Bitcoin Forum

Bitcoin => Bitcoin Discussion => Topic started by: Peter Todd on May 01, 2013, 11:10:26 PM



Title: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Peter Todd on May 01, 2013, 11:10:26 PM
There was an interesting post on the Bitcoin Foundation's private forum today:

Quote
Hi! I would like the board to discuss opening up lines of communication with money regulators - particularly FinCEN and AUSTRAC (I'm from Australia). FinCEN and other government money regulators need to write new rules as they obviously don't understand Bitcoin's inherent structure.

I think it would be better if some organisation like the Bitcoin Foundation could offer guidance draft rules and work with the regulators.

Otherwise we'll have a situation pretty soon where they try to implement something unworkable, the criminals flood into the Bitcoin system then the argument for 'shutting down bitcoin' grows in popularity.
-Bitcoin Foundation board meeting agenda requests (https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/49-bf-board-meeting-agenda-requests/page__st__40#entry1534) (only viewable by foundation members)


You know, Bitcoin is at an interesting stage of it's development. We've got a lot of money flowing in to the ecosystem and for the first time we're seeing interest from big businesses - even PayPal and Western Union are looking into accepting Bitcoin.

We're also under a lot of attack; big heavily protected exchanges and other websites like Mt. Gox, blockchain.info, and The Silk Road are getting DDoSed; services like Instawallet and mining pools are having funds stolen; exchanges getting shutdown by regulators; (including Mt. Gox suddenly shutting down their off-chain payment service) even child porn related data being uploaded to the blockchain:

Quote
It is widely speculated, based on common forum comments in the crypto-anarchist community, that this current round of data spam is intended to force bitcoin users, developers and governments of the world to take action to censor -- or not -- certain bitcoin transactions.  Trying to force the issue, to establish a precedent one way or the other.  Or, more pessimistically, a party could be simply trying to shut down bitcoin.
-Jeff Garzik (http://garzikrants.blogspot.ca/2013/04/on-bitcoin-data-spam-and-evil-data.html)

The Bitcoin Foundation itself is in a difficult position: we all know who it's funded by, and everyone involved is publicly known. This can be a problem: in the last round of grant proposals at one point Gavin suggested someone submit a grant for a trust-free mixer service to help people make the coins in their wallet more anonymous by mixing them with a large pool of other users. I asked Gavin about that later, and he said the foundation lawyers nixed the idea because efforts to make Bitcoin users more anonymous could be seen to be aiding money laundering, especially if the foundation itself was paying for development and to run the servers.


We can work with regulators to make sure Bitcoin is acceptable to them. For instance we can ensure that it remains possible to track the flow of money through Bitcoin. We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data. We can work with them to find ways to apply AML rules to Bitcoin transactions and to the exchanges. There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made. Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation. A lot of these changes are technical, such as improving scalability so transactions can remain on the blockchain, developing P2P blacklist technologies, and preventing deflation.

We can also go the other route, and give Bitcoin users even more tools to remain anonymous and transact on their own terms. Technologies like mixing and off-chain transactions to let you make transactions without revealing where the coins came from, technologies like P2Pool to ensure mining stays decentralized, and colored coins to let us trade our assets without involving third party exchanges.

I think this discussion needs to happen out in the open, and we need to have it now. I'm sure you have a pretty good idea what I think, but what does the rest of the community think?


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: hello_good_sir on May 01, 2013, 11:27:17 PM
I am very much anti-regulation, but we live in the real world.  Regulation is coming.  Who is going to write it?  Well it won't be politicians, because politicians don't write regulations.  They don't even write legislation.

Special interest groups write legislation which is then approved by legislators.  This legislation creates new goverment offices or expands the scope of existing offices.

These offices are the people who decide what regulation will exist.  Usually they write the regulations, but quite often they allow special interest groups to help write the regulations.

So what does this mean for bitcoin?  It means that the regulations will be written primarily by special interest groups.  The question is whether the banks will be the ones writing the regulations, or whether the Bitcoin Foundation will be writing the regulations.

Thus I would support an effort by the Bitcoin Foundation to aggressively pursue regulation.  This is despite the fact that I am very much opposed to regulation.

Of course the entire point of helping to write the regulation is to reduce the severity of the regulation.  Anything where we help them collect taxes or blacklist addresses is simply unacceptable.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Brushan on May 01, 2013, 11:32:11 PM
WTF do you need Bitcoin for if you can tax it, regulate it, track and seize coins, and on top of all of that fight deflation!?  People, was Bitcoin really made for this? Feels to me like we're executing a u-turn.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Peter Todd on May 01, 2013, 11:37:50 PM
Of course the entire point of helping to write the regulation is to reduce the severity of the regulation.  Anything where we help them collect taxes or blacklist addresses is simply unacceptable.

Indeed.

Myself, I want to see the foundation improve the ability of the Bitcoin technology to resist attempts to regulate it, while at the same time working to keep the legal framework regulating Bitcoin as minimal as possible.

Look at the Tor project: they do a great job keeping Tor anonymous by ensuring that governments and law enforcement around the world see that it's valuable, and at the same time improving the technology to ensure that even if they tried there is little they could do to stop it anyway.

After all, the foundation isn't Bitcoin. I'm a member myself, and I want to know what their views are so I can decide if I should be sending my membership fees to them, or somewhere else.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: cbeast on May 01, 2013, 11:39:04 PM
What is the benefit to regulation? Do gold and silver buyers have regulation? In my opinion, Bitcoin green addresses, whitelisting, colored coins, government provided deterministic wallets, and other schemes can offer full traceability. All there need to be is an incentive to use them.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: theymos on May 01, 2013, 11:41:58 PM
What's even the point of Bitcoin if it's just another government-managed currency? I guess it'd be a little better than dollars, and Bitcoin investors would make a ton of money if any version of Bitcoin became very popular, but it wouldn't be world-changing. I'd be very reluctant to accept any pro-government compromises; too many of them would destroy Bitcoin's real value.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: bassclef on May 01, 2013, 11:53:18 PM
The bitcoin community will self-regulate.

DOS attacks? The community learned quickly to hold tight when they happen, and they've already stopped.

Wallet theft? Don't store your damn wallet on a remote server. Learn to secure it properly.

Money laundering/criminal activity? Please, you get that with every currency. You cannot stop black markets from existing.

It is not the regulators' jobs to protect us from any of this. It is our job.

Also remember: If you give them an inch, they will take a mile.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: tvbcof on May 02, 2013, 12:07:16 AM

I think that most of the people 'in the government' are just trying to do their jobs.  Also that a lot of their jobs are important.  At this point I see a lot of reasonable rational behind many of the laws and regulations and it seems to me reasonable to make a good faith effort to lend assistance and advice.

I also think that a lot of the heads of various parts of at least my government (US) are already fairly rotten from the effects of money in politics and that that situation is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

I strongly favor a situation where 'bitcoin' operates from a position of power.  That is to say, we 'do the right thing' when it makes sense but retain the option of withdrawing from cooperative arrangements if/when they become it makes sense to do so.

More than anything I am an 'anti-fascist' and look with great alarm at the merger of state and corporate power.  More and more the words 'state' and 'corporate' are words that can be used interchangeably.  With that said:

Two things interfere with the option to operate from a position of power:

 - Attachment to the same forces which corrupt our governments (specifically corporate and financial interests.)

 - Reliance on irreplaceable resources which are provided at the pleasure of corp/gov.  This is the main reason why I am SO negative about 'centralization' and so dead-set on wishing Bitcoin to remain as fully 'peer2peer' as possible.



Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: charleshoskinson on May 02, 2013, 12:48:56 AM
Well the foundation is fundamentally pro-regulation. What that means is entirely unclear to me and even as a member I cannot get answers other than attacks by the leadership. I would really appreciate Peter spending the time to leave a thread with his vision for regulation. Instead of just personal attacks or claims we don't "contribute" enough to deserve a voice in bitcoin.



Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Dharmadog on May 02, 2013, 12:49:27 AM
WTF...  Stupid discussion.  Period.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: proudhon on May 02, 2013, 12:53:59 AM
Regulation of bitcoin in some sense is inevitable and probably desirable, but it's important to recognize that the only sense in which bitcoin can be realistically regulated has to do with the ways that bitcoin interfaces with the traditional financial system.  So, exchanges, like MtGox, can be compelled to behave in certain ways by the financial regulations of their jurisdictions.  They can be held to standards of accounting and reporting, say, and face fines or interference for not complying.

A unique aspect of bitcoin is that transacting only in the bitcoin ecosystem, away from points of contact with the traditional financial system, is to transact in a system that is pretty strongly resistant to typical top-down regulation from entities like states.  Users can more easily choose whether they operate in the regulated space or the unregulated space.

In a discussion on regulation, I think it's important to make this distinction.  If somebody, like some members of the Foundation, are pro-regulation, it doesn't necessarily mean they believe that bitcoin itself should or will be regulated - it probably just can't be regulated in a practical way.  What they are likely talking about are regulations to do with certain ways that bitcoin comes in contact with traditional financial systems where states already enforce regulations.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: marcus_of_augustus on May 02, 2013, 01:24:17 AM
Someone wants to regulate bitcoin? ... as jgarzik, luke-jr and gmaxwell have aptly stated and demonstrated ...

SUBMIT a PULL REQUEST on GITHUB with your changes and we'll get back to ya  ;)


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: QuantPlus on May 02, 2013, 01:24:43 AM
Gavin comes across as a NSA Trojan Horse.

Now that BTC has hit $1.3 billion in market cap...
Now is the time to purge the Foundation...
Pack it with radicals and take the hard, radical road of Satoshi's Vision.

Bitcoin just got important enough to be noticed...
Govt agencies wanna strangle BTC in it's crib...
Paypal, WU wanna co-opt BTC, neuter it, and take over the Cryptocurrency Space.

When people like David Marcus and Eric Schmidt talk about Bitcoin...
You should shudder and turn away...
They represent everything that Bitcoiners find abhorrent.

The one place I would give a little is on AML and tax evasion...
BTC must stay independent while moving away from being a criminal vehicle.



Title: Decentralized
Post by: mobile4ever on May 02, 2013, 01:31:08 AM
In the last round of grant proposals at one point Gavin suggested someone submit a grant for a trust-free mixer service to help people make the coins in their wallet more anonymous by mixing them with a large pool of other users. I asked Gavin about that later, and he said the foundation lawyers nixed the idea because efforts to make Bitcoin users more anonymous could be seen to be aiding money laundering, especially if the foundation itself was paying for development and to run the servers.

We can work with regulators to make sure Bitcoin is acceptable to them. For instance we can ensure that it remains possible to track the flow of money through Bitcoin. We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data. We can work with them to find ways to apply AML rules to Bitcoin transactions and to the exchanges. There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made. Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation. A lot of these changes are technical, such as improving scalability so transactions can remain on the blockchain, developing P2P blacklist technologies, and preventing deflation.

Sounds freakin' dandy. Count me out if it goes this direction.

Maybe litecoin is looking better and better? Seriously, bitcoin is decentralised and distributed. Putting it into the hands of a few people is opposite to the original intent.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: shawshankinmate37927 on May 02, 2013, 01:37:34 AM
We can work with regulators to make sure Bitcoin is acceptable to them. For instance we can ensure that it remains possible to track the flow of money through Bitcoin. We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data. We can work with them to find ways to apply AML rules to Bitcoin transactions and to the exchanges. There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made. Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation. A lot of these changes are technical, such as improving scalability so transactions can remain on the blockchain, developing P2P blacklist technologies, and preventing deflation.

If Bitcoin heads in this direction, surely there will be a hard fork.  The whole point of Bitcoin for a lot of users is to have a currency that functions independently of the world's most heinous criminals--the bankers and politicians--and makes their destructive, self-serving policies/regulations/legislation irrelevant.  Each of us should be free to transact in whatever currency has the features and characteristics that we want and individually choose.  Similar to religion (in the USA at least), a currency should not be imposed on us.  It's obvious there isn't going to be a one-size-fits-all cryptocurrency as we move forward.

We can also go the other route, and give Bitcoin users even more tools to remain anonymous and transact on their own terms. Technologies like mixing and off-chain transactions to let you make transactions without revealing where the coins came from, technologies like P2Pool to ensure mining stays decentralized, and colored coins to let us trade our assets without involving third party exchanges.

We can go both routes.  It's as simple as a hard fork.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: proudhon on May 02, 2013, 01:46:01 AM
We can go both routes.  It's as simple as a hard fork.

Or no fork.  There is no cryptocurrency variant that is immune to regulation where it transacts with the traditional financial system.  Forking bitcoin or creating new alt-coins simply will not solve the problem, to the extent that is a problem, of regulation at points of contact with the traditional system.  Users can already go both routes.  If you choose to only transact in bitcoin, then you can effectively choose to transact within an unregulated system.  If you want to move into and out of bitcoin and the methods you choose to do so interact directly enough with the traditional financial system, then you'll likely brush up about regulations.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: shawshankinmate37927 on May 02, 2013, 01:49:25 AM
We can go both routes.  It's as simple as a hard fork.

Or no fork.  There is no cryptocurrency variant that is immune to regulation where it transacts with the traditional financial system.  Forking bitcoin or creating new alt-coins simply will not solve the problem, to the extent that is a problem, of regulation at points of contact with the traditional system.  We can already go both routes.  If you choose to only transact in bitcoin, then you can effectively choose to transact within an unregulated system.  If you want to move into and out of bitcoin and the methods you choose to do so interact directly enough with the traditional financial system, then you'll likely brush up about regulations.

Not if you transact in cash--actual Federal Reserve Notes.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: franky1 on May 02, 2013, 02:02:38 AM
quick lesson for the OP

money regulators regulate money.

money is a type of currency owned by governments.

virtual currency is not money. its another type of currency

money is the laymans term for FIAT

money regulators only care about money (FIAT) so don't worry about them trying to control bitcoin. they only want to control money (FIAT).

if the government cared about other types of currency then they would have ensured that they stopped the sexual favours and cigarettes trading that happens in prisons. which is alot easier to manage and control in comparison to bitcoin

so if you don't want money regulators involved with bitcoin then you don't want to ever turn your bitcoin into fiat


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: proudhon on May 02, 2013, 02:04:57 AM
We can go both routes.  It's as simple as a hard fork.

Or no fork.  There is no cryptocurrency variant that is immune to regulation where it transacts with the traditional financial system.  Forking bitcoin or creating new alt-coins simply will not solve the problem, to the extent that is a problem, of regulation at points of contact with the traditional system.  We can already go both routes.  If you choose to only transact in bitcoin, then you can effectively choose to transact within an unregulated system.  If you want to move into and out of bitcoin and the methods you choose to do so interact directly enough with the traditional financial system, then you'll likely brush up about regulations.

Not if you transact in cash--actual Federal Reserve Notes.

That goes without saying.  Every cryptocurrency is immune to regulation with respect to physical cash transactions.  But, hopefully it's obvious enough that I don't mean to include ordinary physical cash transactions when I speak of interacting with the traditional financial system.  I'm referring to things like online exchanges.  And in the case of online exchanges I'm referring to those that use banks to store and move customers state money funds.  


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: edmundedgar on May 02, 2013, 02:46:18 AM
The OP's post is very slippery. It's written as if it's describing the situation from a neutral stance, but it's full of political games.

Let's start with the topic:

"Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?"

This obviously not the choice. The regulators are going to regulate Bitcoin use whatever the foundation, or anyone else does. The question is whether we think the foundation should lobby money regulators to reduce unhelpful regulation.

Then we get this:

We can work with regulators to make sure Bitcoin is acceptable to them. For instance we can ensure that it remains possible to track the flow of money through Bitcoin. We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data.

Who is advocating any of that? In any case, the foundation can't do that, because if they did people would just use different versions of the software, or if necessary fork the whole thing.

A lot of these changes are technical, such as improving scalability so transactions can remain on the blockchain, developing P2P blacklist technologies, and preventing deflation.

OK, you might have missed it for the straw men, but there's an actual thing in there. Retep is opposed to improving scalability so transactions can remain on the blockchain. He has some opinions about what the blockchain should be used for, and he wants to cap the network at 7 transactions per second, and blow fees through the roof so that most of the current uses of Bitcoin will have to go somewhere else.

This is a tough argument for him to win and making transactions cost $1 or $10 or $100 would not be very popular, so when the core developers try to scale the network up he's trying to make you think that it's part of some kind of pro-government plot involving the Bitcoin foundation.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: jdillon on May 02, 2013, 03:08:33 AM
The OP's post is very slippery. It's written as if it's describing the situation from a neutral stance, but it's full of political games.

OK, you might have missed it for the straw men, but there's an actual thing in there. Retep is opposed to improving scalability so transactions can remain on the blockchain. He has some opinions about what the blockchain should be used for, and he wants to cap the network at 7 transactions per second, and blow fees through the roof so that most of the current uses of Bitcoin will have to go somewhere else.

What's slippery is you anti-privacy lot never once mentioning how the massive blockchain you keep on pushing will result in bloat that even Gavin thinks will soon make operating a node cost $100/month. You'll have no choice but to move to a big data center with a fast connection right out in the open, and users will have no alternatives other than continuing to have every transaction they make recorded publicly for regulators to analyze.

Good luck keeping the regulators away under those conditions. Moving your blacklisted coins will be a matter of hoping that the few, if any, pools still running that don't follow AML know your customer regulations aren't busy trying to find another country to set up shop in.

This is a tough argument for him to win and making transactions cost $1 or $10 or $100 would not be very popular, so when the core developers try to scale the network up he's trying to make you think that it's part of some kind of pro-government plot involving the Bitcoin foundation.

Funny how the core developers seem to mostly agree with him, with the exception of Gavin. Guess who's getting their salary paid by big businesses?

Peter is damn right to say that we need technology that keeps Bitcoin regulators away from the core of Bitcoin. FWIW I think you should just submit a pull request to the foundation bylaws, and add a section on anonymity and decentralization. See how they respond, if at all.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: cypherdoc on May 02, 2013, 03:29:21 AM
the regulators main function is to preserve the status of the USD monetary system since most of them are captured by the banking system today.  since Bitcoin collides with that system in just about every possible way, you can expect them to try and change Bitcoin in the ways the OP outlined.  that will not be acceptable to just about every Bitcoin supporter in existence today.

its becoming apparent that they will try and attack the developers of the Bitcoin system to force them to insert unfavorable changes in due time.  if the developers capitulate to these demands they can be assured that either Bitcoin will be forked or other developers will take their place.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: QuestionAuthority on May 02, 2013, 03:53:21 AM
Your subject is kind of a backwards way of thinking; it assumes you have control over making regulations. Personally I’d like to keep firearms from being regulated but that hasn’t worked out well for me so far.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: glendall on May 02, 2013, 04:24:35 AM
What purpose would any sort of regulation have besides transferring a percentage of Bitcoin's value to the self-appointed people who came up with the idea?

I trust the software behind it, not anyone trying to control it.

Couldn't care less if Paypal and other giants get an unfair cut of this resource. There are many currencies, perhaps we should try a free currency for a change, as an experiment for comparison.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: paybitcoin on May 02, 2013, 04:25:33 AM
I think Bitcoin can handle both regulated scenarios and unregulated scenarios, just like paper money is handled legally and illegally today.

Full traceability will be the norm for everyday consumers and businesses using green addresses or some other trust mechanism, but with the possibility of being used anonymously with enough caution. The FBI, IRS, or equivalent would step at the same time and in the same way as if they are catching millions of paper US dollars going across the border.

The question is, at what quantity of 'anonymous' Bitcoins does the regulation begin? I think for USD bills it starts raising eyebrows with $6,000-10,000 moving around...


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: westkybitcoins on May 02, 2013, 05:36:32 AM
Coercion of innocent parties is wrong. No amount of grandstanding or excuses about "we're protecting everyone" changes that.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: QuantumQrack on May 02, 2013, 07:17:07 AM
Bitcoin will remain unregulated.  It doesnt matter if people in the community want it regulated or if government(s) want it regulated.  Bitcoin, by nature, is unregulated.  They cannot seize your btc unless under duress, etc.  You are your own bank.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Brushan on May 02, 2013, 07:48:37 AM
Bitcoin will remain unregulated.  It doesnt matter if people in the community want it regulated or if government(s) want it regulated.  Bitcoin, by nature, is unregulated.  They cannot seize your btc unless under duress, etc.  You are your own bank.

Until the devs fork it and say: "Here is the regulated Bitcoin 2.0 which will be worth 10000USD because of big company involvement, if you don't want use it then use the unregulated Bitcoin 1.0 for illegal activities which will be worth about 2USD."

Looking at the majority of people involved in Bitcoin i'd place my money on that everybody would go for 2.0. Of course, the Bitcoin Foundation together with other large companies (paypal, banks etc), will make a plan to slowly manipulate us into believing that a regulated Bitcoin will be much better for everyone. If you ask me, it has already begun.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: QuantumQrack on May 02, 2013, 07:53:39 AM
Bitcoin will remain unregulated.  It doesnt matter if people in the community want it regulated or if government(s) want it regulated.  Bitcoin, by nature, is unregulated.  They cannot seize your btc unless under duress, etc.  You are your own bank.

Until the devs fork it and say: "Here is the regulated Bitcoin 2.0 which will be worth 10000USD because of big company involvement, if you don't want use it then use the unregulated Bitcoin 1.0 for illegal activities which will be worth about 2USD."

Looking at the majority of people involved in Bitcoin i'd place my money on that everybody would go for 2.0. Of course, the Bitcoin Foundation together with other large companies (paypal, banks etc), will make a plan to slowly manipulate us into believing that a regulated Bitcoin will be much better for everyone. If you ask me, it has already begun.

If there is ANY kind of change to bitcoin that serves more regulation, I am OUT of bitcoin.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Brushan on May 02, 2013, 08:20:00 AM
Bitcoin will remain unregulated.  It doesnt matter if people in the community want it regulated or if government(s) want it regulated.  Bitcoin, by nature, is unregulated.  They cannot seize your btc unless under duress, etc.  You are your own bank.

Until the devs fork it and say: "Here is the regulated Bitcoin 2.0 which will be worth 10000USD because of big company involvement, if you don't want use it then use the unregulated Bitcoin 1.0 for illegal activities which will be worth about 2USD."

Looking at the majority of people involved in Bitcoin i'd place my money on that everybody would go for 2.0. Of course, the Bitcoin Foundation together with other large companies (paypal, banks etc), will make a plan to slowly manipulate us into believing that a regulated Bitcoin will be much better for everyone. If you ask me, it has already begun.

If there is ANY kind of change to bitcoin that serves more regulation, I am OUT of bitcoin.

I fully agree and unfortunately i think that is the way we are heading. Just look at how the sentiment of the big Bitcoin names has been changing lately. From talks about an unregulated deflationary currency to removing all of that to invite big business. All the signs are there for all of us to see. Greed is killing Bitcoin and i don't mean the speculators. People are selling out and soon there won't be anything different between having a Mastercard and a Bitcoin address.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: nwbitcoin on May 02, 2013, 08:29:29 AM
This is a great question, and one that highlights the first major problem to be faced by bitcoin users.

They understand tech, but are very naive about politics.  We need regulation because that is how you keep others from creating regulations and it makes far more sense to create the regulations in house, than to give it to someone who has an unknown agenda.

Realistically, the governments of the world are not going to chase down every alt coin out there, but bitcoin is the big one, with the name everyone recognises.  If they regulate bitcoin, then they will be happy that they are still in control, and are able to manage the risk to the real prize, tax income.

I would suggest that the rules put in place, manage some of the major complaints against bitcoin, along the lines of money laundering, tax evasion etc.

Maybe a best practice guideline suggesting that all bitcoin transactions greater than x are made through a third party to prevent anonymous transactions.

What the ideological bitcoin believer needs to understand is that governments are not interested in their sub $1000 deals.  They want to make sure that they know about the $100k deals from South America and the extra cashflow coming from large corporates.

If the regulations are put in place now, but done in a best practice, no need for laws type of way, then everyone will be happy! ;)


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: ErisDiscordia on May 02, 2013, 08:31:24 AM
This is ridiculous. We get the ultimate gift for freeing individuals from the yoke of the power of the government/corporation complex and what do we do with it? Cry for our overlords to kindly regulate it for us?? No way in hell am I going to support this. Stay unregulated. It's time that TPTB learned that they do NOT in fact own the world are NOT free to do with it as they please. Begging them for permission to defy them kind of defeats the point, doesn't it?

Also if I read the phrase "we need regulation, because x.." one more time, I think I'm going to throw up. YOU may think YOU need regulation but WE do not need anything. Get it right.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: nwbitcoin on May 02, 2013, 08:45:43 AM
This is ridiculous. We get the ultimate gift for freeing individuals from the yoke of the power of the government/corporation complex and what do we do with it? Cry for our overlords to kindly regulate it for us?? No way in hell am I going to support this. Stay unregulated. It's time that TPTB learned that they do NOT in fact own the world are NOT free to do with it as they please. Begging them for permission to defy them kind of defeats the point, doesn't it?

Also if I read the phrase "we need regulation, because x.." one more time, I think I'm going to throw up. YOU may think YOU need regulation but WE do not need anything. Get it right.

Let me ask you a question.

What stops someone from putting a bullet in your head and stealing all your stuff?

The answer is regulations.

There will always be someone who breaks those regulations, and that is why we have the police, but in essence, the majority of people need some form of guidance to what you can and can't do.

Without it, there is nothing stopping me from stealing or cheating you out of your bitcoins and leaving you destitute.

Now can you see why a handful of rules and regulations might be useful?

However, I would only suggest a small number of rules, maybe 10 or so!
 ;)



Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Brushan on May 02, 2013, 08:49:57 AM
We need regulation because that is how you keep others from creating regulations and it makes far more sense to create the regulations in house, than to give it to someone who has an unknown agenda.

I have seen many users post this argument and i don't understand it. HOW can you regulate a currency that was designed impossible to regulate? To me it looks like the people in charge are trying to make either a fork or a central bank-type layer so that it can be regulated. Because let's face it, Bitcoin right now CAN'T be regulated if we don't let them regulate it. They want to close all the exchanges? Fine! We have TOR, we can meet in the streets and people will find other ways to bypass that. That's why 'm not afraid of the government forbidding Bitcoin. But it looks to me like they want to change the whole nature of Bitcoin and that is what's dangerous. And even more because many Bitcoin users have no problem with that.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: virtualmaster on May 02, 2013, 08:59:00 AM
Buy bitcoins when they are cheap and sell them when they are expensive.
Governments may do that also.
Any other regulation is undesirable.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: AlgoSwan on May 02, 2013, 09:12:30 AM
so if you don't want money regulators involved with bitcoin then you don't want to ever turn your bitcoin into fiat
This is so important. Removing fiat from BTC exchanges also prevent future manipulations.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: helohe on May 02, 2013, 09:33:45 AM
better be safe than sorry, and fork bitcoin already, whoever wants to stay with the original bitcoin then which will eventually be changed to include regulation can do that


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: nwbitcoin on May 02, 2013, 10:38:46 AM
We need regulation because that is how you keep others from creating regulations and it makes far more sense to create the regulations in house, than to give it to someone who has an unknown agenda.

I have seen many users post this argument and i don't understand it. HOW can you regulate a currency that was designed impossible to regulate? To me it looks like the people in charge are trying to make either a fork or a central bank-type layer so that it can be regulated. Because let's face it, Bitcoin right now CAN'T be regulated if we don't let them regulate it. They want to close all the exchanges? Fine! We have TOR, we can meet in the streets and people will find other ways to bypass that. That's why 'm not afraid of the government forbidding Bitcoin. But it looks to me like they want to change the whole nature of Bitcoin and that is what's dangerous. And even more because many Bitcoin users have no problem with that.

You need to think outside your comfort zone.

Anything that involves people can be regulated.

Just because you don't want regulations, doesn't stop others from creating some, and enforcing it!

This is why its better to be first to the table with some suggestions!

What most ideological people don't get is that their ideas for not regulating bitcoin don't actually work - if you go and just use TOR and shun Fiat, you are removing the advantages of bitcoin, and the threat to governments - you are basically doing their regulations for them!

Think of it this way.
You have a wonderful Apple pie on your kitchen window, which is warm, and smells delicious.
If you give the bully a small slice, he will leave you alone, happy that he got some pie.
If you don't, he might take the whole pie, and give you a small slice.
If you run away with the pie, he might come after you and not only steal your pie, but also smash it into your face.
If you run away, you might out run the bully, but also end up away from the house, not able to watch TV while eating your pie with no plate, cutlery, or lemonade!

The point is, when you have something that someone else might want, the first move is to be reasonable, because it stops them being unreasonable!




Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: ErisDiscordia on May 02, 2013, 11:10:11 AM
Let me ask you a question.

What stops someone from putting a bullet in your head and stealing all your stuff?

The answer is regulations.

I have been posed this question numerous times and have thus had much incentive to think about it a lot. And my answer(s) differ from your answer. Please consider:

I came to the conclusion that what stops people from stealing from me/putting a bullet in my head can be summarized in 3 points:

1. people have little reason to randomly kill me. I admit that they can have reasons to steal from me, though.
2. What stops them from stealing my stuff even when they have reasons to do so is FEAR of retribution. This is the crucial point imo. Right now this fear of retribution manifests itself as fear of getting arrested, sentenced, fined and put into jail by the authorities. This is where we fail massively as a society I think, but I won't go into detail on why I think it's not a good idea to relegate responsibilities for the most crucial parts of your life (such as protection of your property, your education, health care, retirement etc.) to a monopolistic central authority. I'm certain you can find some arguments for why that might be the case. Fear of retribution can also take the form of the belief that if found stealing my stuff, he'll get shot in the face (by me) or found out and otherwise punished by my friends or some people/organization I paid for protecting my stuff. Ultimately we don't need regulation for this, but this is what we use as of now.
3. Finally please have some trust in people. Let me ask YOU a question: is regulation the only thing stopping you from stealing other peoples stuff and shooting them in the face? Or is it just there to protect YOU against those OTHER people, who might want to do that. Who told you people are like that? Oh yes, might have been the same people, who are regulating you to keep you safe :) But my question still stands.

In the end I'm just allergic to central power, I heard it's a chronic condition, feel free to ignore me :)


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: proudhon on May 02, 2013, 11:57:51 AM
Bitcoin will remain unregulated.  It doesnt matter if people in the community want it regulated or if government(s) want it regulated.  Bitcoin, by nature, is unregulated.  They cannot seize your btc unless under duress, etc.  You are your own bank.

Until the devs fork it and say: "Here is the regulated Bitcoin 2.0 which will be worth 10000USD because of big company involvement, if you don't want use it then use the unregulated Bitcoin 1.0 for illegal activities which will be worth about 2USD."

Looking at the majority of people involved in Bitcoin i'd place my money on that everybody would go for 2.0. Of course, the Bitcoin Foundation together with other large companies (paypal, banks etc), will make a plan to slowly manipulate us into believing that a regulated Bitcoin will be much better for everyone. If you ask me, it has already begun.

I'm still confused by this whole discussion, and I think people aren't thinking this through and are failing to appreciate the nuance of what it would even mean to regulate bitcoin, or any other payment system built on the distributed, blockchain model.

Can we all pause for a moment and try to explain what it would even mean to "regulate bitcoin"?  By its nature, a distributed, majority rules rule, blockchain system is resistant to top-down, state imposed regulation of itself.  In that sense, neither bitcoin, nor litecoin, nor any other system based on this model can simply be regulated upon in the sense that some authority declares it should behave a certain way and then it is so.  Again, the system is resistant to that by design.  I get the sense that people are worried that the system will be regulated in this sense.  It practically cannot be.

On the other hand, points of contact with the traditional financial system (e.g. banks) can be regulated upon in a top-down authoritarian way.  Regulation at these points of contact is practically impossible to prevent.  In some cases regulation in this sense may even be desirable.

Can we please get clear about which sense of regulation we're talking about here.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: helohe on May 02, 2013, 12:21:30 PM
Bitcoin will remain unregulated.  It doesnt matter if people in the community want it regulated or if government(s) want it regulated.  Bitcoin, by nature, is unregulated.  They cannot seize your btc unless under duress, etc.  You are your own bank.

Until the devs fork it and say: "Here is the regulated Bitcoin 2.0 which will be worth 10000USD because of big company involvement, if you don't want use it then use the unregulated Bitcoin 1.0 for illegal activities which will be worth about 2USD."

Looking at the majority of people involved in Bitcoin i'd place my money on that everybody would go for 2.0. Of course, the Bitcoin Foundation together with other large companies (paypal, banks etc), will make a plan to slowly manipulate us into believing that a regulated Bitcoin will be much better for everyone. If you ask me, it has already begun.

I'm still confused by this whole discussion, and I think people aren't thinking this through and are failing to appreciate the nuance of what it would even mean to regulate bitcoin, or any other payment system built on the distributed, blockchain model.

Can we all pause for a moment and try to explain what it would even mean to "regulate bitcoin"?  By its nature, a distributed, majority rules rule, blockchain system is resistant to top-down, state imposed regulation of itself.  In that sense, neither bitcoin, nor litecoin, nor any other system based on this model can simply be regulated upon in the sense that some authority declares it should behave a certain way and then it is so.  Again, the system is resistant to that by design.  I get the sense that people are worried that the system will be regulated in this sense.  It practically cannot be.

On the other hand, points of contact with the traditional financial system (e.g. banks) can be regulated upon in a top-down authoritarian way.  Regulation at these points of contact is practically impossible to prevent.  In some cases regulation in this sense may even be desirable.

Can we please get clear about which sense of regulation we're talking about here.

I have no problem with regulating exchanges whatsoever, I think it is actually a good thing. But I do have a strong problem with the following:

In the last round of grant proposals at one point Gavin suggested someone submit a grant for a trust-free mixer service to help people make the coins in their wallet more anonymous by mixing them with a large pool of other users. I asked Gavin about that later, and he said the foundation lawyers nixed the idea because efforts to make Bitcoin users more anonymous could be seen to be aiding money laundering, especially if the foundation itself was paying for development and to run the servers.

