Title: What would regulation actually look like? Post by: Este Nuno on July 04, 2014, 04:13:38 PM There's always this spectre of 'regulation' hanging over bitcoin. If the US, or Japan or another major country decided to regulate bitcoin, what would we expect to see exactly? How do you think they would approach it? What sort of impact would you think it would have on bitcoin, either positive or negative?
Title: Re: What would regulation actually look like? Post by: franky1 on July 04, 2014, 04:18:32 PM There's always this spectre of 'regulation' hanging over bitcoin. If the US, or Japan or another major country decided to regulate bitcoin, what would we expect to see exactly? How do you think they would approach it? What sort of impact would you think it would have on bitcoin, either positive or negative? not regulating the payment protocol. only the business-consumer protection side Title: Re: What would regulation actually look like? Post by: beatljuice on July 04, 2014, 04:28:52 PM If you read the EBA Opinion on ‘virtual currencies’ (http://www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/657547/EBA-Op-2014-08+Opinion+on+Virtual+Currencies.pdf) they think that cryptocurrencies need governing bodies that they can then hold accountable for problems.
Like that's going to happen. Title: Re: What would regulation actually look like? Post by: Este Nuno on July 04, 2014, 05:30:51 PM If you read the EBA Opinion on ‘virtual currencies’ (http://www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/657547/EBA-Op-2014-08+Opinion+on+Virtual+Currencies.pdf) they think that cryptocurrencies need governing bodies that they can then hold accountable for problems. Like that's going to happen. Bitcoin Foundation. :P They already do everything but take responsibility. If someone has to take the heat, why not them? :P Title: Re: What would regulation actually look like? Post by: Bitcoinpro on July 04, 2014, 05:35:40 PM regulation would look like this
complete shutdown of all em/electrical signals in the entire world which equals impossible the system is designed to be uncrackable or replaced with a better uncrackable system if the first one becomes redundant Title: Re: What would regulation actually look like? Post by: Este Nuno on July 04, 2014, 05:46:26 PM regulation would look like this complete shutdown of all em/electrical signals in the entire world which equals impossible the system is designed to be uncrackable or replaced with a better uncrackable system if the first one becomes redundant Well regulation might not be effective, but how exactly would they try to regulate? What would they even do, attempt to make people register wallets or something? AML/KYC stuff? Is that the main issue? Title: Re: What would regulation actually look like? Post by: LiteCoinGuy on July 04, 2014, 05:50:39 PM bitcoin is already regulated. AML and KYC is regulation.
but you can do everything from that to 80% taxes on every transaction. problem is: other countries will not follow your rules. Title: Re: What would regulation actually look like? Post by: Bitcoinpro on July 04, 2014, 06:02:32 PM bitcoin is already regulated. AML and KYC is regulation. but you can do everything from that to 80% taxes on every transaction. problem is: other countries will not follow your rules. its not regulated thats the movement of bitcoin into fiat but im happy for you to try to explain your side of the story Title: Re: What would regulation actually look like? Post by: Meuh6879 on July 04, 2014, 06:03:24 PM they don't regulate his debt ... and they want regulate bitcoin ? ;D
private people with family budget regulate more efficiently than a political view. ::) Title: Re: What would regulation actually look like? Post by: Neg on July 04, 2014, 07:22:05 PM There's always this spectre of 'regulation' hanging over bitcoin. If the US, or Japan or another major country decided to regulate bitcoin, what would we expect to see exactly? How do you think they would approach it? What sort of impact would you think it would have on bitcoin, either positive or negative? People need to get over their fear of regulation. People won't even realise the regulation. It'll simply bee that people have to start paying taxes on bitcoin purchases or trades into fiat etc. Title: Re: What would regulation actually look like? Post by: Ron~Popeil on July 04, 2014, 07:35:17 PM There's always this spectre of 'regulation' hanging over bitcoin. If the US, or Japan or another major country decided to regulate bitcoin, what would we expect to see exactly? How do you think they would approach it? What sort of impact would you think it would have on bitcoin, either positive or negative? People need to get over their fear of regulation. People won't even realise the regulation. It'll simply bee that people have to start paying taxes on bitcoin purchases or trades into fiat etc. Regulators need to fear the people. Any bit coin specific regulation would just be government trying to get it's finger into the pie. Bit coin does not need permission. Title: Re: What would regulation actually look like? Post by: Este Nuno on July 04, 2014, 07:36:33 PM bitcoin is already regulated. AML and KYC is regulation. but you can do everything from that to 80% taxes on every transaction. problem is: other countries will not follow your rules. Companies that handle money are regulated. That's not quite the same as bitcoin itself being regulated. Title: Re: What would regulation actually look like? Post by: Yeezus on July 04, 2014, 07:42:28 PM People seem to be just so anti-regulation because they think bitcoin doesn't need it, but if bitcoin is going to become mainstream it's going to require some in certain areas wether you like it or not.
