confirmed preliminary talks to be acquired by Inspire Brands after the NYT reported on the negotiations. Inspire would take Dunkin' private at $106.5 per share, valuing the company at $8.8B, or a 20% premium over DNKN's closing price of $88.79 on Friday. While Dunkin' said "there is no certainty that any agreement will be reached," if successful, Inspire would add the new assets to the Buffalo Wild Wings, Arby's Sonic, and Jimmy John's chains that it already owns. DNKN +19% premarket. More M&A: Blackstone to buy Simply Self Storage for about $1.2B.
New Canada oil giant
Cenovus Energy (NYSE:CVE) has agreed to buy Husky Energy (OTCPK:HUSKF) in a C$3.8B ($2.9B) all-stock deal that will combine two of the largest players in Canada's struggling oil-sands industry. The combined company will have about 750K boe/d production, making it the third-largest Canadian oil and natural gas producer. it would also be the second-largest Canadian-based refiner and upgrader with total North American upgrading and refining capacity of ~660K boe/d.
Coronavirus surge, elusive stimulus deal
U.S. stock index futures are starting the week on the backfoot, falling nearly 1% overnight, as the nation reported a record of more than 83,000 new COVID infections on both Friday and Saturday. "We're not going to control the pandemic. We are going to control the fact that we get vaccines, therapeutics and other mitigation areas," White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows told CNN's State of the Union program. Meadows and Nancy Pelosi also accused each other of "moving the goalposts" on stimulus legislation in back-to-back interviews, dimming chances a deal could be reached before Election Day.
Vaccine trials
The COVID-19 vaccine being developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca (NASDAQ:AZN) produces a robust antibody and T-cell immune response in elderly people, the group at highest risk, FT reports. While details of the finding are expected to be published shortly in a clinical journal, sources cautioned that positive immunogenicity tests do not guarantee that the vaccine will ultimately prove safe and effective in older people. AstraZeneca resumed the U.S. trial of its experimental vaccine on Friday after a pause due to safety concerns, while Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) also restarted trials, saying the first batches of its shot could be available in January.
Farm purchases under China trade deal
"China has purchased approximately 71% of its farm purchases target for 2020," according to an interim report on agricultural trade from the U.S. Trade Representative. "They have purchased $23.6B in agricultural products so far this year, substantially more than the base year of 2017, and should end up being our best year ever in sales to China. It is worth noting that the Phase One Agreement did not go into effect until February 14, 2020, and March is the first full month of its effect... We already are on pace to have all-time high sales to China in beef, pork, corn, and soybeans." Go Deeper: Some are questioning the figures and the timeline.
California blackouts
PG&E (NYSE:PCG) is pre-emptively cutting power again in northern California, affecting 386,000 homes and businesses in 38 counties, or nearly 1M people. It's the fourth times this year the state’s largest utility had to shut off electricity due to high winds and extreme wildfire danger, which could spark blazes if live wires topple into dry brush. Utilities in Southern California, like Southern California Edison (NYSE:EIX), are also warning of potential blackouts.
Potential election chaos
As the threat of election-related unrest escalates in the U.S., Facebook (NASDAQ:FB) said it would implement emergency measures reserved for "at-risk" countries to bring down the online temperature. The social media giant plans to limit the "spread of viral content" and lower the bar for "suppressing potentially inflammatory posts" using internal tools previously deployed in Sri Lanka and Myanmar, WSJ reports. The tools would only be used in the event of election-related violence or other serious circumstances, though some employees are concerned it could slow down viral content and unintentionally hide legitimate political discussions. Go Deeper: Facebook will ban U.S. political ads indefinitely after November 3.
Samsung chairman and icon dies
A chapter has closed for the Samsung conglomerate following the death of Lee Kun-hee, who transformed the South Korean appliance maker into the world's biggest producer of smartphones, TVs and memory chips. He had been incapacitated for years following a 2014 stroke, leaving day-to-day operations to his son, Lee Jae-yong, who goes by Jay Y. in the West. While Lee spends about 95% of his time focused on Samsung Electronics (OTC:SSNLF), the conglomerate's most valuable arm, he formally takes the reins with Samsung on the defensive and struggling to evolve within the tech industry.
What else is happening...
SAP (NYSE:SAP) tumbles 18% premarket after slashing revenue forecast.
Coca-Cola (NYSE:KO) steps away from bottling in Australia.
Chinese policymakers discuss new five-year development plan.
Airbnb (AIRB) approves private share split ahead of IPO.
American (NASDAQ:AAL) plans PR events before 737 MAX (NYSE:BA) takes to the skies.
AT&T (NYSE:T) job cuts at historical levels; CNN's Zucker may be on the block.
Today's Markets
In Asia, Japan -0.1%. Hong Kong +0.5%. China -0.8%. India -1.3%. In Europe, at midday, London -0.2%. Paris -0.6%. Frankfurt -2.1%. Futures at 6:20, Dow -0.9%. S&P -0.9%. Nasdaq -0.9%. Crude -2.5% to $38.85. Gold -0.2% at $1902.40. Bitcoin +0.6% to $13099. Ten-year Treasury Yield -3 bps to 0.81%
Today's Economic Calendar
8:30 Chicago Fed National Activity Index 10:00 New Home Sales 10:30 Dallas Fed Manufacturing Survey
submitted by upbstock to Optionmillionaires [link] [comments]