We can work with regulators to make sure Bitcoin is acceptable to them. For instance we can ensure that it remains possible to track the flow of money through Bitcoin. We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data. We can work with them to find ways to apply AML rules to Bitcoin transactions and to the exchanges. There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made. Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation. A lot of these changes are technical, such as improving scalability so transactions can remain on the blockchain, developing P2P blacklist technologies, and preventing deflation.

Sounds freakin' dandy. Count me out if it goes this direction.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: yona on May 02, 2013, 12:33:23 PM
Regulation of bitcoin in some sense is inevitable and probably desirable, but it's important to recognize that the only sense in which bitcoin can be realistically regulated has to do with the ways that bitcoin interfaces with the traditional financial system.  So, exchanges, like MtGox, can be compelled to behave in certain ways by the financial regulations of their jurisdictions.  They can be held to standards of accounting and reporting, say, and face fines or interference for not complying.

A unique aspect of bitcoin is that transacting only in the bitcoin ecosystem, away from points of contact with the traditional financial system, is to transact in a system that is pretty strongly resistant to typical top-down regulation from entities like states.  Users can more easily choose whether they operate in the regulated space or the unregulated space.

In a discussion on regulation, I think it's important to make this distinction.  If somebody, like some members of the Foundation, are pro-regulation, it doesn't necessarily mean they believe that bitcoin itself should or will be regulated - it probably just can't be regulated in a practical way.  What they are likely talking about are regulations to do with certain ways that bitcoin comes in contact with traditional financial systems where states already enforce regulations.

yes there are two questions at hand.
be part of creating new government regulations to the traditional financial system or help regulate the bitcoin development.

but either way once the foundation sits to the table it's a negotiation, and both options will be discussed.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: cypherdoc on May 02, 2013, 12:59:19 PM
Quote from: nwbitcoin

Let me ask you a question.

What stops someone from putting a bullet in your head and stealing all your stuff?

The answer is regulations.




This is not right. The answer is The Law.

One depends on an immutable understanding between human beings.

The other is political.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: c0rw1n on May 02, 2013, 01:15:08 PM
NO regulation.

Not that I care. I'll still do whatever the hell I want, I'll create tumbling services, I'll run mirrors of SilkRoad, I'll fund a p2p exchange -since I can't code myself- that will happily ignore and make all existing KYC/AML laws unenforceable on it, I'll use so-called military-grade crypto in onioned layers, I'll use all the tools that exist to bring down a system that stole two thirds of all that humanity has made and gave it to 1% of humans.

The faster solution is to kill off the 1% and distribute their wealth to everyone else (90% of all wealth divided by seven billion would ERADICATE poverty overnight.)
The HUMANE solution is to simply disconnect their power from under their feet. Back btc with "all of the money" and all govts and banks are DEAD. Implement distributed markets, dominant assurance contracts and pay-to-policy outputs, and BOOM : DIRECT DEMOCRACY.

All we have to discuss is the terms of their surrender. They can't control us because they can't raid us all. They'll try to stop us by fining a handful of poorly-anonymized ones to create the urban legend that someone, somewhere got ruined for doing it. That will work exactly as well as it did to stop filesharing - that is, near-zero effect.

I refuse that we castrate a tool that can bring more equality and liberty to the world to appease the iniquitous slavers who manage it currently.

NO regulation.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: c0rw1n on May 02, 2013, 01:30:38 PM
Quote from: nwbitcoin

Let me ask you a question.

What stops someone from putting a bullet in your head and stealing all your stuff?

The answer is regulations.
This is not right. The answer is The Law.

One depends on an immutable understanding between human beings.

The other is political.


You're both wrong.

What prevents someone from putting a bullet in your head and stealing all your stuff is that you and bulletguy have neighbors, and cameras on every street corner, and two cameras and three localizers in every smartphone, and a blockchain to trace which wallet bought the gun and the bullet, and families, and a whole fucking society of 7 billion humans who don't like to receive bullets in their heads.

So they'd rapidly stop interacting (or worse) with antisocial pieces of shit that shoot people to take their stuff.

Moreover, there are ways to implement Basic Income in cryptocoin. That alone would stop all of crime committed for purely monetary reasons, if it's enough to survive on.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Brushan on May 02, 2013, 01:49:48 PM
To nwbitcoin:
I'm not an ideological Bitcoin user but a logical Bitcoin user. My understanding of your argument is that we will lose if we don't follow laws and regulation. The only loss i see is that 1BTC won't go up in value as quickly as if we stayed legit and connected with big businesses. But then why would you want to use Bitcoin? You're still a part of the system that Bitcoin was made to counter. I understand that some people only entered Bitcoin to get rich quick but for me it goes much deeper than this. Bitcoin in it's current state is unstopable. We can make an alternative economy and compete with todays economy which would force, for example, banks to offer better service. People that are tired of the regulated world economy which is regulated just so rich can stay rich and poor are forced to keep being poor can just leave and enter the free market of Bitcoin. I don't hate todays economy but we are facing problems that naturally come with monopolies and we need competition. Something that todays technologies like the internet and p2p can offer. My thoughts about Bitcoin has always been that you shouldn't get rich by HOLDING bitcoins. You should USE this wonderful technology to make money because it makes it much easier without the regulations of the elite made by them for you so they can keep their power.

To proudhon:
This is what scares me. Just like you and me, they know that they can't regulate Bitcoin in its current state. That is why the talk about confiscating tainted bitcoins makes me believe that they are planning to either fork Bitcoin or start a central banking type service. They probably will do it with the excuse that it is required to invite big businesses and then everybody will become rich. And most will probably agree because they want their BTC to rise in value. It shocks me that people remain calm when head devs make suggestions like these. Soon Bitcoin will be the same as fiat or gold. Regulated and manipulated by the banks and the government will keep track of everything you do.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: DeeSome on May 02, 2013, 03:13:16 PM
Bitcoin will remain unregulated.  It doesnt matter if people in the community want it regulated or if government(s) want it regulated.  Bitcoin, by nature, is unregulated.  They cannot seize your btc unless under duress, etc.  You are your own bank.

Until the devs fork it and say: "Here is the regulated Bitcoin 2.0 which will be worth 10000USD because of big company involvement, if you don't want use it then use the unregulated Bitcoin 1.0 for illegal activities which will be worth about 2USD."

Looking at the majority of people involved in Bitcoin i'd place my money on that everybody would go for 2.0. Of course, the Bitcoin Foundation together with other large companies (paypal, banks etc), will make a plan to slowly manipulate us into believing that a regulated Bitcoin will be much better for everyone. If you ask me, it has already begun.

I see Bitcoin moving in this direction.
This quote needs to be kept bumped to the top of this thread.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: bassclef on May 02, 2013, 05:58:17 PM
+1

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Stampbit on May 02, 2013, 06:09:40 PM
A self regulating coin will spring up in the next few years that will eliminate alot of the volatility we are seeing today. As for the government/banks controlling the coin itself, it cant or it would be worthless.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: MGUK on May 02, 2013, 06:48:57 PM
Handling bitcoins is already pretty much regulated, at least when it comes to converting to fiat.
 - Exchanges have to abide by AML/KYC.
 - UK Exchanges need to register with HMRC.
 - They have to justify and explain all sources of income so the banks don't close them for suspicious activity.
 - Any transactions that are suspicious must be reported to UK intelligence agencies otherwise exchange owners face prosecution.
 - Any earnings from Bitcoin must be declared to be taxed.

A lot of these things are in place to prevent money laundering, but a lot of this still relies on goodwill, of which not everyone has.

Society is about compromise. In the UK, we have a usable transport infrastructure, a usable energy infrastructure, a usable education system, and for that, morally, we should probably pay something some how.

It sounds kinda cliché and and "what they want you to think" but not at least considering supporting legislation to stop that sort of evasion is just aiding theft.If we say no to legislation & regulation, on some level not agreeing to try hinder tax evasion, we're no better than the huge corporations in the news every week paying 0 tax and holding everything in off shore accounts.

Although I think morally we should at least entertain the idea of regulation and cooperation, I think a lot of consideration does need to be made to get the right balance between enforceability and protection of freedoms and privacy.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: proudhon on May 02, 2013, 06:53:52 PM
A self regulating coin will spring up in the next few years that will eliminate alot of the volatility we are seeing today. As for the government/banks controlling the coin itself, it cant or it would be worthless.

How would a distributed, blockchain currency self regulate to dampen volatility?  In order to do that it would be dependent on some source for its information about what price people were trading it at.  Would it use one source?  Many sources?  Who would maintain these price feeds?  Would not the price feeds be susceptible to hacks where invalid or disruptive data could be delivered to influence the way the currency self-regulates?

It's a nice thought, but it just adds a layer of complexity and potential exploitation to something that in its growing up years can already be manipulated and exploited pretty easily.  It's easy to forget how young this idea is.  If it's to persist into the future at all and become a significant player in global economics its journey there will be volatile, that's just the way it will go.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: benjamindees on May 02, 2013, 07:02:51 PM
Retep is opposed to improving scalability so transactions can remain on the blockchain. He has some opinions about what the blockchain should be used for, and he wants to cap the network at 7 transactions per second, and blow fees through the roof so that most of the current uses of Bitcoin will have to go somewhere else.

Confirm/deny?


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Stampbit on May 02, 2013, 07:04:14 PM
A self regulating coin will spring up in the next few years that will eliminate alot of the volatility we are seeing today. As for the government/banks controlling the coin itself, it cant or it would be worthless.

How would a distributed, blockchain currency self regulate to dampen volatility?  In order to do that it would be dependent on some source for its information about what price people were trading it at.  Would it use one source?  Many sources?  Who would maintain these price feeds?  Would not the price feeds be susceptible to hacks where invalid or disruptive data could be delivered to influence the way the currency self-regulates?

It's a nice thought, but it just adds a layer of complexity and potential exploitation to something that in its growing up years can already be manipulated and exploited pretty easily.  It's easy to forget how young this idea is.  If it's to persist into the future at all and become a significant player in global economics its journey there will be volatile, that's just the way it will go.

Read up on some of the alt-coin ideas floating around, some of them are working with the idea of lifting artificial limits like fixed/descending block rewards, demurrage to encourage its use as a currency and not a commodity, and  introducing some level of AI to have the network automatically perform the functions of a central bank.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: nwbitcoin on May 02, 2013, 08:40:04 PM
To nwbitcoin:
I'm not an ideological Bitcoin user but a logical Bitcoin user. My understanding of your argument is that we will lose if we don't follow laws and regulation. The only loss i see is that 1BTC won't go up in value as quickly as if we stayed legit and connected with big businesses. But then why would you want to use Bitcoin? You're still a part of the system that Bitcoin was made to counter. I understand that some people only entered Bitcoin to get rich quick but for me it goes much deeper than this. Bitcoin in it's current state is unstopable. We can make an alternative economy and compete with todays economy which would force, for example, banks to offer better service. People that are tired of the regulated world economy which is regulated just so rich can stay rich and poor are forced to keep being poor can just leave and enter the free market of Bitcoin. I don't hate todays economy but we are facing problems that naturally come with monopolies and we need competition. Something that todays technologies like the internet and p2p can offer. My thoughts about Bitcoin has always been that you shouldn't get rich by HOLDING bitcoins. You should USE this wonderful technology to make money because it makes it much easier without the regulations of the elite made by them for you so they can keep their power.

To proudhon:
This is what scares me. Just like you and me, they know that they can't regulate Bitcoin in its current state. That is why the talk about confiscating tainted bitcoins makes me believe that they are planning to either fork Bitcoin or start a central banking type service. They probably will do it with the excuse that it is required to invite big businesses and then everybody will become rich. And most will probably agree because they want their BTC to rise in value. It shocks me that people remain calm when head devs make suggestions like these. Soon Bitcoin will be the same as fiat or gold. Regulated and manipulated by the banks and the government will keep track of everything you do.

I totally agree with your ideological reasons for using bitcoin, and the sooner we can buy and sell stuff with it, the better - however reality is what actually happens, rather than what you'd like to happen!
People always speculate with new stuff, its human nature - and the big problem for bitcoin at the moment is that there is very little else you can do with it!

As for your argument for the regulations not increasing the value of bitcoin, you are missing the reality of the situation.  What if the free market decide, after its got bored of speculating, that without regulation bitcoin becomes valueless? Of, more likely, the value of bitcoin drops to nothing as the alternative coins which are willing to play ball go up in value?

Regulations don't mean centralisation, it means playing by the rules.  It means more stabilisation, it means big business has a far lower risk to deal with, which means higher valuations. 

However, I don't really need to justify any of my thoughts because the final bit of this situation is that its going to happen anyway - regardless of what we think.  You might as well be ready for it!




Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: nwbitcoin on May 02, 2013, 08:42:56 PM
Quote from: nwbitcoin

Let me ask you a question.

What stops someone from putting a bullet in your head and stealing all your stuff?

The answer is regulations.




This is not right. The answer is The Law.

One depends on an immutable understanding between human beings.

The other is political.

And what is the law?  Just a set of regulations that we all agree to live by as the cost of being a part of society.

If you don't agree, you are kidnapped and held against your will until common opinion says you have learnt your lesson. Sometimes, in some places, they kidnap you and kill you.  I think that may be Texas!
;)


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: nwbitcoin on May 02, 2013, 09:08:50 PM
Let me ask you a question.

What stops someone from putting a bullet in your head and stealing all your stuff?

The answer is regulations.

I have been posed this question numerous times and have thus had much incentive to think about it a lot. And my answer(s) differ from your answer. Please consider:

I came to the conclusion that what stops people from stealing from me/putting a bullet in my head can be summarized in 3 points:

1. people have little reason to randomly kill me. I admit that they can have reasons to steal from me, though.
2. What stops them from stealing my stuff even when they have reasons to do so is FEAR of retribution. This is the crucial point imo. Right now this fear of retribution manifests itself as fear of getting arrested, sentenced, fined and put into jail by the authorities. This is where we fail massively as a society I think, but I won't go into detail on why I think it's not a good idea to relegate responsibilities for the most crucial parts of your life (such as protection of your property, your education, health care, retirement etc.) to a monopolistic central authority. I'm certain you can find some arguments for why that might be the case. Fear of retribution can also take the form of the belief that if found stealing my stuff, he'll get shot in the face (by me) or found out and otherwise punished by my friends or some people/organization I paid for protecting my stuff. Ultimately we don't need regulation for this, but this is what we use as of now.
3. Finally please have some trust in people. Let me ask YOU a question: is regulation the only thing stopping you from stealing other peoples stuff and shooting them in the face? Or is it just there to protect YOU against those OTHER people, who might want to do that. Who told you people are like that? Oh yes, might have been the same people, who are regulating you to keep you safe :) But my question still stands.

In the end I'm just allergic to central power, I heard it's a chronic condition, feel free to ignore me :)

I like your thoughtful answer, so I will give you an alternative viewpoint.  Please remember that while I also hate regulations, I am very aware that there is no way you can stop it happening, it would just be nice to be on the winning side for once!

You notice that there is very little to stop someone from shooting you in the head except regulations!
The FEAR of retributions is the other side of regulations.  If you break them, either by laundering bitcoins, or by shooting someone dead, its the fear of of enforcement of regulations that make regulations work.

You ask what stops me from shooting people in the head? This is where it gets difficult because you are asking someone, with a similar moral compass to you.  I wouldn't go and do something like that because its morally wrong.  For 70% of the population, this is the only answer you will get.  However, that last 30% is the problem.  We might like to think they are all the criminals in prisons, but its not actually true.

Most of them are the psychopaths who have never been outed.  They run companies, they are your managers, the people who would say anything to get ahead. Without regulations, there are no retributions, and without retributions, there are no reasons not to do what it takes to get what you want.
Why do you think bitcoin keeps getting DDos'ed?  Why do the coins keeps getting pumped and dumped?  Because there are no rules saying you can't do it.

It does feel infantile to have rules stating the obvious to stop us hurting ourselves, and that is when regulations are done badly.  However, a few well written rules help everyone.  The question is, who is the best people to write those rules?
Us!


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: marcus_of_augustus on May 02, 2013, 09:18:17 PM
We need regulation because that is how you keep others from creating regulations and it makes far more sense to create the regulations in house, than to give it to someone who has an unknown agenda.

I have seen many users post this argument and i don't understand it. HOW can you regulate a currency that was designed impossible to regulate? To me it looks like the people in charge are trying to make either a fork or a central bank-type layer so that it can be regulated. Because let's face it, Bitcoin right now CAN'T be regulated if we don't let them regulate it. They want to close all the exchanges? Fine! We have TOR, we can meet in the streets and people will find other ways to bypass that. That's why 'm not afraid of the government forbidding Bitcoin. But it looks to me like they want to change the whole nature of Bitcoin and that is what's dangerous. And even more because many Bitcoin users have no problem with that.

Think of it this way.
You have a wonderful Apple pie on your kitchen window, which is warm, and smells delicious.
If you give the bully a small slice, he will leave you alone, happy that he got some pie.
If you don't, he might take the whole pie, and give you a small slice.
If you run away with the pie, he might come after you and not only steal your pie, but also smash it into your face.
If you run away, you might out run the bully, but also end up away from the house, not able to watch TV while eating your pie with no plate, cutlery, or lemonade!

The point is, when you have something that someone else might want, the first move is to be reasonable, because it stops them being unreasonable!


Bullies never settle for "a small slice" ... they always come back for more and more and more because they are getting it for free ....

And the "we don't negotitate with terrorists" doctrine applies here also.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: BigJohn on May 02, 2013, 09:23:16 PM
In the last round of grant proposals at one point Gavin suggested someone submit a grant for a trust-free mixer service to help people make the coins in their wallet more anonymous by mixing them with a large pool of other users. I asked Gavin about that later, and he said the foundation lawyers nixed the idea because efforts to make Bitcoin users more anonymous could be seen to be aiding money laundering, especially if the foundation itself was paying for development and to run the servers.

We can work with regulators to make sure Bitcoin is acceptable to them. For instance we can ensure that it remains possible to track the flow of money through Bitcoin. We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data. We can work with them to find ways to apply AML rules to Bitcoin transactions and to the exchanges. There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made. Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation. A lot of these changes are technical, such as improving scalability so transactions can remain on the blockchain, developing P2P blacklist technologies, and preventing deflation.

Sounds freakin' dandy. Count me out if it goes this direction.

+1

This basically sums up my feelings on the topic. If they do any sort of thing to work with the government, like taxation, anti-anonymity measures beyond what's in the nature of Bitcoin itself, that's the day that I cash out and stop recommending it to people.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: tvbcof on May 02, 2013, 09:46:08 PM
We can work with regulators to make sure Bitcoin is acceptable to them. For instance we can ensure that it remains possible to track the flow of money through Bitcoin. We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data. We can work with them to find ways to apply AML rules to Bitcoin transactions and to the exchanges. There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made. Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation. A lot of these changes are technical, such as improving scalability so transactions can remain on the blockchain, developing P2P blacklist technologies, and preventing deflation.

Sounds freakin' dandy. Count me out if it goes this direction.

The trouble(*) is that at this time, and possibly for some time to come, for every '1' in the real world who is turned off by such things, there will be '10' who will think they sound great(**).  Their response will be 'Count me in.'

(*) Of course "One man's trash is another man's treasure." so 'trouble' may not be the right word exactly.

(**) I'm not standing by and exact 1/10 ratio.  Just making a point as I see it.



Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: ErisDiscordia on May 02, 2013, 09:56:19 PM
Thanks for the reply nwbitcoin.

I think I understand your position better now. Let me explain why I still don't like it, though :D

But first...

You ask what stops me from shooting people in the head? This is where it gets difficult because you are asking someone, with a similar moral compass to you.  I wouldn't go and do something like that because its morally wrong.  For 70% of the population, this is the only answer you will get.  However, that last 30% is the problem.  We might like to think they are all the criminals in prisons, but its not actually true.

Do you really think the % is this high? I think we have different degree of trusting people in general, I consider the % of troublemakers (shaped that way by upbringing, society, or simply born that way) to be considerably less. Basically I work with the assumption that people are generally a decent bunch. Put them into a tough spot, though and they can quickly become selfish or downright evil. That's why I feel it's important to help shape society - because the very environment we live in might just be the biggest influence in what sort of people we are. In other words - a society like ours is bound to produce an abundance of sociopaths. For a sociopath is one who fears society and today it's easy to fear society, especially while conflating society with government and the state.

Most of them are the psychopaths who have never been outed.  They run companies, they are your managers, the people who would say anything to get ahead. Without regulations, there are no retributions, and without retributions, there are no reasons not to do what it takes to get what you want.

As you say, sociopaths (I assume when you use the word psychopath you mean something like I mean by sociopath) are rampant in our society. Not surprising at all. And there is nothing a sociopath likes better than a position of power. For when he has power, he has control over that which he fears. I agree this is a problem.

But don't you see that if we are creating regulations, meaning universal sets of rules and coupling them with institutions (backed by force) to enforce them, we are giving the sociopaths exactly what they want and need? Now instead of going around stealing other peoples stuff and randomly shooting pedestrians in the face, like you feared they would do - they run your government, your police force, your money and what have you.

Power corrupts and power also attracts the corrupted. The way to deal with this is not by trying to find the right people to write the right set of regulations - universal sets of rules, but to let everybody find their own rules.

People are afraid of Anarchy as of being a state without rules. This is nonsense, people are so obsessed with rules, they will instantly make up new ones. The crucial difference is whether we accept diversity, or try to force everyone to live by a single universal set of rules. The best ones, written by the brightest and most well-meaning people of all, of course.

My signature sums it up.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: marcus_of_augustus on May 02, 2013, 09:56:26 PM
We can work with regulators to make sure Bitcoin is acceptable to them. For instance we can ensure that it remains possible to track the flow of money through Bitcoin. We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data. We can work with them to find ways to apply AML rules to Bitcoin transactions and to the exchanges. There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made. Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation. A lot of these changes are technical, such as improving scalability so transactions can remain on the blockchain, developing P2P blacklist technologies, and preventing deflation.

Sounds freakin' dandy. Count me out if it goes this direction.

The trouble(*) is that at this time, and possibly for some time to come, for every '1' in the real world who is turned off by such things, there will be '10' who will think they sound great(**).  Their response will be 'Count me in.'

(*) Of course "One man's trash is another man's treasure." so 'trouble' may not be the right word exactly.

(**) I'm not standing by and exact 1/10 ratio.  Just making a point as I see it.

Yeah but the 10 who think it sounds great don't have any money ... and is a large part why they don't.

Bitcoin is getting adopted because capital markets can appreciate what good money looks like ... if bitcoin now turns around and changes itself into bad money capital will move elsewhere.

Govt. money was formerly gold, then paper cash and now traceable digital units ... if govt. money was widely available as untraceable (fungible) gold-backed digital units bitcoin would be worthless.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: countryfree on May 02, 2013, 10:03:11 PM
I'm still quite new here, but count me with the people against all regulations regarding bitcoin.

That doesn't mean I am against all laws and morals. I understand the need of preventing murder and rape, but you can't harm anyone with virtual currency.



Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Operatr on May 02, 2013, 10:53:20 PM
Regulations from the same monsters that got us into the current financial hell we are all in now? No thanks


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Maged on May 03, 2013, 12:29:51 AM
We need regulation because that is how you keep others from creating regulations and it makes far more sense to create the regulations in house, than to give it to someone who has an unknown agenda.

I have seen many users post this argument and i don't understand it. HOW can you regulate a currency that was designed impossible to regulate? To me it looks like the people in charge are trying to make either a fork or a central bank-type layer so that it can be regulated. Because let's face it, Bitcoin right now CAN'T be regulated if we don't let them regulate it. They want to close all the exchanges? Fine! We have TOR, we can meet in the streets and people will find other ways to bypass that. That's why 'm not afraid of the government forbidding Bitcoin. But it looks to me like they want to change the whole nature of Bitcoin and that is what's dangerous. And even more because many Bitcoin users have no problem with that.

Think of it this way.
You have a wonderful Apple pie on your kitchen window, which is warm, and smells delicious.
If you give the bully a small slice, he will leave you alone, happy that he got some pie.
If you don't, he might take the whole pie, and give you a small slice.
If you run away with the pie, he might come after you and not only steal your pie, but also smash it into your face.
If you run away, you might out run the bully, but also end up away from the house, not able to watch TV while eating your pie with no plate, cutlery, or lemonade!

The point is, when you have something that someone else might want, the first move is to be reasonable, because it stops them being unreasonable!


Bullies never settle for "a small slice" ... they always come back for more and more and more because they are getting it for free ....

And the "we don't negotitate with terrorists" doctrine applies here also.

Let me put this in a way that will make you anarchists very happy:

Continuing this analogy, almost everyone on the block praises and warships this bully. So much so, that when they see that he's eating some of your pie, they start being willing to do anything to get even a nibble of the pie. The bully thinks nothing of it, because he feels like he's had enough pie for a few hours. Turns out, everyone really loves this pie, and can't get enough of it! But, like you said, the bully might get hungry again. So, he keeps going back for more. However, the neighborhood notices that each time the bully goes back, there are less and less good parts of the pie left for everyone else. They realize that they love this pie more than they love this bully, so they gang up and restrain the bully to ensure that he can never again be a threat.

If you truly believe that Bitcoin is the only true currency and that governments are unable to hold back, some light regulation from the government now would allow you to destroy the government later.

Personally, I just think that the worries about regulation are a terrible slippery slop argument, since there is no way that anyone could get the support needed to change the protocol in the ways retep describes in the later portion of his post. As for the earlier parts, there is nothing that anyone can do to prevent someone from bypassing those regulations, even if most people are only using a government-approved client. A black market within even a heavily-regulated Bitcoin would have significantly more diversity and depth than one that exists in a world where Bitcoin is completely illegal. Paypal is extremely regulated, and yet I can pay for a DDoS attack on someone while also paying to steal their identity, all with Paypal (http://krebsonsecurity.com/2013/03/the-obscurest-epoch-is-today/), no problem. I could probably even buy drugs with Paypal. (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/04/feds-shutter-online-narcotics-store-that-used-tor-to-hide-its-tracks/) So no, I'm not too worried about our future.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Peter Todd on May 03, 2013, 01:04:01 AM
FWIW I think you should just submit a pull request to the foundation bylaws, and add a section on anonymity and decentralization. See how they respond, if at all.

You can submit that pull request too you know.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Freebanking.org on May 03, 2013, 01:16:20 AM
What is the benefit to regulation? Do gold and silver buyers have regulation?

In short, yes.

http://www.nestmann.com/u-s-treasury-we-wont-tell-you-whats-reportable/

http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/rp/advisory/pdf/advis33.pdf

http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/rp/rulings/html/FIN-2012-R002.html

http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/rp/files/sar_tti_20.pdf

...lots more

Some regulations for dealers, travelers, et al.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Freebanking.org on May 03, 2013, 01:18:39 AM
Money laundering/criminal activity? Please, you get that with every currency. You cannot stop black markets from existing.

It is not the regulators' jobs to protect us from any of this. It is our job.

Also remember: If you give them an inch, they will take a mile.

Yes, and there are (anti-money laundering and other) regulations with other currencies, just as there are now with bitcoin.

The regulators have a different view of their job than you do for them.  ;-)


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Freebanking.org on May 03, 2013, 01:20:58 AM
Govt agencies wanna strangle BTC in it's crib...


No, they don't "wanna strangle BTC in it's crib" they just don't care if they do.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: solex on May 03, 2013, 01:45:30 AM
Money laundering/criminal activity? Please, you get that with every currency. You cannot stop black markets from existing.

It is not the regulators' jobs to protect us from any of this. It is our job.

Also remember: If you give them an inch, they will take a mile.

Yes, and there are (anti-money laundering and other) regulations with other currencies, just as there are now with bitcoin.

The regulators have a different view of their job than you do for them.  ;-)


Do people remember the situation 25 years ago?  AML was unheard of except within law enforcement dealing with the mafia.

Today, every citizen and small company is plagued with providing AML documentation when doing business. Is there any less money-laundering done today than 25 years ago? Where are all the news articles about money-launderers arrested because their documentation was flawed? ML is a modern-day bogeyman like the witches and giants of Grimm's fairy tales. Similarly, all the KYC regulation is a non-productive red-tape burden (useful for denying banking services to Bitcoin exchanges though).

As governments continually expand in size they are suffocating ordinary people with excessive regulation and surveillance. IMHO, this is because fiat systems are failing, so ever more controls are needed to maintain the status-quo. The only regulation of Bitcoin that would satisfy fiat-issuing governments would be regulating Bitcoin into an emasculated Buttcoin, which is what the OP is describing.

Edit: A timely post in ZH which reminds us why Satoshi created Bitcoin:

Unfortunately, free enterprise is being strangled to death in the United States today.  Entrepreneurs and small business are being pounded into oblivion by rules, regulations, red tape and oppressive levels of taxation.  ...  Meanwhile, wealth and power continue to become even more heavily concentrated in the hands of big government and big corporations. ... We need to change the rules of the game so that entrepreneurs, small businesses and average workers can thrive in this country once again. 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-02/22-facts-prove-bottom-90-america-systematically-getting-poorer

Buttcoin does not change the rules of the game.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: tvbcof on May 03, 2013, 04:12:15 AM

...

Edit: A timely post in ZH which reminds us why Satoshi created Bitcoin:

Unfortunately, free enterprise is being strangled to death in the United States today.  Entrepreneurs and small business are being pounded into oblivion by rules, regulations, red tape and oppressive levels of taxation.  ...  Meanwhile, wealth and power continue to become even more heavily concentrated in the hands of big government and big corporations. ... We need to change the rules of the game so that entrepreneurs, small businesses and average workers can thrive in this country once again. 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-02/22-facts-prove-bottom-90-america-systematically-getting-poorer

Buttcoin does not change the rules of the game.


I glanced through the ZH thing and didn't see any evidence that 'Satoshi' did any particular thing for any particular reason.

You would not, by chance, be projecting your beliefs onto the actions of someone you don't know would you?  If so, it's probably not as helpful to your cause as you might think it is.  Lotsa people would probably think it makes you look like a jackass.



Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: solex on May 03, 2013, 04:55:19 AM

...

Edit: A timely post in ZH which reminds us why Satoshi created Bitcoin:

Unfortunately, free enterprise is being strangled to death in the United States today.  Entrepreneurs and small business are being pounded into oblivion by rules, regulations, red tape and oppressive levels of taxation.  ...  Meanwhile, wealth and power continue to become even more heavily concentrated in the hands of big government and big corporations. ... We need to change the rules of the game so that entrepreneurs, small businesses and average workers can thrive in this country once again.  

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-02/22-facts-prove-bottom-90-america-systematically-getting-poorer

Buttcoin does not change the rules of the game.


I glanced through the ZH thing and didn't see any evidence that 'Satoshi' did any particular thing for any particular reason.

You would not, by chance, be projecting your beliefs onto the actions of someone you don't know would you?  If so, it's probably not as helpful to your cause as you might think it is.  Lotsa people would probably think it makes you look like a jackass.



Satoshi wanted sound money. Evidenced in the genesis block. The ZH article describes a lot of problems which are created and perpetuated by unsound (fiat) money.
Some of ideas in the OP make cryptocurrency unsound, like freezing and blacklisting addresses.



Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: wolverine.ks on May 03, 2013, 06:56:40 AM
i say that there is no 'we'

let each individual do what they believe is in their individual best interest.

this tends to be whats best for whoever remains standing anyway

just make sure you are still standing when the dust clears


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: ewitte on May 03, 2013, 04:50:40 PM
All that is needed is a way to agree on a price without depending on a single point of failure.  People that go into a panic because 1 website is down is the last thing we need.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Freebanking.org on May 03, 2013, 05:41:37 PM

Do people remember the situation 25 years ago?  AML was unheard of except within law enforcement dealing with the mafia.

Today, every citizen and small company is plagued with providing AML documentation when doing business. Is there any less money-laundering done today than 25 years ago? Where are all the news articles about money-launderers arrested because their documentation was flawed? ML is a modern-day bogeyman like the witches and giants of Grimm's fairy tales. Similarly, all the KYC regulation is a non-productive red-tape burden (useful for denying banking services to Bitcoin exchanges though).

As governments continually expand in size they are suffocating ordinary people with excessive regulation and surveillance. IMHO, this is because fiat systems are failing, so ever more controls are needed to maintain the status-quo. The only regulation of Bitcoin that would satisfy fiat-issuing governments would be regulating Bitcoin into an emasculated Buttcoin, which is what the OP is describing.

Edit: A timely post in ZH which reminds us why Satoshi created Bitcoin:

Unfortunately, free enterprise is being strangled to death in the United States today.  Entrepreneurs and small business are being pounded into oblivion by rules, regulations, red tape and oppressive levels of taxation.  ...  Meanwhile, wealth and power continue to become even more heavily concentrated in the hands of big government and big corporations. ... We need to change the rules of the game so that entrepreneurs, small businesses and average workers can thrive in this country once again. 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-02/22-facts-prove-bottom-90-america-systematically-getting-poorer

Buttcoin does not change the rules of the game.


Anti-money laundering laws are the new RICO after we tightened up the racketeering abuses.  After I defeated the Know Your Customer rule in 1997-98, AML came back with a vengence in Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act (though we got some of the worst of it taken out/watered down).  Search my name and KYC for more background there.

There are plenty of arrests and fines for AML vioations.  Being ignorant of them doesn't mean they aren't there.

Yes, this is the challenge right now: is the Bitcoin community going to just ignore the problem like the now defunct e-gold did, or are you going to learn from history and not repeat the same mistakes?


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Schrankwand on May 03, 2013, 08:53:08 PM
Quote
Today, every citizen and small company is plagued with providing AML documentation when doing business. Is there any less money-laundering done today than 25 years ago? Where are all the news articles about money-launderers arrested because their documentation was flawed? ML is a modern-day bogeyman like the witches and giants of Grimm's fairy tales. Similarly, all the KYC regulation is a non-productive red-tape burden (useful for denying banking services to Bitcoin exchanges though).