Title: Re: What would regulation actually look like? Post by: Este Nuno on July 05, 2014, 12:38:59 PM People seem to be just so anti-regulation because they think bitcoin doesn't need it, but if bitcoin is going to become mainstream it's going to require some in certain areas wether you like it or not. What sort of areas are you referring to in particular? Title: Re: What would regulation actually look like? Post by: franky1 on July 05, 2014, 12:58:34 PM People seem to be just so anti-regulation because they think bitcoin doesn't need it, but if bitcoin is going to become mainstream it's going to require some in certain areas wether you like it or not. regulations allow businesses to play with peoples money (fractional reserves) regulations allow businesses to limit how much people can use their money (ATM limits AML/KYC limits) regulations allow businesses to simple take money away from people without warning (account freezing, fee's) which we do not want... but.... consumer protection laws PREVENT businesses doing what they like with peoples money consumer protection laws PREVENT businesses stealing peoples money consumer protection laws PREVENT businesses from refusing to hand people their full amount of money i do not advocate regulation, i do advocate consumer protection.. and thats me saying this, a business owner Title: Re: What would regulation actually look like? Post by: ShakyhandsBTCer on July 06, 2014, 12:31:28 AM There's always this spectre of 'regulation' hanging over bitcoin. If the US, or Japan or another major country decided to regulate bitcoin, what would we expect to see exactly? How do you think they would approach it? What sort of impact would you think it would have on bitcoin, either positive or negative? People need to get over their fear of regulation. People won't even realise the regulation. It'll simply bee that people have to start paying taxes on bitcoin purchases or trades into fiat etc. Regulators need to fear the people. Any bit coin specific regulation would just be government trying to get it's finger into the pie. Bit coin does not need permission. Title: Re: What would regulation actually look like? Post by: moriartybitcoin on July 06, 2014, 12:58:21 AM The main purpose of regulation is to de-anonymize bitcoin by controlling the entrance and exit points, ie ensuring that exchanges like coinbase are fully regulated so that when you BUY or SELL bitcoins, you are required to verify your identity. This way, the government knows how much Bitcoin you own at all times and can cross-reference your IRS forms for tax evasion, etc. Also if they decide to ban bitcoin in the future (as they banned gold ownership during WWII), they can simply write you a letter (or show up at your door ..) and demand your Bitcoin.
So that's the point of regulation, as always, increased control ... I created https://CoinChimp.com as an ANONYMOUS bitcoin exchange. We NEVER verify identity or require documents from our customers, enabling you to buy and sell btc completely privately. Title: Re: What would regulation actually look like? Post by: joecooin on July 06, 2014, 01:41:50 AM Regulators want:
- to know who has what kind of money - to know who sends what money to whom and what for - to decide who is allowed to have or send money all together - to be able to stop any transaction and confiscate any money And they want all this 100%, not 50% or even 99% will be enough. Such coin can be built. Joe edit: spelling Title: Re: What would regulation actually look like? Post by: ShakyhandsBTCer on July 06, 2014, 01:58:41 AM Regulators want: - to know who has what kind of money - to know who sends what money to whom and what for - to decides who is allowed to have or send money all together - to be able to stop any transaction and confiscate any money And they want all this 100%, not 50% or even 99% will be enough. Such coin can be built. Joe Title: Re: What would regulation actually look like? Post by: franky1 on July 06, 2014, 02:20:58 AM moriartybitcoin (shame on you for not knowing this, especially with you 50+ businesses(it makes you look amateurish and fishy!!))
joecooin and ShakyhandsBTCer all 3 have not quite got it correct. firstly businesses under THEIR OWN policies (regulation handbook they develop which is tailored to their business) would require user identification when handling FIAT!! the thing that the 3 people should know is that not every document/account is automatically uploaded to government. most of the time it is just securely stored within the business and accessible at any time should something suspicious get flagged up.. normally then and only then is this info sent as a SAR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_activity_report) to a government agency. so dont over dramatize the fact that a business taking information, would automatically pass it on to government. as this is not the case. regulations are reactive, not proactive. meaning until a government agency receives a SAR they usually dont know what is happen between client/business, so you can relax just a little Title: Re: What would regulation actually look like? Post by: joecooin on July 06, 2014, 02:17:17 PM ... regulations are reactive, not proactive. meaning until a government agency receives a SAR they usually dont know what is happen between client/business, so you can relax just a little The case you are describing is correct. But it only means that banks and financial services act as extended arms / outsourced departments of the regulators and that they do the data collecting, analysing and storing for them. What I described is basically the essence of what regulators want. I do talk to central bankers, police officials and politicians about this internationally and they usually confirm that to me (even though sometimes in a very charming way like in this video from around minute 27 on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaW2iPSPEs0) and that the fact that they do not know how to get do that with Bitcoin is a problem for them. The head of German state police even went so far as to suggest that if this is not possible the only way out he sees is to shut down the internet alltogether (no I am not kidding). After all we live in a total surveillence society. To have access to the financial data about people is at least as important for the rulers as having their communications data and of course they want ways to embargoe dissidents (like wikileaks). Joe Title: Re: What would regulation actually look like? Post by: franky1 on July 06, 2014, 06:05:11 PM ... regulations are reactive, not proactive. meaning until a government agency receives a SAR they usually dont know what is happen between client/business, so you can relax just a little The case you are describing is correct. But it only means that banks and financial services act as extended arms / outsourced departments of the regulators and that they do the data collecting, analysing and storing for them. What I described is basically the essence of what regulators want. I do talk to central bankers, police officials and politicians about this internationally and they usually confirm that to me (even though sometimes in a very charming way like in this video from around minute 27 on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaW2iPSPEs0) and that the fact that they do not know how to get do that with Bitcoin is a problem for them. The head of German state police even went so far as to suggest that if this is not possible the only way out he sees is to shut down the internet alltogether (no I am not kidding). After all we live in a total surveillence society. To have access to the financial data about people is at least as important for the rulers as having their communications data and of course they want ways to embargoe dissidents (like wikileaks). Joe not really.. after all bank notes exist without every transaction being monitored.. and governments have not stopped printing those.. infact they are printing more then ever before. all governments really care about is that $10k+ amounts are not leaving native circulation, once you peel away the fiction of what money control is really for. remember HSBC getting away with laundering drug money. but many innocent people at state and international checkpoints are having their money confiscated without any proof of a crime. as a non american, i can move state to state no issues, even if im not suppose to, i just say im on vacation.. but as soon as they see $10k on my back seat, thats a whole different story |