

“Apps may facilitate transmission of approved virtual currencies” - ca98am79
https://developer.apple.com/appstore/resources/approval/guidelines.html
&quot;11.17 Apps may facilitate transmission of approved virtual currencies provided that they do so in compliance with all state and federal laws for the territories in which the app functions&quot;
======
johnrob
This document reads like an enumerated list of why the web is better than apps
for most things. Unfortunately, apps will likely prevail until OS producers
work directly to empower the mobile web.

~~~
general_failure
Indeed.

It also contains a severe condescending tone how 'big daddy' is doing all this
for our own well being. And of course, think of all the children!

~~~
kordless
It's a blaming tone. "And we think that you will also know it when you cross
it." is a statement that will assuredly not be true for everyone whom they
believe 'crossed a line'.

------
pling
Oh how blessed are we that the landlords allow such mischief...

Seriously people are pissing themselves all over with these announcements as
if they weren't possible before.

~~~
chillingeffect
> Oh how blessed are we that the landlords allow such mischief...

That's a fantastic quote! I couldn't find it via DDG, Yahoo and Google. Is
that original to you? It really resonates with me.

~~~
pling
I may have heard it somewhere so I can't claim originality but it came out of
my head at the time in a sarcastic rage.

------
ca98am79
Section 11.17

> Apps may facilitate transmission of approved virtual currencies provided
> that they do so in compliance with all state and federal laws for the
> territories in which the app functions

~~~
jpmattia
> "of approved virtual currencies"

... which begs the question: Are there _approved_ virtual currencies? I'd also
be curious whether litecoin is on that list as well.

~~~
gtirloni
So largely the US is out since the Fed said Bitcoin is not a currency, right?
Or the term "virtual" makes it not required to be approved by the Fed? Who is
the approver then?

~~~
jpmattia
> _So largely the US is out since the Fed said Bitcoin is not a currency,
> right?_

I guess I missed that. I remember the IRS said bitcoin would be taxed using
non-currency rules, but the specifics of how something is taxed doesn't
necessarily impact whether Apple "approves" it as a virtual currency.

~~~
gtirloni
I wasn't even criticizing Bitcoin and got downvoted already? Aww..

I was talking about this, which amounts to almost the same thing:

[http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/02/27/yellen-on-
bitcoin-...](http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/02/27/yellen-on-bitcoin-fed-
doesnt-have-authority-to-regulate-it-in-any-way/)

------
jlarocco
OT, but: "We have lots of serious developers who don't want their quality Apps
to be surrounded by amateur hour."

Really? Searching for "fart" in the app store just returned 969 results. Give
me a break.

~~~
mhartl
To be fair, they do mention this issue:

 _2.11 Apps that duplicate Apps already in the App Store may be rejected,
particularly if there are many of them, such as fart, burp, flashlight, and
Kama Sutra Apps_

~~~
FatalLogic
> _2.11 Apps that duplicate Apps already in the App Store may be rejected,
> particularly if there are many of them, such as fart, burp, flashlight, and
> Kama Sutra Apps_

Interesting. It looks like Apple may be trying to clean up the market by
encouraging devs to consolidate these critical functions in one app

------
rsynnott
Spoiler: The only approved currency is Dogecoin.

~~~
MBCook
To the moon!

Seriously though, I'm a little surprise to see Apple do this. It will be
interesting to see if they actually _approve_ any currency, or if this is just
a hedge they can use to keep Bitcoin (etc.) apps out of the store but let you
trade EBay Bucks and Linden Dollars.

------
dang
Title changed from "Apple now allows Bitcoin-transmitting apps" because the
article does not mention Bitcoin.

------
FatalLogic
It appears that this bitcoin wallet app, which the developer previously
announced was being removed by Apple, was quietly reinstated in the iTunes
store sometime recently.

(I only say "appears" because it's hard to know if and when it was removed.)
Anyway, the app's features do now include 'Send and receive payments'

[https://blog.coinjar.com/2014/01/09/coinjar-wallet-to-be-
rem...](https://blog.coinjar.com/2014/01/09/coinjar-wallet-to-be-removed-from-
app-store/)

[https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/coinjar-for-
iphone/id7252098...](https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/coinjar-for-
iphone/id725209873)