As governments continually expand in size they are suffocating ordinary people with excessive regulation and surveillance. IMHO, this is because fiat systems are failing, so ever more controls are needed to maintain the status-quo. The only regulation of Bitcoin that would satisfy fiat-issuing governments would be regulating Bitcoin into an emasculated Buttcoin, which is what the OP is describing


The key is the following: Do not get regulation into the fucking protocol. The protocol should be completely void of this.

You cannot make worldwide differing regulations go into a protocol.

You can reulate exchanges. You can regulate people, you can regulate taxes, you can regulate whatever you want but DON'T. TOUCH. THE. PROTOCOL.

Quote
Yes, this is the challenge right now: is the Bitcoin community going to just ignore the problem like the now defunct e-gold did, or are you going to learn from history and not repeat the same mistakes?

The key is not to be adressed in Bitcoin, but in exchanges. The exchanges are where the money goes. Anything else should be unregulated. If you regulate the coin itself, it means the same as watching and controlling cash exchanges.

The whole idea of Bitcoin would be void and useless. If I want to send someone money, i can use fucking paypal. If I want to use Bitcoins, I want them to work like they do, RIGHT NOW. I have no quarrels in paying taxes on speculation wins. I have no quarrels taxing miners with a tax when they sell their created assets, as long as they are legitimate businesses.

When someone touches the protocol and automatically taxes me for sending a transaction, im gonna hit them.

I would suggest the following: Some banks tend to take fees out once you take out money. If exchanges work in this way and your taxes are being paid through the exchange providers, alright. But only for citizens in country X where it is located. Since this can hardly be done, tax the exchanges a little harder and make them confirm AML laws.

Anything else will destroy the very idea of bitcoin. It will be useless.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: abbyd on May 04, 2013, 05:23:45 AM
The OP's post is very slippery. It's written as if it's describing the situation from a neutral stance, but it's full of political games.

Let's start with the topic:

"Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?"

This obviously not the choice. The regulators are going to regulate Bitcoin use whatever the foundation, or anyone else does. The question is whether we think the foundation should lobby money regulators to reduce unhelpful regulation.

Agreed. This "worrying about them getting regulation wrong" is ridiculous. Let's say the regulations are too broad - then they will be unenforceable. Or too narrow - then they won't be applicable.  Let's say the regulations are draconian - that will immediately bring about hundreds of forks and drive everyone underground. Or they're lax - well then everybody just LOLZ. How about if regulations are technically unsound? Everyone just adjusts their behavior such that they skirt around the language. What is the definition of "bad regulation"? Well, if you're opposed to regulation then the terms are redundant, and if you're in favor of regulation, well, let's just say that everyone will have different criteria to make that determination...

Look people, you're worrying about your master making a cage that is uncomfortable for you - so you're going to tell him how far you'd like your bars apart?!
Have you ever heard of "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic"?

Also, stop with the blockchain limitation FUD - that's a sidetrack issue that is not relevant to the real issue:
 Are you going to man up or suck up?


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: yona on May 04, 2013, 10:19:40 AM
as nwbitcoin points out i also believe realty is not in our control,
as stated here there will be pressure by the greater market, organisations and governments  to regulate bitcoin and fork it to a modified more 'controllable' form.
i wish we could focus on what we can do to keep the spirit of bitcoin stronger.

here is what i posted: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=194853.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=194853.0)

same as the people who printed the first dollar bills and coins inscribed  'IN GOD WE TRUST' as a motto for the united states and it's beliefs at the time or casascuis physical bitcoins are inscribed with 'VIRES IN NUMERIS'  it is possible to imprint the blockchain itself with the BitCoin Concept.

as the blockchain can and does contain data that is not purely mathematical and is not only related to the transactions and the public ledger, how about trying to draft in a very minimallistic way the principal and goals of bitcoin [for ex. the way it is described in Satoshi's whitepaper http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf] so it will stay in the blockchain forever?

might be spitting at the rain, but why not?


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: markm on May 04, 2013, 11:28:40 AM
And to think some people thought too many altcoins were being spawned!

Ironic, since maybe we haven't spawned anywhere near enough of them yet.

If everyone has choices of several hundred altcoins, most of which are small-footprint enough not to need noticeable amounts of server infrastructure and bandwidth,  the real bitcoin, divided into however many individual chains it takes, under however many names / labels / brands it takes. to be small enough to survive, will hopefully survive, while selloutcoin or bigbrothercoin or whatever the goons get the Foundation goons to make plays token blockchain for the bankers and corps.

Though they'd prefer to launch their own, surely?

Even more proliferation, maybe?

How about we tell them hey this is free open source, each and every code change you want you can implement in your own fork, and any combinations of them to your heart's content, go crazy, have fun, roll your own...

..And democracy can come into play as each individual chooses which blockchains they choose to use for what, when, where and how...

-MarkM-


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: marcus_of_augustus on May 04, 2013, 12:26:47 PM
Quote
How about we tell them hey this is free open source, each and every code change you want you can implement in your own fork, and any combinations of them to your heart's content, go crazy, have fun, roll your own...

The unintended consequences of attempting to regulate the mathematical protocols of p2p open source software are infinitely unpredictable ....

... hilarity, mayhem and ridicule will inevitably ensue if any idiotic regulator or legislator chooses to take that path. Power can only be commanded while respect remains.

My only advice to those pondering or advocating for such foolhardy actions .... "When you are in a hole, stop diggin'."


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: BTCisthefuture on May 04, 2013, 01:16:19 PM
This is a good question but a hard one to really answer.

I guess my answer would be "it depends".  Some regulations in certain areas could certainly help legitimize bitcoin and actually make it easier and more realistic to use.  While other regulations or too much regulations could pretty much mess up the way people use bitcoin pretty heavily.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Chief Satangkai on May 04, 2013, 01:53:18 PM
Quote
...We can work with regulators to make sure Bitcoin is acceptable to them. For instance we can ensure that it remains possible to track the flow of money through Bitcoin...

Thats just so immensely insane and wrong!  I mean... WTF!


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: nwbitcoin on May 04, 2013, 03:10:20 PM
This has been one of the most thoughtful threads on here for a while and we do have a dilemma, which can't really be fixed.

My opinion is that you don't want to put your head in the sand, because things will happen without us.

However, as the regulations on the Internet has shown, its a never ending battle of not having too many rules, as regulators love to create new ones, rather than use the ones they have more creatively!

In the long term, all the wonderful elements of bitcoin, the Rand ideal of total freedom, will disappear. It will be exactly how posting what you like on the Internet went from 'What copyright?' to 'Desist and remove notices' in only 10 years.

We are in a wonderful position at the moment to be able to guide the direction of regulations, and I would agree that Bitcoin the protocol, should be left alone.  If we help by creating a best practice approach to exchanges, and other areas where fiat and Bitcoin mix, then we will prevent a more hard nosed approach to the rest of what bitcoin is about for the forseeable future.

Maybe the answer is to use bitcoin as the public face of crypto currency, and as the whole idea matures, the freedom element is taken by some new altcoin, much like TOR is the internet for the minority who demand privacy.  But don't expect these coins to ever be worth a fraction of a bitcoin! ;)


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: marcus_of_augustus on May 04, 2013, 11:19:51 PM
Quote
Maybe the answer is to use bitcoin as the public face of crypto currency, and as the whole idea matures, the freedom element is taken by some new altcoin, much like TOR is the internet for the minority who demand privacy.  But don't expect these coins to ever be worth a fraction of a bitcoin! Wink

Winks and grins aside .... the market decides which is the best money, not any arrogant, regulation-pusher on the Intertubes.

Now ask yourself this, would you rather hold a currency that allows for total privacy in transactions or one that does not?


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Dharmadog on May 05, 2013, 12:00:28 PM
5 pages in and it's still a stupid path to go down.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: benjamindees on May 06, 2013, 07:14:35 AM
the first dollar bills and coins inscribed  'IN GOD WE TRUST' as a motto for the united states

The first US coins were inscribed 'MIND YOUR BUSINESS'.  That was the belief upon which the United States was founded.  It wasn't until we got fraudulent fiat ponzi money that it was replaced with the phrase 'IN GOD WE TRUST'.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: gmaxwell on May 06, 2013, 07:28:39 AM
The first US coins were inscribed 'MIND YOUR BUSINESS'.  That was the belief upon which the United States was founded.  It wasn't until we got fraudulent fiat ponzi money that it was replaced with the phrase 'IN GOD WE TRUST'.
Today I learned! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugio_Cent)

This thread is kinda weird— it seems to suggest that there is a OR here, but I don't see how any answer can be anything other than yes, both. Bitcoin is just another thing you can own, like coal or beanie babies— and it would be very unusual for it to be highly regulated itself at least according to the norms of the more free nations. ... but it interacts with the banking world, which is highly regulated.  Some people will see it in their interest to try to work with regulators to achieve good outcomes for themselves (and everyone else), other people will go off in a multitude of directions which are not regulatory centric (and which, as a result, don't interact much with traditional banking).  Both things will happen no matter what folks want overall.  This doesn't bother me: The fact that Bitcoin is diverse is part of what makes it strong.  Not only would "regulating bitcoin" (itself) be inconsistent with the expected freedoms in first world nations, it's not obviously viable so long as bitcoin is thoroughly decentralized.

The OP also brought up another question though... how do we fund useful developments which are highly decenteralized— and thus can't easily fund themselves— when they don't really mesh well with the banking/regulation universe that many of the big name business players that we'd hope to bankroll development?

I don't really have an answer— I think ultimately our inability to answer it might be our downfall. Eventually the people currently working on Bitcoin technology for the love and principle of it will wear out. Will we only be left with serious work being done by people deeply in bed with large regulatory-target businesses?


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Peter Todd on May 06, 2013, 08:13:27 AM
This thread is kinda weird— it seems to suggest that there is a OR here, but I don't see how any answer can be anything other than yes, both. Bitcoin is just another thing you can own, like coal or beanie babies— and it would be very unusual for it to be highly regulated itself at least according to the norms of the more free nations. ... but it interacts with the banking world, which is highly regulated.  Some people will see it in their interest to try to work with regulators to achieve good outcomes for themselves (and everyone else), other people will go off in a multitude of directions which are not regulatory centric (and which, as a result, don't interact much with traditional banking).  Both things will happen no matter what folks want overall.  This doesn't bother me: The fact that Bitcoin is diverse is part of what makes it strong.  Not only would "regulating bitcoin" (itself) be inconsistent with the expected freedoms in first world nations, it's not obviously viable so long as bitcoin is thoroughly decentralized.

I was talking about core technology - for that it is mostly an OR decision strongly based on decentralization. Heck, I would have followed it up with something similar to this pull request (https://github.com/pmlaw/The-Bitcoin-Foundation-Legal-Repo/pull/4[/url) but John went of and did it first.

The OP also brought up another question though... how do we fund useful developments which are highly decenteralized— and thus can't easily fund themselves— when they don't really mesh well with the banking/regulation universe that many of the big name business players that we'd hope to bankroll development?

I don't really have an answer— I think ultimately our inability to answer it might be our downfall. Eventually the people currently working on Bitcoin technology for the love and principle of it will wear out. Will we only be left with serious work being done by people deeply in bed with large regulatory-target businesses?

Probably one of the hardest things we may face is that even just working on those technologies and having your name linked to doing so isn't something one should take lightly - yet, building trust in software is difficult enough when the people involved are known publicly, and a key non-monetary reason people work on opensource software is recognition.

Beyond that, there are always foundations, but I can't think of a single one that has operated anonymously.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: marcus_of_augustus on May 06, 2013, 09:33:49 AM
Quote
Eventually the people currently working on Bitcoin technology for the love and principle of it will wear out.

... this has a sad ring of truth to it ... pioneers don't tend to hang around when the maddening throngs show up.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: jdillon on May 09, 2013, 02:58:31 AM
The OP also brought up another question though... how do we fund useful developments which are highly decenteralized— and thus can't easily fund themselves— when they don't really mesh well with the banking/regulation universe that many of the big name business players that we'd hope to bankroll development?

I don't really have an answer— I think ultimately our inability to answer it might be our downfall. Eventually the people currently working on Bitcoin technology for the love and principle of it will wear out. Will we only be left with serious work being done by people deeply in bed with large regulatory-target businesses?

Assuming money from those interested in a decentralized Bitcoin was available, what suggestions do you have from getting that money from those people to developers in a reasonable way that respects that decentralization? It seems to me that is a big part of the problem by itself. The Dread Pirate may be rich, but if he pops up funding things many would not take his money.

One must also be careful not to distort natural incentives, or at least to weigh the damage against the gain.

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: tvbcof on May 09, 2013, 03:46:38 AM
...
The OP also brought up another question though... how do we fund useful developments which are highly decenteralized— and thus can't easily fund themselves— when they don't really mesh well with the banking/regulation universe that many of the big name business players that we'd hope to bankroll development?

I don't really have an answer— I think ultimately our inability to answer it might be our downfall. Eventually the people currently working on Bitcoin technology for the love and principle of it will wear out. Will we only be left with serious work being done by people deeply in bed with large regulatory-target businesses?

I favor halting development of Bitcoin right now (and I wish it happened sooner) and just focusing on hardening and dealing with bugs.  In that case there need not be more than a few highly talented people spending a modest amount of time on things.

I do not believe that this would severely limit the 'growth' of the system in terms of user-base though obviously it would change the trajectory.

As I said in the silly thread about who takes over for Gavin, I think it would make sense to attempt to enlist a person from 'outside' based on a long history of credibility whether or not they have had much to do with Bitcoin itself to weigh in with community direction recommendations.  Bitcoin is important and interesting enough that it may be able to attract some very promising candidates.  If that someone was already highly regarded for their past exploits (i.e., Kaminski or Shnier) and especially if they had taken a vow of poverty (a-la Stallman) I personally would feel a lot more confidence in following their suggestions and staying with the herd.



Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: cypherdoc on May 09, 2013, 03:39:37 PM
The OP also brought up another question though... how do we fund useful developments which are highly decenteralized— and thus can't easily fund themselves— when they don't really mesh well with the banking/regulation universe that many of the big name business players that we'd hope to bankroll development?

I don't really have an answer— I think ultimately our inability to answer it might be our downfall. Eventually the people currently working on Bitcoin technology for the love and principle of it will wear out. Will we only be left with serious work being done by people deeply in bed with large regulatory-target businesses?

i thought you said you didn't care about my money?  on the contrary, i think you do (metaphorically speaking  ;)).

this is going to come down to, quite simply, your attitude .

what i was trying to say in our rather heated github debate was that the majority opinion on various Bitcoin issues should guide your actions, contrary to what you said about the importance of minority opinion of the devs on the Press Center debate.  i think the outcome of that debate should be a lesson to you.  

i think that you are confused as to how to handle yourself.  you devs are being scrutinized closely by the entire Bitcoin community and you can't afford to ignore the opinions of users, merchants, miners, and speculators.   you seem to think that by keeping one foot in the real world arena (regulation, political correctness) that some big money institution will come along and fund you.  that's not going to happen anytime soon b/c of Bitcoin's decentralization and economic tenets.

in case you hadn't noticed, there is plenty of money floating around within the Bitcoin community to fund your dev activities.  look at the $5M that Coinbase just got, or the $1M for BitPay, or the $500K for CoinLab, etc, etc.  if you insist on ignoring the majority opinion of the community, money will not flow to you.  the reason this money is flowing to these ppl is that it likes the principles upon which Bitcoin is built and these ppl are upholding that.  and yes, that means it challenges the State.

once you realize this, you will be much better off.  my advice to you is to voluntarily continue to work hard to improve on the concepts of the original Satoshi code.  as tvbcof said, it doesn't take much since Satoshi seems to have gotten all the economic concepts right.  then build/sell add on services or products on top of Bitcoin, much like etotheipi has done with Armory.  his plan is to eventually monetize that concept and i'm sure he will be successful.  things to be learned from him are: don't be too political, try to determine the majority opinion, help ppl often, treat ppl well, and make a good product.  profit.

money will then flow to you w/o any resistance.  not to mention your Bitcoin value will go up as well. :D


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Walter Rothbard on May 09, 2013, 10:53:37 PM
As usual, I have to ask: What is this "we" business?


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: 2weiX on May 09, 2013, 10:55:49 PM
As usual, I have to ask: What is this "we" business?
exactly.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Loozik on May 10, 2013, 11:30:04 AM
1. I suggest everyone who thinks that the so called government regulation is good or can be good should have a look at this website http://marcstevens.net/ I recommend Call of Shame - this is real fun http://marcstevens.net/cos

2. I also suggest people who think a government exists or a state exists watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdEUR-Xhob8 a government = unicorn = bizarre delusion

3. People who thinks there is evidence that regulations / constitutions apply to him should watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE&list=UUFeK8ZdHbCqAq3gekWs8aEQ&index=35

4. Allowing people calling themselves a government or USA to mess with Bitcoin = end of Bitcoin.

5. Developers should be paid by Bitcoin system users for work the developers provide; if users want new features in Bitcoin-Qt they crowd-finance such features. I personally do not mind paying a few BTC per year.

6. If point 5 is achieved there is no need for Bitcoin Foundation to do anything therefore people who call themselves a government have nobody to talk to, and no so called regulation can be imposed.

GIVE ME FREEDOM OR GIVE ME DEATH!


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: xcsler on May 10, 2013, 12:29:25 PM
Bitcoin will remain unregulated.  It doesnt matter if people in the community want it regulated or if government(s) want it regulated.  Bitcoin, by nature, is unregulated.  They cannot seize your btc unless under duress, etc.  You are your own bank.

Until the devs fork it and say: "Here is the regulated Bitcoin 2.0 which will be worth 10000USD because of big company involvement, if you don't want use it then use the unregulated Bitcoin 1.0 for illegal activities which will be worth about 2USD."

Looking at the majority of people involved in Bitcoin i'd place my money on that everybody would go for 2.0. Of course, the Bitcoin Foundation together with other large companies (paypal, banks etc), will make a plan to slowly manipulate us into believing that a regulated Bitcoin will be much better for everyone. If you ask me, it has already begun.

I see Bitcoin moving in this direction.
This quote needs to be kept bumped to the top of this thread.


Essentially, I envision keeping your savings on the BTC 1.0 "gold fork" and converting it to the BTC 2.0 "fiat fork" when needed for spending.


The private "gold fork" would be BTC as we know it today outside of government regulation and used by people as a store of value and for "other purposes".

The big brother "fiat fork" would be like the US dollar (and other fiat) with complete government regulation and endorsement. It would be like fiat on steroids. Every transaction would be monitored and taxed at various rates depending on the transaction type. Salaries would be paid in BTC 2.0 with income taxes, social security taxes, medicare taxes being levied. All addresses of businesses and individuals would be known and registered with the authorities. The supply of BTC 2.0 would be managed by the central BTC bank. Etc.

BTC 1.0 would not disappear and its exchange rate would rise in value compared to BTC 2.0.

All in all, this change won't spell the end of Bitcoin but rather mean the conversion of fiat to an all digital currency.
 


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: melvster on May 10, 2013, 12:38:07 PM
There was an interesting post on the Bitcoin Foundation's private forum today:

Quote
Hi! I would like the board to discuss opening up lines of communication with money regulators - particularly FinCEN and AUSTRAC (I'm from Australia). FinCEN and other government money regulators need to write new rules as they obviously don't understand Bitcoin's inherent structure.

I think it would be better if some organisation like the Bitcoin Foundation could offer guidance draft rules and work with the regulators.

Otherwise we'll have a situation pretty soon where they try to implement something unworkable, the criminals flood into the Bitcoin system then the argument for 'shutting down bitcoin' grows in popularity.
-Bitcoin Foundation board meeting agenda requests (https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/49-bf-board-meeting-agenda-requests/page__st__40#entry1534) (only viewable by foundation members)


You know, Bitcoin is at an interesting stage of it's development. We've got a lot of money flowing in to the ecosystem and for the first time we're seeing interest from big businesses - even PayPal and Western Union are looking into accepting Bitcoin.

We're also under a lot of attack; big heavily protected exchanges and other websites like Mt. Gox, blockchain.info, and The Silk Road are getting DDoSed; services like Instawallet and mining pools are having funds stolen; exchanges getting shutdown by regulators; (including Mt. Gox suddenly shutting down their off-chain payment service) even child porn related data being uploaded to the blockchain:

Quote
It is widely speculated, based on common forum comments in the crypto-anarchist community, that this current round of data spam is intended to force bitcoin users, developers and governments of the world to take action to censor -- or not -- certain bitcoin transactions.  Trying to force the issue, to establish a precedent one way or the other.  Or, more pessimistically, a party could be simply trying to shut down bitcoin.
-Jeff Garzik (http://garzikrants.blogspot.ca/2013/04/on-bitcoin-data-spam-and-evil-data.html)

The Bitcoin Foundation itself is in a difficult position: we all know who it's funded by, and everyone involved is publicly known. This can be a problem: in the last round of grant proposals at one point Gavin suggested someone submit a grant for a trust-free mixer service to help people make the coins in their wallet more anonymous by mixing them with a large pool of other users. I asked Gavin about that later, and he said the foundation lawyers nixed the idea because efforts to make Bitcoin users more anonymous could be seen to be aiding money laundering, especially if the foundation itself was paying for development and to run the servers.


We can work with regulators to make sure Bitcoin is acceptable to them. For instance we can ensure that it remains possible to track the flow of money through Bitcoin. We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data. We can work with them to find ways to apply AML rules to Bitcoin transactions and to the exchanges. There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made. Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation. A lot of these changes are technical, such as improving scalability so transactions can remain on the blockchain, developing P2P blacklist technologies, and preventing deflation.

We can also go the other route, and give Bitcoin users even more tools to remain anonymous and transact on their own terms. Technologies like mixing and off-chain transactions to let you make transactions without revealing where the coins came from, technologies like P2Pool to ensure mining stays decentralized, and colored coins to let us trade our assets without involving third party exchanges.

I think this discussion needs to happen out in the open, and we need to have it now. I'm sure you have a pretty good idea what I think, but what does the rest of the community think?

Obviously work WITH, depending on the geographical region that is interested.

First step needed is education and there is no better explanation than:

[[

Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as
trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for
most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model.
Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot
avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the
minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions,
and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-
reversible services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must
be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need.
A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and payment uncertainties
can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments
over a communications channel without a trusted party.

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party. Transactions that are computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers
from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers. In
this paper, we propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer distributed
timestamp server to generate computational proof of the chronological order of transactions. The
system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any
cooperating group of attacker nodes.

]]

The benefits of bitcoin to society should be explained and also it is in the self interest of the given region given that bitcoin can create a competitive advantage to that region.

It goes without saying that the foundation does not speak for Satoshi, but anyone, be it an individual or group, explaining things in helpful way is always beneficial. 


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Loozik on May 10, 2013, 01:09:03 PM
-Jeff Garzik (http://garzikrants.blogspot.ca/2013/04/on-bitcoin-data-spam-and-evil-data.html)

We can work with regulators to make sure Bitcoin is acceptable to them [...] There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made.

Obviously work WITH, depending on the geographical region that is interested.

Please tell me you are joking.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: melvster on May 10, 2013, 01:14:04 PM
-Jeff Garzik (http://garzikrants.blogspot.ca/2013/04/on-bitcoin-data-spam-and-evil-data.html)

We can work with regulators to make sure Bitcoin is acceptable to them [...] There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made.

Obviously work WITH, depending on the geographical region that is interested.

Please tell me you are joking.

Of course not.  Have you ever met a regulator?

Most are good folks just trying to do their job against people that earn 100 or even 1000 times as much as them.

Regulators are employed by us, we can do more working together.  Namely showing the competitive advantages that bitcoin gives that country, and allowing them to have input into good ways to leverage that. 


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Loozik on May 10, 2013, 01:35:13 PM
Have you ever met a regulator?
No I have not. Neither have you. There are no ''regulator'' object class on this planet.

Most are good folks just trying to do their job against people that earn 100 or even 1000 times as much as them.

What I think you should have meant is these folks are individual men and women providing their service at gun point to people who may not want that service at all.

This is how it works: if you do not pay taxes, you get a letter from people doing business as (DBA) IRS. When you ignore it, you get a letter from people DBA judges to appear in a building called a court for a trial. When you ignore a letter to appear in a court, people DBA police show up at your door. If you ignore them because you may have better stuff to do, e.g. watch TV, they will brake into your house. If you object phisically, you'll get grounded and shit will be beaten out of you, your legs and hands will be broken. Then when in jail, if you want to go out home, you will be shot dead by a guy DBA prison guard.

Tell me what are factual differences (if any) between theft under threat of killing and taxes?

Regulators are employed by us, we can do more working together.

Where did you get the idea I or you employ a regulator. Do you have any facts or evidence to prove it?


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Jace on May 10, 2013, 01:49:41 PM
Tell me what are factual differences (if any) between theft under threat of killing and taxes?
The latter is legalized (ironically by the very same people who collect those taxes).


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: RodeoX on May 10, 2013, 01:52:16 PM
It seems to me that not working with regulators is a sure path to the most onerous regulations.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: cointoss on May 10, 2013, 01:53:03 PM
Wait. All of you posters who seem to be supporting government regulation being built into Bitcoin itself should clarify what you are supporting here.

Which of these things, exactly, are you posting in support of?

For instance we can ensure that it remains possible to track the flow of money through Bitcoin.

We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data.

...

We can work with them to find ways to apply AML rules to Bitcoin transactions

...

There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made.

...

Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation.

...

developing P2P blacklist technologies


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Loozik on May 10, 2013, 01:55:39 PM
Tell me what are factual differences (if any) between theft under threat of killing and taxes?
The latter is legalized (ironically by the very same people who collect those taxes).

Yeah, people doing business as ''states'', ''regulators'' are merely acting like mafia that gained monopoly over legislation and justice enforcement. ''Justice'' here is a misnomer  ;D

I do not think people providing excellent service as Bitcoin Foundation should engage in talks with mafia.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: RodeoX on May 10, 2013, 01:57:33 PM
Just to be clear I in no way support changing bitcoin to include regulatory features. Following the rules should be up to the user, just like other laws.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Loozik on May 10, 2013, 01:59:39 PM
Wait. All of you posters who seem to be supporting government regulation being built into Bitcoin itself should clarify what you are supporting here.

Which of these things, exactly, are you posting in support of?

For instance we can ensure that it remains possible to track the flow of money through Bitcoin.

Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation.

Okay, so we've learned deflation can be dangerous.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: melvster on May 10, 2013, 02:07:17 PM
Wait. All of you posters who seem to be supporting government regulation being built into Bitcoin itself should clarify what you are supporting here.

Which of these things, exactly, are you posting in support of?

For instance we can ensure that it remains possible to track the flow of money through Bitcoin.

We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data.

...

We can work with them to find ways to apply AML rules to Bitcoin transactions

...

There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made.

...

Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation.

...

developing P2P blacklist technologies

I dont think it makes too much sense to build govt regulation into bitcoin 0.8+ ... that would be a hard fork or a new coin (maybe the same thing).  Because each regulation would be different in each country.  I do think that having a conversation with regulators to explain the system is healthy and looking at the recommendations.

Arbitrary freezing of funds would make bitcoin sterile.  

I would LOVE to see cypto currency used for public good (my idea was to give 10% of mining rewards to charity) but again this should be a new coin.

Deflation / Inflation cannot be controlled centrally.  It's trivial to print new bitcoins and settle in fractions or cash, as gold does.

The illegal link in the BC argument is pretty absurd ... you can encode information by using any image gallery, or by timestamps on facebook and twitter ... to prevent the sharing of links you have to shut down the internet, and maybe even paper!

Anyone can fork btc and introduce arbitrary measures, whether anyone will use that fork is a different question.

Each country will be different.  


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Jace on May 10, 2013, 04:19:31 PM
Seriously now, WTF is this thread is all about. I thought Bitcoin was created to avoid regulation and centralization in the first place.

So, NO! Of course we don't want to work with regulators. Bitcoin is unregulated by nature, let's keep it that way. For people who love regulation, stick with your euros and dollars please. Everybody happy.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Loozik on May 10, 2013, 04:55:48 PM
So, NO! Of course we don't want to work with regulators.

And you know what? - regulators didn't want to work with us (whoever ''us'' is) either. Look at the OP quotes (in bold in my post) to see what happened - this is very funny:

----------------------------------------------------------

A. One guy (from Australia) from Bitcoin Foundation says:
Hi! I would like the board to discuss opening up lines of communication with money regulators - particularly FinCEN and AUSTRAC (I'm from Australia).
Note it is not the so called regulators who seek contact with Bitcoin Foundation guys. It is the guy within Bitcoin Foundation who wants other Bitcoin Foundation guys to co-operate with the so called regulators. Funny, isn't it?

B. The Australian guy continues:
I think it would be better if some organisation like the Bitcoin Foundation could offer guidance draft rules and work with the regulators.
He just makes a pretty neutral suggestion, but pointing his finger at guys (geeks) who have no clue how to defend against bureaucrats.

C. And here comes the FUD out of the blue:
Otherwise we'll have a situation pretty soon where they try to implement something unworkable, the criminals flood into the Bitcoin system then the argument for 'shutting down bitcoin' grows in popularity.
I wonder where he gets this ''pretty soon'' idea from?

-------------------------------------------------------

D. The other guy (a developer) replies:
The Bitcoin Foundation itself is in a difficult position: we all know who it's funded by, and everyone involved is publicly known.
Clearly he caught the bait (FUD) and is sincerely afraid of decent persons involved in Bitcoin Foundation.

E. The scared developer makes concessions to requests that haven't been even made by the so called regulators, i.e.:
We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data.
...
We can work with them to find ways to apply AML rules to Bitcoin transactions
...
There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made.
...
Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation.
...
developing P2P blacklist technologies


In my opinion the so called regulators, even if any meeting were to be held in the future, wouldn't even put forward such request - they have no clue what the Bitcoin system is all about.

-------------------------------------------------------

The problem is: now that this thread is open to public, the so called regulators were given numerous concessions (luckily of one man on behalf of this man only) on a silver plate + were given the info on what's possible to regulate. Bitcoin Foundation guys shoot themselves in the foot.

EDIT: Apologies to Bitcoin Foundations guys. I thought OP / retep / Peter Todd was a member of Bitcoin Foundation and spoke on your behalf while proposing going to bed with regulators. I was misleaded (my bad) by his quoting BF' private forum.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Brushan on May 10, 2013, 05:18:55 PM
I'm in no way against regulating exchanges if Bitcoin benefits from it. But i really hope that if the Bitcoin Foundation ever makes a suggestion of changing the protocol to make Bitcoin easier regulated that we protest so loudly that they would never dare to make a suggestion like that again. And if they do make a suggestion like that then it's clear that they have sold out to the same people that Bitcoin was designed to fight.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: cypherdoc on May 10, 2013, 05:35:01 PM
So, NO! Of course we don't want to work with regulators.

And you know what? - regulators didn't want to work with us (whoever ''us'' is) either. Look at the OP quotes (in bold in my post) to see what happened - this is very funny:

----------------------------------------------------------

A. One guy (from Australia) from Bitcoin Foundation says:
Hi! I would like the board to discuss opening up lines of communication with money regulators - particularly FinCEN and AUSTRAC (I'm from Australia).
Note it is not the so called regulators who seek contact with Bitcoin Foundation guys. It is the guy within Bitcoin Foundation who wants other Bitcoin Foundation guys to co-operate with the so called regulators. Funny, isn't it?

B. The Australian guy continues:
I think it would be better if some organisation like the Bitcoin Foundation could offer guidance draft rules and work with the regulators.
He just makes a pretty neutral suggestion, but pointing his finger at guys (geeks) who have no clue how to defend against bureaucrats.

C. And here comes the FUD out of the blue:
Otherwise we'll have a situation pretty soon where they try to implement something unworkable, the criminals flood into the Bitcoin system then the argument for 'shutting down bitcoin' grows in popularity.
I wonder where he gets this ''pretty soon'' idea from?

-------------------------------------------------------

D. The other guy (a developer) replies:
The Bitcoin Foundation itself is in a difficult position: we all know who it's funded by, and everyone involved is publicly known.
Clearly he caught the bait (FUD) and is sincerely afraid of decent persons involved in Bitcoin Foundation.

E. The scared developer makes concessions to requests that haven't been even made by the so called regulators, i.e.:
We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data.
...
We can work with them to find ways to apply AML rules to Bitcoin transactions
...
There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made.
...
Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation.
...
developing P2P blacklist technologies


In my opinion the so called regulators, even if any meeting were to be held in the future, wouldn't even put forward such request - they have no clue what the Bitcoin system is all about.

-------------------------------------------------------

The problem is: now that this thread is open to public, the so called regulators were given numerous concessions (luckily of one man on behalf of this man only) on a silver plate + were given the info on what's possible to regulate. Bitcoin Foundation guys shoot themselves in the foot.


please list the identities of the bolded quotes.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Stampbit on May 10, 2013, 09:37:19 PM
Deregulation! We need bitcoin derivatives traded on secret dark markets by major institutions who are simultaneously manipulating variables to really set this volatility swing in full motion!


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: tvbcof on May 10, 2013, 09:43:27 PM
Deregulation! We need bitcoin derivatives traded on secret dark markets by major institutions who are simultaneously manipulating variables to really set this volatility swing in full motion!

We already have that in spades I believe.



Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Loozik on May 11, 2013, 06:55:54 AM
please list the identities of the bolded quotes.

OP should do this. He has more information I think.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: edmundedgar on May 11, 2013, 07:22:27 AM
please list the identities of the bolded quotes.

OP should do this. He has more information I think.

Retep will correct me if I'm reading him wrong, but if I'm understanding the original post correctly the stuff that cypherdoc has phrased from "E. The scared developer makes concessions to requests that haven't been even made by the so called regulators..." wasn't a report of an actual conversation, it was something that the OP pulled out of his arse.

