Bitcoin Forum

Not sure if it's a repost, BTW just curious to hear what you guys think

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2014/02/07/why-bitcoin-must-die-long-live-bitcoin-2-0/

The author is a smart guy. 

Unfortunately he clearly believes that the USA and its very specific "Know your Customer" laws .... are the end-all, be-all for failure or success.

While he knows a lot about Bitcoin (as per his comments in the comment section at the bottom), he conveys zero knowledge of what Bitcoin is becoming to people in other parts of the world.

Other countries, with other needs.  Places dealing with corrupt governments, and a failing economy. 

All he does is focus on Bitcoin failing because it doesn't meet a couple regulatory rules in lil ole USA.

The arrogance of my fellow americans is astounding at times.  I constantly find myself having to remind them that we are not the center of the universe, and Bitcoin innovation will go elsewhere if we try to hinder it.

-B-

Spot on, there is a much broader use for Bitcoin and he clearly hasn't taken that into consideration. Who's to say the Government won't collapse in March when they reach yet another debt ceiling? And the only reason we are seeing arrests made (in Florida most recently) are because they are terrified of what it'll do to the shitty dollar.

That article has many problems:

1) Regulators have repeatedly said that existing legislation and tools are sufficient for them to meet their AML/KYC mandates. See FinCEN, DoJ, and Dept. Treasury's statements in November's senate hearings.

2) Ben Lawsky (NYDFS) is noting today that far more money has been laundered via banks than via virtual currencies, and even said that maybe they propose all virtual currencies be the public-ledger type. While there are obvious problems with that statement, it's certainly a tacit endorsement of bitcoin as an acceptable (from a regulatory perspective) type of virtual currency.

3) The author alludes to "learning lessons" from eGold and other digital currency experiments from the last 20 years. He glosses over the fact that bitcoin is *distributed*; there's no door to kick down, or server to turn off. Regulators get this, which is why they're taking the approach referenced in #1 and #2.

4) The author's statements on gold, and bitcoin not being backed, really indicate his backward thinking. Bitcoin *is* the scarce asset, like gold. Nothing "backs" the monetary-use premiums of either. Half his argument is therefore a total misconception.

Because transferring cash between 2 persons is not an anonymous transaction.  ::)

1) Cash transactions are already far more anonymous than cryptocurrency transactions.
2) Cryptocurrency cannot be any more transparent than it already is without enabling everyone in the network to see what real people are buying.

It is, unless one of the parties chooses to disclose it to some other third party.

Anyway, a nice written piece.

Aww, sweet but naive.

Bitcoin has not yet reached v1.0. We're getting ahead of ourselves.

born under punches.  i'm a govt. man

I agree

It's certainly one of the biggest problems Bitcoin is facing.

Ha! Similar article could have been written 25 years ago for email. here it goes:

One day, there will be a global postal system in widespread commercial use, whose operations will not be controlled by national postal services. Governments can forestall this day, as they have for the past 15 years since the first electronic letters were sent, but the market demand for an alternative to nation-controlled paper correspondence that can be conveniently, securely, and inexpensively exchanged over digital networks will be too strong to resist. Alas, the postal system described above will not be e-mail, at least not in its current configuration.

Why not today’s e-mail? Because the electronic letters of the future must choose between two mutually exclusive paths. It can either be anonymous, enabling the profane, harmful even subversive communications of the shadow underground, or it can be fully compliant with the growing body of anti slander, anti-defamation, pro-government laws that guide global media markets. A single method of electronic correspondence cannot do both...

Yes, surely we should all stop using bitcoin and lose all faith in it because someone chose to break the law.

I would love to hear what he thinks about using banks after bank execs were caught red handed laundering money for drug cartels.  I guess we should all stop using the dollar as well since someone out there broke the law ?

Has anyone heard of the spaghetti approach? Throw things at Bitcoin and see what sticks... or the "didn'ya kill my brother?!?" Blame Bitcoin users for every malady that affects mankind? Every article that broaches the subject of Bitcoin comes with an agenda or exposé.

agree with OP, USA does not regulate the Euro, Yen, Pound, Ruble, etc. so there is no need to regulate bitcoin. all they have to control is the dollar and thats all they should stick to.

bitcoin can be self regulated through code. EG stop charge back scams and fraud though not allowing chargebacks. all that is left is for people to learn how to act with bitcoins, much like how parents teach kids through the use of pocket money, and how it should be used wisely.

with that said i find the use of faucets could actually be used to a more beneficial way, and a way that would reduce faucet raiders from using it as a stable income.

by making a bitcoin tutorial on how to set up a wallet, how to receive coins, how to make new addresses, all of the main things needed to be known about it. and then at the end they would receive the faucet donation.

faucet raiders would not want to go through a laborious chore just for some dust, but new investors would be happy to receive free money to play with and mess around with, without risk.

so anyone with a faucet.. please implement it as a noob tutorial.

I don’t agree that bitcoin must die. The way it is benefiting a lot of people and businesses, I think it should stay for good. Bitcoin Daily believes that it is going to stay despite the many controversies behind it.

Maybe he's right. Bitcoin might not become the dominant digital currency, but I'm sure there will always be a use for it.

Bitcoin is not anonymous if one party chooses to share the info to the public. Theoretically it is the same, yet so different.

agreed, its also our problem!

Fungibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility) is a fundamental property of any currency. All satoshis are created to equal. I think that customer's identity issue has to be dealt with at the payment level, a layer above btc core functionality. if you a few time to spare just listen to Adam Back interviewed  (https://soundcloud.com/mindtomatter/e77-the-adam-back-interview) by Andreas M. Antonopoulos. Among other things they they spoke about fungibility and other related topics.