Removed comments/submissions for /u/toririr

Hi toririr, you're not shadowbanned, but 25 of your most recent 115 comments/submissions were removed (either automatically or by human moderators).

Comments:

fzg9i3s in politics on 27 Jul 20 (1pts):
THIS NIGGAS NAME IS LITERALLY COTTON LMAO
fzce1jn in politics on 26 Jul 20 (1pts):
You literally pulled this out of your ass, California is one of the most left leaning states so of course we have strict gun legislation
fza10af in ShingekiNoKyojin on 26 Jul 20 (0pts):
wait until you see eren sneaking in marley and relentlessly tearing a whole city apart, killing innocent citizens and soldiers alike while reiner begs for forgiveness. that will be a nicee oof big...
fz2j0yt in politics on 24 Jul 20 (1pts):
yall sound like bitches
fz0zv5v in hapas on 23 Jul 20 (-1pts):
Imagine paying taxes lmao. Fucking beta bitch ass nigga. Thats why yall dont get laid, you be getting worried over paying your taxes and respecting the rules n shiet while sociopath chads rail the...
fyl2c2f in PublicFreakout on 19 Jul 20 (1pts):
This nigga really be thinking people in Uganda are staying at home and respecting “6 feet” social distancing 💀 💀 The absolute level of delusion
fyarrd0 in politics on 16 Jul 20 (1pts):
Lol shut up imbecile. Reddit is so fucking cringe lmao. Shut everything down over the flu’s big cousin lmao. Nigga we survived the plague for fucks sake what is happening to humanity???
fy30ooj in China on 14 Jul 20 (4pts):
Nigga still looking like winnie the pooh
fxvfqmz in hapas on 12 Jul 20 (-3pts):
The only thing i can make up from all those buzzwords is that u assume i am white which is not the case (not asian either). Victim mentality at its finest. I never worried about anyone except me,...
fxuumtl in hapas on 12 Jul 20 (-13pts):
That’s so cringe, are these things legit considered “problems” to hapas, asians and white people? Lmao. That’s why your women are going to brown and black boys. Imagine dating a guy and all he does...
fxs03qt in politics on 12 Jul 20 (-1pts):
lmao shut the fuck up, plebbit is so cringe
fx1t11a in ChineseLanguage on 06 Jul 20 (1pts):
What does this mean?
Coronavirus 新冠病毒 Hong Kong Police Brutality 香港警察暴行 动态网自由门 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 六四天安門事件 The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 天安門大屠殺 The Tiananmen Square Massacre 反右派鬥爭...
fwg2u55 in relationship_advice on 30 Jun 20 (-1pts):
Lmao bro her pussy was oozing another mans cum while you were cuddling with her. Sorry about that.
fvkpxh7 in hapas on 21 Jun 20 (-2pts):
NIGGA WHO CARES LOL HOW IS THAT A PROBLEM JUST LIVE LIFE FUCK PROSTITUTES AND DO COKE WHY YALL BUNCH OF CRYBABIES LOL
fus3vm7 in wallstreetbets on 14 Jun 20 (1pts):
How does 125x leverage sound like? Yes, you can get that much leverage gambling shitcoin futures. Just go to binance. Just get ready to get raped in the ass because trading bitcoin on margin and...
fukooca in FragileWhiteRedditor on 12 Jun 20 (1pts):
Hey, coming from an actual brown person. Why dont you guys just fucking shut yourselves down in your own room and never go out again? I mean, how fucking unfair, right? It clearly seems as if...

