Everything which is not forbidden is allowed

[gandrewstone]

Free countries write laws this way (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed). Yet 200.2n essentially defines everyone who touches digital currencies as a "Virtual Currency Business Activity" and then grants specific exemptions in section 200.3c. This puts the onus on the Business to prove they are exempt.

Instead, the document should attempt to define "Virtual Currency Business Activity" in positive declarative statements, without needing a negative exemption.

For example, does a bitcoin-Ebay need a license? They transfer money from person A to person B. Bitcoin-Ebay ITSELF is not selling the good... I'm sure we can come up with many even more ambiguous examples.

[markdavidlamb]

Yes, very good point. This license should have a specific goal, such as:
Regulating bitcoin exchanges, brokers and merchant processors.
Instead it is essentially trying to regulate nearly every company that touches bitcoin. This will just drive legitimate, well funded and well managed companies to block New York IP addresses and prohibit New Yorkers from using their services, which I believe would be the exact opposite of what NYDFS want to do.

[chrisrico]

This will just drive legitimate, well funded and well managed companies to block New York IP addresses and prohibit New Yorkers from using their services, which I believe would be the exact opposite of what NYDFS want to do.

That wouldn't even be sufficient, as they mentioned in the regulatory panel at TNABC today. If a New York resident uses a VPN to bypass your restrictions you're still now obligated to comply with their regulation.

[pmlaw]

You could add some language about "knowingly" doing business with NY resident. That makes some sense in that it implies an element of mens rea or negligence on the part of the licensee if they don't obtain a license.