Bitcoin Forum

Many prominent Bitcoin developers are actively in collusion with members of law enforcement and seeking approval from government legislators. We believe this is not in Bitcoin users’ self-interest, and instead serves wealthy business interests that make up the self-titled Bitcoin Foundation.

same article, you allready posted that.


 https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/cody-wilson-plans-destroy-bitcoin-foundation/

not really.

if the bitcoin foundation was involved in regulation. then why would they move their office out of new york and into london when the threat of New york regulations were made. if they were in approval of such regulations, they would not be running away to avoid the future restrictions

I agreed with you.

I guess regulation is a good thing. Bitcoin needs mainstream adoption, in order to grow and become more significant. For people to get involved in Bitcoin, there needs to be some legal framework they can use as guidance. The Foundation should do what they're there for and actually lobby for the interests of Bitcoin!

I'd be happy to assist and educate any law enforcement agency that is interested in getting a better understanding of bitcoin and the tools available to them.


I'd be thrilled if a government legislator would answer a few of my questions about licensing and registration.


You're free to believe whatever you like.

I am trying to register as a Money Service Business here in Canada just so that I can be passive-aggressive. The naive hope is that they will forced to exempt many Bitcoin activities from the reporting requirements to keep the noise down. For example, SWIFT money transfers are exempt from requirements to include detailed customer information, but Bitcoin transfers are not.

I am sure lawyers are working around the clock to put this kind of stuff into laws.

Regulation is bound to come down at some point. Bitcoin is only secured by its cryptography, However rules can be bent around it, and I am sure that somehow they will be.

Agree

You forget the point that everything about bitcoin and the blockchain is public information. This will result in it being a moot point if Bitcoin devs are in "collusion" with law enforcement, as law enforcement can simply hire their own scientists/devs to research how to investigate criminals that use bitcoin.

What I would be more concerned about is law enforcement using tor as a way to attack people who use tor (via exit nodes)

The only ones that I think are in collusion' are these new trading sites that have popped up in the last six months or so.
Governments want to sneak in on this, they do not want to be threatened in any way, especially if it threatens the Dollar.

Remember Gadaffi  was going to trade oil in a gold dinar, also Saddam Hussein oil for trading.
If you think any government is not keeping an eye on alt currencies then you would be wrong.
Governments have to get in the door somehow, they may even kick it down :)

Agree in principle, in practice I don't think large scale adoption will happen unless there is some kind of arrangement with the regulator

This is exactly true. Once bitcoin is used enough and has enough value there is no way around regulating it. If people try to make bitcoin more difficult to regulate then the regulations will only become more strict

If satoshi nakamoto was still around anyone thinks he would agree with this? Bitcoin was supossed to be some cool crypto anarchy shit, and im sure as hell satoshi doesn't want it to end up as just another boring legislated regulated currency.

There's actually recorded post of him speaking out against things like Wikileaks but I don't know whether that was because he was necessarily against the idea of using Bitcoin to fight the government or not, he was definitely against the negative attention it inevitably gained for circumventing the law but that's what happens when you create something so disruptive.

He was against wikileaks accepting bitcoin because of the attention that it would attract to bitcoin (the added attention would potentially cause attacks on the network when the network was relatively insecure). I don't think it had anything to do with the principle of wikileaks

I believe this belongs to good information.

I wonder lol that's the only problem with him going dark like he has we can't get him to clarify but I totally understand why he did it in the first place.

Details are in Julian Assanges new book where he agreed with Satoshi and delayed accepting Bitcoin to allow it to grow....


"On 5 December 2010, just after VISA, MasterCard, PayPal, Amazon, and other financial companies started denying service to WikiLeaks, a debate broke out on the official web forum for Bitcoin about the risk that donations to WikiLeaks using Bitcoin could provoke unwanted government interest in the then nascent crypto-currency. “Basically, bring it on,” wrote one poster. “Satoshi Nakamoto,” the pseudonymous inventor of Bitcoin, responded: “No, don’t ‘bring it on.’ The project needs to grow gradually so the software can be strengthened along the way. I make this appeal to WikiLeaks not to try to use Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a small beta community in its infancy. You would not stand to get more than pocket change, and the heat you would bring would likely destroy us at this stage.” See the post on the Bitcoin Forum: archive.today/Gvonb#msg26999. Six days later, on 12 December 2010, Satoshi famously vanished from the Bitcoin community, but not before posting this message: “It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context. WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet’s nest, and the swarm is headed towards us.” See the post on the Bitcoin Forum: archive.today/XuHCD#selection-1803.0-1802.1. WikiLeaks read and agreed with Satoshi’s analysis, and decided to put off the launch of a Bitcoin donation channel until the currency had become more established. WikiLeaks’ Bitcoin donation address was launched after the currency’s first major boom, on 14 June 2011."

Here is another link to the thread started by Amir-
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1735.0

Ah! Nice one!

They did not do this in that sequence.  The issue of Bitlicense came up considerably later.