One of the various slights of hand in the original post was the way it plays with "work with", which starts out with an alleged actual conversation where it means "talk to them like the Tor people do to try to persuade them not to regulate us" and then, after various twists and turns of the OP's imagination, ends up meaning, "voluntarily break our software if somebody powerful thinks it might help them".


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Peter Todd on May 11, 2013, 08:25:17 AM
Retep will correct me if I'm reading him wrong, but if I'm understanding the original post correctly the stuff that cypherdoc has phrased from "E. The scared developer makes concessions to requests that haven't been even made by the so called regulators..." wasn't a report of an actual conversation, it was something that the OP pulled out of his arse.

One of the various slights of hand in the original post was the way it plays with "work with", which starts out with an alleged actual conversation where it means "talk to them like the Tor people do to try to persuade them not to regulate us" and then, after various twists and turns of the OP's imagination, ends up meaning, "voluntarily break our software if somebody powerful thinks it might help them".

Yeah, you lot are hilarious. The only thing that's an actual conversation is what's quoted in my original post. You might want to re-read it to remind yourself.

I'm surprised you people haven't figured out that I 100% think the right approach is to do everything we can to ensure that at a technical level Bitcoin can't be regulated.

Don't they teach rhetoric in highschool anymore? Arguing your opponents position to show how wrong they are is a pretty basic technique.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: tvbcof on May 11, 2013, 08:32:09 AM
...
Don't they teach rhetoric in highschool anymore? Arguing your opponents position to show how wrong they are is a pretty basic technique.

Such a thing is vastly to nuanced for a fair fraction of this board.  Trust me.



Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Peter Todd on May 11, 2013, 08:36:50 AM
...
Don't they teach rhetoric in highschool anymore? Arguing your opponents position to show how wrong they are is a pretty basic technique.

Such a thing is vastly to nuanced for a fair fraction of this board.  Trust me.

Indeed.

Friday night beer googles are the only reason I'm even looking at this thread.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Loozik on May 11, 2013, 09:04:15 AM
Retep will correct me if I'm reading him wrong, but if I'm understanding the original post correctly the stuff that cypherdoc has phrased from "E. The scared developer makes concessions to requests that haven't been even made by the so called regulators..." wasn't a report of an actual conversation, it was something that the OP pulled out of his arse.

The sentence "E. The scared developer makes concessions to requests that haven't been even made by the so called regulators..." was produced by me - it is a subtitle I gave to the conversation reported by OP. OP had nothing to do with it. Please reread my post.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: edmundedgar on May 11, 2013, 09:17:25 AM
Retep will correct me if I'm reading him wrong, but if I'm understanding the original post correctly the stuff that cypherdoc has phrased from "E. The scared developer makes concessions to requests that haven't been even made by the so called regulators..." wasn't a report of an actual conversation, it was something that the OP pulled out of his arse.

The sentence "E. The scared developer makes concessions to requests that haven't been even made by the so called regulators..." was produced by me - it is a subtitle I gave to the conversation reported by OP. OP had nothing to do with it. Please reread my post.

That's what I mean, the stuff in bold that comes after that sentence.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Loozik on May 11, 2013, 09:33:53 AM
Retep will correct me if I'm reading him wrong, but if I'm understanding the original post correctly the stuff that cypherdoc has phrased from "E. The scared developer makes concessions to requests that haven't been even made by the so called regulators..." wasn't a report of an actual conversation, it was something that the OP pulled out of his arse.

The sentence "E. The scared developer makes concessions to requests that haven't been even made by the so called regulators..." was produced by me - it is a subtitle I gave to the conversation reported by OP. OP had nothing to do with it. Please reread my post.

That's what I mean, the stuff in bold that comes after that sentence.

So how could OP pull a sentence out of his arse, if the sentence wasn't his?


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: woodrowchai on May 11, 2013, 09:37:09 AM
I hate regulation,so I love bitcoin.
If bitcoin will be regualted,I don't know what rest I can love.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: edmundedgar on May 11, 2013, 09:48:43 AM
Retep will correct me if I'm reading him wrong, but if I'm understanding the original post correctly the stuff that cypherdoc has phrased from "E. The scared developer makes concessions to requests that haven't been even made by the so called regulators..." wasn't a report of an actual conversation, it was something that the OP pulled out of his arse.

The sentence "E. The scared developer makes concessions to requests that haven't been even made by the so called regulators..." was produced by me - it is a subtitle I gave to the conversation reported by OP. OP had nothing to do with it. Please reread my post.

That's what I mean, the stuff in bold that comes after that sentence.

So how could OP pull a sentence out of his arse, if the sentence wasn't his?

I'm talking about the stuff in bold after that sentence:

Quote
We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data.
...
We can work with them to find ways to apply AML rules to Bitcoin transactions
...
There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made.
...
Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation.
...
developing P2P blacklist technologies

...which comes from the OP. (Sorry, it would have been clearer if I'd just quoted the stuff I was talking about...)


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: jdbtracker on May 11, 2013, 09:49:14 AM
unregulated please... defeats the purpose of the market if it is regulated, just make them keep an eye on it, learn from it, and if they got something to say they better have a damn good argument.

and no taxation for sure, if they want taxes they better start taxing businesses directly, if the businesses in their territory are well supported by the state, they have nothing to worry about, they'll get their taxes.

and if people are putting kiddy porn on the blockchain... I'm sure the developers or the community here can come up with a solution to save the blockchain... it's already at 8.5 gigs!


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Loozik on May 11, 2013, 10:43:32 AM
...which comes from the OP. (Sorry, it would have been clearer if I'd just quoted the stuff I was talking about...)

Actually, you are right, OP seems to have pulled this out of his arse. I thought (and others probably thought too) he was quoting someone from Bitcoin Foundation.

I made a moron of myself.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Welsh on May 11, 2013, 10:46:01 AM
I'm leaning towards anti, I think this is just a rumour which has occurred.
Maybe, the government tried to scare bitcoin users, thinking only the rich can get involved in the currency.
I'm not sure, I just don't know how they would control bitcoin, they are only interested in FIAT currencies.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: edmundedgar on May 11, 2013, 10:58:33 AM
...which comes from the OP. (Sorry, it would have been clearer if I'd just quoted the stuff I was talking about...)

Actually, you are right, OP seems to have pulled this out of his arse. I thought (and others probably thought too) he was quoting someone from Bitcoin Foundation.

I made a moron of myself.

Not at all, you were supposed to think that. It's a classic rhetorical tactic from the political bullshitting textbook. Politicians use it all the time, because it works so reliably - people will naturally assume that the things you say are connected.

So you start with something an opponent actually said ("Maybe we should do what the Tor guys are doing and explain to regulators why they shouldn't try to regulate us"), set up a false opposition ("work with" vs "be unregulated"), then plonk a bunch of strawmen on the opponent's side of the divide (AML! Tax! Censorship!) and people will assume that your opponent is advocating the strawman stuff too, without you needing to specifically say so. Then having scared people about their enemy's dastardly plot you throw in the stuff you want to do (Throttle the network at 7 transactions per second!) and make it look like it's an essential part of defeating your opponent's evil agenda.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Loozik on May 11, 2013, 11:17:39 AM
It's a classic rhetorical tactic from the political bullshitting textbook.

Yes, OP should consider career in politics.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: solex on May 11, 2013, 11:31:07 AM
...which comes from the OP. (Sorry, it would have been clearer if I'd just quoted the stuff I was talking about...)

Actually, you are right, OP seems to have pulled this out of his arse. I thought (and others probably thought too) he was quoting someone from Bitcoin Foundation.

I made a moron of myself.

Not at all, you were supposed to think that. It's a classic rhetorical tactic from the political bullshitting textbook. Politicians use it all the time, because it works so reliably - people will naturally assume that the things you say are connected.

So you start with something an opponent actually said ("Maybe we should do what the Tor guys are doing and explain to regulators why they shouldn't try to regulate us"), set up a false opposition ("work with" vs "be unregulated"), then plonk a bunch of strawmen on the opponent's side of the divide (AML! Tax! Censorship!) and people will assume that your opponent is advocating the strawman stuff too, without you needing to specifically say so. Then having scared people about their enemy's dastardly plot you throw in the stuff you want to do (Throttle the network at 7 transactions per second!) and make it look like it's an essential part of defeating your opponent's evil agenda.

EE. That's a very impressive deconstruction!


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Swapster on June 16, 2013, 05:51:37 AM
I am for zero regulation in the Bitcoin space, let the free market reign. Of course, there is nothing we can do about regulating the conversion of Bitcoin to Fiat (you have now exited the Bitcoin space once you convert to cash), and nobody should be surprised by that.

So I would like to see some reasonable regulation in the exchange space. Right now, it's not well defined and it seems to be a bit heavy handed with all the reporting requirements, surety bonding in all states, etc.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Eri on June 16, 2013, 11:12:17 AM
We can work with regulators to make sure Bitcoin is acceptable to them. For instance we can ensure that it remains possible to track the flow of money through Bitcoin. We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data. We can work with them to find ways to apply AML rules to Bitcoin transactions and to the exchanges. There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made. Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation. A lot of these changes are technical, such as improving scalability so transactions can remain on the blockchain, developing P2P blacklist technologies, and preventing deflation.

If Bitcoin heads in this direction, surely there will be a hard fork.  The whole point of Bitcoin for a lot of users is to have a currency that functions independently of the world's most heinous criminals--the bankers and politicians--and makes their destructive, self-serving policies/regulations/legislation irrelevant.  Each of us should be free to transact in whatever currency has the features and characteristics that we want and individually choose.  Similar to religion (in the USA at least), a currency should not be imposed on us.  It's obvious there isn't going to be a one-size-fits-all cryptocurrency as we move forward.

We can also go the other route, and give Bitcoin users even more tools to remain anonymous and transact on their own terms. Technologies like mixing and off-chain transactions to let you make transactions without revealing where the coins came from, technologies like P2Pool to ensure mining stays decentralized, and colored coins to let us trade our assets without involving third party exchanges.

We can go both routes.  It's as simple as a hard fork.


Didnt read this whole thread so not sure if this has been said already. But the idea of taking both routes could be vary beneficial depending how regulated the gov't wants it. There is no reason why the foundation cant make a "regulated" bitcoin client and secretly in the back room on a Tor server work on a 2nd shadow client, one which ignores those rules. End result would be, The foundation does what the gov't wants but at the same time we do what we want. if at any point the clients become incompatible, they only need to say "well, we did our best gov't, everyone is ignoring our official client now". they can all publicly quit but keep working on the shadow client (the real client) same as always. Legally they wouldnt be responsible, though we would have legal battles for bitcoins future at that point.

I guess the question becomes, can you legally ban a technology that isnt illegal, simply because its users choose to use it for that? Think Torrents, they are perfectly legal, but some people upload illegal/copyrighted content.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: franky1 on June 16, 2013, 11:20:03 AM
the simple path.. allow the banks /governements to regulate the bank account holders of FIAT. which includes liberty reserve and other FIAT handling exchanges that are within bitcoin community(as the FIAT has to sit in an account somewhere)

but to leave pure bitcoin users alone.

fincen only control US dollar. they do not control EURO, australian, japanese, UK FIAT.. so dont even give them the opportunity to control bitcoin


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: RodeoX on June 17, 2013, 02:12:04 PM
I hope everyone realizes that regulation WILL happen, and it is NOT your choice. It will be regulated by countries all over the world and subject to international laws on trade.
This is not a "choice". It is and will remain law, whether one works with regulators or not. 
I suppose if you think tax evasion is a way to avoid cooperating then you could do that, of course you may go to jail.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: coinedBit on June 17, 2013, 02:55:04 PM
guys, let's stop talking, you won't affect the foundation by posting on the forums - just start an online petition and spread the word through mailing lists, forums and social media - and I can assure you that the btc foundation will get very clear feedback.

http://www.ipetitions.com/start-petition


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: RodeoX on June 17, 2013, 03:43:21 PM
We will see what shakes out, but most of what I have heard is about regulating US Dollars, not bitcoin. It is regulating the sale of bitcoins for dollars. I don't understand the position of speculators who want to trade BTC back and forth for dollars and not pay tax or be subject to regulation. If you want to use dollars you are choosing to use their money and must play by their rules. Just stick to bitcoins and free yourself from that nonsense. Cut the cord.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Bogdan on June 17, 2013, 04:19:29 PM
I would not like to work with regulators because that means verifications, taxes, general disability when using BTC. Bitcoin is decentralised and can't be regulated. The governments can attack the big exchangers but they can't stop every individual using bitcoin.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Operatr on June 17, 2013, 06:08:36 PM
I would not like to work with regulators because that means verifications, taxes, general disability when using BTC. Bitcoin is decentralised and can't be regulated. The governments can attack the big exchangers but they can't stop every individual using bitcoin.

It is just like BitTorrent. The governments can do absolutely nothing to stop the system or the idea, they can only go after users at entities at the fringe.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: atomium on June 17, 2013, 08:03:20 PM
this is a very touchy subject and in all honestly the US is going to step in somehow whether we like it or not and try to form some type of regulation with it, of course those outside the US don't have to follow the rules but those in the US will have to adhere by them.

my only request is that they are able to work with bitcoin and its innovation and not find a way to regulate it so bad that it will force us to stop using it.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: franky1 on June 17, 2013, 08:26:35 PM
this is a very touchy subject and in all honestly the US is going to step in somehow whether we like it or not and try to form some type of regulation with it, of course those outside the US don't have to follow the rules but those in the US will have to adhere by them.

my only request is that they are able to work with bitcoin and its innovation and not find a way to regulate it so bad that it will force us to stop using it.

is smells like you have not read the reports or know what fincen actually is...

try researching them..

they only care about FIAT and can only control the flow of FIAT in BANK ACCOUNTS. the whole 'virtual currency' term is about the digital dollar on computer screens/database tables of liberty exchange, bitstamp etc which represents / is a "convertable virtual currency" of the actual dollar in their bank account. nothing to do with bitcoin balances of those companies or of blockchain.info, bitcoin-qt, armory, etc, etc.

the sooner people get their head out the sand that fincen/FSA etc can only control the FIAT. and not scare monger about bitcoin dying.. the sooner the people can create legitimate fiat exchange platforms.

I would not like to work with regulators because that means verifications, taxes, general disability when using BTC. Bitcoin is decentralised and can't be regulated. The governments can attack the big exchangers but they can't stop every individual using bitcoin.

the government only tax FIAT you have, so it will only affect bitcoins when you put it into fiat. just like the last 100+ years. if you buy a piece of artwork they dont request 20% of the painting to be ripped from its frame as tax.. they wait for you to sell it. and then tax you on the FIAT


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: atomium on June 17, 2013, 08:36:19 PM
this is a very touchy subject and in all honestly the US is going to step in somehow whether we like it or not and try to form some type of regulation with it, of course those outside the US don't have to follow the rules but those in the US will have to adhere by them.

my only request is that they are able to work with bitcoin and its innovation and not find a way to regulate it so bad that it will force us to stop using it.

is smells like you have not read the reports or know what fincen actually is...

try researching them..

they only care about FIAT and can only control the flow of FIAT in BANK ACCOUNTS. the whole 'virtual currency' term is about the digital dollar on computer screens/database tables of liberty exchange, bitstamp etc which represents / is a "convertable virtual currency" of the actual dollar in their bank account. nothing to do with bitcoin balances of those companies or of blockchain.info, bitcoin-qt, armory, etc, etc.

the sooner people get their head out the sand that fincen/FSA etc can only control the FIAT. and not scare monger about bitcoin dying.. the sooner the people can create legitimate fiat exchange platforms.

I would not like to work with regulators because that means verifications, taxes, general disability when using BTC. Bitcoin is decentralised and can't be regulated. The governments can attack the big exchangers but they can't stop every individual using bitcoin.

the government only tax FIAT you have, so it will only affect bitcoins when you put it into fiat. just like the last 100+ years. if you buy a piece of artwork they dont request 20% of the painting to be ripped from its frame as tax.. they wait for you to sell it. and then tax you on the FIAT


You are totally right about that, thanks for that explanation. Now another question is what happens if you get audited, would they ever ask to see your bitcoin wallet to look for transactions, etc. what do you think about this?


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: franky1 on June 17, 2013, 08:45:33 PM
You are totally right about that, thanks for that explanation. Now another question is what happens if you get audited, would they ever ask to see your bitcoin wallet to look for transactions, etc. what do you think about this?

each country is different. in the UK bitcoins are being treated like assets.
EG pieces of artwork, (personal possessions with a store of value), your car.

lets say you won the olympics. you received a gold medal worth $2000 of gold. until you sold that medal, you dont pay tax on holding the medal. same as a painting etc.

check with your tax office. they are not there to whip you at every turn, they are always approachable and can explain things. most tax accountants even give away a free first hour consultation.. so abuse that too.. get a list of 5 local tax accountants. go to each, ask your questions and when the time is up, go to the next accountant.



Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: atomium on June 17, 2013, 08:49:54 PM
got it, yea I see your points, makes sense.

I will do that, getting advice from the tax accountants would be the best way to get this setup. I like that first hour free idea haha


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: coinedBit on June 17, 2013, 09:00:00 PM
http://www.fastcolabs.com/3007320/tracking/bitcoin-coming-browser-near-you


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: marcus_of_augustus on June 18, 2013, 01:59:17 AM
I think people have got the power flow inverted in their minds ... power flows from the people ...

The correct question is "Do the regulators want to work with Bitcoin .... ?"

So far, it seems not.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: tkbx on June 18, 2013, 02:15:19 AM
Unregulated. That's what's nice about open source. Regulation --> Fork --> Unregulation


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Bogdan on June 18, 2013, 12:07:12 PM
If it becomes regulated many will move onto another coin.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 18, 2013, 04:24:37 PM
I thought the ethos of Bitcoin that it is detached from central banks and governments. Bitcoin was born out of the mayhem of 2008 caused by so called regulated FIAT currencies, and people here are suggesting that we should let them regulate bitcoins. Ill tell you what don't use them - use dollars or any other shite FIAT currency if you want to be regulated.

Did regulations protect anyone from that credit crisis? Millions of innocent people were robbed of their pensions, savings and jobs due to the actions of a few. Bitcoin was created to address this imbalance.

FIAT currencies only represent DEBT if all world debts were cleared there would be NO MONEY in circulation.

Why do you think there is inflation - to force you to store your money in a bank as the interest you receive offsets the loss through inflation. With deflation the opposite is true you do not need banks as your money would increase in value as time passes. If there were no banks there would be NO LOANS and therefore everything would be at a realistic price (Housing for example). The banks feed themselves please see them for what they are exploiters of the worst kind and the most vial and corrupt organisations this planet has ever seen.

Bitcoin is a weapon against the State - please understand this. What it will do is force governments to stop wasting unquantifiable sums and fighting illegal wars as they can not  "steal" your money at the source. They will have to offer value and services people actually want and are prepared to pay for without the threat of imprisonment just as any other business - in essence that is all they are.

People are going about this the wrong way - instead of trying to have a mechanism to exchange your bitcoins for DEBT (Fiat currencies) we should be pushing to remove FIAT from the whole procurement life cycle.

If you could buy food, clothes and other essentials with bitcoins it would nullify FIAT currencies. By exchanging Bitcoins for FIAT you are just strengthening FIAT currencies.

At the end of the day regulation of any kind will destroy Bitcoins - more than likely by poorly executed legislation implemented by cretins.

In the UK they can not even get large companies to pay TAX but the little man is fully exploited - at a basic rate including NI contributions the level of tax is 45% - Do you honestly believe that that is good value? That is regulation working for you right there.

This is why any regulation of any kind should be fought vigorously - if big business wants to join the party and play - it is by our rules and not theirs. Any concession would mean that the idea of bitcoins dies with it.

There is an opportunity here for each and every single one of you to build your own empire unhampered by Governments and regulation. If you want to open a business you can at this very moment, no pleading with the bank for merchant status or credit checks and all the other hoops they make you pay to jump through. They have no right to do that but we have been so brow beaten it is the norm.

Bitcoins were a stroke of genius enabling the common man to take control of his destiny and the creation of money.

Before people start saying - no one would pay taxes - you pay for food, you pay for clothes you would pay for state services if they represented any value - but they don't - for every £1 given to them only 30p actually is spent on the service the rest is just waste.
 



Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Chaoskampf on June 18, 2013, 04:44:30 PM
We shouldn't be submitting to regulations that don't apply to this new system. Bitcoin is not money. Bitcoin is memory. Those that seek to regulate it are applying old paradigms to one that is subtle yet truly revolutionary.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=234731.0


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: ErisDiscordia on June 18, 2013, 08:12:10 PM
I thought the ethos of Bitcoin that it is detached from central banks and governments. Bitcoin was born out of the mayhem of 2008 caused by so called regulated FIAT currencies, and people here are suggesting that we should let them regulate bitcoins. Ill tell you what don't use them - use dollars or any other shite FIAT currency if you want to be regulated.

Did regulations protect anyone from that credit crisis? Millions of innocent people were robbed of their pensions, savings and jobs due to the actions of a few. Bitcoin was created to address this imbalance.

FIAT currencies only represent DEBT if all world debts were cleared there would be NO MONEY in circulation.

Why do you think there is inflation - to force you to store your money in a bank as the interest you receive offsets the loss through inflation. With deflation the opposite is true you do not need banks as your money would increase in value as time passes. If there were no banks there would be NO LOANS and therefore everything would be at a realistic price (Housing for example). The banks feed themselves please see them for what they are exploiters of the worst kind and the most vial and corrupt organisations this planet has ever seen.

Bitcoin is a weapon against the State - please understand this. What it will do is force governments to stop wasting unquantifiable sums and fighting illegal wars as they can not  "steal" your money at the source. They will have to offer value and services people actually want and are prepared to pay for without the threat of imprisonment just as any other business - in essence that is all they are.

People are going about this the wrong way - instead of trying to have a mechanism to exchange your bitcoins for DEBT (Fiat currencies) we should be pushing to remove FIAT from the whole procurement life cycle.

If you could buy food, clothes and other essentials with bitcoins it would nullify FIAT currencies. By exchanging Bitcoins for FIAT you are just strengthening FIAT currencies.

At the end of the day regulation of any kind will destroy Bitcoins - more than likely by poorly executed legislation implemented by cretins.

In the UK they can not even get large companies to pay TAX but the little man is fully exploited - at a basic rate including NI contributions the level of tax is 45% - Do you honestly believe that that is good value? That is regulation working for you right there.

This is why any regulation of any kind should be fought vigorously - if big business wants to join the party and play - it is by our rules and not theirs. Any concession would mean that the idea of bitcoins dies with it.

There is an opportunity here for each and every single one of you to build your own empire unhampered by Governments and regulation. If you want to open a business you can at this very moment, no pleading with the bank for merchant status or credit checks and all the other hoops they make you pay to jump through. They have no right to do that but we have been so brow beaten it is the norm.

Bitcoins were a stroke of genius enabling the common man to take control of his destiny and the creation of money.

Before people start saying - no one would pay taxes - you pay for food, you pay for clothes you would pay for state services if they represented any value - but they don't - for every £1 given to them only 30p actually is spent on the service the rest is just waste.
 



I'll just quote this and tip my hat to you, sir.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: coinedBit on June 18, 2013, 08:48:27 PM
From a government/authorities standpoint there are worse things that could happen crypto-currency wise, bitcoin is only just the very first manifestation of an established and working cryptocurrency with a sizable following and capitalization, but most people are fully aware of its shortcomings and weaknesses - and in fact working on improved implementations that could have a much bigger impact on globalization and adoption by black markets. With bitcoin, there's at least a public bitchoin to trace and validate transactions in a p2p network.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: QuestionAuthority on June 18, 2013, 09:25:05 PM
I thought the ethos of Bitcoin that it is detached from central banks and governments. Bitcoin was born out of the mayhem of 2008 caused by so called regulated FIAT currencies, and people here are suggesting that we should let them regulate bitcoins. Ill tell you what don't use them - use dollars or any other shite FIAT currency if you want to be regulated.

Did regulations protect anyone from that credit crisis? Millions of innocent people were robbed of their pensions, savings and jobs due to the actions of a few. Bitcoin was created to address this imbalance.

FIAT currencies only represent DEBT if all world debts were cleared there would be NO MONEY in circulation.

Why do you think there is inflation - to force you to store your money in a bank as the interest you receive offsets the loss through inflation. With deflation the opposite is true you do not need banks as your money would increase in value as time passes. If there were no banks there would be NO LOANS and therefore everything would be at a realistic price (Housing for example). The banks feed themselves please see them for what they are exploiters of the worst kind and the most vial and corrupt organisations this planet has ever seen.

Bitcoin is a weapon against the State - please understand this. What it will do is force governments to stop wasting unquantifiable sums and fighting illegal wars as they can not  "steal" your money at the source. They will have to offer value and services people actually want and are prepared to pay for without the threat of imprisonment just as any other business - in essence that is all they are.

People are going about this the wrong way - instead of trying to have a mechanism to exchange your bitcoins for DEBT (Fiat currencies) we should be pushing to remove FIAT from the whole procurement life cycle.

If you could buy food, clothes and other essentials with bitcoins it would nullify FIAT currencies. By exchanging Bitcoins for FIAT you are just strengthening FIAT currencies.

At the end of the day regulation of any kind will destroy Bitcoins - more than likely by poorly executed legislation implemented by cretins.

In the UK they can not even get large companies to pay TAX but the little man is fully exploited - at a basic rate including NI contributions the level of tax is 45% - Do you honestly believe that that is good value? That is regulation working for you right there.

This is why any regulation of any kind should be fought vigorously - if big business wants to join the party and play - it is by our rules and not theirs. Any concession would mean that the idea of bitcoins dies with it.

There is an opportunity here for each and every single one of you to build your own empire unhampered by Governments and regulation. If you want to open a business you can at this very moment, no pleading with the bank for merchant status or credit checks and all the other hoops they make you pay to jump through. They have no right to do that but we have been so brow beaten it is the norm.

Bitcoins were a stroke of genius enabling the common man to take control of his destiny and the creation of money.

Before people start saying - no one would pay taxes - you pay for food, you pay for clothes you would pay for state services if they represented any value - but they don't - for every £1 given to them only 30p actually is spent on the service the rest is just waste.


This is a nicely packaged argument. I agree with your view on government corruption. It's the same worldwide. The only thing that changes is the depth and method of corruption. The only problem I have with it is the idea that Bitcoin can act as a replacement currency. Replace the word Bitcoin above with gold and you'll see what I mean. Anything used for trade outside of a government fiat system becomes commodity money. Fiat has no value without government backing. Commodities are plagued with huge fluctuations in price. Buying a loaf of bread would become impossible because at any moment you could either be paying as much as that loaf should cost, as much as a slice should cost or as much as ten bushels of wheat should cost. In order for your commodity system to work Bitcoin would need to be portable, fungible, highly divisible, durable and scarce. Gold has all of these qualities and is already recognized for its intrinsic value - Bitcoin is not. Now substitute the word rock for Bitcoin above. It doesn't make that much sense anymore. Bitcoins to most people today are about as valuable as rocks. Fiat used to be backed by gold because gold was a recognized means of exchange. People were slowly weaned off of gold and on to inflated government backed fiat slowly over decades because the stability and control provided by the government allowed it. Bitcoin can't do this without forming its own government and then Bitcoin would just become fiat. Fiat can get its value because it's backed by a commodity or by a common agreement that it has value. Fiat is a government decree that the paper has value. Bitcoin currently gets its value from the ability to exchange with fiat. Your idea is a generation or two ahead of being workable.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: CasinoBit on June 19, 2013, 12:11:27 AM
It has always seemed to be some kind of backward logic to me, if your company isn't making enough profit you should be removing ads from your website, not adding them, if your governments treasury is getting empty you should be decreasing taxes not increasing them and in the same way if terrorism is becoming widespread you should be promoting liberty, not enslaving people.

Now imagine a country going through a decade of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auq2yd2k9ZM) psychopathic behavior, wouldn't you enroll to defend your country from the foreign invaders?


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: QuestionAuthority on June 19, 2013, 12:20:05 AM
It has always seemed to be some kind of backward logic to me, if your company isn't making enough profit you should be removing ads from your website, not adding them, if your governments treasury is getting empty you should be decreasing taxes not increasing them and in the same way if terrorism is becoming widespread you should be promoting liberty, not enslaving people.

Now imagine a country going through a decade of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auq2yd2k9ZM) psychopathic behavior, wouldn't you enroll to defend your country from the foreign invaders?

Yep!


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: johnyj on June 19, 2013, 02:09:53 AM
If one country regulate it, users just move their servers to another country. Bitcoin can be mortgaged for a loan in USD, and you get tax reduction for the loan interest  :D


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: franky1 on June 19, 2013, 08:28:16 AM
having "hopefully" quashed any rumours of bitcoin being regulated, by using the facts of the finacial reports which show they can only control the FIAT gates into bitcoin..

the best thing to do now is:

People are going about this the wrong way - instead of trying to have a mechanism to exchange your bitcoins for DEBT (Fiat currencies) we should be pushing to remove FIAT from the whole procurement life cycle.

If you could buy food, clothes and other essentials with bitcoins it would nullify FIAT currencies. By exchanging Bitcoins for FIAT you are just strengthening FIAT currencies.


We cannot do anything about the FIAT exchange regulations.. after all FIAT is government property and so you got to play by their rules. but by finding less and less reasons to require FIAT. the less reliant on regulations bitcoin needs to be.

so in the future i see a couple fully licenced FIAT/BITCOIN exchanges for each country. and then a mass of businesses that never touch fiat.

remember guys bitcoin is OUR COUNTRY. we are all the president, we are all the congress, we are all the MP's and other political bodies that go into bitcoin. Other countries do not own bitcoin, so they cannot control it. so stop worrying about other countries regulating bitcoin. all they can do is regulate their own FIAT.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: cypherdoc on June 19, 2013, 08:36:09 AM
If one country regulate it, users just move their servers to another country. Bitcoin can be mortgaged for a loan in USD, and you get tax reduction for the loan interest  :D

Isn't that a speculative attack?


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 19, 2013, 11:07:13 AM

This is a nicely packaged argument. I agree with your view on government corruption. It's the same worldwide. The only thing that changes is the depth and method of corruption. The only problem I have with it is the idea that Bitcoin can act as a replacement currency. Replace the word Bitcoin above with gold and you'll see what I mean. Anything used for trade outside of a government fiat system becomes commodity money. Fiat has no value without government backing. Commodities are plagued with huge fluctuations in price. Buying a loaf of bread would become impossible because at any moment you could either be paying as much as that loaf should cost, as much as a slice should cost or as much as ten bushels of wheat should cost. In order for your commodity system to work Bitcoin would need to be portable, fungible, highly divisible, durable and scarce. Gold has all of these qualities and is already recognized for its intrinsic value - Bitcoin is not. Now substitute the word rock for Bitcoin above. It doesn't make that much sense anymore. Bitcoins to most people today are about as valuable as rocks. Fiat used to be backed by gold because gold was a recognized means of exchange. People were slowly weaned off of gold and on to inflated government backed fiat slowly over decades because the stability and control provided by the government allowed it. Bitcoin can't do this without forming its own government and then Bitcoin would just become fiat. Fiat can get its value because it's backed by a commodity or by a common agreement that it has value. Fiat is a government decree that the paper has value. Bitcoin currently gets its value from the ability to exchange with fiat. Your idea is a generation or two ahead of being workable.

Interesting point there sir.  In reality though commodities always have the same value - 1kg of Gold is 1kg of gold. What changes is the value of the FIAT currency and that is why you perceive Gold as fluctuating in price - its not - its the FIAT currency fluctuating.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Schrankwand on June 19, 2013, 11:20:33 AM
Quote
If you could buy food, clothes and other essentials with bitcoins it would nullify FIAT currencies. By exchanging Bitcoins for FIAT you are just strengthening FIAT currencies.


And business taking BTC will still have to file their taxes in Fiat, which means, it is still bound to Fiat. The exchanges provide the means for companies to take BTC in the first place.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 19, 2013, 11:36:56 AM
Quote
If you could buy food, clothes and other essentials with bitcoins it would nullify FIAT currencies. By exchanging Bitcoins for FIAT you are just strengthening FIAT currencies.


And business taking BTC will still have to file their taxes in Fiat, which means, it is still bound to Fiat. The exchanges provide the means for companies to take BTC in the first place.

Would you have to file your taxes in FIAT though? How could you do that considering the BTC USD price fluctuates. At every point of sale you would have to know the exact conversion rate.

You only have to declare what you took in FIAT or when you liquidate your BTC. If you do not liquidate you can not be taxed.

If I walk into a shop and I trade a painting that I created for some goods - how can you declare that? The value is in the eye of the beholder.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Schrankwand on June 19, 2013, 12:11:05 PM
Quote
If you could buy food, clothes and other essentials with bitcoins it would nullify FIAT currencies. By exchanging Bitcoins for FIAT you are just strengthening FIAT currencies.


And business taking BTC will still have to file their taxes in Fiat, which means, it is still bound to Fiat. The exchanges provide the means for companies to take BTC in the first place.

Would you have to file your taxes in FIAT though? How could you do that considering the BTC USD price fluctuates. At every point of sale you would have to know the exact conversion rate.

You only have to declare what you took in FIAT or when you liquidate your BTC. If you do not liquidate you can not be taxed.

If I walk into a shop and I trade a painting that I created for some goods - how can you declare that? The value is in the eye of the beholder.


Like basically every other trade? The painting has some value, maybe your goods have some value. If this is small, nobody will care. In BTC, it is easy. There are daily lists, you get electronic receipts of sale on most places and every transaction can be looked up in the blockchain.

