Bitcoin Forum

https://mtgox.com/press_release_20111021.html

In this Mt. Gox debacle, we're dealing with the Rothschilds along with private shareholders that control the central banks of Europe. You know that Wall Street scum and those billionaires everybody is butthurt about right now? Practically nobodies compared to these guys. These are the rulers of our planet we're dealing with. Undisclosed trillionaires. They own practically every nation's debt on the planet through their privatized banking regime and here is their representative from the Banque De France to make sure one of Bitcoin's central institutions, Mt. Gox, is limited.

Let me tell you: Nobody is getting past these guys in court. They'll buy the whole damn thing out if they have to, if Bitcoin becomes big. A decentralized money where profit is available to the rattiest neckbeard with a dozen GPUs is not their ideal world. Whoever controls the money controls everything, people. A pretty presidential seal and a stack of legal documents is bullshit compared to the omnipotent power of a printing press. Bitcoin challenges that. It neuters the banks and gives it power to every individual who owns a computer. That's true wealth redistribution.

Thus Bitcoin is going nowhere in terms of financial legislation, folks. You might as well forget about Bitcoin getting any legal protection against the banks.

My advice: Don't call it a currency. Don't call it money. Don't associate it with finances. Call it social-based transactions and say it's protected under free speech; The First Amendment if you're American. That's all you have.

They are going to fight this thing tooth-and-nail. We have quite a battle ahead. I don't know exactly what this is going to lead to but it's going to be interesting.

Feels like you should have mentioned the Illuminati and the Trilateral Commission in there somewhere.

I also saw no mention of lizard men  ???

All you have to do is look where the money flows. There is no conspiracy here; only the inconvenient truth. Feel free to refute me if you have taken the time to understand my position.

Regardless of whether BTC is classified as a currency or not, the exchanges accept and hold deposits of real currency for their clients.  In many countries, that puts them firmly in the category of providing financial services and thus requiring a licence as either a deposit-taker, a money transmitter, or both.  Paypal fought this battle years ago throughout the world and ultimately ended up having to acquire financial services licences to continue operating in many places.

Battles yet to be fought are whether BTC and the exchanges will ultimately need to comply with regulations relating to securities and/or commodities, and whether online wallet providers are offering a "financial service".

They can put all the regulations they want on Bitcoin but they can hardly be enforced. Transactions don't have to be tied to any identity, entity nor purpose. That's easy to fudge in terms of accounting to say the absolute least.

The real reigns are the borders:  Where fiat monies move in and out of Bitcoin.

doesnt really matter what its called, if they want it they can just buy it up, very easy for anyone in their financial position right now, not so easy if it was being well used, be an exciting ride if they did decide to buy it out tho

That would be against their interests. It would only increase the value and adoption of the currency. Considering the whole Bitcoin economy can run off one Bitcoin, destruction by purchase is irrational and impossible. It will not and cannot happen.

Goldstein huh?!?  Sounds like a JEWISH name!!! ::)

A secret, elite group is not necessary to explain that banks will operate in their own interests (just as you and I do). Pointing out that some people own and control banks is silly.

Assume that there is an evil Rothschild group behind everything. What benefit is gained from that knowledge? The common criminal down the street with a gun is more dangerous to you than the Rothschilds. In fact, YOU are a greater danger to yourself than the Rothschilds... you're much more likely to kill yourself in a car accident than be in a position where knowledge of the evil Rothschildren will be of use.

Wait a sec, such a terribly distracting course of knowledge and infatuation could ONLY have been created to distract us by ONE group... the Rothschilds!!!!

I haven't made any claims to the existence of a secret elite group.

The fact is the Rothschilds are a major private shareholder in these central banks along with many other financial institutions. I am not making claims to anything that isn't certain.

The fact is when you have the power to manipulate the production of money to your whims, you're omnipotent in regards to political and financial affairs. The incentive to maintain this power is clear. The true motives are undefined.

