Some good news in bitcoin land: California's AB 1123 (the California legislature's third try at a NY-style bitlicense) has formally died, pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the CA Constitution. Let's build on this victory!

So we remember who introduced this horrible thing we came to know as California's proposed bitlicense, it was Assemblymember Matthew Dababneh in Assembly District 45, who re-introduced CA's proposed bitlicense as AB 1123 (that we now have formally defeated) - AB 1123 contained the same language (and even some worse language than) we previously defeated twice as AB 1326 (Dababneh's bitlicense bill that we defeated in a prior year). AB 1123, if it had been allowed to pass, would have outlawed startups, businesses that accept bitcoin, and even the act of donating bitcoin.

Older thread on this here (from when it was being re-introduced):





Keep an eye out at and use that site to periodically keyword search for things like virtual currency, digital currency, and similar phrases. We must be vigilant and ready to defeat such proposals again and again if necessary.

Fortunately, California Democrats (who have proposed the bitlicense and similarly mindless bills) lost their supermajority following resignations of two Assembly Democrats -- one being none other than Matt Dababneh of Encino (one of the biggest proponents in the CA Legislature of bitlicense, and the one who introduced these bills we defeated), and the other being Raul Bocanegra of San Fernando Valley due to sexual misconduct allegations. Another Assembly Democrat, Sebastian Ridley-Thomas of Los Angeles, resigned citing health issues. In the Senate, Democrat Tony Mendoza of Artesia (Los Angeles County) took a leave of absence pending an investigation into sexual misconduct allegations.

Dababneh, the big bank guy and major bitlicense proponent, had his last day in the Legislature at the end of December 2017:

It's disturbing to see them losing their seats like this as no-one in their right mind wants anyone to be subjected to what they are described to have done to others, but it does offer an opportunity:

A) to have someone who is more principled step up and run a campaign - hopefully someone who will not create problems for themselves and others and land up in sexual misconduct allegations and who will respect other people's agency

B) and to the point which is being discussed primarily in this subreddit, hopefully, someone could run a campaign to take the seat(s) who is pro-bitcoin. Is that you?



We should also ensure that ACA 22, just introduced by McCarty and Ting, is defeated. On top of all the existing taxes in this state, the legislature proposes to steal another 10 percent from basically anyone employing anyone. Essentially they just broke the whips out to try to drive business out of the state, so be sure to defeat ACA 22 as well.



There are some logical actions here for us to take in reflection of what has just happened with the defeat of AB 1123 and the fact that we've done it means we can build on this victory:



1) If you live in AD45 in California, and you are pro-bitcoin and anti-bitlicense, please consider running for that seat which Dababneh held. (Perhaps collaborate here in thread with others to organize a campaign against him.) Right now bitcoin (and pretty much everything else) has taken a drop in value, but if you are a true hodler, you ignore the FUD, are reminded that the shrieking of state legislators, Congress, and proponents of futures and derivatives that are causing this late-1980s-style mess are themselves on the losing end of this, and when bitcoin comes back up, we'll be on top again. It would be nice to have some influence in the legislature, too, so let's take Dababneh's seat, and make sure to send a message to those who would promote dinosaur bitlicenses in the State that their actions are not without consequences. Yes, get elected to "his" seat in the Legislature. He sure doesn't represent the people, but maybe you could.



2) Re-up your membership to the EFF, without which the success of this campaign against AB 1326 and AB 1123 would have been improbable, and please also consider a membership to the Bitcoin Foundation, which also fought hard against these bills, and still is fighting against the bitlicense in NY (where Theo Chino has been arguing his case, and the Foundation has been raising funds for his legal battle). You can also donate directly to Theo Chino's case here: An appeal is being prepared for the next steps against NY. (Shame on you NY.)



3) Let's make sure our victory is widely known. Write a letter to the editor about how we were successful, year after year, in defeating California's bitlicense, and why it's important that people be able to innovate without substantial interference from the State. (Everybody expects at least a little annoyance from the State, sometimes, but as the Legislature has been informed now by a defeat of its proposals several times, we don't need a bitlicense - not now, not ever.)



4) Let's expand on this to help our friends in Hawaii. When I wrote this article back in early May of 2017, things were a bit different there (and elsewhere). At that time, I wrote:



"New Hampshire's legislature has just passed a repeal of its anti-bitcoin legislation, and Hawaii, one of the worst states to do business in for people interested in bitcoin, is now considering legislation (with its Senate Bill 949) to change that, just as New Hampshire did.



The legislatures of Washington, Georgia, Connecticut, New Mexico, North Carolina, and New York -- the highly bitcoin-hostile and anti-innovation states - should take note of these recent efforts in New Hampshire and Hawaii, and these legislatures (and the people of those states) should work to repeal laws that attempt to force licensing requirements upon people who choose to innovate and engage in free expression by using bitcoin or any of the many newer systems now emerging."



Of course, since then things have changed in Hawaii. Rumblings of what was to come occurred in February 2017 when Coinbase (which I don't use, but plenty do) left Hawaii - stopped serving customers there. It was possible, as I wrote in May of 2017, that Hawaii was showing signs of turning around and becoming more bitcoin friendly. Unfortunately, this was not to be.



In this article, published Jan. 31, 2018, it was pointed out, regarding Hawaii's newly proposed bitlicense laws, that "If passed, HI SB2853 and HI SB3082 would require those seeking to transmit virtual currencies in the state to have a license to do so. They would also mandate that these persons or businesses issue a warning to consumers prior to enabling such transactions."



Sure, there are some exemptions for exchanges from the cash reserve requirement proposed by Hawaii's legislature as part of the bill(s), but regardless, everyone gets screwed by this legislation it it gets passed. There's no good reason for it at all. We've hammered this home in California, and it needs to be defeated in Hawaii too. And, let's remember who has been advocating for these bitlicense bills: organizations like Coin Center and of course, the ULC (Uniform Law Commission). Folks, we don't need these organizations to be dictating to us how to live.



No matter where we are in the world, let's start campaigning to make sure that EFF, and other organizations, fight to defeat these bills in Hawaii just as they helped us do in California.



Thank you.

( backup version of this article is at http://binbox.io/FCp4g#0G4g2wXq )