~~~
FatalLogic
The same app is about to become available in Apple's app stores in Europe and
parts of Asia (no US, though)

So it now seems even more likely that there this is a real shift in policy and
Apple is considerably more positive toward bitcoin payment apps now:
[http://reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/276w8l/just_sent_some_b...](http://reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/276w8l/just_sent_some_btc_from_my_iphone_with_the/chxyq5l)

------
kristianp
Combined with these clauses, You clearly can't use virtual currencies to
purchase in-app items, but you possibly could use them to buy real-world items
and also other virtual currencies?

11.2 Apps utilizing a system other than the In-App Purchase API (IAP) to
purchase content, functionality, or services in an App will be rejected 11.3
Apps using IAP to purchase physical goods or goods and services used outside
of the App will be rejected

------
andrewla
Does anyone have historical snapshots of this document for comparison with
previous statements about virtual currencies? The Wayback machine appears to
only have redirects to the developer login page here. This is being presented
as a change, but without a previous version I don't see how we can consider it
one -- the language might be unchanged but have been interpreted strictly by
the review process, for example by defining "approved" very narrowly.

Off-topic, but I notice that the guidelines prohibit buttons for external
purchase of in-app content, but as I recall, they used to prohibit buttons for
external purchase of any digital content; why is why the Amazon app could not
sell Kindle versions of books. I would be curious to see whether there is a
change in policy or if Amazon was either being overly cautious or the
restrictions were being applied more severely than a literal reading would
indicate.

~~~
smackfu
This post has some text of rejections from Apple in the past:
[https://blog.gli.ph/2013/12/09/the-state-of-bitcoin-
mobile-a...](https://blog.gli.ph/2013/12/09/the-state-of-bitcoin-mobile-
applications-in-the-app-store-and-google-play/)

They used the generic "this is not legal in all jurisdictions" clause.

~~~
pietro
So it depends on which stores you submit the app to? Makes sense – and should
be relatively easy to figure out.

------
Holbein
What about flattr? Apple denied podcast apps that had a flattr button
before... is this now ok again as well?

~~~
sp332
That might have been banned for making an in-app purchase without giving Apple
their cut.

~~~
Holbein
No, flattr cannot be used for in-app purchases. The idea behind flattr is that
you voluntarily honor a podcast (or some other work that somebody has created
and put online) by putting them on your personal list of people that will get
a fraction of some amount you decided to donate at the end of the month.

The key concepts being "voluntarily donate" and "not a fixed amount", which
differentiates flattr completely from in-app-purchases.

Apple was apparently uncomfortable with such a strange concept that it could
not bring into line with its capitalistic mindset, and promptly banned it.

Sad to hear that Apple hasn't changed its mind on this front.

------
spacemanmatt
Would it suffice at _all_ for Apple to make the same assertions over your
financial practices using say, a browser that runs on OS X?

I'm going to ruminate on this one a bit but I don't like it.

------
thinkcomp
"...with all state and federal laws for the territories in which the app
functions"

Total United States Bitcoin companies that meet this criterion: zero.

------
dinkumthinkum
What I found interesting was the style of this document. This is much less
formal than what I would expect front Apple, it's sort of jarring ... "brace
yourselves" ... I doubt this would have gotten through in days of old.

------
bcl
There is no mention of Bitcoin in this document. The title should be
corrected.

------
arasmussen
Time to spend the next 24 hours hacking on a Bitcoin app. Any suggestions?

~~~
aw3c2
Flappy Coin: You pledge a small amount of imaginary money before launching a
game. For each gate you fly through, the sum gets smaller. The longer you
manage to play, the less money you lose. Target 14 year olds with "Bitcoin
YOLO, are you cool enough to gamble?" Teaches them how Kevin's negative funny
fail record from a week ago is nothing to boast about because the bubble burst
and he only lost 2 cents, not 5 dollars. LOL, what a wanker!

~~~
slipstream-
fun fact: there's already an altcoin called flappycoin.