Submissions:

hp5wce in Daytrading on 11 Jul 20 (1pts):
Anyone here uses the broker Capital Market Elite Group? Any bad experiences?
hp5tsk in Daytrading on 11 Jul 20 (1pts):
Anyone here uses Capital Markets Elite Group?
hp5sz3 in Daytrading on 11 Jul 20 (1pts):
Anyone here uses Capital Markets Elite Group? Any bad experiences?
hlx8i0 in ChineseLanguage on 06 Jul 20 (1pts):
What does this mean?
hlx7u4 in China on 06 Jul 20 (0pts):
What does this mean?
hkacm5 in wallstreetbets on 03 Jul 20 (140pts):
The market does not make sense right now because you are too smart for it
hbnbbg in wallstreetbets on 18 Jun 20 (11pts):
For those tired of Robinhood: WeBull has $0 commission options trading
haybpi in wallstreetbets on 17 Jun 20 (19pts):
I, for one, welcome our chinese overlords
gfkg2d in wallstreetbets on 08 May 20 (1pts):
THE HEAT DEATH OF THE UNIVERSE IS PRICED IN
I'm a bot. My home is at /CommentRemovalChecker - check if your posts have been removed! (How to use)
Help us expose and stand up to social media bias and censorship!
submitted by RemovedCommentsBot to CommentRemovalChecker [link] [comments]

Bitcoin goes to India's Supreme Court

Bitcoin goes to India's Supreme Court submitted by pcvcolin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

For Trading March 26th

For Trading March 26th
Sanders Foils Rally
BA Drives the DJIA
Today was driven early by BA and the statement that it would not need to accept the kind of share dilution that would be part of a government bailout. The market seemed to take that as a good thing, at least for BA, which has rebounded from $89.00 to a high of $174.77 in the last week. This dragged the DJIA higher but left the S&P and NASDAQ down at the open. We had a great deal of enthusiasm in both directions but by late in the day everyone was in the green. While there were selloffs in all the indexes on the news that Bernie Sanders would oppose the current relief legislation because it gave corporations to easy a time, and Ms. AOC saying that she MAY oppose the unanimous consent resolution, which would delay financial relief, we finished with the DJIA +495.55 (2.39%), NASDAQ – 33.56 (.45%) and S&P 500 +28.23 !.15%), the Russell +13.83 (1.26%) and the DJ Transports +184.07 (2.44%) the biggest winner, but off 424 off its high. Market internals were okay, with NYSE 4:1 and NASDAQ only 1.7:1 up. The DJIA was 18:12 higher but the biggest 5 gainers, BA +210, UNH +100, UTX +63, V +50 and AXP +24DP’s added up to a gain of $465. This the link to my closing comment: https://youtu.be/BW3S_KKvjAo
Unfortunately we bought some SPY puts (a small position) at $3.20 that closed @ $2.91, and were stopped out @ $1.58 today.
Our “open forum” on Discord, which allows me to interact with subscribers and others to allow direct questions and chart opinions on just about any stock, continues to grow with more participants every day. It is informative and allows me to share insights as the market is open and moving. The link is: https://discord.gg/ATvC7YZ and I will be there and active from before the open and all day. It’s a great place to share ideas and gain some insights, and we’ve grown to almost 800 members.
SECTORS: Other names in the news: As mentioned above, we had the BA announcement, and after falling in the last 2 months from $350 to a low of $89, (75%), it was as high as $174.77 today but closed $155.00 +27.32 (21.4%). NKE had earnings after the close last night and after falling from $95 to $60, has rebounded to close today $79.01 +6.68 (9.24%).
BIOPHARMA: was MIXED with ISRG the big gainer +28.41 (6.58%) and ICPT +3.97 (6.84%). VRTX was the biggest loser -13.04 (5.84%). The IBB was $102.00 -.57 (.55%).
CANNABIS: This group finally caught a bid on the news that several reported big jumps in revenues in California with TLRY + 1.38 (34.33%), still not impressive after falling from $300, CGC +1.02 (7.86%), CRON +.20, GWPH +1.25, ACB +.04, PYX +.14, NBEV +.05, CURLF -.38 (9.79%), KERN +.78 (18.13%) and MJ $11.45 +1.04 (9.99%).
DEFENSE: was HIGHER with none up less than 5% and several gainers like LMT +33.34 (11.54%), TXT +3.05 (13.27%), UTX +9.43 (10.87% and 63 DPs), TDY +21.17 (7.97%) with ITA $147.97 +16.80 (12.81%).
RETAIL was MIXED with the retailers mixed but the brands all higher. M +.91 (16.06%), JWN -.26, KSS +1.25, DDS -2.29 (4.87%) and WMT -5.53 (4.81%) while RL +1.13, UAA +.14, LULU +2.51, TPR +1.18 (8.6%), CPRI +1.78 (16.02%) and XRT $30.26 +.52 (1.75%).
FAANG and Big Cap: were MIXED with GOOGL -26.01, AMZN -46.10, AAPL +.18, FB -3.88, NFLX -14.71, NVDA -.95, IBM +.52, TSLA +35.00, BABA +4.25, BIDU +.82, BA +37.07, CAT +2.66, DIS +3.00, and XLK $77.50 -.11 (.14%).
FINANCIALS were HIGHER with only TRV lower -2.05 (2.19%). AIG was the biggest gainer +2.79 (12.17%) followed by AXP +6.59 (7.84%) and JPM +3.07 (3.47%). XLF was $20.33 +.48 (2.42%).
OIL, $24.49 +.48. The stocks were HIGHER with the price of Oil trading up slightly but the stocks trading with the overall market. MPC was the leader +3.85 (22%), BP +2.35 (10.62%), CVX +2.74 (4.12% and XLE $28.33 +.98 (3.58%).
METALS, GOLD: $1,633.40 -27.40 After the biggest I’ve ever seen in 50+years of trading. We sold our calls yesterday and after trading down to $1615, I am interested again. I put out this short video this afternoon… https://youtu.be/2vCymNxtNA4
BITCOIN: closed $6630 -95. We traded in a short range again today and finished mid-range on the day. While I want to add the 350 sold just over a week ago, I want to wait and see some stabilization. We still own 400 GBTC with an average of $8.06. GBTC closed $7.35 -.20 today.
Tomorrow is another day.
CAM
submitted by Dashover to options [link] [comments]