If you think the Rothschild's are bad, you'd better hide your rigs from De Beers.  I hear they're going to set up a mining pool and take control of the block chain.  Blood Bitcoins are just around the corner. ::)

History has shown that people will not be irrational enough to allow their computing power to form a pool that has more than 51% of the power.

The fear was incredible when it was discovered how powerful Deepbit was once getting. I can only imagine the tremors in a more active future.

Uh huh. The most powerful people in the universe are going to buy the case, but mayyyyyybbbeeee if we just don't mention (anymore) that Bitcoin is money, we can still win the case.

I doubt they can buy a lot of things with debts  :D

What we call it won't matter. Obviously, we're all here not out of some social purpose but because bitcoin is a currency. Miners like using bitcoin to make money. Others like it as a mid-or-long-term investment. Day traders and bot-makers like it because trading here is less complicated and doesn't require $25K while under a strict ruleset that fucks the small guy. Lastly, some like it only to buy stuff or to be hip.

Most people are actually a mix of the above, but very few are using bitcoin for a purpose other than as a currency.

You do have a good point buried in there, however. Namecoin, as a vehicle for speech, might actually be more protected in the US and other free-speech nations than Bitcoin.

If we can sell the idea that bitcoin is money, but money is speech (Hello, occupy wall street), then you've got some protection. Attach Bitcoin to a messaging system and you've got a constitutional conundrum. It would be interesting if bitcoin could piggyback p2p messaging on every transaction. It would be slower than email, but obviously with some advantages.

Bam! Now bitcoin is both a currency and a form of speech. Include the ability to send messages to multiple addresses, and now it's a form of the press (e.g., if I can publish a newsletter by essentially sending small transactions to every subscriber, it's press).

Hell, let's try to hit as many constitutional protections as possible:

1.1 Religion. Quick, someone found a church that uses bitcoin and this new messaging system as the sole means which the church congregates (desseminates religious communication). The principle of semi-anonymous community, wherein one believer is not elevated above others (such as to a priesthood), is actually within the domain of Jesus' teachings.

1.2 Assembly. At this point, twitter itself is probably bulletproof for this reason alone. The equivalency of virtual assembly would be a supreme court decision, but it's one more for the fire. The more that bitcoin could be used for any form of virtual assembly, the better.

1.3 Press (already covered the right to publish).

2. Guns. Uh. Crap. Well, there is a small debate that does exist as to whether newer, stranger forms of arms are covered. For example: hacker tools.

3. Homeowners forcibly housing soldiers. Shit. I don't know.

4. Search and seizure. People pay a lot of attention to the search part of this, but it's also part of the argument against eminent domain being used without judicial involvement or for a third party's advantage, which possibly applies to bitcoin.

5. 6. 7. 8. Rights of the accused, etc. I don't know how this could apply to bitcoin.

9. Other rights may exist and just because they're not in the constitution doesn't mean they can be violated, or something like that. This one is lovely for bitcoin use on the shoulders of such arguments such as freedom of privacy, free movement, biased enforcement of laws, etc.

10. Federalism. Crap. Okay I'm going to give up on this line of insanity right there.

I did those amendments off the top of my head, so they might be off a bit.

This is good advice and has the occasionally useful advantage of being true.

An accurate (and probably the least controversial description) of Bitcoin is that is a record of public statements. I don't see that you can outlaw keeping such a record, nor outlaw making new public statements (that others may or may not add to their record) without going head to head with free speech.

+1
And it is not even be a bad thing. Bitcoin is in dire need of some trusted service companies, some exchanges or wallet services or whatever being regulated and audited I would see like a positive step, not a negative one.  As the saying goes, trust but verify. Also keep in mind bitcoin doesnt depend on such oversight, and you are free to use whatever company you want, licensed or not. But Mt Gox getting a license would inspire trust among many, I really cant see how that would be a bad thing.

It's always funny how some people assume the legal system and judges to be like computer scripts: If I feed this information X into it, then according to the script, result Y should appear.

It doesn't work like that. Law texts are interpreted. Judges call bullshit.