Basically, in the exchange society, the value of the painting has been created by the trade against goods and therefore the value of the painting is the value of the goods you just traded it for. The difference with a currency is simply putting a universal good against all other goods to indicate a more universal value.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 19, 2013, 12:23:12 PM
Quote
If you could buy food, clothes and other essentials with bitcoins it would nullify FIAT currencies. By exchanging Bitcoins for FIAT you are just strengthening FIAT currencies.


And business taking BTC will still have to file their taxes in Fiat, which means, it is still bound to Fiat. The exchanges provide the means for companies to take BTC in the first place.

Would you have to file your taxes in FIAT though? How could you do that considering the BTC USD price fluctuates. At every point of sale you would have to know the exact conversion rate.

You only have to declare what you took in FIAT or when you liquidate your BTC. If you do not liquidate you can not be taxed.

If I walk into a shop and I trade a painting that I created for some goods - how can you declare that? The value is in the eye of the beholder.


Like basically every other trade? The painting has some value, maybe your goods have some value. If this is small, nobody will care. In BTC, it is easy. There are daily lists, you get electronic receipts of sale on most places and every transaction can be looked up in the blockchain.

Basically, in the exchange society, the value of the painting has been created by the trade against goods and therefore the value of the painting is the value of the goods you just traded it for. The difference with a currency is simply putting a universal good against all other goods to indicate a more universal value.

You completely miss the point - only FIAT currencies can be taxed.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: aigeezer on June 19, 2013, 12:40:47 PM

You completely miss the point - only FIAT currencies can be taxed.

Both the US and Canadian governments have recently gone out of their way to "clarify" that they require taxes to be paid on all bartered goods. Presumably that is ridiculously unenforceable, but they have staked out the turf nonetheless.



Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 19, 2013, 12:50:23 PM

You completely miss the point - only FIAT currencies can be taxed.

Both the US and Canadian governments have recently gone out of their way to "clarify" that they require taxes to be paid on all bartered goods. Presumably that is ridiculously unenforceable, but they have staked out the turf nonetheless.



Exactly that - they can pass as much legislation as they want but if they can not enforce it then it is irrelevant. This just sums up nicely how far out of touch State legislators are - they have no understanding of the real world.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Schrankwand on June 19, 2013, 01:24:15 PM

You completely miss the point - only FIAT currencies can be taxed.

Both the US and Canadian governments have recently gone out of their way to "clarify" that they require taxes to be paid on all bartered goods. Presumably that is ridiculously unenforceable, but they have staked out the turf nonetheless.



Exactly that - they can pass as much legislation as they want but if they can not enforce it then it is irrelevant. This just sums up nicely how far out of touch State legislators are - they have no understanding of the real world.

hahahaa.

You see, they CAN. They just create a value, write off the tax and then send you a bill. You cannot pay, you are being taken to court. You cannot pay up then, you go to jail and create interest. It just ruins your life.

You can pay but don't want to? Ah, they will just take it. Pressuring your bank, getting any other enforcement division to get into your house, blacklist accounts... all this funny stuff.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: aigeezer on June 19, 2013, 01:35:02 PM

You completely miss the point - only FIAT currencies can be taxed.

Both the US and Canadian governments have recently gone out of their way to "clarify" that they require taxes to be paid on all bartered goods. Presumably that is ridiculously unenforceable, but they have staked out the turf nonetheless.



Exactly that - they can pass as much legislation as they want but if they can not enforce it then it is irrelevant. This just sums up nicely how far out of touch State legislators are - they have no understanding of the real world.

It's hard to know the extent to which most legislators are "out of touch" - their apparent stupidity always seems to work out in their favor (see link).

The irrelevant laws still give the State the ability to criminalize any target at will. I see the "seizure" of the Mt. Gox Dwolla accounts in this light. Others say that Gox should have known they were in violation of blah blah. Maybe so, but the US tax code, for example, is so opaque that not even the legislators know how big it is (and that's just one cluster of laws). How many laws did someone break today?... that's for the State to decide, whenever the mood strikes them.

Teaser: "So, depending on whom you ask, our elected representatives are of the opinion that this particular section of the United States Code is somewhere between 2,500 and 2,500,000 pages long."

http://www.trygve.com/taxcode.html

Put me down for "unregulated BTC".            :)



Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 19, 2013, 01:36:27 PM

You completely miss the point - only FIAT currencies can be taxed.

Both the US and Canadian governments have recently gone out of their way to "clarify" that they require taxes to be paid on all bartered goods. Presumably that is ridiculously unenforceable, but they have staked out the turf nonetheless.



Exactly that - they can pass as much legislation as they want but if they can not enforce it then it is irrelevant. This just sums up nicely how far out of touch State legislators are - they have no understanding of the real world.

hahahaa.

You see, they CAN. They just create a value, write off the tax and then send you a bill. You cannot pay, you are being taken to court. You cannot pay up then, you go to jail and create interest. It just ruins your life.

You can pay but don't want to? Ah, they will just take it. Pressuring your bank, getting any other enforcement division to get into your house, blacklist accounts... all this funny stuff.

No it does not work like that. The value is dictated when the commodity or investment is sold for FIAT and then you pay income tax on that.

If you have Gold you do not pay tax until you SELL do you understand this? They do not send you a yearly bill on the commodities you hold only when you SELL.

So what you are saying is this - they will go round to every business in the country assigning values to items that they have no knowledge of and then demand tax. I can really see that happening.

Look man if you don't like bitcoins and insist on giving the State money for them to waste and fight illegal wars - that is your prerogative so just use dollars. The idea behind bitcoins was to change all this.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: aigeezer on June 19, 2013, 01:51:49 PM

No it does not work like that. The value is dictated when the commodity or investment is sold for FIAT and then you pay income tax on that.


From the (mind-numbing) government of Canada tax site:

"Deemed proceeds of disposition

    This is an expression used when a person is considered to have received an amount for the disposition of property, even though the person did not actually receive that amount."

... and ...

"Eligible amount of the gift

    Under proposed changes, this is generally the amount by which the fair market value of the gifted property exceeds the amount of the advantage, if any, received for the gift.

    Under proposed changes, the advantage is generally the total value of all property, services, compensation, or other benefits to which you are entitled as partial consideration for, or in gratitude for, the gift. The advantage may be contingent or receivable in the future, and given either to you or a person not dealing at arm's length with you.

    Under proposed changes, the advantage also includes any limited-recourse debt in respect of the gift at the time it was made. For example, there may be a limited-recourse debt if the property was acquired though a tax shelter that is a gifting arrangement. In this case, the eligible amount of the gift will be reported in box 13 of Form T5003, Statement of Tax Shelter Information. For more information on gifting arrangements and tax shelters, see Guide T4068, Guide for the Partnership Information Return (T5013 forms)"

Sorry for the emetic. My point was just to illustrate that the State is very aware of how to turn commodities into fiat equivalents whether or not the parties to the transaction actually used fiat, and indeed whether or not a transaction even took place!

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/lf-vnts/dth/glssry-eng.html#proceeds

Of course, rules vary from one jurisdiction to another, but when one State entity finds a way to make a tax grab then others tend to follow suit.



Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 19, 2013, 01:54:25 PM

No it does not work like that. The value is dictated when the commodity or investment is sold for FIAT and then you pay income tax on that.


From the (mind-numbing) government of Canada tax site:

"Deemed proceeds of disposition

    This is an expression used when a person is considered to have received an amount for the disposition of property, even though the person did not actually receive that amount."

... and ...

"Eligible amount of the gift

    Under proposed changes, this is generally the amount by which the fair market value of the gifted property exceeds the amount of the advantage, if any, received for the gift.

    Under proposed changes, the advantage is generally the total value of all property, services, compensation, or other benefits to which you are entitled as partial consideration for, or in gratitude for, the gift. The advantage may be contingent or receivable in the future, and given either to you or a person not dealing at arm's length with you.

    Under proposed changes, the advantage also includes any limited-recourse debt in respect of the gift at the time it was made. For example, there may be a limited-recourse debt if the property was acquired though a tax shelter that is a gifting arrangement. In this case, the eligible amount of the gift will be reported in box 13 of Form T5003, Statement of Tax Shelter Information. For more information on gifting arrangements and tax shelters, see Guide T4068, Guide for the Partnership Information Return (T5013 forms)"

Sorry for the emetic. My point was just to illustrate that the State is very aware of how to turn commodities into fiat equivalents whether or not the parties to the transaction actually used fiat, and indeed whether or not a transaction even took place!

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/lf-vnts/dth/glssry-eng.html#proceeds

Of course, rules vary from one jurisdiction to another, but when one State entity finds a way to make a tax grab then others tend to follow suit.



I hear you but the truth is this - if you exchange one item of stock in your inventory for another the net change is ZERO. You can not pay Income tax when there is no income.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: aigeezer on June 19, 2013, 02:03:02 PM


I hear you but the truth is this - if you exchange one item of stock in your inventory for another the net change is ZERO. You can not pay Income tax when there is no income.

What does truth have to do with it? We are talking tax regulations.      :)

Amazingly, the tax authorities see barter transactions as being taxable.

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Bartering-Tax-Center#

Perhaps less amazingly, they see everything as being taxable.



Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 19, 2013, 02:09:25 PM


I hear you but the truth is this - if you exchange one item of stock in your inventory for another the net change is ZERO. You can not pay Income tax when there is no income.

What does truth have to do with it? We are talking tax regulations.      :)

Amazingly, the tax authorities see barter transactions as being taxable.

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Bartering-Tax-Center#

Perhaps less amazingly, they see everything as being taxable.



OK after having a quick scan the pertinent line of information is this.

" Earning trade or barter dollars through a barter exchange is considered taxable income, just as if your product or service was sold for cash. "

This implies you have to have earned money to be taxed if the net change is zero then nothing has been made. So the case still stands if you trade and the net gain is zero there is no tax to pay.

I believe that this is to stop someone swapping a pencil for a house :) - But in reality nobody would do this for a genuine trade.

I take it you live in Canada you lucky chappy I would love to live there.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: aigeezer on June 19, 2013, 02:48:11 PM


I hear you but the truth is this - if you exchange one item of stock in your inventory for another the net change is ZERO. You can not pay Income tax when there is no income.

What does truth have to do with it? We are talking tax regulations.      :)

Amazingly, the tax authorities see barter transactions as being taxable.

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Bartering-Tax-Center#

Perhaps less amazingly, they see everything as being taxable.



OK after having a quick scan the pertinent line of information is this.

" Earning trade or barter dollars through a barter exchange is considered taxable income, just as if your product or service was sold for cash. "

This implies you have to have earned money to be taxed if the net change is zero then nothing has been made. So the case still stands if you trade and the net gain is zero there is no tax to pay.

Good digging - that seems reassuring. I've been digging also and I'm finding that the deeper I go the deeper it gets. Part of the problem is that I'm flitting back and forth between US and Canadian sites.

The Canadian tax agency says, in part:

"The Department takes the view that barter transactions are within the
purview of the Income Tax Act."

...

"Where the taxpayer is an employee, e.g.
a mechanic, occasional help given to a friend or neighbour in exchange for
something would not be taxable unless the taxpayer made a regular habit of
providing such services for cash or barter."

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tp/it490/it490-e.txt

... which I find completely unhelpful. The "regular habit" would have me looking over my shoulder for the tax man whenever I thought about helping a friend or neighbour (Canadian spelling), which is perhaps exactly their intention.

Is my habit irregular? Is it a habit at all? Only the taxman knows.

Anyway, there is evidence to support your position (equal trade means no tax implications) and there is evidence to support more sinister interpretations (there are no even trades, and everything is taxable unless the taxman decides not to bother).

The Canadian guideline is old, and was written long before crypto-currencies appeared - it was written to make a tax grab against "barter clubs" which were springing up at the time and have since gone out of fashion, perhaps because of the government response. The "barter exchange" referred to in the American guideline is perhaps the same phenomenon.

How this will all relate to BTC interactions is up to taxmen everywhere to decide. Run for the hills!       :)
 


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 19, 2013, 02:56:47 PM
The hills - here I come LOL

too true.

It is poorly written legislation and impossible to interpret - what is regular for example, once a day, once a month. The problem for them is the public are not machines and can not be programmed and it is physically and legally impossible for them to stop humans exchanging goods.

They are trying to legislate a natural behaviour that is evident in all people.  It is the equivalent to saying you are only permitted 1000 heart beats a day! They can pass all the laws they want and it will not change the course of evolution in the slightest.

It is amusing watching them try though.



Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: worldinacoin on June 19, 2013, 02:58:15 PM
I say dont do any deal with fiat currency, just keep trading with each other using bitcoins


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: sinner on June 19, 2013, 03:09:36 PM
how could bitcoin be regulated?  sounds as ridiculous as "regulate bittorrent".

when people say "regulate bitcoin" what they really mean is "regulate exchanges" right?


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 19, 2013, 03:17:14 PM
I say dont do any deal with fiat currency, just keep trading with each other using bitcoins

You Sir are exactly what the community needs.

Good on you.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: BitcoinMoxy on June 19, 2013, 03:19:55 PM
 :)


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 19, 2013, 03:21:03 PM
how could bitcoin be regulated?  sounds as ridiculous as "regulate bittorrent".

when people say "regulate bitcoin" what they really mean is "regulate exchanges" right?

No - for some reason they are want to involve state regulation at the development level as Gavin was involved.

What they will want is every Wallet registered to a person / address - the ability to cease accounts, funds trace every transaction. Basically they want to copy the current banking system because that worked so well and foist it upon us.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: bitcoinanon on June 19, 2013, 03:39:58 PM
The basis of bitcoin is already regulated by its coding. Right? I do not think much more regulation is needed. Though I think the discussion needs to continue amongst the community lest something happen without the approval of the community. If the community remains a P2P network how could anything happen to the bitcoin community with the approval of the community, like unwanted regulation for example?


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: RodeoX on June 19, 2013, 03:46:46 PM
how could bitcoin be regulated?  sounds as ridiculous as "regulate bittorrent".

when people say "regulate bitcoin" what they really mean is "regulate exchanges" right?

No - for some reason they are want to involve state regulation at the development level as Gavin was involved.

What they will want is every Wallet registered to a person / address - the ability to cease accounts, funds trace every transaction. Basically they want to copy the current banking system because that worked so well and foist it upon us.
Can you quote me a source? I have never seen any regulatory body mention that. What has been stated is regulation of exchanges. Which is regulation of fiat currency. Just as you are required to pay a tax on any profit made from selling anything. (U.S. citizens)


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 19, 2013, 03:51:00 PM
how could bitcoin be regulated?  sounds as ridiculous as "regulate bittorrent".

when people say "regulate bitcoin" what they really mean is "regulate exchanges" right?

No - for some reason they are want to involve state regulation at the development level as Gavin was involved.

What they will want is every Wallet registered to a person / address - the ability to cease accounts, funds trace every transaction. Basically they want to copy the current banking system because that worked so well and foist it upon us.
Can you quote me a source? I have never seen any regulatory body mention that. What has been stated is regulation of exchanges. Which is regulation of fiat currency. Just as you are required to pay a tax on any profit made from selling anything. (U.S. citizens)

It was in one of the posts on this thread have a read through. No one was disputing that exchanges are fully under the control of the State if they are exchanging for FIAT. That is not what this thread was about. No regulatory body has mentioned it - it is a discussion we are having.

People were suggestion we should try and self regulate before its rammed down our throats.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: RodeoX on June 19, 2013, 04:02:00 PM
how could bitcoin be regulated?  sounds as ridiculous as "regulate bittorrent".

when people say "regulate bitcoin" what they really mean is "regulate exchanges" right?

No - for some reason they are want to involve state regulation at the development level as Gavin was involved.

What they will want is every Wallet registered to a person / address - the ability to cease accounts, funds trace every transaction. Basically they want to copy the current banking system because that worked so well and foist it upon us.
Can you quote me a source? I have never seen any regulatory body mention that. What has been stated is regulation of exchanges. Which is regulation of fiat currency. Just as you are required to pay a tax on any profit made from selling anything. (U.S. citizens)

It was in one of the posts on this thread have a read through. No one was disputing that exchanges are fully under the control of the State if they are exchanging for FIAT. That is not what this thread was about. No regulatory body has mentioned it - it is a discussion we are having.
cool. I just no evidence of measures that invasive. Although, who knows what the future holds? 


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 19, 2013, 04:04:30 PM
cool. I just no evidence of measures that invasive. Although, who knows what the future holds? 

Totally man - nobody knows and that is why people are getting the jitters.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 19, 2013, 04:11:59 PM
The basis of bitcoin is already regulated by its coding. Right? I do not think much more regulation is needed. Though I think the discussion needs to continue amongst the community lest something happen without the approval of the community. If the community remains a P2P network how could anything happen to the bitcoin community with the approval of the community, like unwanted regulation for example?

If the developers change Bitcoind then there is nothing we can do.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: RodeoX on June 19, 2013, 04:14:11 PM
cool. I just no evidence of measures that invasive. Although, who knows what the future holds? 

Totally man - nobody knows and that is why people are getting the jitters.
Understandable. We have all seen the government in the U.S. go crazy with regulation at times. But people are working hard for bitcoin right now to guide and educate lawmakers. Compared to the press BTC was getting last year, it is not such a hard sell.

Financial regulators are just people. People interested in money! If they do not feel threatened or insulted, they may become bitcoin fans. Money geeks tend to like BTC once they understand it.  


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 19, 2013, 04:25:03 PM
cool. I just no evidence of measures that invasive. Although, who knows what the future holds? 

Totally man - nobody knows and that is why people are getting the jitters.
Understandable. We have all seen the government in the U.S. go crazy with regulation at times. But people are working hard for bitcoin right now to guide and educate lawmakers. Compared to the press BTC was getting last year, it is not such a hard sell.

Financial regulators are just people. People interested in money! If they do not feel threatened or insulted, they may become bitcoin fans. Money geeks tend to like BTC once they understand it.  

The way I look at it is like this. Instead of the government and banks forcing us to change we need to force them. The only way is by starving the beast - by reducing the tax they collect the less they can borrow. They are totally unaccountable for everything - they need to provide the basic services only and stop interfering with everything - all they do is make it worse every time.

If something does not change we will be paying 80% taxation in 20 years time just so they can live large while the rest of us fight for scraps. We have an opportunity for the first time in history to redress the balance. Once the levers of money creation are prised from their dead cold hands they will then be public servants as they should be - not our lords and masters.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Schrankwand on June 19, 2013, 04:27:07 PM
Quote
No - for some reason they are want to involve state regulation at the development level as Gavin was involved.


Hard fork.

They don't get the tek behind this, I guess.

And for those who are interested in getting ahead with this: I suggest setting up your pools over different companies than you do right now. Somewhere in the Antilles, on Malta, anywhere.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 19, 2013, 04:30:15 PM
Quote
No - for some reason they are want to involve state regulation at the development level as Gavin was involved.


Hard fork.

They don't get the tek behind this, I guess.

And for those who are interested in getting ahead with this: I suggest setting up your pools over different companies than you do right now. Somewhere in the Antilles, on Malta, anywhere.

Yeah that was the exact response someone else gave and I agree.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: RodeoX on June 19, 2013, 04:33:46 PM
The way I look at it is like this...
I think bitcoin will help address tax inequity as well. For example, the money I make from working hard is taxed at about 35%. The money I make sitting on my butt watching bitcoin prices rise (capitol gains) is taxed at 20%. Capitol gains has traditionally been a rich guys wages. We are taking that back!


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: ErisDiscordia on June 19, 2013, 04:37:24 PM
The way I look at it is like this. Instead of the government and banks forcing us to change we need to force them. The only way is by starving the beast - by reducing the tax they collect the less they can borrow. They are totally unaccountable for everything - they need to provide the basic services only and stop interfering with everything - all they do is make it worse every time.

Agreed! Let's starve the beast, we can't fight it with force, it has grown too powerful.

To be honest I am a bit perplexed and disgusted by the amount of "let's work with the regulators" sentiment seen even here, in a place which can be expected to have a higher than average concentration of anarchist/libertarian/voluntarist/whatever you want to call it thinking. Here we are presented with a unique tool free of government control, finally something to restore the balance of power by denying government the ability to control absolutely everything...and we want to do what? Convince the "right" people to pass the "right" legislation? C'mon people, there are no right people and there is no right legislation. Time to admit this and start taking responsibility.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 19, 2013, 04:46:28 PM
The way I look at it is like this. Instead of the government and banks forcing us to change we need to force them. The only way is by starving the beast - by reducing the tax they collect the less they can borrow. They are totally unaccountable for everything - they need to provide the basic services only and stop interfering with everything - all they do is make it worse every time.

Agreed! Let's starve the beast, we can't fight it with force, it has grown too powerful.

To be honest I am a bit perplexed and disgusted by the amount of "let's work with the regulators" sentiment seen even here, in a place which can be expected to have a higher than average concentration of anarchist/libertarian/voluntarist/whatever you want to call it thinking. Here we are presented with a unique tool free of government control, finally something to restore the balance of power by denying government the ability to control absolutely everything...and we want to do what? Convince the "right" people to pass the "right" legislation? C'mon people, there are no right people and there is no right legislation. Time to admit this and start taking responsibility.

The reason for the "lets work with regulators " attitude is because they believe the price of Bitcoin will increase dramatically. Also know as - to hell with the project let me feather my own nest. Avalon customers seem to have the same attitude if you read that thread.

All I am going to say is people are quite happy to sacrifice a chance at freedom for their short term gain. Basically no different to bankers or politicians and if they destroy bitcoin with it - they don't care.

Now a battle is being fought on two fronts - the insanity continues.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Bogdan on June 19, 2013, 04:48:09 PM
Bitcoin is about freedom and it should stay that way.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: justusranvier on June 19, 2013, 05:07:05 PM
I've decided that I am more than happy to work with FinCEN and other regulators if their goal is to stop the flow of money to terrorist organizations because I find terrorism appalling and would love to see it stopped somehow. All FinCEN needs to do to convince me to cooperate with them is to show that they really are serious about combating terrorism.

So the instant after I hear that FinCEN has frozen the bank account and financial assets of the US DoD I'll be one of their most public and vocal supporters encouraging everyone to work with them to continue stopping the flow of funds to terrorist organizations.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 19, 2013, 05:09:36 PM
I've decided that I am more than happy to work with FinCEN and other regulators if their goal is to stop the flow of money to terrorist organizations because I find terrorism appalling and would love to see it stopped somehow. All FinCEN needs to do to convince me to cooperate with them is to show that they really are serious about combating terrorism.

So the instant after I hear that FinCEN has frozen the bank account and financial assets of the US DoD I'll be one of their most public and vocal supporters encouraging everyone to work with them to continue stopping the flow of funds to terrorist organizations.


Nice one man :)


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Schrankwand on June 19, 2013, 05:34:49 PM
Quote
The reason for the "lets work with regulators " attitude is because they believe the price of Bitcoin will increase dramatically. Also know as - to hell with the project let me feather my own nest. Avalon customers seem to have the same attitude if you read that thread.

All I am going to say is people are quite happy to sacrifice a chance at freedom for their short term gain. Basically no different to bankers or politicians and if they destroy bitcoin with it - they don't care.

Now a battle is being fought on two fronts - the insanity continues.


You mean, not a chance, but an experiment in freedom.

The necessary regulations for it are already in place. So whatever you do, governments won't control your bitcoin, but the laws are already made up so they don't have to.

The only reason to get rid of this problem would in fact usurping a government (Which then will be replaced by another, variation of government, doing the same shit).

I propose something far more interesting than that:

I propose a law demurrage. I propose, that after a set number of years, be it ten, be it twenty, all laws loose their value. They have an expiry date. All people who have been in that time, part of the government (Parliament, senate, whatever), are then retired and allowed to be retirees for the rest of their life. And at the same time, never allowed to become members of government ever again.

This would create something I would call a fail well system. You see, Bruce Schneier said that instead of creating a system that does not fail, a system that fails well will be more useful.

All the problems that one generation of politicians sees but is overruled on, will be solved by simply force retiring laws and politicians alike. Real stability does not exist. The EU and similar democratic governments have created systems that simply decay more slowly than before. The absence of intra-EU war has led to systems dying more slowly than before. But the arrogance comes at the point where we say "things are different now, we will stay stable!" Instead of riding this wave of arrogance, I propose creating a system that ultimately has no choice but to fail and be replaced.

The basics would have to be set in stone as a matter of human rights and agree upon by a majority. For every single law, we would manifest that right. Anything else expires and needs to be replaced. Let us introduce laws into the realm of the real world, where things break and are not forever.

That is what I propose. Instead of creating anarchism, which will stabilize in some form of government anyway at some point, instead of creating a long term always stable system that at some point will turn against its own citizens, because it always has and always will, let us create set points for the systems to be extinct, reliably, and be replaced with with something new, more appropriate, with a more modern understanding.

I think this might the most radical and useful way to create a governmental system.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: BitcoinAshley on June 19, 2013, 05:40:32 PM
Quote from: retep
We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data.


Great, so now we'll be just like PayPal and the credit card companies?
Introducing coin tainting or similar system makes absolutely no sense.
Who gets to decide gray area stuff - what's illegal and what's not... which country's laws apply for a wallet user whose geographical location cannot be determined due to Tor.... are we going to bring the ineffective policy of institutional racism known as the War on Drugs into Bitcoin, and thefttaxation? We will force bitcoin users to financially support the Wars in the Middle East and killing children with drones?
Most people will agree that child porn is 'illegal.' But many people will not agree on what child porn is. In the legal environment we live in, a teenage girl who sends a nude photo to her boyfriend can be arrested and sentenced (in some jurisdictions) on child pornography laws. Attempting to apply state laws to a blacklist/whitelist system in a pseudonymous, unregulated, polyjurisdictional currency isn't just stupid, it's downright confounding and would be an absolute nightmare to implement.

Quote
We can also go the other route, and give Bitcoin users even more tools to remain anonymous and transact on their own terms. Technologies like mixing and off-chain transactions to let you make transactions without revealing where the coins came from, technologies like P2Pool to ensure mining stays decentralized, and colored coins to let us trade our assets without involving third party exchanges.

Any cryptocurrency that I participate in will be going in this route, or else I will refuse to participate. And I think there millions of other people who feel exactly the same as I.

No offense to anyone here defending regulation... but being scared of government regulators doesn't mean you're "realistic" and "practical," it means you're a socialist weenie. And look where socialist weenies got us... a world of fascist and corrupt government who now want to apply their fascism and corruption to Bitcoin.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: RodeoX on June 19, 2013, 05:47:19 PM
People seem to forget that all commerce is regulated in the U.S. Bitcoin will not be some kind of exception. Under any scenario it is subject to regulation. Even the title of this implies that keeping bitcoin "unregulated" is some kind of choice.

I'm sure when next years tax fines are handed out people are going to come and use their energy to complain. They would be better off using that energy now to persuade the people who will decide the legal future of bitcoin.   


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: BitcoinAshley on June 19, 2013, 05:55:13 PM
People seem to forget that all commerce is regulated in the U.S. Bitcoin will not be some kind of exception. Under any scenario it is subject to regulation. Even the title of this implies that keeping bitcoin "unregulated" is some kind of choice.


Oh, sure, but you're not really saying anything. That's not being disputed by anyone. The U.S. could pass a law tomorrow that says Bitcoin is illegal. Any state can pass any law they desire to pass.

What is the issue - is bitcoin willingly introducing regulatory systems either into its code, or into the largest infrastructure - exchanges, merchant processors, etc.
For instance - introducing a coin tainting system. This might not require any protocol change, but it would at least require a fairly advanced coin control and monitoring plugin to the GUI so that users can make sure the coins they are sending are not unknowingly on any one of the "central taint council" blacklists for various jurisdictions. This system might not be effective since many bitcoin users would just stop using those institutions that participate in the regulation. Most bitcoin users have had it up to here with big companies trying to control their money - and according to Peter Vessenes, coins sent through mixers in the past will not be grandfathered in a coin taint scheme. That means if any coins (or fractions of coin) you currently own were ever used for a silk road pot sale in the past without your knowledge, these coins could be rendered useless at any large bitcoin institution which participates for AML concerns - i.e. you couln't sell them at MtGox, use them to pay for Bitpay merchants, etc.

So yeah, keeping bitcoin unregulated IS a choice in the same way that keeping BitTorrent unregulated was a choice. The coders didn't introduce reporting and whitelisting and blacklisting and centralized regulatory systems - they just left it as it is and the government couldn't do anything about it except arrest a few Grandmas to try to arouse the public.





Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: justusranvier on June 19, 2013, 05:55:29 PM
People seem to forget that all commerce is regulated in the U.S. Bitcoin will not be some kind of exception. Under any scenario it is subject to regulation. Even the title of this implies that keeping bitcoin "unregulated" is some kind of choice.

I'm sure when next years tax fines are handed out people are going to come and use their energy to complain. They would be better off using that energy now to persuade the people who will decide the legal future of bitcoin.
People seem to forget that no government's practical ability to regulate commerce is infinite, and on a global basis the unregulated portion of the economy (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/28/black_market_global_economy) is the one that is growing.

All governments will eventually go the way of the USSR because they are all unsustainable, and voluntary commerce between willing participants in the economy will continue to grow.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 19, 2013, 06:30:48 PM
People seem to forget that all commerce is regulated in the U.S. Bitcoin will not be some kind of exception. Under any scenario it is subject to regulation. Even the title of this implies that keeping bitcoin "unregulated" is some kind of choice.

I'm sure when next years tax fines are handed out people are going to come and use their energy to complain. They would be better off using that energy now to persuade the people who will decide the legal future of bitcoin.  


The thing is this - once it is tarred with that brush there is no point in using it and everyone will just go back to the dollar.

Plus the US can not control what happens else where in the world with the Dollar they can.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Schrankwand on June 19, 2013, 06:39:06 PM
Quote
Compulsory removal from office sounds like a bad idea imho, the fixed terms of elections we have has encouraged the can-kicking situation we're in.

Maybe longer periods. It is one of the things I have not yet solved in my model. I think the idea has lots of potential from a meta perspective, it is very very rough around the edges though.

I do plan to write a white paper on it, once I have some more clarity... after all, ideas are best drafted out first in all scrutiny and then released into the wild as a seed that can be planted and then reengineered by more innovative people than me :D

I will probably introduce the idea here then and get some peer feedback...


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: franky1 on June 19, 2013, 07:02:12 PM
People seem to forget that all commerce is regulated in the U.S. Bitcoin will not be some kind of exception. Under any scenario it is subject to regulation. Even the title of this implies that keeping bitcoin "unregulated" is some kind of choice.

I'm sure when next years tax fines are handed out people are going to come and use their energy to complain. They would be better off using that energy now to persuade the people who will decide the legal future of bitcoin.  


The american IRS has as much power to tax bitcoin directly as they have the power to enforce the euro to be taxed at 50%

american IRS can only tax and control and make demands on american currency..

the eurozone can only tax and control and make demands on euro currency..

the UK HMRC can only tax and control and make demands on the UK currency..

yea they may have relationships with each other and agree on advice from their partners. but this does not mean that IRS/FINCEN/HMRC have authority of a currency not belonging to them.. they can only regulate it if the people that do own it fully and voluntarily agree to it.

bitcoin is not owned by a country. so please get your heads out of the sand.. bitcoins cannot be taxed.. only when converted into native FIAT will that native countries laws start to apply.

so lets start building bitcoin only businesses. bitcoin only telecoms companys, grocery stores, lets move away from FIAT and choke the financial industry.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 19, 2013, 07:10:29 PM
People seem to forget that all commerce is regulated in the U.S. Bitcoin will not be some kind of exception. Under any scenario it is subject to regulation. Even the title of this implies that keeping bitcoin "unregulated" is some kind of choice.

I'm sure when next years tax fines are handed out people are going to come and use their energy to complain. They would be better off using that energy now to persuade the people who will decide the legal future of bitcoin.  


The american IRS has as much power to tax bitcoin directly as they have the power to enforce the euro to be taxed at 50%

american IRS can only tax and control and make demands on american currency..

the eurozone can only tax and control and make demands on euro currency..

the UK HMRC can only tax and control and make demands on the UK currency..

yea they may have relationships with each other and agree on advice from their partners. but this does not mean that IRS/FINCEN/HMRC have authority of a currency not belonging to them.. they can only regulate it if the people that do own it fully and voluntarily agree to it.

bitcoin is not owned by a country. so please get your heads out of the sand.. bitcoins cannot be taxed.. only when converted into native FIAT will that native countries laws start to apply.

so lets start building bitcoin only businesses. bitcoin only telecoms companys, grocery stores, lets move away from FIAT and choke the financial industry.

Exactly - this is what needs to happen  - It is good to see someone else fully understands the situation.

Hat tip to you Sir.

You sound like a fellow Brit? I doubt many Americans know who HMRC are


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: frott on June 19, 2013, 07:38:25 PM
so lets start building bitcoin only businesses. bitcoin only telecoms companys, grocery stores, lets move away from FIAT and choke the financial industry.

At some point, all of those companies - if legit according to applicable laws of their locality - have to deal with fiat. so rather than stating the obvious (there have been plenty of btc "only" businesses) discuss how there is really, and can be, no such thing as a BTC only business and what needs to happen to change that, if anything.

one answer is to make it easier to exchange btc and fiat, the other is to "make it harder" but essentially ignore the laws regarding business.


Quote
Exactly - this is what needs to happen  - It is good to see someone else fully understands the situation.

Hat tip to you Sir.

You sound like a fellow Brit? I doubt many Americans know who HMRC are

Yes, more businesses need to happen. Including the one where you exchange btc with fiat to pay taxes that are demanded by your government for your BTC business. Derp.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 19, 2013, 07:40:30 PM
so lets start building bitcoin only businesses. bitcoin only telecoms companys, grocery stores, lets move away from FIAT and choke the financial industry.

At some point, all of those companies - if legit according to applicable laws of their locality - have to deal with fiat. so rather than stating the obvious (there have been plenty of btc "only" businesses) discuss how there is really, and can be, no such thing as a BTC only business and what needs to happen to change that, if anything.

one answer is to make it easier to exchange btc and fiat, the other is to "make it harder" but essentially ignore the laws regarding business.