EB72 – Siân Jones: Cryptocurrency Regulation Update: Uk, Isle Of Man, California, Bitlicense CONSEIL MUNICIPAL 2 FEV 2017 QUESTION DE L'EAU California - The Exodus From The Golden State - YouTube California Climate Legislation - Nicole Capretz - Coolworld Institute Earth Day Teach-In 2020 Sans limites TV - YouTube

California Governor Jerry Brown on Saturday signed into law a bill that clears away possible state-level obstacles to alternative currencies such as bitcoin. In a fresh approach to crypto regulation in California, AB 1123 was proposed in early 2017 which would see the ‘Virtual Currency Act’ enacted. Although the Money Transmission Act currently covers the activities of the majority of virtual currency businesses, the Virtual Currency Act would place more specific obligations upon companies operating in the space. As with AB 1326, the bill was ... California has been kicking around possible legislation regarding the regulation of digital assets for some time now. Recently, Crowdfund Insider reported on updates to pending crypto legislation ... Regulation and legislation are two of the least favorite terms in the minds of mainstream consumers these days. But sometimes, a positive form of legislation comes to the surface, as is the case in California. Government collection of customer data is at an all-time high, and tech firms in Silicon Valley – as well as privacy advocates – feel the time has come to put a stop to this scenario ... California Shelves Bitcoin And Digital Currency Bill Temporarily. Bitcoin Chaser - August 22, 2016 . The cogs and gears of democracy have shown their ability to delay the approval of a necessary bill yet again. Although it had many detractors, and the debate raged for over a year, there is still no agreement as to the implementation of AB-1326 in California. The bill will not be sent back to ...

[index] [38632] [37249] [238] [17121] [30045] [1493] [23297] [26668] [24480] [9403]

EB72 – Siân Jones: Cryptocurrency Regulation Update: Uk, Isle Of Man, California, Bitlicense

Landmark California Laws: AB 32, SB 32, SB 375, SB 100, Cap and Trade, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Executive Order on Carbon Neutrality. 👉🏽 Check out more Bitcoin videos: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list... 👉🏽 Learn more about Bitcoin mining: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list ... California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a new law that will require public schools to have later start times. Middle schools will begin classes at 8 a.m. or later while high schools will start no ... Session de questions / réponses sur les thèmes du Bitcoin, de l'Ethereum, et d'autres crypto-monnaies (ici le Ripple notamment) ainsi que de de la Blockchain... Epicenter Bitcoin Regulatory Correspondent and founder of COINsult Siân Jones joined us for an update on the state of Bitcoin regulation in a variety of jurisdiction. Topics included: - The ...

#