------
joshdance
Someone should resubmit their bitcoin app and see if it passes this time.

------
steffenfrost
The coinpocket html5 web app renders this issue moot.

------
outside1234
"If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps."

subtitles: "do not exercise your 1st amendment rights or else."

~~~
jonny_eh
1st amendment rights only apply to the government.

~~~
kefka
And government grants corporate charters. They, and we need to remember this
fact.

And, corporations can be unmade as a punishment.

~~~
jonny_eh
Do you have a legal precedent to point to? The Bill of Rights (the first 10
amendments to the constitution) didn't even apply to state governments until
the 14th amendment.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Ri...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights)

~~~
dragonwriter
> Do you have a legal precedent to point to?

For revoking corporate charter? Every jurisdiction which grants them also
already reserves the power to revoke them. E.g., Delaware:
[http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/decode/8/1/X/284](http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/decode/8/1/X/284)

~~~
jonny_eh
For revoking a corporate charter for violating a customer or partner's 1st
amendment rights.

------
kolev
"Cryptocurrency" is a misnomer. Bitcoin is an asset and even its biggest
supporters agree with that. "Cryptoasset" \- yes, "virtual currency" \- no.

------
javert
Bitcoin isn't a "virtual currency," it's a "digital currency." "Virtual" means
"simulated." Money in video games is "virtual currency."

~~~
dragonwriter
> Bitcoin isn't a "virtual currency," it's a "digital currency."

Maybe to you, but not to, e.g., the US Department of Treasury's Financial
Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). See definitions at:
[http://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001....](http://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html)

The FinCEN definition is probably more widely used than whatever rule you are
using that excludes Bitcoin as a virtual currency.

~~~
javert
FinCEN is incorrect. Go look up the definition and history of the word
"virtual." And I've been making this point since before FinCEN started caring
about bitcoin.

I don't know if you understand that the government does not create truth.

~~~
dragonwriter
> FinCEN is incorrect.

No, they aren't.

> Go look up the definition and history of the word "virtual."

Even if that supported your argument (which it doesn't, see next paragraph),
it wouldn't matter, because the meanings of phrases aren't necessarily
determined by the meanings and/or history of the component words in isolation.

But FinCEN's definition of "virtual currency" _is_ consistent with the common
definition of "virtual". Their definition of "virtual currency" is exactly the
#1 definition of virtual [1] applied to the uncontroversial definition of
"currency". (And calling Bitcoin virtual currency would _also_ be consistent
with definition #4, particularly definition #4a, though some non-electronic
entities that would meet FinCEN's definition would be excluded by that
definition.)

> And I've been making this point since before FinCEN started caring about
> bitcoin.

You being wrong for a long time doesn't make you any less wrong.

> I don't know if you understand that the government does not create truth.

I don't know if you understand that legal definitions established by
government _do_ create _meanings_ that are used in legal documents such as
contracts, terms of service, etc., whether or not they are "truth" in some
abstract, idealized sense.

[1] from: [http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/virtual](http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/virtual)

~~~
javert
In what sense is bitcoin NOT a currency?

It has to not be a currency to be a virtual currency, by the definition you
favor.

Any answer I can imagine that you would give would invalidate other things we
all consider currencies, unless you draw a line based on non-fundamental
properties (e.g. such as backing by government force or market cap). And you
can't form a proper concept using non-fundamental properties.

So the definition you favor actually supports my view, though I think the
definition you favor lacks appropriate context and nuance (which is often true
of dictionary definitions).

Talking about the government defining something creating meaning is just
irrelevant. You're obviously telling me things I already know, but the
government is technically incorrect on this. Just as they are on calling
capital gains "unearned income," for example, since many successful investors
work hard and do earn their income.

~~~
jaekwon
> It has to not be a currency to be a virtual currency, by the definition you
> favor.

incorrect.

~~~
javert
> being such in essence or effect though not formally recognized or admitted

Here is the definition he favors, it has to be not formally recognized or
admitted as a currency to fit this definition.

I shouldn't even have bothered responding to such a worthless comment.