There is no point using bitcoins then - just use FIAT and then you do not have the extra overhead of changing currencies, developing software etc etc.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: RodeoX on June 19, 2013, 07:48:41 PM
I agree that bitcoin may not be what is regulated, but if you plan on selling bitcoin for $USD then you certainly will be. The USA does not have the power to impose taxation on the world, but it can and does impose a tax on the use of dollars.
All I am saying is that if you think exchanges of fiat for BTC are not going to be regulated, your living in a dream. I have seen people here express their opinion that they do not have to pay taxes because they use bitcoin. Find me an authority who says that. Of course you could use civil disobedience and just refuse. I can respect that. But it will not keep you out of jail.
A better option is to do what people who understand real power do. Take a role in the process of lawmaking.    


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 19, 2013, 07:52:24 PM
I agree that bitcoin may not be what is regulated, but if you plan on selling bitcoin for $USD then you certainly will be. The USA does not have the power to impose taxation on the world, but it can and does impose a tax on the use of dollars.
All I am saying is that if you think exchanges of fiat for BTC are not going to be regulated, your living in a dream. I have seen people here express their opinion that they do not have to pay taxes because they use bitcoin. Find me an authority who says that. Of course you could use civil disobedience and just refuse. I can respect that. But it will not keep you out of jail.
A better option is to do what people who understand real power do. Take a role in the process of lawmaking.    

Ill give you an example - if you are a gold miner do you pay tax when you dig the gold out of the ground or when you sell it?

That is why you do not pay tax on bitcoins

If you sell the little buggers for FIAT then you have to pay tax


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: crumbs on June 19, 2013, 07:59:34 PM
[...]
The american IRS has as much power to tax bitcoin directly as they have the power to enforce the euro to be taxed at 50%

Not sure what you mean

Quote
american IRS can only tax and control and make demands on american currency..

the eurozone can only tax and control and make demands on euro currency..

the UK HMRC can only tax and control and make demands on the UK currency..

Don't know about the other two, but no currency needs to get involved for the IRS to act against you -- You have land? You owe.  You changed Joe's plugs & he unclogged your sink?  You owe.  You owe in US currency, but you don't need to trade in it to owe.

Quote
yea they may have relationships with each other and agree on advice from their partners. but this does not mean that IRS/FINCEN/HMRC have authority of a currency not belonging to them.. they can only regulate it if the people that do own it fully and voluntarily agree to it.

How i wish that were true.  It's not.  You can trade in Monopoly money for all they care -- if you end up with value, they want their share.

Quote
bitcoin is not owned by a country. so please get your heads out of the sand.. bitcoins cannot be taxed.. only when converted into native FIAT will that native countries laws start to apply.
 

Or stuff.  Fiat or stuff.  Otherwise Londoners would be paid in $$$ & New Yorkers in Pounds, and no one would have to pay tax.

Quote
so lets start building bitcoin only businesses. bitcoin only telecoms companys, grocery stores, lets move away from FIAT and choke the financial industry.

As soon as the grocery stores can pay their suppliers in bitcoin, and their suppliers pay their suppliers with bitcoin, and turtles all the way down... :)


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: crumbs on June 19, 2013, 08:05:13 PM
I agree that bitcoin may not be what is regulated, but if you plan on selling bitcoin for $USD then you certainly will be. The USA does not have the power to impose taxation on the world, but it can and does impose a tax on the use of dollars.
All I am saying is that if you think exchanges of fiat for BTC are not going to be regulated, your living in a dream. I have seen people here express their opinion that they do not have to pay taxes because they use bitcoin. Find me an authority who says that. Of course you could use civil disobedience and just refuse. I can respect that. But it will not keep you out of jail.
A better option is to do what people who understand real power do. Take a role in the process of lawmaking.    

Ill give you an example - if you are a gold miner do you pay tax when you dig the gold out of the ground or when you sell it?

If you want to be a law-abiding Joe, you have to file for income tax just like anyone else.  Will you get on the IRS radar?  Not unless you're a large mining operation.  Will you be technically breaking the law by not filing?  Sure.

Quote
That is why you do not pay tax on bitcoins

If you sell the little buggers for FIAT then you have to pay tax

If i work for a car dealership and get a car a month instead of $$$, i don't need to pay taxes?


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 19, 2013, 08:17:48 PM
I agree that bitcoin may not be what is regulated, but if you plan on selling bitcoin for $USD then you certainly will be. The USA does not have the power to impose taxation on the world, but it can and does impose a tax on the use of dollars.
All I am saying is that if you think exchanges of fiat for BTC are not going to be regulated, your living in a dream. I have seen people here express their opinion that they do not have to pay taxes because they use bitcoin. Find me an authority who says that. Of course you could use civil disobedience and just refuse. I can respect that. But it will not keep you out of jail.
A better option is to do what people who understand real power do. Take a role in the process of lawmaking.    

Ill give you an example - if you are a gold miner do you pay tax when you dig the gold out of the ground or when you sell it?

If you want to be a law-abiding Joe, you have to file for income tax just like anyone else.  Will you get on the IRS radar?  Not unless you're a large mining operation.  Will you be technically breaking the law by not filing?  Sure.

Quote
That is why you do not pay tax on bitcoins

If you sell the little buggers for FIAT then you have to pay tax

If i work for a car dealership and get a car a month instead of $$$, i don't need to pay taxes?

How are you going to pay taxes with a car? Give the IRS a bumper or maybe a wing mirror?

OK don't use Bitcoins then - keep giving money to the State to bomb people on the other side of the world, waste vast unimaginable sums on nothing bail out banks and have no means to redress the balance.

That is your prerogative.

Read the whitepaper on Bitcoins.

Why are you even involved in the community if you just want to maintain the status quo - I do not understand your logic.

A business does not pay tax until it has a profit. It is really simple - if you have not sold the gold no matter how large you operation is - there is no tax to pay.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: crumbs on June 19, 2013, 08:24:30 PM
I agree that bitcoin may not be what is regulated, but if you plan on selling bitcoin for $USD then you certainly will be. The USA does not have the power to impose taxation on the world, but it can and does impose a tax on the use of dollars.
All I am saying is that if you think exchanges of fiat for BTC are not going to be regulated, your living in a dream. I have seen people here express their opinion that they do not have to pay taxes because they use bitcoin. Find me an authority who says that. Of course you could use civil disobedience and just refuse. I can respect that. But it will not keep you out of jail.
A better option is to do what people who understand real power do. Take a role in the process of lawmaking.    

Ill give you an example - if you are a gold miner do you pay tax when you dig the gold out of the ground or when you sell it?

If you want to be a law-abiding Joe, you have to file for income tax just like anyone else.  Will you get on the IRS radar?  Not unless you're a large mining operation.  Will you be technically breaking the law by not filing?  Sure.

Quote
That is why you do not pay tax on bitcoins

If you sell the little buggers for FIAT then you have to pay tax

If i work for a car dealership and get a car a month instead of $$$, i don't need to pay taxes?

How are you going to pay taxes with a car? Give the IRS a bumper or maybe a wing mirror?

The same way you pay taxes on your house -- not with your gutters, but with $$$.

Quote
OK don't use Bitcoins then - keep giving money to the State to bomb people on the other side of the world, waste vast unimaginable sums on nothing bail out banks and have no means to redress the balance.

That is your prerogative.

Did i say anything about being a law-abiding citizen?  I didn't, and i'm not talking about what i want/don't want to do.  The law is not changed by my obeying or disobeying it.

Quote
Read the whitepaper on Bitcoins.

Why are you even involved in the community if you just want to maintain the status quo - I do not understand your logic.

No one's talking about maintenance.  Though if you want to cut against the grain, it sure helps to know which way it goes first.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 19, 2013, 08:38:31 PM
I agree that bitcoin may not be what is regulated, but if you plan on selling bitcoin for $USD then you certainly will be. The USA does not have the power to impose taxation on the world, but it can and does impose a tax on the use of dollars.
All I am saying is that if you think exchanges of fiat for BTC are not going to be regulated, your living in a dream. I have seen people here express their opinion that they do not have to pay taxes because they use bitcoin. Find me an authority who says that. Of course you could use civil disobedience and just refuse. I can respect that. But it will not keep you out of jail.
A better option is to do what people who understand real power do. Take a role in the process of lawmaking.    

Ill give you an example - if you are a gold miner do you pay tax when you dig the gold out of the ground or when you sell it?

If you want to be a law-abiding Joe, you have to file for income tax just like anyone else.  Will you get on the IRS radar?  Not unless you're a large mining operation.  Will you be technically breaking the law by not filing?  Sure.

Quote
That is why you do not pay tax on bitcoins

If you sell the little buggers for FIAT then you have to pay tax

If i work for a car dealership and get a car a month instead of $$$, i don't need to pay taxes?

How are you going to pay taxes with a car? Give the IRS a bumper or maybe a wing mirror?

The same way you pay taxes on your house -- not with your gutters, but with $$$.

Quote
OK don't use Bitcoins then - keep giving money to the State to bomb people on the other side of the world, waste vast unimaginable sums on nothing bail out banks and have no means to redress the balance.

That is your prerogative.

Did i say anything about being a law-abiding citizen?  I didn't, and i'm not talking about what i want/don't want to do.  The law is not changed by my obeying or disobeying it.

Quote
Read the whitepaper on Bitcoins.

Why are you even involved in the community if you just want to maintain the status quo - I do not understand your logic.

No one's talking about maintenance.  Though if you want to cut against the grain, it sure helps to know which way it goes first.

OK here we go again.

Until you sell your bitcoins there is no tax to pay.

If you want to be a law abiding Joe and pay taxes when you legally don't even owe them any tax then fine.

Like any commodity you only pay when you convert the commodity to a FIAT currency. That is the law whatever way you want to play it.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: crumbs on June 19, 2013, 08:45:51 PM
[...]OK here we go again.

Until you sell your bitcoins there is no tax to pay.

If you want to be a law abiding Joe and pay taxes when you legally don't even owe them any tax then fine.

Like any commodity you only pay when you convert the commodity to a FIAT currency. That is the law whatever way you want to play it.
You're 100% right ;D

Edit: for the backyard lawyers:  http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420.html

http://tundratabloids.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/heads-in-sand.jpg


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: ErisDiscordia on June 19, 2013, 08:59:30 PM
No offense to anyone here defending regulation... but being scared of government regulators doesn't mean you're "realistic" and "practical," it means you're a socialist weenie.

hehe I like how you worded that  ;D


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 19, 2013, 09:09:55 PM
[...]OK here we go again.

Until you sell your bitcoins there is no tax to pay.

If you want to be a law abiding Joe and pay taxes when you legally don't even owe them any tax then fine.

Like any commodity you only pay when you convert the commodity to a FIAT currency. That is the law whatever way you want to play it.
You're 100% right ;D

Edit: for the backyard lawyers:  http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420.html

http://tundratabloids.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/heads-in-sand.jpg

Before getting all sarcastic you should read the link you posted.

I can not fathom how a plumber exchanging services with someone has any relevance to a commodity.

Please explain how that is the case.

Also if the services traded are of equal value there is no net gain - therefore no profit. Business only pay tax on profit. Which bit of this do you not understand.

It is no wonder the IRS can mug off loads of people when they do not understand even the most basic elements of running a business.




Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: edd on June 19, 2013, 09:16:41 PM
[...]OK here we go again.

Until you sell your bitcoins there is no tax to pay.

If you want to be a law abiding Joe and pay taxes when you legally don't even owe them any tax then fine.

Like any commodity you only pay when you convert the commodity to a FIAT currency. That is the law whatever way you want to play it.
You're 100% right ;D

Edit: for the backyard lawyers:  http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420.html

http://tundratabloids.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/heads-in-sand.jpg

Before getting all sarcastic you should read the link you posted.

I can not fathom how a plumber exchanging services with someone has any relevance to a commodity.

Please explain how that is the case.

Also if the services traded are of equal value there is no net gain - therefore no profit. Business only pay tax on profit. Which bit of this do you not understand.

It is no wonder the IRS can mug off loads of people when they do not understand even the most basic elements of running a business.


Yes, you really should have read the link before you posted it.

Quote from: Topic 420
You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods and services received in exchange for goods or services you provide or may provide under the bartering arrangement.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: crumbs on June 19, 2013, 09:23:40 PM
[...]OK here we go again.

Until you sell your bitcoins there is no tax to pay.

If you want to be a law abiding Joe and pay taxes when you legally don't even owe them any tax then fine.

Like any commodity you only pay when you convert the commodity to a FIAT currency. That is the law whatever way you want to play it.
You're 100% right ;D

Edit: for the backyard lawyers:  http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420.html

http://tundratabloids.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/heads-in-sand.jpg

Before getting all sarcastic you should read the link you posted.

I can not fathom how a plumber exchanging services with someone has any relevance to a commodity.

Please explain how that is the case.

A service is a commodity. "Economic commodities comprise goods and services." --wikip.

Quote
Also if the services traded are of equal value there is no net gain - therefore no profit. Business only pay tax on profit. Which bit of this do you not understand.

It is no wonder the IRS can mug off loads of people when they do not understand even the most basic elements of running a business.

You're simply wrong again. :o 
"Bartering is the trading of one product or service for another. Usually there is no exchange of cash. Barter may take place on an informal one-on-one basis between individuals and businesses, or it can take place on a third party basis through a modern barter exchange company." --you-know-who.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: crumbs on June 19, 2013, 09:25:38 PM
[...]OK here we go again.

Until you sell your bitcoins there is no tax to pay.

If you want to be a law abiding Joe and pay taxes when you legally don't even owe them any tax then fine.

Like any commodity you only pay when you convert the commodity to a FIAT currency. That is the law whatever way you want to play it.
You're 100% right ;D

Edit: for the backyard lawyers:  http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420.html

http://tundratabloids.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/heads-in-sand.jpg

Before getting all sarcastic you should read the link you posted.

I can not fathom how a plumber exchanging services with someone has any relevance to a commodity.

Please explain how that is the case.

Also if the services traded are of equal value there is no net gain - therefore no profit. Business only pay tax on profit. Which bit of this do you not understand.

It is no wonder the IRS can mug off loads of people when they do not understand even the most basic elements of running a business.


Yes, you really should have read the link before you posted it.

Quote from: Topic 420
You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods and services received in exchange for goods or services you provide or may provide under the bartering arrangement.

 ???  What exactly are *you* reading there?


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: edd on June 19, 2013, 09:27:57 PM
???  What exactly are *you* reading there?

It's a direct quote from the page you linked to.

http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420.html


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 19, 2013, 09:29:26 PM
[...]OK here we go again.

Until you sell your bitcoins there is no tax to pay.

If you want to be a law abiding Joe and pay taxes when you legally don't even owe them any tax then fine.

Like any commodity you only pay when you convert the commodity to a FIAT currency. That is the law whatever way you want to play it.
You're 100% right ;D

Edit: for the backyard lawyers:  http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420.html

http://tundratabloids.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/heads-in-sand.jpg

Before getting all sarcastic you should read the link you posted.

I can not fathom how a plumber exchanging services with someone has any relevance to a commodity.

Please explain how that is the case.

A service is a commodity. "Economic commodities comprise goods and services." --wikip.

Quote
Also if the services traded are of equal value there is no net gain - therefore no profit. Business only pay tax on profit. Which bit of this do you not understand.

It is no wonder the IRS can mug off loads of people when they do not understand even the most basic elements of running a business.

You're simply wrong again. :o  
"Bartering is the trading of one product or service for another. Usually there is no exchange of cash. Barter may take place on an informal one-on-one basis between individuals and businesses, or it can take place on a third party basis through a modern barter exchange company." --you-know-who.


Man what is wrong with you? At the very top of the page it clearly states

"This article needs additional citations for verification."

So according to you I can have futures contract in plumbing?

try reading this

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/commodity.asp

You have posted the definition of an ECONOMIC COMMODITY not a COMMODITY

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and are just wildly cutting and pasting any link you find.

I am not discussing this any further with you.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: JordanL on June 19, 2013, 09:41:43 PM
I just came across this thread, great topic and I'm sure there is a lot of good conversation. I am going to post-and-run now, and then start reading the entire thread tonight.

The answer is: Of course we want to work with money regulators. We have to, as long as we want to have the ability to convert Bitcoins in to other currencies. If people just wanted to mine Bitcoins and then use them to buy things, without the recipient having the ability to convert the BTC into any other currency, then we wouldn't have to, and they wouldn't care about Bitcoins.

Bitcoin itself can't be regulated... other than by the laws of physics, as it is now. Bitcoin is Bitcoin, and will always be Bitcoin. Governments or industries can not change that, short of taking over control of 51%+ of the network's hash power. What can and has to be regulated is how citizens and companies convert BTC to other currencies. We are all regulated by the laws of some country or other, and the other currencies we use are regulated. We will never get a free pass to use a regulated currency like USD however we want, just because we are using Bitcoin on the other end.

The faster this occurs, the better it will be for the widespread adaptation of Bitcoin.


tl;dr is in bold


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: crumbs on June 19, 2013, 10:17:57 PM
[...]OK here we go again.

Until you sell your bitcoins there is no tax to pay.

If you want to be a law abiding Joe and pay taxes when you legally don't even owe them any tax then fine.

Like any commodity you only pay when you convert the commodity to a FIAT currency. That is the law whatever way you want to play it.
You're 100% right ;D

Edit: for the backyard lawyers:  http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420.html

http://tundratabloids.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/heads-in-sand.jpg

Before getting all sarcastic you should read the link you posted.

I can not fathom how a plumber exchanging services with someone has any relevance to a commodity.

Please explain how that is the case.

A service is a commodity. "Economic commodities comprise goods and services." --wikip.

Quote
Also if the services traded are of equal value there is no net gain - therefore no profit. Business only pay tax on profit. Which bit of this do you not understand.

It is no wonder the IRS can mug off loads of people when they do not understand even the most basic elements of running a business.

You're simply wrong again. :o  
"Bartering is the trading of one product or service for another. Usually there is no exchange of cash. Barter may take place on an informal one-on-one basis between individuals and businesses, or it can take place on a third party basis through a modern barter exchange company." --you-know-who.


Man what is wrong with you? At the very top of the page it clearly states

"This article needs additional citations for verification."

So according to you I can have futures contract in plumbing?

Huh?  I suppose you could, if that's really what you want to do ???  Though tell me, what do commodities have to do with Bitcoin?  (Protip:  nothing)

Quote
try reading this

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/commodity.asp

You have posted the definition of an ECONOMIC COMMODITY not a COMMODITY

And the commodity you're talking about is a  ???  Here, i'll send you to the dictionary, vent there: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commodity

Quote
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and are just wildly cutting and pasting any link you find.

I am not discussing this any further with you.

Can we still be friends?  :-*


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: cbeast on June 19, 2013, 10:24:56 PM
“There is a natural order to this world, and those who try to upend it do not fare well.” – from "Cloud Atlas"


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: franky1 on June 19, 2013, 10:32:10 PM
a family member is an electrician. he gets paid in fiat and in favours. he also gets a cup of tea from some of the customers. no-where EVER has he had to claim the tea and biscuits or the occassional sandwich as part of his gross earnings.

when it comes to bartering. its common sense.

if a pencil has a value of under £$1 and was traded 1:1 against a house. then the values would instantly show that someone in the trade has made massive profit. and when they go to sell the house they would then have to pay tax on the profits minus the pencil cost.

now in real world bartaring most people find objects of similar value to trade against each other making a fair offer to each other so that both parties get what they want and both don't feel like they have been shafted. this is where no profit is made and thus no tax is needed to be paid.

now for some examples.
1)say i bought a car 4door for £$1000 and sold it for £$1000 no profit = no tax

2)say i bought a car 4door for £$1000 and swapped it for 2door car of similar value no profit = no tax

now taking example 2... lets say the 2door was a sports car that a father of a new born desperately wanted to get rid of due to needing back seat space for his newborn. and the 2 door was worth £$2000

in a 1:1 trade there has been some profit, and it will easily show up when person A sells the 2 door for cash, that is when tax will come into it.

so when you barter for things. look for items of similar value. that if you sold out as FIAT would not net you a profit.

and just like anything. if you make a FIAT profit. expect to pay tax


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 19, 2013, 10:34:29 PM
a family member is an electrician. he gets paid in fiat and in favours. he also gets a cup of tea from some of the customers. no-where EVER has he had to claim the tea and biscuits or the occassional sandwich as part of his gross earnings.

when it comes to bartering. its common sense.

if a pencil has a value of under £$1 and was traded 1:1 against a house. then the values would instantly show that someone in the trade has made massive profit. and when they go to sell the house they would then have to pay tax on the profits minus the pencil cost.

now in real world bartaring most people find objects of similar value to trade against each other making a fair offer to each other so that both parties get what they want and both don't feel like they have been shafted. this is where no profit is made and thus no tax is needed to be paid.

Exactly it is not a difficult concept to grasp.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: aigeezer on June 19, 2013, 11:17:46 PM
I'm not sure if those of you making the pencil/house barter comparison are aware of this real-world barter process.

"The website http://www.redpaperclip.com/ (http://www.redpaperclip.com/) was created by Kyle MacDonald, a Canadian blogger who bartered his way from a single red paperclip to a house in a series of online trades over the course of a year."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_red_paperclip

It tends to complicate things.     :)


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 19, 2013, 11:20:34 PM
I'm not sure if those of you making the pencil/house barter comparison are aware of this real-world barter process.

"The website http://www.redpaperclip.com/ was created by Kyle MacDonald, a Canadian blogger who bartered his way from a single red paperclip to a house in a series of online trades over the course of a year."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_red_paperclip

It tends to complicate things.     :)


Wow that is some trading skill there.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: aigeezer on June 19, 2013, 11:24:02 PM
I'm not sure if those of you making the pencil/house barter comparison are aware of this real-world barter process.

"The website http://www.redpaperclip.com/ was created by Kyle MacDonald, a Canadian blogger who bartered his way from a single red paperclip to a house in a series of online trades over the course of a year."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_red_paperclip

It tends to complicate things.     :)


Wow that is some trading skill there.

I don't know whether it would make the taxman give up or whether his eyes would light up. They have a tiger by the tail with barter, I think.

Edit: Lest you think I've drifted off topic... the Canadian tax authorities made an announcement in April to the effect (from memory) that BTC was like barter and that they claimed the right to grab a piece of the action in barter transactions (my words, not theirs, obviously). So if the Red Paperclip saga demonstrates conclusively that "value" is in the eye of the parties to the transaction, that one person's trash is another person's treasure, and so forth... then assigning arbitrary "fiat values" to bartered goods and bitcoin trades might be none of the taxman's business. He of course might see it differently.




Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: franky1 on June 19, 2013, 11:57:39 PM
I'm not sure if those of you making the pencil/house barter comparison are aware of this real-world barter process.

"The website http://www.redpaperclip.com/ was created by Kyle MacDonald, a Canadian blogger who bartered his way from a single red paperclip to a house in a series of online trades over the course of a year."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_red_paperclip

It tends to complicate things.     :)


Wow that is some trading skill there.

I don't know whether it would make the taxman give up or whether his eyes would light up. They have a tiger by the tail with barter, I think.

Edit: Lest you think I've drifted off topic... the Canadian tax authorities made an announcement in April to the effect (from memory) that BTC was like barter and that they claimed the right to grab a piece of the action in barter transactions (my words, not theirs, obviously). So if the Red Paperclip saga demonstrates conclusively that "value" is in the eye of the parties to the transaction, that one person's trash is another person's treasure, and so forth... then assigning arbitrary "fiat values" to bartered goods and bitcoin trades might be none of the taxman's business. He of course might see it differently.


blah blah blah..

now in the real world if someone showed their income and expenditure of 2012 of X amount and showed they bought a red paperclip as part of their asset possesions..

and then in 2013 they showed they sold a house which they didn't not have in 2012. then of course the tax man would be interested.

but on every day bartering. swapping a loaf of bread for a couple pints of milk (equal value) the tax man wont care.

edit:

i think the problem here is that 60% atleast of people that think they are smart on this thread by using google searches are usually under 20yo that have never come into contact with a tax man.

where as i and a few distinctly obvious poster that have the same opinions as me seem to be those with real world experience.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: aigeezer on June 20, 2013, 01:10:09 AM

...

now in the real world if someone showed their income and expenditure of 2012 of X amount and showed they bought a red paperclip as part of their asset possesions..

and then in 2013 they showed they sold a house which they didn't not have in 2012. then of course the tax man would be interested.

but on every day bartering. swapping a loaf of bread for a couple pints of milk (equal value) the tax man wont care.

edit:

i think the problem here is that 60% atleast of people that think they are smart on this thread by using google searches are usually under 20yo that have never come into contact with a tax man.

where as i and a few distinctly obvious poster that have the same opinions as me seem to be those with real world experience.

My example took place in Canada, which is in the real world. (I live there). It received a lot of publicity at the time.

The example was incremental, which is what makes it interesting and relevant - the paper clip was not traded for a house directly. In Canada the tax man is not interested in your house if it is your primary residence - it is not taxable when you sell it, so you could hypothetically go from paper clip to house without any tax repercussions. The dilemma for the tax man is whether to stake a claim to a piece of each of the barter trades along the way - the trades of two things apparently of equal value, what you call "every day bartering", that somehow wind up being worth far more than the initial item. The ancient Greeks called this kind of thing a sorites or "little by little paradox", as you probably know.

Canadian tax law does not distinguish "every day bartering" from any other kind of bartering - I doubt that any nation's tax law draws that distinction, but please provide a citation if you know of one. I showed upthread how the Canadian tax people tried to deal with this by using the imprecise phrase "regular habit" - it resolves nothing.

I generally provide links to my allegations or examples to demonstrate that they are not just my opinions. It's a common custom in forum dialog. If you looked at the Red Paper Clip site you may have noticed that one of the commenters said it would have been interesting if the person who received the red paper clip - the initial transaction - had in turn exchanged it in barter to start the cycle anew, and then the person after that, and so on indefinitely - a taxman's nightmare, strongly analogous to BTC.

Hehe - I won't state my age but the "geezer" part of my user name might provide a hint that I've paid taxes for a while.      :)


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: ReCat on June 20, 2013, 01:24:56 AM
If we need to regulate Bitcoins, we need to regulate cash.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: flavius on June 20, 2013, 01:26:17 AM
you cant regulate it faggots


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: dbkeys on June 20, 2013, 01:47:19 AM
Whose face is on the coin ? Caesar's ? Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.  Not  Caesar's ? Then it doesn't belong to him.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: BitcoinAshley on June 20, 2013, 02:08:03 AM
you cant regulate it faggots


No points for tact, but you hit the nail right on the head  ;D


They can regulate the hell out of converting bitcoins to fiat on legacy exchanges, but they can't do shit for the bitcoin protocol itself aside from shutting down the internet EVERYWHERE and then constantly sending out stormtroopers with guns everywhere on the entire plant to make sure no one's setting up a meshnet...
For the rest of existence...

i.e. not possible.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Pinwheel on June 20, 2013, 02:58:17 AM
some countries, like India for example regulating many things by prohibiting it. if in US there will be some sort prohibitive or restrictive kind of attitude toward bitcoins many countries will follow. Sooner or later in India they may prohibit bitcoin exchanges anyway, on anti money laundering basis perhaps.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Room101 on June 20, 2013, 10:30:41 AM
this entire discussion rests on the assumption that things will continue the way they are for some time......personally i don't think things will hold together much longer. The PetroDollar standard is in its death rattles, the US economy is NOT getting better, it can't, there is too much debt and something has to give. And every time throughout history, when fiat currencies collapse, especially world reserve ones, people will, for a while, revert to any form of money that serves them best. In Argentina in 2001 the people just started making their own money.

Bitcoin is useful, i know this because i use it. Gold is less useful, but has 5000 years of history behind it. Regulation is the least of our worries, the "people" that would be doing the regulating, will soon all be out of a job.

Or in other words, winter is coming.
Or in other other words, all this has happened before, and will happen again ;)


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Lauda on June 20, 2013, 10:35:13 AM
Definently keep it unregulated, or this will cause trouble for the coins ;)


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: lonestranger on June 20, 2013, 11:56:08 AM
Let us remember, people, that "regulation" means being prevented from engaging in "crimes" that are UNAUTHORIZED.  You see, the anti-money laundering laws are intended to keep money flowing TO THE BOYS and no one else.  The purpose of such laws is to eliminate competition!

Do you know who Dick Grasso is?  He was the head of the New York Stock Exchange.  Here is a picture of Big Dick hugging a leader of the FARC guerillas in Colombia in 1999:

http://www.infowars.com/images/grassoNYSE-farc.jpeg

Why would the head of the NYSE be in a Colombian jungle hugging up a sweaty gun-toting rebel leader?  To make a deal to launder drug money through Wall Street (http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jun/27/news/mn-50699), of course!  Big Dick said he was there to invite the rebel leaders up to New York to see capitalism first-hand and if you believe that you are, indeed, a statist tool.

But Big Dick's visit paid off because a few years later we have Wachovia Bank paying a trivial fine for nearly $400 BILLION of drug related money laundering:
 (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/04/wachovia-paid-trivial-fine-for-nearly-400-billion-of-drug-related-money-laundering.html)
Quote
"Criminal proceedings were brought against Wachovia, though not against any individual, but the case never came to court. In March 2010, Wachovia settled the biggest action brought under the US bank secrecy act, through the US district court in Miami. Now that the year’s “deferred prosecution” has expired, the bank is in effect in the clear. It paid federal authorities $110m in forfeiture, for allowing transactions later proved to be connected to drug smuggling, and incurred a $50m fine for failing to monitor cash used to ship 22 tons of cocaine."

Did you get that number?  FOUR HUNDRED BILLION!!

And then more recently HSBC gets away with laundering more billions of drug cartel money (http://www.ianfraser.org/hsbcs-drugs-money-laundering-settlement-a-mockery-of-justice-says-sen-warren/):
Quote
"Senator Elizabeth Warren (Democrat-Massachusetts), has once again revealed the dangerous double standards at the heart of the US justice system. Appearing at the Senate Banking Committee, the former Harvard law professor questioned officials from the US Treasury Department and US Federal Reserve over why criminal charges were not pressed on HSBC or any HSBC official who helped to launder hundreds of millions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels. But just like the last time, she was met with wholly inadequate responses. The impression one got from the Treasury and Fed officials was that some banks are not just ‘too big to fail’, they are also ‘too big to prosecute’, and ‘too big to jail’."

So, when Jennifer Shasky Calvery, Director of FINCEN says THIS (http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/speech/html/20130613.html):
Quote
"Liberty Reserve operated as an online money transmitter deliberately designed to avoid regulatory scrutiny and tailored its services to illicit actors looking to launder their ill-gotten gains"
we know what's going on, right?  She's either too stupid to know what her bosses are up to or she's in league WITH them!  I mean how can we pretend that FINCEN is interested in stopping money laundering when they let BILLIONS and BILLIONS get laundered right under their noses?

FINCEN is organized crime with a flag on the wall.  So for those who say "let's work with the regulators", you are now negotiating with the most bad-assed, ruthless criminal organization on the planet.  What kind of a deal do you think they will cut with you?


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: aceking on June 20, 2013, 12:04:57 PM
If they want will regulate it without asking us.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 20, 2013, 12:16:52 PM
Let us remember, people, that "regulation" means being prevented from engaging in "crimes" that are UNAUTHORIZED.  You see, the anti-money laundering laws are intended to keep money flowing TO THE BOYS and no one else.  The purpose of such laws is to eliminate competition!

Do you know who Dick Grasso is?  He was the head of the New York Stock Exchange.  Here is a picture of Big Dick hugging a leader of the FARC guerillas in Colombia in 1999:

http://www.infowars.com/images/grassoNYSE-farc.jpeg

Why would the head of the NYSE be in a Colombian jungle hugging up a sweaty gun-toting rebel leader?  To make a deal to launder drug money through Wall Street (http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jun/27/news/mn-50699), of course!  Big Dick said he was there to invite the rebel leaders up to New York to see capitalism first-hand and if you believe that you are, indeed, a statist tool.

But Big Dick's visit paid off because a few years later we have Wachovia Bank paying a trivial fine for nearly $400 BILLION of drug related money laundering:
 (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/04/wachovia-paid-trivial-fine-for-nearly-400-billion-of-drug-related-money-laundering.html)
Quote
"Criminal proceedings were brought against Wachovia, though not against any individual, but the case never came to court. In March 2010, Wachovia settled the biggest action brought under the US bank secrecy act, through the US district court in Miami. Now that the year’s “deferred prosecution” has expired, the bank is in effect in the clear. It paid federal authorities $110m in forfeiture, for allowing transactions later proved to be connected to drug smuggling, and incurred a $50m fine for failing to monitor cash used to ship 22 tons of cocaine."

Did you get that number?  FOUR HUNDRED BILLION!!

And then more recently HSBC gets away with laundering more billions of drug cartel money (http://www.ianfraser.org/hsbcs-drugs-money-laundering-settlement-a-mockery-of-justice-says-sen-warren/):
Quote
"Senator Elizabeth Warren (Democrat-Massachusetts), has once again revealed the dangerous double standards at the heart of the US justice system. Appearing at the Senate Banking Committee, the former Harvard law professor questioned officials from the US Treasury Department and US Federal Reserve over why criminal charges were not pressed on HSBC or any HSBC official who helped to launder hundreds of millions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels. But just like the last time, she was met with wholly inadequate responses. The impression one got from the Treasury and Fed officials was that some banks are not just ‘too big to fail’, they are also ‘too big to prosecute’, and ‘too big to jail’."

So, when Jennifer Shasky Calvery, Director of FINCEN says THIS (http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/speech/html/20130613.html):
Quote
"Liberty Reserve operated as an online money transmitter deliberately designed to avoid regulatory scrutiny and tailored its services to illicit actors looking to launder their ill-gotten gains"
we know what's going on, right?  She's either too stupid to know what her bosses are up to or she's in league WITH them!  I mean how can we pretend that FINCEN is interested in stopping money laundering when they let BILLIONS and BILLIONS get laundered right under their noses?

