Hacker News Reader

Comment by rmrfrmrf | Hacker News Reader

Before grabbing your pitchforks (again), please take the time to read this article from Gliph that clearly states Apple's policy on why they prohibit Bitcoin: https://blog.gli.ph/2013/12/09/the-state-of-bitcoin-mobile-a...

I really can't blame Apple for wanting to prevent potentially illegal content. When you allow that, you open yourself up to FBI raids, wiretapping, and other unplanned nuisances.

Are there really full Bitcoin wallets on Android? I'm glad that Apple's strict guidelines at least partly force developers to employ smarter decisions regarding disk space, network usage, and battery life (traditional Bitcoin wallets download the entire block chain and constantly poll the network for updates).

View on HN

From Apple: “We found that your app contains content related to bitcoins – or facilitates, enables, or encourages an activity – that is not legal in all the locations in which the app is available, which is not in compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines.

But this is ridiculous. I can use my Citibank app, the PayPal app, or whatever else, to pay for things that might not be legal either. Square could facilitate me receiving money for illegal things. It's hard to see why these are all allowed, but Bitcoin isn't.

The examples you gave don't use Bitcoin; they all use USD. The currency itself is illegal; we're not even talking about what you're doing with the currency. Bitcoin's legality is disputed in China, Thailand, and the state of California. Since Apple operates out of California, it makes sense that they would hesitate to allow such functionality on their apps.

Edit for clarity: I interpret "facilitates, enables, or encourages an activity – that is not legal in all the locations in which the app is available" to mean that the act of making a Bitcoin transaction is illegal in certain jurisdictions.

Stop spreading FUD. Bitcoin is, so far, perfectly legal.

USA: “We all recognize that virtual currencies, in and of themselves, are not illegal,” Mythili Raman, acting assistant attorney general at the Justice Department’s criminal division, said at the hearing. Source: http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2022288065_b...

China: "The People’s Bank of China [...] has stopped short of banning the world’s most popular digital currency outright". IOW they still allow people to trade bitcoins, if they wish to. Source: http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/12/china_bank/

Thailand: the Bank of Thailand may display an anti-Bitcoin stance, but they have no legislative power to declare Bitcoin illegal: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=264389.0;all

Exactly.

When Bitcoin interacts with existing financial services, the regulator may decide to not allow those interactions to occur. This is no reflection on Bitcoin itself which is not illegal.

It's not illegal to transfer money as a consumer with Bitcoin in California or the other places you mentioned. It's just illegal to do so without proper licencing if you run a financial business. Apple is just offering an app marketplace, they are not hosting BTC transfers or running a money-transfer business by letting Gliph be in the app store.

Illegal and "disputed legality" are two entirely different beasts. If the legality is disputed that is for a court to decide, not Apple.

In regard to China specifically they explicitly said last week that it is still legal for private Chinese citizens to use Bitcoin.

Apple isn't deciding the legality, they're refusing to allow something of "disputed legality" into the store they run.

Would you be mad at Walmart for not selling a new supplement that was of "disputed legality"?

Reddit has content that is clearly, unambiguously, illegal in the UK.

There are apps to access Reddit in the app store.

What like cyberbullying? Genuinely curious.

Reddit has a pro-suicide sub reddit. It is illegal for people in England to aid someone who is attempting suicide.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/9-10/60

> Criminal liability for complicity in another’s suicide.

> (1)A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide, shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

This law is mostly used to prevent more active assistance in suicide, but it is also used to prevent people giving advice about how to complete suicide.

So, that's one current sub reddit.

In the past there were jailbait subreddits. I never visited so I have no idea about the content, but English law is stricter than US law around images of people under the age of 18.

I only knew there was the /r/jailbait that got removed. A pro-suicide forum is an unsavory thing. Thanks for clarifying.

Pro-suicide is tame compared to many of the subreddits out there. If you're curious, do NOT click the links in this collection but rather read the reactions of people who did. (I am serious).

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1qa5ff/what_is_th...

I find Walmart's decision not to carry music with explicit lyrics similarly tiresome to Apple's quest to defend their users from installing things.

(But both issues are easily sidestepped so I don't care very much...)

Apple can decide whatever it wants, especially if it's protecting themselves from being named in a multi-million dollar lawsuit.

Sure. But they should do it transparently. Come out and say "our legal team thinks your app opens us up to the risk of a lawsuit."

Not "Your app is illegal somewhere," when this claim is dubious at best.

Which is exactly the problem here and the reason this headline is getting so much attention.

Then why not allow the app in locations where Bitcoin is known to be legal? Like Germany? I guess there are some countries where the legality of Bitcoin is not disputed. The App Store allows to restrict the apps availability by country.

To me it is clear that Apple tries to stifle adoption and innovation in the Bitcoin area by disallowing those apps on their platform.

Virtually all popular local (ie. non-hosted) Bitcoin wallets on Android are lightweight wallets. They do NOT download the full blockchain. They do NOT listen to all Bitcoin traffic. They use the Simplified Payment Verification (SPV) mode. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability#Simplified_payment_ve...

Apple would have zero reason for banning such lightweight clients, as they consume no more resources than a typical app.

This is obviously related to the fact that they dont know how to charge the 30% comission they usually do.

Bitcoin is a risk on the controlled environment they have.

This is so tiresome. The 30% is a service charge. It covers hosting, distribution and credit card processing to name but a few things. Before the AppStore, entities such as handango we're charging more than double as a percentage. It's not an arbitrary figure that you seem to think they plucked from their collective asses when instigating the store. So please. Drop the fucking trite meme. It's vapid.

I didn't question the fairness or value of that commission and frankly, its irrelevant to the point at hand. If they officially allowed bitcoin on the AppleMarket, there's no telling how many vendors would offer it for an absurdly bigger profit margin.

Being practical, this means that theres space for a solution to charge intermediary commission and let apple have its piece of the pie.

What do you mean by "full Bitcoin wallets"?

There are several wallets on Android that do not rely on any servers except for the Bitcoin network servers.

Bitcoin Wallet by Andreas Schildbach: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.schildbach.... Mycelium Bitcoin Wallet by Mycelium Developers: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mycelium.w...

They both do not store the full Blockchain.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com