Conspiracy nut or not, anyone who doesn't think money rules the world has been watching the disney channel too much.
Since the banks have monopoly, its obvious they will fight to keep it.

I for one welcome those who see things through the looking glass. Without them I would still be walking around like an ignorant puppet.

This article shows how networks create clumps:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html

...which has led to the unbalance of humanity due to money. It happens to grains of sand on a vibrating disc and it happens to money and people in cities. 

Bitcoin is no different. Regardless of Bitcoin bigger internet nodes are more powerful than less connected ones.

We have the opportunity now, to build into the algorithm now measures to balance this back out. However that opportunity must be incorporated when we next find the next big improvement to match adoption, such as blockchain pruning etc.

+1 to this

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html

I love how central banking institutions are excluded. How objective.

In addition, there are countless private businesses and private investment firms they haven't touched. This report is very incomplete and undefinable in terms of true conclusions.

If PayPal can meet all of the legal requirements, and they did it well before the eBay investment, then surely a company today can achieve the same result.  If an Exchange focuses its efforts on getting all the legal requirements in every country they operate, then they will be THE premium exchange that everyone will use. 

 yes, but afaik it will cost more or less 200000 dollars to get the same status as paypal

If that $200,000 includes the posting of a performance bond, then it's a trivial amount compared to the total amount of funds passing through a major exchange.

Where I think it's difficult for MtGox is that they probably hadn't planned on this level of growth happening so fast when Mark took over the business from Jed.  Both their client base and the amount of money they were dealing with grew very rapidly and they seem to have been playing catch up ever since.  They probably weren't capitalised sufficiently to cope with that rapid expansion because they didn't expect it to happen within months.

They may have been better to stick to one market until things stabilised rather than trying to establish a presence in multiple continents - Paypal didn't launch its Australian service until 2005 and even so they ran into legal issues which mean they operate a little differently here than elsewhere in the world - but hindsight is 20/20 and MtGox tried to be all things to all people. This may make them vulnerable if they run into issues in several locations at the same time - and this is the kind of risk which solid, professional business plans take into account.

New exchanges can learn from the MtGox experience - and they should.  A viable exchange needs more than just efficient software to process transaction.  It needs some serious start up capital, and hopefully we've reached the point where new players who don't have those financial resources will fail quickly.

True, governments (i.e. Central Banks) do not tolerate competition for what they see as their power.  Money is the primary power mechanism for controlling people.  Real competition for power in the form of gold, bitcoin, or some other currency as money will not be tolerated.  My best case scenario is that bitcoin continues to get bad press articles, while slowly increasing in usage and value under the radar (something like gold is doing now).  Then, longer term, something happens to diminish the monetary control mechanism (like a sovereign debt collapse in the G8 countries) and the governments will not have the power to fight the distributed bitcoin currency.

to answer your question Atlas, this guy
http://www.banque-france.fr/fr/instit/orga/noyer.htm (http://www.banque-france.fr/fr/instit/orga/noyer.htm)

Hmm. Aren't central banks simply created with the intention of keeping inflation under x%? I know the job of the ECB is to keep inflation around 2%. That's what it says in its charter, and - as far as I know - what Jean-Claude Trichet has been doing, and Mario Draghi will be doing now. How do they have power over anything if they're just created to keep inflation constant?

I know the Federal Reserve is supposed to both keep inflation around 2% and (as opposed to ECB) also keep employment rates relatively low. So the Federal Reserve acts a bit differently from ECB because of this difference in purpose.

But how can these banks benefit some tiny elite of people? I assume they're not able to print money to themselves... It's not like they have a private, endless ATM at their disposal (as far as I know).

These banks are private entities with private shareholders. They don't disclose their inner-workings and tend to print money towards other interests. The last Federal Reserve audit disclosed over 16 Trillion dollars in secret loans to various companies.