FINCEN is organized crime with a flag on the wall.  So for those who say "let's work with the regulators", you are now negotiating with the most bad-assed, ruthless criminal organization on the planet.  What kind of a deal do you think they will cut with you?

Can not fault a word of what you said. You are totally correct.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Pinwheel on June 20, 2013, 12:44:31 PM
Let us remember, people, that "regulation" means being prevented from engaging in "crimes" that are UNAUTHORIZED.  You see, the anti-money laundering laws are intended to keep money flowing TO THE BOYS and no one else.  The purpose of such laws is to eliminate competition!

Do you know who Dick Grasso is?  He was the head of the New York Stock Exchange.  Here is a picture of Big Dick hugging a leader of the FARC guerillas in Colombia in 1999:

http://www.infowars.com/images/grassoNYSE-farc.jpeg

Why would the head of the NYSE be in a Colombian jungle hugging up a sweaty gun-toting rebel leader?  To make a deal to launder drug money through Wall Street (http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jun/27/news/mn-50699), of course!  Big Dick said he was there to invite the rebel leaders up to New York to see capitalism first-hand and if you believe that you are, indeed, a statist tool.

But Big Dick's visit paid off because a few years later we have Wachovia Bank paying a trivial fine for nearly $400 BILLION of drug related money laundering:
 (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/04/wachovia-paid-trivial-fine-for-nearly-400-billion-of-drug-related-money-laundering.html)
Quote
"Criminal proceedings were brought against Wachovia, though not against any individual, but the case never came to court. In March 2010, Wachovia settled the biggest action brought under the US bank secrecy act, through the US district court in Miami. Now that the year’s “deferred prosecution” has expired, the bank is in effect in the clear. It paid federal authorities $110m in forfeiture, for allowing transactions later proved to be connected to drug smuggling, and incurred a $50m fine for failing to monitor cash used to ship 22 tons of cocaine."

Did you get that number?  FOUR HUNDRED BILLION!!

And then more recently HSBC gets away with laundering more billions of drug cartel money (http://www.ianfraser.org/hsbcs-drugs-money-laundering-settlement-a-mockery-of-justice-says-sen-warren/):
Quote
"Senator Elizabeth Warren (Democrat-Massachusetts), has once again revealed the dangerous double standards at the heart of the US justice system. Appearing at the Senate Banking Committee, the former Harvard law professor questioned officials from the US Treasury Department and US Federal Reserve over why criminal charges were not pressed on HSBC or any HSBC official who helped to launder hundreds of millions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels. But just like the last time, she was met with wholly inadequate responses. The impression one got from the Treasury and Fed officials was that some banks are not just ‘too big to fail’, they are also ‘too big to prosecute’, and ‘too big to jail’."

So, when Jennifer Shasky Calvery, Director of FINCEN says THIS (http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/speech/html/20130613.html):
Quote
"Liberty Reserve operated as an online money transmitter deliberately designed to avoid regulatory scrutiny and tailored its services to illicit actors looking to launder their ill-gotten gains"
we know what's going on, right?  She's either too stupid to know what her bosses are up to or she's in league WITH them!  I mean how can we pretend that FINCEN is interested in stopping money laundering when they let BILLIONS and BILLIONS get laundered right under their noses?

FINCEN is organized crime with a flag on the wall.  So for those who say "let's work with the regulators", you are now negotiating with the most bad-assed, ruthless criminal organization on the planet.  What kind of a deal do you think they will cut with you?

thank you very much for taking time and posting it. Drugs money is the only real money what they have in banks.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: TippingPoint on June 20, 2013, 12:46:08 PM
Options include:

  • Work with the money regulators
  • Don't work with the money regulators
  • Work with the money regulators, but only with the intent to remain unregulated (North Korean style).  Get concessions and institutionalize any advantages (gain wider public acceptance), stall, delay, fork the software, decentralize


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Pinwheel on June 20, 2013, 12:50:43 PM
Options include:

  • Work with the money regulators
  • Don't work with the money regulators
  • Work with the money regulators, but only with the intent to remain unregulated (North Korean style).  Get concessions and institutionalize any advantages (gain wider public acceptance), stall, delay, fork the software, decentralize

it is like asking cannibal, what part of me do you want eat first. Regulators have only one puzzle to solve with bitcoins, how to criminalize it, without popularizing it.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Schrankwand on June 20, 2013, 02:20:32 PM
Options include:

  • Work with the money regulators
  • Don't work with the money regulators
  • Work with the money regulators, but only with the intent to remain unregulated (North Korean style).  Get concessions and institutionalize any advantages (gain wider public acceptance), stall, delay, fork the software, decentralize

I argue: Work with them on regulation, keep them away from the code, FAR away.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: justusranvier on June 20, 2013, 02:24:59 PM
FINCEN is organized crime with a flag on the wall.  So for those who say "let's work with the regulators", you are now negotiating with the most bad-assed, ruthless criminal organization on the planet.  What kind of a deal do you think they will cut with you?
QFT


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: legitnick on June 20, 2013, 03:07:12 PM
Definitly keep it unregulated. Regulated ANYTHING is bad. If its regulated their will surely be tax, and that is unacceptable to me.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: legitnick on June 20, 2013, 03:09:00 PM
Let us remember, people, that "regulation" means being prevented from engaging in "crimes" that are UNAUTHORIZED.  You see, the anti-money laundering laws are intended to keep money flowing TO THE BOYS and no one else.  The purpose of such laws is to eliminate competition!

Do you know who Dick Grasso is?  He was the head of the New York Stock Exchange.  Here is a picture of Big Dick hugging a leader of the FARC guerillas in Colombia in 1999:

http://www.infowars.com/images/grassoNYSE-farc.jpeg

Why would the head of the NYSE be in a Colombian jungle hugging up a sweaty gun-toting rebel leader?  To make a deal to launder drug money through Wall Street (https://bitcointalk.org/1999/jun/27/news/mn-50699), of course!  Big Dick said he was there to invite the rebel leaders up to New York to see capitalism first-hand and if you believe that you are, indeed, a statist tool.

But Big Dick's visit paid off because a few years later we have Wachovia Bank paying a trivial fine for nearly $400 BILLION of drug related money laundering:
 (https://bitcointalk.org/2011/04/wachovia-paid-trivial-fine-for-nearly-400-billion-of-drug-related-money-laundering.html)
Quote
"Criminal proceedings were brought against Wachovia, though not against any individual, but the case never came to court. In March 2010, Wachovia settled the biggest action brought under the US bank secrecy act, through the US district court in Miami. Now that the year’s “deferred prosecution” has expired, the bank is in effect in the clear. It paid federal authorities $110m in forfeiture, for allowing transactions later proved to be connected to drug smuggling, and incurred a $50m fine for failing to monitor cash used to ship 22 tons of cocaine."

Did you get that number?  FOUR HUNDRED BILLION!!

And then more recently HSBC gets away with laundering more billions of drug cartel money (https://bitcointalk.org/hsbcs-drugs-money-laundering-settlement-a-mockery-of-justice-says-sen-warren/):
Quote
"Senator Elizabeth Warren (Democrat-Massachusetts), has once again revealed the dangerous double standards at the heart of the US justice system. Appearing at the Senate Banking Committee, the former Harvard law professor questioned officials from the US Treasury Department and US Federal Reserve over why criminal charges were not pressed on HSBC or any HSBC official who helped to launder hundreds of millions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels. But just like the last time, she was met with wholly inadequate responses. The impression one got from the Treasury and Fed officials was that some banks are not just ‘too big to fail’, they are also ‘too big to prosecute’, and ‘too big to jail’."

So, when Jennifer Shasky Calvery, Director of FINCEN says THIS (https://bitcointalk.org/news_room/speech/html/20130613.html):
Quote
"Liberty Reserve operated as an online money transmitter deliberately designed to avoid regulatory scrutiny and tailored its services to illicit actors looking to launder their ill-gotten gains"
we know what's going on, right?  She's either too stupid to know what her bosses are up to or she's in league WITH them!  I mean how can we pretend that FINCEN is interested in stopping money laundering when they let BILLIONS and BILLIONS get laundered right under their noses?

FINCEN is organized crime with a flag on the wall.  So for those who say "let's work with the regulators", you are now negotiating with the most bad-assed, ruthless criminal organization on the planet.  What kind of a deal do you think they will cut with you?

thank you very much for taking time and posting it. Drugs money is the only real money what they have in banks.

Thanks for the post, good read. Its amazing just how much money is in the drug economy. People dont realize it, but theres a WHOLE lot of people in this world addicted to drugs.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Schrankwand on June 20, 2013, 03:09:06 PM
Definitly keep it unregulated. Regulated ANYTHING is bad. If its regulated their will surely be tax, and that is unacceptable to me.

Man, there already is tax in existing regulation, since you have value added.

If you do not pay the tax in dollar on the value in bitcoin, they simply send you a bill. You can refuse giving them your BTC, but they will then do their best to not only track you but send you the debt collector on tax owed.

they might not get your BTC, but they can just quote you in your own fiat currency. And not give a fuck about not getting your BTC.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: ErisDiscordia on June 20, 2013, 03:45:03 PM
Let us remember, people, that "regulation" means being prevented from engaging in "crimes" that are UNAUTHORIZED.  You see, the anti-money laundering laws are intended to keep money flowing TO THE BOYS and no one else.  The purpose of such laws is to eliminate competition!

Do you know who Dick Grasso is?  He was the head of the New York Stock Exchange.  Here is a picture of Big Dick hugging a leader of the FARC guerillas in Colombia in 1999:

http://www.infowars.com/images/grassoNYSE-farc.jpeg

Why would the head of the NYSE be in a Colombian jungle hugging up a sweaty gun-toting rebel leader?  To make a deal to launder drug money through Wall Street (http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jun/27/news/mn-50699), of course!  Big Dick said he was there to invite the rebel leaders up to New York to see capitalism first-hand and if you believe that you are, indeed, a statist tool.

But Big Dick's visit paid off because a few years later we have Wachovia Bank paying a trivial fine for nearly $400 BILLION of drug related money laundering:
 (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/04/wachovia-paid-trivial-fine-for-nearly-400-billion-of-drug-related-money-laundering.html)
Quote
"Criminal proceedings were brought against Wachovia, though not against any individual, but the case never came to court. In March 2010, Wachovia settled the biggest action brought under the US bank secrecy act, through the US district court in Miami. Now that the year’s “deferred prosecution” has expired, the bank is in effect in the clear. It paid federal authorities $110m in forfeiture, for allowing transactions later proved to be connected to drug smuggling, and incurred a $50m fine for failing to monitor cash used to ship 22 tons of cocaine."

Did you get that number?  FOUR HUNDRED BILLION!!

And then more recently HSBC gets away with laundering more billions of drug cartel money (http://www.ianfraser.org/hsbcs-drugs-money-laundering-settlement-a-mockery-of-justice-says-sen-warren/):
Quote
"Senator Elizabeth Warren (Democrat-Massachusetts), has once again revealed the dangerous double standards at the heart of the US justice system. Appearing at the Senate Banking Committee, the former Harvard law professor questioned officials from the US Treasury Department and US Federal Reserve over why criminal charges were not pressed on HSBC or any HSBC official who helped to launder hundreds of millions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels. But just like the last time, she was met with wholly inadequate responses. The impression one got from the Treasury and Fed officials was that some banks are not just ‘too big to fail’, they are also ‘too big to prosecute’, and ‘too big to jail’."

So, when Jennifer Shasky Calvery, Director of FINCEN says THIS (http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/speech/html/20130613.html):
Quote
"Liberty Reserve operated as an online money transmitter deliberately designed to avoid regulatory scrutiny and tailored its services to illicit actors looking to launder their ill-gotten gains"
we know what's going on, right?  She's either too stupid to know what her bosses are up to or she's in league WITH them!  I mean how can we pretend that FINCEN is interested in stopping money laundering when they let BILLIONS and BILLIONS get laundered right under their noses?

FINCEN is organized crime with a flag on the wall.  So for those who say "let's work with the regulators", you are now negotiating with the most bad-assed, ruthless criminal organization on the planet.  What kind of a deal do you think they will cut with you?

Thanks for bringing this up and elaborating on it so eloquently.

Especially this part:

So for those who say "let's work with the regulators", you are now negotiating with the most bad-assed, ruthless criminal organization on the planet.  What kind of a deal do you think they will cut with you?

is something people who are in favor of regulation should ponder a bit. Seems like many of them still have their rosy colored glasses on and think the government is somehow put there to benefit them and the only reason why it hasn't is because the "right people" are not there to pass the "right legislation". Of course every one of them knows what sort of regulation would be best and beneficial for everybody. Of course.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: legitnick on June 20, 2013, 04:06:29 PM
Anyone who says bitcoin SHOULD be regulated needs to GTFO :)


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 20, 2013, 04:09:06 PM
The people wanting regulation are dumb sheep in all honesty.

All they are doing is repeating some sound byte they have heard somewhere else with absolutely no thought behind it.

If regulation is such a good thing - please explain this to me

2008 Financial Crash

Millions of peoples pensions, savings accounts, houses and jobs - all gone.

Banks and the regulators are now bathing in piles of your money while you are eating out of dumpsters.

Increasing your taxes to give to the banks

This is what regulation gets you - the next person that says regulation deserves to have everything they own taken from them

In my opinion they are to weak to stand up on their own two feet and need the state to tell them how to wipe their own arses.

Little bit of trivia - Governments have killed more of their own people than have died in all world wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

Some people on this forum are just plain thick - one person was arguing that Plumbing is a commodity - what hope is there?


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: legitnick on June 20, 2013, 04:17:24 PM
No, bitcoin will never bow down to FinCEN pigs


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: crumbs on June 20, 2013, 06:32:13 PM
The people wanting regulation are dumb sheep in all honesty.
Nothing beats an honest opinion on dah interwebz.
Quote
All they are doing is repeating some sound byte they have heard somewhere else with absolutely no thought behind it.
Sure, that's a sound bite in itself.
Quote
If regulation is such a good thing - please explain this to me
2008 Financial Crash
Millions of peoples pensions, savings accounts, houses and jobs - all gone.
Had i but the time & you but the brain.
Quote
Banks and the regulators are now bathing in piles of your money while you are eating out of dumpsters.
I think someone's trollin' you -- most of them use water.
Quote
Increasing your taxes to give to the banks
This is what regulation gets you - the next person that says regulation deserves to have everything they own taken from them
You seem like a nice & reasonable fellow.  Busy Friday night?
Quote
In my opinion they are to weak to stand up on their own two feet and need the state to tell them how to wipe their own arses.
If they learn how to wipe their ass, what will you do for work, champ?
Quote
Little bit of trivia - Governments have killed more of their own people than have died in all world wars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
:D :D :D Oh, you got me!  I actually clicked on that!  And then the talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democide) 
And this talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rudolph_Rummel
Thanks for the lulz, have a kitty!
Quote
Some people on this forum are just plain thick - one person was arguing that Plumbing is a commodity - what hope is there?
Don't lose hope, my brainy friend!  Just keep punching, Joe!


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: davedx on June 20, 2013, 07:13:19 PM
No. As long as buyers and sellers have sufficient protection to be able to trade with assurance, I don't see the need, and we already have that via Escrow services.

It's fine, don't fuck with it.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: rovchris on June 20, 2013, 08:35:36 PM
Don't lose hope, my brainy friend!  Just keep punching, Joe!

Go away and stop hassling me

It is impossible to have any kind of discussion with you.

Your behaviour is not wanted or welcomed.

Please stop trolling me.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: crumbs on June 20, 2013, 08:53:53 PM
[...]
Please stop trolling me.
:'(


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators? - government kills!
Post by: td services on June 20, 2013, 10:02:15 PM
These photos should really lift Crumbs's skirt while she licks the jackboots of the corporate state, http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/RM1.PHOTOS.ROOM1.HTM . http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM lists a couple of hundred million really good reasons to be an anarchist.

Little bit of trivia - Governments have killed more of their own people than have died in all world wars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
:D :D :D Oh, you got me!  I actually clicked on that!  And then the talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democide)  
And this talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rudolph_Rummel
Thanks for the lulz, have a kitty!


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators? - government kills!
Post by: rovchris on June 20, 2013, 10:22:14 PM
These photos should really lift Crumbs's skirt while she licks the jackboots of the corporate state, http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/RM1.PHOTOS.ROOM1.HTM . http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM lists a couple of hundred million really good reasons to be an anarchist.

Little bit of trivia - Governments have killed more of their own people than have died in all world wars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
:D :D :D Oh, you got me!  I actually clicked on that!  And then the talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democide)  
And this talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rudolph_Rummel
Thanks for the lulz, have a kitty!

I don't understand why anyone would think that the murdering of millions of innocent people  are "Lulz" - it is actually quite reprehensible and they should be ashamed of themselves.





Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: td services on June 20, 2013, 10:44:02 PM
People who seek to control other people's lives are sick to the core.

No one here needs my permission to operate a business or use the currency of their choice, so there is nothing anyone is ever going to be able to say to me that will convince me that anyone requires the permission of me plus 50% of the rest of the population to do these things.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: halfawake on June 20, 2013, 11:52:00 PM
The point about putting taxation right into the bitcoin code - I can't imagine that anyone would support this.  But the question should people work to work with money regulators or keep bitcoin unregulated is a false dichotomy. 

The answer, to me, is that bitcoin probably will be regulated.  The reason you might want to work with the regulators is that if you're working with them, you have a shot at making the regulations more favorable to bitcoin users.  If we don't work with regulators, when the regulations do come they will likely favor the big banks, not bitcoin users. 

Our best bet is to try to keep regulation to the bitcoin exchanges if we can so that the bitcoin economy itself stays relatively unregulated and the only regulation is when we need to cash out to fiat.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Cranky4u on June 21, 2013, 12:04:02 AM
Regulate the exchanges but leave peer to peer transactions unregulated....


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Stampbit on June 21, 2013, 12:16:42 AM
Is this really anyones choice?


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: xxjs on June 21, 2013, 12:33:02 AM
Tax on bartering is possible because of the work expended by both parties. Here is a realistic plumber - electrican example (this is somewhere in Europe):

Each party builds a house, and one does plumbing for the other, and one does electrician work for the other. Materials taken out of the calculation for now, see below.

Electrician:
Customer pays 10000 (or doesnt pay in case of barter)
Work value: = 8000
Value added tax: 25% = 2000
Salary= work value minus employer tax 18% = 8000/(1+0.18) = 6679
Employer tax (self employed or incorporated, doesn't matter) 18% of 6679 = 1440
Employee income tax 35%, 6679 * 0.35 = 2337 (could be more, it is a progressive tax)
Total taxes= 2000 + 1440 + 2337 = 5777

For the plumber, the calculation is exactly the same.
In case this is done in a white fashion, each party pays 5777 in taxes.

In case of barter, each party should pay the taxes, according to the tax man.
In fact, even if the plumber works on his own house, he should pay the taxes, unless he does it in his own spare time, according to the tax man. He can not take an extra week off to do the work, according to the tax man.

Clues the tax guy uses to counter tax evation, is
a) Parts bought, that is not pushed out to some paying customer
b) Missing income - workdays not accounted for
c) Company car outside a building site.
d) Anything.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: johnyj on June 21, 2013, 02:37:38 AM
My experience is that better work with regulators, the attitude is much more important, if you are cooperative but technically uncapable of helping them, they will not bother. I think technically they can not regulate bitcoin and even if they did succeed, a fork will appear. Just showing that you are not hostile to them is enough


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: flavius on June 21, 2013, 04:29:47 AM
you guys are such faggots even posting in this thread


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: td services on June 21, 2013, 05:26:47 AM
Flavius is one of those breeder boys you hear tap dancing in the next stall over while groaning with delight from the 12" kickstart vibrator shoved up his ass.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Rez on June 21, 2013, 05:33:31 AM
I hate the thought of Bitcoin getting co-opted into "the system".  Ideally, I don't want to see regulators involved.  Whether or not that's a realistic idea is another story, but I don't think the Bitcoin Community should consent to bending over and grabbing its ankles.

What has to happen now is a strong push for educating the public at large.  Mark Twain said "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes."  Every boogeyman fear-scenario being promulgated about Bitcoin (It's used for DRUGS, it's used by PORNOGRAPHERS, it's used by BAD PEOPLE) can be said for governmental legal tender.  EVERY scenario.  Those early-early-early adopters who have substantial quantities of BTC would do well to use some of those coins to finance public-education ad campaigns.  National newspapers and magazines.  Radio and television.  Consider it an investment - because if the Powers That Be control the message, those stockpiles of Bitcoin could become worthless - or worse, illegal.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators? - government kills!
Post by: crumbs on June 21, 2013, 09:49:31 AM
These photos should really lift Crumbs's skirt while she licks the jackboots of the corporate state, http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/RM1.PHOTOS.ROOM1.HTM . http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM lists a couple of hundred million really good reasons to be an anarchist.

Little bit of trivia - Governments have killed more of their own people than have died in all world wars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
:D :D :D Oh, you got me!  I actually clicked on that!  And then the talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democide)  
And this talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rudolph_Rummel
Thanks for the lulz, have a kitty!

I don't understand why anyone would think that the murdering of millions of innocent people  are "Lulz" - it is actually quite reprehensible and they should be ashamed of themselves.

I get it, you're slow, so i'll explain it to you: 
No, posting links to the guy who claims more of my people were murdered by their own leaders than Third Reich armies during WW2 isn't funny.  Though expecting anyone to take that BS seriously is.
Go away and stop hassling me
[...]
Please stop trolling me.
You troll me, expect to be trolled back, sweetums. :-* ^^^^^^


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators? - government kills!
Post by: rovchris on June 21, 2013, 09:53:49 AM
These photos should really lift Crumbs's skirt while she licks the jackboots of the corporate state, http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/RM1.PHOTOS.ROOM1.HTM . http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM lists a couple of hundred million really good reasons to be an anarchist.

Little bit of trivia - Governments have killed more of their own people than have died in all world wars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
:D :D :D Oh, you got me!  I actually clicked on that!  And then the talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democide)  
And this talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rudolph_Rummel
Thanks for the lulz, have a kitty!

I don't understand why anyone would think that the murdering of millions of innocent people  are "Lulz" - it is actually quite reprehensible and they should be ashamed of themselves.

Would you like me to explain it to you or be left alone?  Can't both baite me and expect to be left alone.  And no, posting links to the guy who claims more of my people were murdered by their own leaders than Third Reich armies during WW2 isn't funny.  Though expecting anyone to take that BS seriously is.
Go away and stop hassling me
[...]
Please stop trolling me.
You troll me, expect to be trolled back, sweetums. :-* ^^^^^^


Listen you are a nasty vile little person who thinks millions of  people being murdered is "Lulz"

So go away I would be amazed if anyone on this forum would want to associate with you.

The more posts you make just exposes you for who you really are - so actually please keep posting.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators? - government kills!
Post by: crumbs on June 21, 2013, 10:00:08 AM
The more posts you make just exposes you for who you really are - so actually please keep posting.

Uhmmmm.  OK! ;D


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators? - government kills!
Post by: rovchris on June 21, 2013, 10:10:11 AM
The more posts you make just exposes you for who you really are - so actually please keep posting.

Uhmmmm.  OK! ;D

Maybe you would like to read this before mocking the deaths of people

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/13/internet-troll-jailed-mocking-teenagers

And as you have quite clearly mocked the death of those people and left a nice little audit trail of it - I would seriously go away.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators? - government kills!
Post by: crumbs on June 21, 2013, 10:53:56 AM
The more posts you make just exposes you for who you really are - so actually please keep posting.

Uhmmmm.  OK! ;D

Maybe you would like to read this before mocking the deaths of people

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/13/internet-troll-jailed-mocking-teenagers

And as you have quite clearly mocked the death of those people and left a nice little audit trail of it - I would seriously go away.

You tell me that Russia's leaders have killed more of my people than all of Hitler's Axis forces (i don't need Godwin's law here, the idiot in your link actually makes that claim), and after trolling me with that insulting revisionist BS you tell me I'm mocking people's deaths?  Listen, listen, i'll clue you in:  I'm not mocking people's deaths, i'm mocking *you* :-*


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: td services on June 21, 2013, 06:11:10 PM
I don't know who 'your people' are, but it is a fact that the Allied governments killed more of their own citizens, over 20,000,000 people, than the Axis governments, about 12,000,000. These figures don't include other infractions, like the British invention of the modern concentration camp during the Boer Wars, the fire bombing of Dresden, the US genocide of the indigenous population...


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: crumbs on June 21, 2013, 07:12:20 PM
I don't know who 'your people' are, but it is a fact that the Allied governments killed more of their own citizens, over 20,000,000 people, than the Axis governments, about 12,000,000. These figures don't include other infractions, like the British invention of the modern concentration camp during the Boer Wars, the fire bombing of Dresden, the US genocide of the indigenous population...

My people are Russians -- Soviet Union at the time.  Soviet casualties, military: 9-14 million, civilian: 12-17 million.  So 21,000,000 minimum.  You claim 20 million total for all Allies.
Not even going to bother with the rest ... oh, why not:  Dresden was an Axis, not an Allied city (Not "own people.") Get it? Boer wars, also known as Anglo-Boer wars, though curiously not Anglo-Anglo wars, or Boer-Boer wars.  Care to guess why? (hint:  Not own people!)  And yes, Americans did slaughter indians, steal their land & did a whole bunch of other nastiness.  (hint:  not their own people again!)  See how that works?
Now stop trusting your research to guys with lightning bolts & 8s tattooed on their foreheads.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: justusranvier on June 21, 2013, 07:18:54 PM
Can we just agree that Hitler, Stalin, and Roosevelt were all dictators whose orders caused the deaths of millions?


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: td services on June 21, 2013, 08:31:35 PM
More like the German government, the Russian government, and the United States government are all mass murdering pathological entities whose actions caused the deaths of millions.

One technique of whitewashing the horrific history of government is to place the blame on an individual or group, like Hitler and the Nazis, or Stalin, or Pol Pot, rather than on the government which actually committed the atrocity.

Can we just agree that Hitler, Stalin, and Roosevelt were all dictators whose orders caused the deaths of millions?


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: justusranvier on June 21, 2013, 08:43:31 PM
One technique of whitewashing the horrific history of government is to place the blame on an individual or group, like Hitler and the Nazis, or Stalin, or Pol Pot, rather than on the government which actually committed the atrocity.
That is true.

One person can only do so much via his own efforts, and unless millions of people throughout an entire society are complicit his orders are just meaningless hot air.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: td services on June 21, 2013, 10:22:08 PM
I don't know who 'your people' are, but it is a fact that the Allied governments killed more of their own citizens, over 20,000,000 people, than the Axis governments, about 12,000,000. These figures don't include other infractions, like the British invention of the modern concentration camp during the Boer Wars, the fire bombing of Dresden, the US genocide of the indigenous population...

My people are Russians -- Soviet Union at the time.  Soviet casualties, military: 9-14 million, civilian: 12-17 million.  So 21,000,000 minimum.  You claim 20 million total for all Allies.
Not even going to bother with the rest ... oh, why not:  Dresden was an Axis, not an Allied city (Not "own people.") Get it? Boer wars, also known as Anglo-Boer wars, though curiously not Anglo-Anglo wars, or Boer-Boer wars.  Care to guess why? (hint:  Not own people!)  And yes, Americans did slaughter indians, steal their land & did a whole bunch of other nastiness.  (hint:  not their own people again!)  See how that works?
Now stop trusting your research to guys with lightning bolts & 8s tattooed on their foreheads.

Can't argue with you there - it only further proves the point that government is by far the leading cause of unnatural death - non-governmental terrorism, non-governmental organized crime, individual criminals, and the occasional nutjob mass shooter have a couple of hundred million in body count to go to match government as a cause of bulk megadeath. Democide only tallies government murdering its own citizens. War, of course, adds quite a bit more to the score.

Even religion runs a distant second to government as a source of atrocity. Racking up body count for Jesus, Yahweh, or Allah was considered a ticket to a great afterlife, though from what I've seen, it looks like it'll be a pretty seedy neighborhood judging from the people most intent on going there.

Terrorists are people who want to become governments, governments are terrorists who are already in power.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: TippingPoint on June 21, 2013, 10:52:29 PM
Interesting stuff.

Democide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

"The more power a regime has, the more likely people will be killed. This is a major reason for promoting freedom." Rummel concludes that concentrated political power is the most dangerous thing on earth."

Bitcoins make the world a safer place.  TippingPoint


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: crumbs on June 22, 2013, 12:03:18 PM
I don't know who 'your people' are, but it is a fact that the Allied governments killed more of their own citizens, over 20,000,000 people, than the Axis governments, about 12,000,000. These figures don't include other infractions, like the British invention of the modern concentration camp during the Boer Wars, the fire bombing of Dresden, the US genocide of the indigenous population...

My people are Russians -- Soviet Union at the time.  Soviet casualties, military: 9-14 million, civilian: 12-17 million.  So 21,000,000 minimum.  You claim 20 million total for all Allies.
Not even going to bother with the rest ... oh, why not:  Dresden was an Axis, not an Allied city (Not "own people.") Get it? Boer wars, also known as Anglo-Boer wars, though curiously not Anglo-Anglo wars, or Boer-Boer wars.  Care to guess why? (hint:  Not own people!)  And yes, Americans did slaughter indians, steal their land & did a whole bunch of other nastiness.  (hint:  not their own people again!)  See how that works?
Now stop trusting your research to guys with lightning bolts & 8s tattooed on their foreheads.

Can't argue with you there - it only further proves the point that government is by far the leading cause of unnatural death - non-governmental terrorism, non-governmental organized crime, individual criminals, and the occasional nutjob mass shooter have a couple of hundred million in body count to go to match government as a cause of bulk megadeath. Democide only tallies government murdering its own citizens. War, of course, adds quite a bit more to the score.

Of course governments are the cause of much wholesale death -- wars, suppressing opposition, borking economic & social conditions to the point where people die of starvation and disease, or start fighting each other like rats in an overcrowded cage.  Denial of facts saddens our esteemed and infallible Fact Cat, creating a logical fallacy.  Do not want.
The notion that those nasty thing would disappear along with governments is equally repugnant to Fact Cat, along with the notion that banning guns will solve the murder problem.  Just as short-sighted and simpleminded.

Governments kill people?  Guns kill people.  While Fact Cat, in all of his wisdom, would point out that governments often do useful things, like build & plow roads & get rid of the unsightly poor by sending them overseas to get killed out of our earshot, His Wisdom wouldn't fail to mention that the Luger Parabellum, while being the sexiest handgun evar, is designed with one thing in mind -- killing.  Fact Cat, not being a pussy, loves his Luger.

Fact Cat hates the government, but he also understands how governments came to be -- the same way that Lugers came to be:  the people wanted some killing done.  Governments were consistently overthrown throughout history -- like Fact Cat, people always hated governments.  And while lulzy, the efforts always amounted to the same thing:  A new government >:( 
Wat do?

Quote
Even religion runs a distant second to government as a source of atrocity. Racking up body count for Jesus, Yahweh, or Allah was considered a ticket to a great afterlife, though from what I've seen, it looks like it'll be a pretty seedy neighborhood judging from the people most intent on going there.

Organised religion is a form of government.  The "organised" part is the giveaway here.  In many places, during many times, it overlapped with secular law to the extent where the two were indistinguishable.  Don't mistake this for intrinsic oppressiveness of religion -- mankind simply has a habit of taking great ideas & shitting them up.

Quote
Terrorists are people who want to become governments, governments are terrorists who are already in power.

Either terrorists are incredibly stupid & don't get that piloting a jet into a wall sort-a precludes them from from doing much of anything other than dieing, or they have some other stuff in mind...


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Snail2 on June 22, 2013, 07:58:53 PM
These guys in the foundation are frightening.

"One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship." 


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: edd on June 22, 2013, 08:10:46 PM
These guys in the foundation are frightening.

"One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship." 

Where did that quote come from?


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Snail2 on June 22, 2013, 08:16:28 PM
George Orwell, 1984


Title: Re: Decentralized
Post by: LiteCoinGuy on June 23, 2013, 01:52:56 PM
In the last round of grant proposals at one point Gavin suggested someone submit a grant for a trust-free mixer service to help people make the coins in their wallet more anonymous by mixing them with a large pool of other users. I asked Gavin about that later, and he said the foundation lawyers nixed the idea because efforts to make Bitcoin users more anonymous could be seen to be aiding money laundering, especially if the foundation itself was paying for development and to run the servers.

We can work with regulators to make sure Bitcoin is acceptable to them. For instance we can ensure that it remains possible to track the flow of money through Bitcoin. We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data. We can work with them to find ways to apply AML rules to Bitcoin transactions and to the exchanges. There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made. Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation. A lot of these changes are technical, such as improving scalability so transactions can remain on the blockchain, developing P2P blacklist technologies, and preventing deflation.

Sounds freakin' dandy. Count me out if it goes this direction.

Maybe litecoin is looking better and better? Bitcoin is decentralised and distributed. Putting it into the hands of a few people is opposite to the original intent.

/sign


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: aigeezer on June 23, 2013, 03:53:50 PM
In the last round of grant proposals at one point Gavin suggested someone submit a grant for a trust-free mixer service to help people make the coins in their wallet more anonymous by mixing them with a large pool of other users. I asked Gavin about that later, and he said the foundation lawyers nixed the idea because efforts to make Bitcoin users more anonymous could be seen to be aiding money laundering, especially if the foundation itself was paying for development and to run the servers.

We can work with regulators to make sure Bitcoin is acceptable to them. For instance we can ensure that it remains possible to track the flow of money through Bitcoin. We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data. We can work with them to find ways to apply AML rules to Bitcoin transactions and to the exchanges. There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made. Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation. A lot of these changes are technical, such as improving scalability so transactions can remain on the blockchain, developing P2P blacklist technologies, and preventing deflation.

