Bitcoin Forum

Some people on here completely troll on him but I listened to this Youtube video about him explaining the new regulations.  He seems to be okay to me. 

Of course I would want Bitcoin to be completely unregulated, but that just isn't realistic.  We all know that the government is going to be monitoring and taxing this somehow.  From his actions so far, it seems reasonable and it seems like he is trying to work with Bitcoin but also do his job. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvlmN1wb9jY

Him saying something does not equal the written law.

Obama said he would bring Hope and Change in his speeches. He brought socialism and debt.

The water doesn't seem to be that hot, says the frog.

Turn off Fox news, you sound like an assclown.

"This bill and the foregoing remarks of the majority remind me of an old Arabian proverb: 'If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow.' If adopted, the legislation will mark the inception of aid, supervision, and ultimately control of education in this country by the federal authorities." -- Senator Barry Goldwater, 1958 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel%27s_nose)

I see no reason Bitcoin regulation would somehow be immune to a history of governmental violations on privacy, free use, and cryptographic sovereignty.

I don't have access to Fox News. Only CNN and BBC.

I hear the chains he plans on placing around our necks will be padded :)

Quite considerate I must say.

He really doesn't seem that bad.  Educated as well.   He wants to get the Banks involved in this.   This is going to be a long time away though.

He also brought the cheapest gas prices in a long time and a stock market that has tripled in the last 5 years. 

Its all his fault.

My bet is Ben Lawsky announces he's joined a virtual currency company in the new year.

It seems that Ben Lawsky didn't read the bitcoin foundation comments because he still speaks about "virtual" currencies instead of "digital" currencies.

I think the term "virtual currency" came into the popular parlance with the April 2013 FinCEN guidance and other agencies and the media picked up the terminology.  I do recall hearing on a youtube video of the NYS Bitlicense hearings or reading somewhere where Lawsky did acknowledge that some in the continuity prefer the term "digital" as opposed to "virtual." 

I think the industry  as a whole is pushing to popularize the term "blockchain technology" to diminish the focus on bitcoin as a currency.

"He seems to be okay to me."

Totally not the point at issue. The US government's overreach now pretty much
prevents Americans having an account in a foreign bank. These banks just do not
want the hassle of dealing with US.gov, just by way of an example. 

If the regulation goes through as presently proposed, there is no way I would buy
or trade Bitcoin with any NYC company, and perhaps any US entity. You Americans
are crazy to even think this can be done.
 

I am sure when all of the taxes of future generations are going just to pay the interest on the debt they will be happy that gas prices went down for a while due to OPEC losing its stranglehold thanks to shale oil outputs and the dollar lost enough value to prop up the stock market.

Hitler probably 'didn't seem that bad' at first  :D. Bit extreme comparison I know, but a lot of people here seem to fear regulation though it is inevitable.

godwin didn't take too long in this thread :D


as if stock markets ever were faithful indicators of the real economy's performance

cheap money drives bubbles, nothing new to see here, move on