I admire your attempt to educate the people on this forum as to how the world works, but I often wonder if it's worth it.  The world is so full of know-it-alls and this forum seems to have more than its share.  The whole world is now waking up to the realities of central banking crime and their response is now taking shape.  Those who don't know the first thing about anything, but think otherwise, may not be very relevant except to remain confident that they know exactly everything yet see only that which agrees with their narrow view.

The Banque de France has an interesting history.  It was a primarily private institution from 1800 to 1946 when it was nationalised.  It was then privatised in 1993.  It's certainly been under private influence for much greater periods than many other central banks.

http://www.centralbanksguide.com/banque+de+france/

If you're referring to me, I'm more than willing to learn. But I am not willing to just accept whatever you say as the truth. Just like I have no reason to accept the generally accepted view as the truth. I think I am able to hold both the views presented in this thread and the generally accepted view, and consider them without having to decide which one is "the truth".

I feel like I'm continuously learning, and I don't wish for that to ever stop. Which is why I don't assume to know the truth; because then I'd stop learning, since there would be no reason to learn if I thought I knew the truth.

No, runeks, I'm not talking about you.  Your earnestness comes through.  I'm talking about the ad hominem attacks and appeals to ridicule after the original post.  Some people seem to have to criticize just to be heard.

As to your comment:

The owners of the Federal Reserve are a secret.  At one time this was known and it was a collection of wealthy, mostly jewish banking families from Europe and some European royalty.  The name Rothschild is dominant, but names like Goldmann, Warburg, Rockefeller, Lazard, Sachs are included too.  Under their system they lend money to nation states and receive interest on said loans.  Key point: the loan is originated out of thin air which makes their business the most lucrative means ever known to gather up the wealth of the world.

The purpose of the Federal Reserve is to create inflation at a pace that won't be noticed by the public, upon whom it is a hidden tax.  This explains why a dollar in 1913 is worth only three cents now. 

What you have been seeing in Europe is the same process that was done to the "third world", where countries are induced to take on loans that are too big to repay.  The solution offered to them will include "austerity" which means loss of jobs and a depressed economy (which makes everything worse).  The assets of the country are bought up by multinationals (also owned by the elite families).  The process is designed to impoverish and control the people of the country and leave the wealth and power concentrated in the hands of a tiny few, a modern form of feudalism.  This is now being done to Greece, with Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland to soon follow.  Western Europe and the U.S. will fall to the same process in a couple of years.

Someone in the EU commanded for a bunch of EUR and GBP accounts in 4 different countries to be shut-down in under a week after being open for 6+ months.

Coincidence?

I'm not sure where you get your information, but I don't think it's correct.  The owners of the FED are the member banks (and I think I recently read that about 70% of all US banks are members of the FED).  Their percentage ownership is proportional to their reserves (so the largest banks are the largest shareholders).  Only US based banks are allowed to belong to the Federal Reserve system and hence hold an ownership position.

As best I can discern, the FED is able to transfer wealth in the following ways: 1) inflation of the money supply (this is the simplest and most obvious method...but probably not even the most profitable), 2)  lending for bailout...when you hear about all those bailouts that were fully repaid, know that you are being lied to...a company is allowed to borrow money from the FED is able to use that capital to generate additional capital...that company is able to draw wealth from the rest of the economy that would have otherwise ended up elsewhere...so, while a company may have repaid a loan, there was a wealth transfer that occurred and that will not be repaid, 3) over paying for assets in the open market (the FED buying toubled MBSes is one instance of this), 4) Frontrunning...insiders that have fore knowledge of FED open market actions can make moves ahead of the FED and profit...this is a direct wealth transfer from other market participants, 5) financing gov't deficit...obviously the wealth is transferred to the government when this happens, but the FED is also transferring wealth to the banks (principally the primary dealers) as well when this occurs...this is because the FED doesn't buy treasuries directly from the gov't...it buys them from banks that buy them from the Treasury...the banks make a risk free spread in that transaction...this has even been openly discussed in the media...with some calling for the FED to simply buy Treasuries directly from the Treasury Dept...so far I don't think that has happened (not surprising why).  I'm sure there are many more mechanisms employed by the FED.