Sounds freakin' dandy. Count me out if it goes this direction.

Attempts to appease "the authorities" are taking a predictable turn: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=241302.0




Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: AquaticBob on June 23, 2013, 05:25:02 PM
I'd rather bitcoin stay unregulated.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: QuestionAuthority on June 23, 2013, 06:19:47 PM
I'd rather bitcoin stay unregulated.

I'd rather Megan Fox blow me than spank it myself but just like passing regulations that's outside my control.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: td services on June 23, 2013, 07:05:06 PM
Attempts to appease "the authorities" are taking a predictable turn: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=241302.0

Doug Jackson of e-gold bent over forwards, complying with every request, and still got it hard with no grease.

There is no negotiating with terrorists.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: bitlizard on June 24, 2013, 12:08:56 AM
Please help a non tech person understand the following:

"We can work with regulators to make sure Bitcoin is acceptable to them. For instance we can ensure that it remains possible to track the flow of money through Bitcoin. We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data. We can work with them to find ways to apply AML rules to Bitcoin transactions and to the exchanges. There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made. Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation. A lot of these changes are technical, such as improving scalability so transactions can remain on the blockchain, developing P2P blacklist technologies, and preventing deflation."

How would these changes get implemented? What kind of a consensus would be required?


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: xxjs on June 24, 2013, 06:14:21 AM
No way


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Lethn on June 24, 2013, 06:33:31 AM
Quote
How would these changes get implemented? What kind of a consensus would be required? 

As far as I know when it comes to the sort of thing they're talking about the only way they would be able to do any of what they say is through blatantly illegal means like hacking or by taking control of the Bitcoin source code, since this is pretty much impossible to do I'm confident they have their heads in the sky and they're talking bullshit. What the Bitcoin foundation is are a bunch of self-appointed leaders who think they can become a Bitcoin central bank and I think I can safely say the majority of the people here don't give a flying fuck about them.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: edd on June 24, 2013, 11:26:12 AM
Quote
How would these changes get implemented? What kind of a consensus would be required? 

As far as I know when it comes to the sort of thing they're talking about the only way they would be able to do any of what they say is through blatantly illegal means like hacking or by taking control of the Bitcoin source code, since this is pretty much impossible to do I'm confident they have their heads in the sky and they're talking bullshit. What the Bitcoin foundation is are a bunch of self-appointed leaders who think they can become a Bitcoin central bank and I think I can safely say the majority of the people here don't give a flying fuck about them.

Implementing new features into Bitcoin is not illegal. The code is open source and anyone can add anything they want to.

Getting people to accept and use the code with the new features is a completely different story, however.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Gabi on June 24, 2013, 01:28:01 PM
Quote
"We can work with regulators to make sure Bitcoin is acceptable to them. For instance we can ensure that it remains possible to track the flow of money through Bitcoin. We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data. We can work with them to find ways to apply AML rules to Bitcoin transactions and to the exchanges. There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made. Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation. A lot of these changes are technical, such as improving scalability so transactions can remain on the blockchain, developing P2P blacklist technologies, and preventing deflation."
Wtf i missed this mass of bullshit! And this is what the "foundation" want to do?? Well now i understand why some wants it to disappear!


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: CasinoBit on June 24, 2013, 01:46:13 PM
Quote
"We can work with regulators to make sure Bitcoin is acceptable to them. For instance we can ensure that it remains possible to track the flow of money through Bitcoin. We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data. We can work with them to find ways to apply AML rules to Bitcoin transactions and to the exchanges. There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made. Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation. A lot of these changes are technical, such as improving scalability so transactions can remain on the blockchain, developing P2P blacklist technologies, and preventing deflation."
Wtf i missed this mass of bullshit! And this is what the "foundation" want to do?? Well now i understand why some wants it to disappear!

Sound like a buncha coppers to me, the same way a knife manufacturer shouldn't be forced to make their knifes blunt on purpose so serial killers won't be able to stab people, Bitcoin should remain as efficient as possible and spit in the face of every single person who dares to demand for us to comply with some arbitrary law.

You never see knife manufacturers blamed or put in jail when someone stabs someone else with their knife.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: bitlizard on June 24, 2013, 02:09:44 PM
Quote
How would these changes get implemented? What kind of a consensus would be required? 

As far as I know when it comes to the sort of thing they're talking about the only way they would be able to do any of what they say is through blatantly illegal means like hacking or by taking control of the Bitcoin source code, since this is pretty much impossible to do I'm confident they have their heads in the sky and they're talking bullshit. What the Bitcoin foundation is are a bunch of self-appointed leaders who think they can become a Bitcoin central bank and I think I can safely say the majority of the people here don't give a flying fuck about them.

Implementing new features into Bitcoin is not illegal. The code is open source and anyone can add anything they want to.

Getting people to accept and use the code with the new features is a completely different story, however.

If they were going to try to implement anything I suppose they would make the changes incrementally while releasing software updates through the github repository. Is that correct? 


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: RodeoX on June 24, 2013, 04:47:14 PM
Quote
"We can work with regulators to make sure Bitcoin is acceptable to them. For instance we can ensure that it remains possible to track the flow of money through Bitcoin. We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data. We can work with them to find ways to apply AML rules to Bitcoin transactions and to the exchanges. There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made. Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation. A lot of these changes are technical, such as improving scalability so transactions can remain on the blockchain, developing P2P blacklist technologies, and preventing deflation."
Wtf i missed this mass of bullshit! And this is what the "foundation" want to do?? Well now i understand why some wants it to disappear!
I don't know who is being quoted here. But the foundation does not have a position like this that I am aware of.  There is zero support for something like a backdoor in bitcoin. And "putting taxation" into bitcoin is basically a non-starter. Who's tax, USA, Poland, Zimbabwe?


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: XRcode on June 24, 2013, 06:03:59 PM
We shouldn't even be talking to the government... This is none of their business and it should stay that way.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: QuestionAuthority on June 24, 2013, 06:10:56 PM
We shouldn't even be talking to the government... This is none of their business and it should stay that way.

Did you just say, "money isn't the governments business?"


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: RodeoX on June 24, 2013, 08:20:53 PM
We shouldn't even be talking to the government... This is none of their business and it should stay that way.
You have some reading to do my friend. Not only is money their business, it is their money. ALL COMMERCE IS REGULATED. No exception. Even if you find a gold ring on the street, technically you owe some of it to the government.

Let's get past this foolishness about bitcoin not being regulated. IT IS being regulated while some bitcoiners hide their heads in the sand. The real question is do you want a voice in the regulation process? Or would rather let the government do it for you?

It will be to late when you come here saying "the state took my money!!" The time to act is now, or maybe yesterday.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: franky1 on June 24, 2013, 09:53:57 PM
We shouldn't even be talking to the government... This is none of their business and it should stay that way.
You have some reading to do my friend. Not only is money their business, it is their money.

correct. money = FIAT. the US government own dollars. so dollars is their business.. not bitcoin
ALL COMMERCE IS REGULATED. No exception. Even if you find a gold ring on the street, technically you owe some of it to the government.

Let's get past this foolishness about bitcoin not being regulated. IT IS being regulated while some bitcoiners hide their heads in the sand. The real question is do you want a voice in the regulation process? Or would rather let the government do it for you?

It will be to late when you come here saying "the state took my money!!" The time to act is now, or maybe yesterday.

wrong
if you find gold. you keep it. its yours.. if however you convert it to FIAT, you then have to declare your fiat.

same with bitcoin. america does not own bitcoin, so you do not have to declare bitcoin. but when you convert it to fiat then you have to declare it.

FIAT is the governments property.

imagine it another way.. you own a chicken. it lays an egg.. do you pay tax on every egg produced.. no. if you swapped an egg for some bacon, tax?? no.

if you sold your egg for FIAT, income tax.. yes.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: marcus_of_augustus on June 24, 2013, 10:46:05 PM
We shouldn't even be talking to the government... This is none of their business and it should stay that way.
You have some reading to do my friend. Not only is money their business, it is their money. ALL COMMERCE IS REGULATED. No exception. Even if you find a gold ring on the street, technically you owe some of it to the government.

Let's get past this foolishness about bitcoin not being regulated. IT IS being regulated while some bitcoiners hide their heads in the sand. The real question is do you want a voice in the regulation process? Or would rather let the government do it for you?

It will be to late when you come here saying "the state took my money!!" The time to act is now, or maybe yesterday.

Your head is in the wrong place.

Do not ask for permission ... if it is not specifically expressed in law that it is illegal ... it is legal. Asking for regulations is like asking a rapist to do it gently.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: QuestionAuthority on June 25, 2013, 12:03:49 AM
We shouldn't even be talking to the government... This is none of their business and it should stay that way.
You have some reading to do my friend. Not only is money their business, it is their money. ALL COMMERCE IS REGULATED. No exception. Even if you find a gold ring on the street, technically you owe some of it to the government.

Let's get past this foolishness about bitcoin not being regulated. IT IS being regulated while some bitcoiners hide their heads in the sand. The real question is do you want a voice in the regulation process? Or would rather let the government do it for you?

It will be to late when you come here saying "the state took my money!!" The time to act is now, or maybe yesterday.

Your head is in the wrong place.

Do not ask for permission ... if it is not specifically expressed in law that it is illegal ... it is legal. Asking for regulations is like asking a rapist to do it gently.

We're setting our sights too high. Maybe we should just ask for some lube.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: edmundedgar on June 25, 2013, 12:47:20 AM
Quote
"We can work with regulators to make sure Bitcoin is acceptable to them. For instance we can ensure that it remains possible to track the flow of money through Bitcoin. We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data. We can work with them to find ways to apply AML rules to Bitcoin transactions and to the exchanges. There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made. Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation. A lot of these changes are technical, such as improving scalability so transactions can remain on the blockchain, developing P2P blacklist technologies, and preventing deflation."
Wtf i missed this mass of bullshit! And this is what the "foundation" want to do?? Well now i understand why some wants it to disappear!

Repeating for people who read the start and end of the thread but not the middle: No, this isn't what the foundation want to do. This is a load of bullshit made up by the OP that nobody wants to do. If you read the original post carefully it's not actually saying they want to do it, but it's phrased in a way to make people think they do.

There's one actual thing in there that the foundation, along with all non-bonkers people, want to do, which is to improve scalability. By throwing that in with all these straw men the OP is trying to make you to think that improving scalability is part of an evil regulatory plot, in the hope that the Bitcoin network will be crippled at a low transaction rate and people who want to make normal transactions will have to use an alternative solution involving a load of quasi-PayPal type companies, which he happens to be building.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: XRcode on June 25, 2013, 02:03:17 AM
We shouldn't even be talking to the government... This is none of their business and it should stay that way.

Did you just say, "money isn't the governments business?"

No, I said bitcoin is not the governments business.. And it clearly isn't.
So who's going to regulate? The US? Well guess what, the rest of the world doesn't give a shit what the US says.
Besides, according to FINCEN...... Well nevermind they are just a bunch of overbearing dictators that have no respect for the constitution, privacy, or any civil rights rights for that matter.

Government attempts to regulate our bitcoins should be met with fierce opposition, and no negotiations. 


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: QuestionAuthority on June 25, 2013, 02:47:50 AM
We shouldn't even be talking to the government... This is none of their business and it should stay that way.

Did you just say, "money isn't the governments business?"

No, I said bitcoin is not the governments business.. And it clearly isn't.
So who's going to regulate? The US? Well guess what, the rest of the world doesn't give a shit what the US says.
Besides, according to FINCEN...... Well nevermind they are just a bunch of overbearing dictators that have no respect for the constitution, privacy, or any civil rights rights for that matter.

Government attempts to regulate our bitcoins should be met with fierce opposition, and no negotiations.  

Sorry but anything the government chooses to regulate is their business. Honestly, I don't see how a woman's uterus is the governments business but they have been regulating that one for years. I remember reading Roe v. Wade in college and wondering at the time how any government could think that's their business.

I understand your frustration and you're right the rest of the world shouldn't care what happens here and shouldn't react to it. But the truth is the US government isn't isolationist and hasn't really ever been. They put pressures on other governments in various forms to impose their will right or wrong. This means that legislation passed here will be closely watched by other nations and possibly copied. Is this wrong? Probably. Can we change it? Probably not.

I agree that most governments are overbearing and at times dictatorial. Can we change that? Probably not because that requires citizens who care enough to participate in their system of governance in mass and US citizens clearly don't.

Should we strike with fierce opposition? I don't know - you lead and we'll see who follows.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: crumbs on June 25, 2013, 11:16:23 AM
We shouldn't even be talking to the government... This is none of their business and it should stay that way.
You have some reading to do my friend. Not only is money their business, it is their money.
correct. money = FIAT. the US government own dollars. so dollars is their business.. not bitcoin

Not quite.  "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" doesn't stop at the coins with his pics on them.  All commerce in Caesar's domain is taxable by him.  This world is not as soft & fuzzy as you've been lead to believe.  Unfortunate fact number one:  The government is not stupid.  Unfortunate fact number two:  You are not the first one to think of taking a country's currency out of equation to avoid taxation.  Honest.  There were others.  Sad conclusion:  The clever tax loophole you think you've discovered has been successfully addressed & plugged up.  At your expense.  

No matter how slow & unwieldy government bureaucracies are, a few millenia is usually enough.  Though this is unsettling, governments put plenty of thought into parting you with your delicious caek, and have been for quite a while.  That's pretty much what they do, that's how they got to God Mode.  No noob is going to pwn them by "not converting into fiat."  If you ever wondered why major corporations don't avoid taxation by trading with bricks of gold instead of gobment money, and why you have to pay taxes on your house (where the only fiat involved is the stuff you need to fork over), there's your answer. :)




Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Gabi on June 25, 2013, 11:44:42 AM
Quote
"We can work with regulators to make sure Bitcoin is acceptable to them. For instance we can ensure that it remains possible to track the flow of money through Bitcoin. We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data. We can work with them to find ways to apply AML rules to Bitcoin transactions and to the exchanges. There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made. Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation. A lot of these changes are technical, such as improving scalability so transactions can remain on the blockchain, developing P2P blacklist technologies, and preventing deflation."
Wtf i missed this mass of bullshit! And this is what the "foundation" want to do?? Well now i understand why some wants it to disappear!
I don't know who is being quoted here. But the foundation does not have a position like this that I am aware of.  There is zero support for something like a backdoor in bitcoin. And "putting taxation" into bitcoin is basically a non-starter. Who's tax, USA, Poland, Zimbabwe?
It is from the first post of this thread, by retep https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=192924.msg1999501#msg1999501


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: crumbs on June 25, 2013, 11:48:15 AM
We shouldn't even be talking to the government... This is none of their business and it should stay that way.
Did you just say, "money isn't the governments business?"
No, I said bitcoin is not the governments business.. And it clearly isn't.
So who's going to regulate? The US? Well guess what, the rest of the world doesn't give a shit what the US says.

You obviously don't understand what jurisdiction means.  US will regulate Bitcoin within its borders & as it interfaces with US, no different from, say, kiddie pr0nz.  It also may put pressure on other governments to regulate Bitcoin within their borders.  Why did i choose a hot button like child pr0nz?  Because like Bitcoin, its consumption seems impossible to regulate -- it's just a bunch of blips & bloops in da tubez, or data stored on pedo's hard drives.  And yet the party van arrives.

Quote

Besides, according to FINCEN...... Well nevermind they are just a bunch of overbearing dictators that have no respect for the constitution, privacy, or any civil rights rights for that matter.
Government attempts to regulate our bitcoins should be met with fierce opposition, and no negotiations.  

If interwebz bravura is what you're talking about, then sure.  IRL?  I doubt it.  If being stripped down to your undies & felt up at the airport when you forget a few coins in your pocket didn't meet with "fierce opposition," i doubt anything will.



Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Severian on June 25, 2013, 11:51:53 AM
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" doesn't stop at the coins with his pics on them.  All commerce in Caesar's domain is taxable by him. 

The rest of the "Render unto Caesar" quote establishes that nothing is actually Caesar's and that Caesar is a big jerk that can be ignored.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: edmundedgar on June 25, 2013, 11:53:10 AM
Quote
"We can work with regulators to make sure Bitcoin is acceptable to them. For instance we can ensure that it remains possible to track the flow of money through Bitcoin. We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data. We can work with them to find ways to apply AML rules to Bitcoin transactions and to the exchanges. There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made. Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation. A lot of these changes are technical, such as improving scalability so transactions can remain on the blockchain, developing P2P blacklist technologies, and preventing deflation."
Wtf i missed this mass of bullshit! And this is what the "foundation" want to do?? Well now i understand why some wants it to disappear!
I don't know who is being quoted here. But the foundation does not have a position like this that I am aware of.  There is zero support for something like a backdoor in bitcoin. And "putting taxation" into bitcoin is basically a non-starter. Who's tax, USA, Poland, Zimbabwe?
It is from the first post of this thread, by retep https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=192924.msg1999501#msg1999501

Right, but read retep's post carefully - it's written to make people think the Bitcoin Foundation are taking that position, without actually claiming it. We've discussed this more upthread, but it's a very nasty, slippery piece of politics, IMHO.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: crumbs on June 25, 2013, 11:55:13 AM
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" doesn't stop at the coins with his pics on them.  All commerce in Caesar's domain is taxable by him. 

The rest of the "Render unto Caesar" quote establishes that nothing is actually Caesar's and that Caesar is a big jerk that can be ignored.

“Pay no attention to Caesar. Caesar doesn’t have the slightest idea of what is going on.” --Bokonon, in Vonnegut's  Cat's Cradle.  :D


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Severian on June 25, 2013, 12:00:48 PM
“Pay no attention to Caesar. Caesar doesn’t have the slightest idea of what is going on.” --Bokonon, in Vonnegut's  Cat's Cradle.  :D

Heartstring pull....I wrote a letter to Kurt when I was a kid in the 70's and he wrote back.

Wanna guess what his opinion of government regulation of Bitcoin would be? ;)


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: crumbs on June 25, 2013, 12:05:57 PM
“Pay no attention to Caesar. Caesar doesn’t have the slightest idea of what is going on.” --Bokonon, in Vonnegut's  Cat's Cradle.  :D

Heartstring pull....I wrote a letter to Kurt when I was a kid in the 70's and he wrote back.

Wanna guess what his opinion of government regulation of Bitcoin would be? ;)

He's also the guy who wrote God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater,  and his alter ego sci fi writer is responsible for The Money Tree, so he's made it pretty clear :D


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Severian on June 25, 2013, 12:25:43 PM
He's also the guy who wrote God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater,  and his alter ego sci fi writer is responsible for The Money Tree, so he's made it pretty clear :D

Yep, we do:

"There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't' know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president." -KV



Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: XRcode on June 25, 2013, 02:44:07 PM
We shouldn't even be talking to the government... This is none of their business and it should stay that way.
Did you just say, "money isn't the governments business?"
No, I said bitcoin is not the governments business.. And it clearly isn't.
So who's going to regulate? The US? Well guess what, the rest of the world doesn't give a shit what the US says.

You obviously don't understand what jurisdiction means.  US will regulate Bitcoin within its borders & as it interfaces with US, no different from, say, kiddie pr0nz.  It also may put pressure on other governments to regulate Bitcoin within their borders.  Why did i choose a hot button like child pr0nz?  Because like Bitcoin, its consumption seems impossible to regulate -- it's just a bunch of blips & bloops in da tubez, or data stored on pedo's hard drives.  And yet the party van arrives.

Quote

Besides, according to FINCEN...... Well nevermind they are just a bunch of overbearing dictators that have no respect for the constitution, privacy, or any civil rights rights for that matter.
Government attempts to regulate our bitcoins should be met with fierce opposition, and no negotiations.  

If interwebz bravura is what you're talking about, then sure.  IRL?  I doubt it.  If being stripped down to your undies & felt up at the airport when you forget a few coins in your pocket didn't meet with "fierce opposition," i doubt anything will.



You must be a genius! I write C but I don't understand plain English.
You want to be regulated? go ahead... I for one will never tell any government how many bitcoins I mined, or what I sold them for....
Hell I even take steps to make sure they won't find out even if they come take my computers...
You can TRY to regulate me, and I will simply not co-operate. quite simple.

If the rest of the public took a similar hard line against this shit, we might be getting somewhere.
In reality the only ones that are somewhat forced to answer to the government are the exchanges.
So you go answer to the government while I do the same thing I always did, and always will.

How many times has the constitution been amended to strip you of your freedom and privacy even further?
How many Americans can sit at home in their underwear and play a game of poker on their computer in the land of the FREE?
It's also funny how you see Americans in other parts of the world talking about how they come from the land of the free like they invented freedom or something...
The land of the free looks pretty damn oppressive to me.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: crumbs on June 25, 2013, 03:20:17 PM
We shouldn't even be talking to the government... This is none of their business and it should stay that way.
Did you just say, "money isn't the governments business?"
No, I said bitcoin is not the governments business.. And it clearly isn't.
So who's going to regulate? The US? Well guess what, the rest of the world doesn't give a shit what the US says.

You obviously don't understand what jurisdiction means.  US will regulate Bitcoin within its borders & as it interfaces with US, no different from, say, kiddie pr0nz.  It also may put pressure on other governments to regulate Bitcoin within their borders.  Why did i choose a hot button like child pr0nz?  Because like Bitcoin, its consumption seems impossible to regulate -- it's just a bunch of blips & bloops in da tubez, or data stored on pedo's hard drives.  And yet the party van arrives.

Quote

Besides, according to FINCEN...... Well nevermind they are just a bunch of overbearing dictators that have no respect for the constitution, privacy, or any civil rights rights for that matter.
Government attempts to regulate our bitcoins should be met with fierce opposition, and no negotiations.  

If interwebz bravura is what you're talking about, then sure.  IRL?  I doubt it.  If being stripped down to your undies & felt up at the airport when you forget a few coins in your pocket didn't meet with "fierce opposition," i doubt anything will.



You must be a genius! I write C but I don't understand plain English.

Should i feel sorry for you? 

Quote
You want to be regulated? go ahead... I for one will never tell any government how many bitcoins I mined, or what I sold them for....
Hell I even take steps to make sure they won't find out even if they come take my computers...
You can TRY to regulate me, and I will simply not co-operate. quite simple.

Would hate to see your code.  Where'd you get the notion that i want to be regulated? 

Quote
If the rest of the public took a similar hard line against this shit, we might be getting somewhere.
In reality the only ones that are somewhat forced to answer to the government are the exchanges.
So you go answer to the government while I do the same thing I always did, and always will.

How many times has the constitution been amended to strip you of your freedom and privacy even further?
How many Americans can sit at home in their underwear and play a game of poker on their computer in the land of the FREE?
It's also funny how you see Americans in other parts of the world talking about how they come from the land of the free like they invented freedom or something...
The land of the free looks pretty damn oppressive to me.

Slow down there, tiger.  Not sure what you're gettin' worked up about.  I'm not asking you to do anything, and i sure ain't sayn' nothin' 'bout what i'm doing.  Now what did i say to piss you off so much?  That interwebz talk is cheap?  It are a fact. :)


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: XRcode on June 25, 2013, 03:27:39 PM
We shouldn't even be talking to the government... This is none of their business and it should stay that way.
Did you just say, "money isn't the governments business?"
No, I said bitcoin is not the governments business.. And it clearly isn't.
So who's going to regulate? The US? Well guess what, the rest of the world doesn't give a shit what the US says.

You obviously don't understand what jurisdiction means.  US will regulate Bitcoin within its borders & as it interfaces with US, no different from, say, kiddie pr0nz.  It also may put pressure on other governments to regulate Bitcoin within their borders.  Why did i choose a hot button like child pr0nz?  Because like Bitcoin, its consumption seems impossible to regulate -- it's just a bunch of blips & bloops in da tubez, or data stored on pedo's hard drives.  And yet the party van arrives.

Quote

Besides, according to FINCEN...... Well nevermind they are just a bunch of overbearing dictators that have no respect for the constitution, privacy, or any civil rights rights for that matter.
Government attempts to regulate our bitcoins should be met with fierce opposition, and no negotiations.  

If interwebz bravura is what you're talking about, then sure.  IRL?  I doubt it.  If being stripped down to your undies & felt up at the airport when you forget a few coins in your pocket didn't meet with "fierce opposition," i doubt anything will.



You must be a genius! I write C but I don't understand plain English.

Should i feel sorry for you? 

Quote
You want to be regulated? go ahead... I for one will never tell any government how many bitcoins I mined, or what I sold them for....
Hell I even take steps to make sure they won't find out even if they come take my computers...
You can TRY to regulate me, and I will simply not co-operate. quite simple.

Would hate to see your code.  Where'd you get the notion that i want to be regulated? 

Quote
If the rest of the public took a similar hard line against this shit, we might be getting somewhere.
In reality the only ones that are somewhat forced to answer to the government are the exchanges.
So you go answer to the government while I do the same thing I always did, and always will.

How many times has the constitution been amended to strip you of your freedom and privacy even further?
How many Americans can sit at home in their underwear and play a game of poker on their computer in the land of the FREE?
It's also funny how you see Americans in other parts of the world talking about how they come from the land of the free like they invented freedom or something...
The land of the free looks pretty damn oppressive to me.

Slow down there, tiger.  Not sure what you're gettin' worked up about.  I'm not asking you to do anything, and i sure ain't sayn' nothin' 'bout what i'm doing.  Now what did i say to piss you off so much?  That interwebz talk is cheap?  It are a fact. :)

You my friend, are an idiot.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: td services on June 25, 2013, 05:27:31 PM
We shouldn't even be talking to the government... This is none of their business and it should stay that way.

Did you just say, "money isn't the governments business?"

Money is the lifeblood of empire - and the dollar, the pound, the euro, and the yen all have blood poisoning.

There is nothing backing them but faith, and when that faith collapses, it will be hilarious.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: exogan on June 26, 2013, 07:56:49 PM
Regulation of bitcoin in some sense is inevitable and probably desirable, but it's important to recognize that the only sense in which bitcoin can be realistically regulated has to do with the ways that bitcoin interfaces with the traditional financial system.  So, exchanges, like MtGox, can be compelled to behave in certain ways by the financial regulations of their jurisdictions.  They can be held to standards of accounting and reporting, say, and face fines or interference for not complying.

A unique aspect of bitcoin is that transacting only in the bitcoin ecosystem, away from points of contact with the traditional financial system, is to transact in a system that is pretty strongly resistant to typical top-down regulation from entities like states.  Users can more easily choose whether they operate in the regulated space or the unregulated space.

In a discussion on regulation, I think it's important to make this distinction.  If somebody, like some members of the Foundation, are pro-regulation, it doesn't necessarily mean they believe that bitcoin itself should or will be regulated - it probably just can't be regulated in a practical way.  What they are likely talking about are regulations to do with certain ways that bitcoin comes in contact with traditional financial systems where states already enforce regulations.
Nope nope nope.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: ASICMining on June 27, 2013, 09:22:13 AM
There's pros and cons to both, but unregulated will always communicate "under the radar" to many legit businesses that want to deal with commercially regulated companies.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Schrankwand on June 28, 2013, 03:34:08 PM
There's pros and cons to both, but unregulated will always communicate "under the radar" to many legit businesses that want to deal with commercially regulated companies.

But the problem is: "How do you regulate an international currency nationally?"



Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: aigeezer on June 28, 2013, 03:47:20 PM
There's an angle to regulation that had not occurred to me before reading this:

"Regulatory costs are unbudgeted and lack the formal presentation to the public and media to which ordinary federal spending is subject, and thus regulatory initiatives allow the government to direct private-sector resources to a significant degree without much public fuss. In that sense, regulation can be thought of as off-budget taxation."

http://cei.org/10KC

We've obviously noticed that regulated BTC is a potential revenue source for governments, but the piece that I hadn't thought about is the off-budget, no public scrutiny, no legal tests part - FINCEN (for example) issues a guideline, an opinion made from whole cloth, and companies far and wide scurry to comply. Government revenues increase as if by magic. No new laws, no debate, no hassle - easy money, from a government's perspective.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: crumbs on June 28, 2013, 03:58:38 PM
There's pros and cons to both, but unregulated will always communicate "under the radar" to many legit businesses that want to deal with commercially regulated companies.
But the problem is: "How do you regulate an international currency nationally?"
A government will regulate Bitcoin within its borders & as it interfaces with its currency and its citizens, no different from, say, kiddie pr0nz.  
It also may put pressure on other governments to regulate Bitcoin within their borders.  

Why a hot button like child pr0nz?  Because like Bitcoin, its consumption seems impossible to regulate -- bunch of digitized data in da tubez, or on pedo's hard drives.  But the party van shows up anyhow. 


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: justusranvier on June 28, 2013, 04:20:17 PM
Relevant to this thread: I Love the Smell of Crony Capitalism in the Morning (http://bitcoinism.blogspot.com/2013/06/i-love-smell-of-crony-capitalism-in.html)


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: legitnick on June 28, 2013, 04:39:37 PM
Im a strong supporter of keeping Bitcoin out of the hands of regulatory governments. Bitcoin was made for the very reason of being unregulated, and some of you guys want it to be regulated ???


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: aigeezer on June 28, 2013, 05:53:50 PM
Relevant to this thread: I Love the Smell of Crony Capitalism in the Morning (http://bitcoinism.blogspot.com/2013/06/i-love-smell-of-crony-capitalism-in.html)

"If past results are any indication attempts to force Bitcoin to conform to the old rules will cause an innovation backlash. Rendering regulations ineffective and impossible to enforce will simply be added to the list of challenges to overcome when it comes to starting a new venture."

I liked that piece, although I don't know whether the names named are fair targets or not. I'm not close enough to the action to tell - fog of war. The behaviors described certainly seem like fair targets.

Good to know you're watching 'em.       :)


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Severian on June 28, 2013, 07:20:12 PM
Relevant to this thread: I Love the Smell of Crony Capitalism in the Morning (http://bitcoinism.blogspot.com/2013/06/i-love-smell-of-crony-capitalism-in.html)

Well said. You zeroed in on a core issue with human nature that Bitcoin brings to the surface:

Quote
As he reveals in the interview, his ultimate goal is not to be an entrepreneur, but rather a career bureaucrat on a regulatory panel that tells entrepreneurs what they can and can't do. Determining the advisability of doing business with a company whose CEO doesn't actually want to be in the business is left as an exercise for the reader.

Americans and others around the world have been conditioned to believe that the political divisions in human beings are between "liberals" and "conservatives" when in actual fact, the true dividing line is the one between those obsessed with Ruling or being Ruled and those who perceive Liberty as the higher end: "The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians." -George Orwell, 1948

Since Bitcoin is the first money in human history that has no "Ruler" behind it, it's defining this line very clearly. Bitcoin's creator seemed to know this, per his statement about Bitcoin and libertarians.

Bitcoin will survive the authoritarians, just as it was designed to do. Exchanges might get taken down, markets smashed, but Bitcoin as an idea and a tech will outlive the commissars.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: xxjs on June 28, 2013, 10:38:06 PM

Since Bitcoin is the first money in human history that has no "Ruler" behind it, it's defining this line very clearly. Bitcoin's creator seemed to know this, per his statement about Bitcoin and libertarians.


Forgetting about gold money here, are we?


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: justusranvier on June 28, 2013, 11:39:17 PM
I liked that piece, although I don't know whether the names named are fair targets or not.
Here's the interview I was referring to in my piece:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqtTTiJmdeA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqtTTiJmdeA)


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: marcus_of_augustus on June 29, 2013, 01:55:17 AM
There's pros and cons to both, but unregulated will always communicate "under the radar" to many legit businesses that want to deal with commercially regulated companies.
But the problem is: "How do you regulate an international currency nationally?"
A government will regulate Bitcoin within its borders & as it interfaces with its currency and its citizens, no different from, say, kiddie pr0nz.  
It also may put pressure on other governments to regulate Bitcoin within their borders.  

Why a hot button like child pr0nz?  Because like Bitcoin, its consumption seems impossible to regulate -- bunch of digitized data in da tubez, or on pedo's hard drives.  But the party van shows up anyhow.  


Why kiddie porn? ... because you are obsessed by it and never fail to seize an opportunity to mention it ... maybe you should check in with a shrink? ... an obsession with kiddie porn, in any manner, is probably not a healthy signal.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: crumbs on June 29, 2013, 12:58:46 PM
There's pros and cons to both, but unregulated will always communicate "under the radar" to many legit businesses that want to deal with commercially regulated companies.
But the problem is: "How do you regulate an international currency nationally?"
A government will regulate Bitcoin within its borders & as it interfaces with its currency and its citizens, no different from, say, kiddie pr0nz.  
It also may put pressure on other governments to regulate Bitcoin within their borders.  

Why a hot button like child pr0nz?  Because like Bitcoin, its consumption seems impossible to regulate -- bunch of digitized data in da tubez, or on pedo's hard drives.  But the party van shows up anyhow.  


Why kiddie porn? ... because you are obsessed by it and never fail to seize an opportunity to mention it ... maybe you should check in with a shrink? ... an obsession with kiddie porn, in any manner, is probably not a healthy signal.

Because i want to make you all buthurt & degenerate to spewing nerd rage. How're u feelin'? :)


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: aigeezer on June 29, 2013, 02:07:00 PM
I liked that piece, although I don't know whether the names named are fair targets or not.
Here's the interview I was referring to in my piece:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqtTTiJmdeA

Thanks! Your assessment was correct, I now believe. The interview is fascinating - I can follow his reasoning as he leads himself into a terrible place. It helps me step back and revisit what I want from BTC.

Bottom line (for me) - a robust P2P currency (with all its warts) is much more important than an interface with fiat (with all its warts).

I said it a long way up-thread, but now more than ever my preference is to keep BTC unregulated. If that must mean no interface at all with fiat, then I hope BTC takes that route despite the downside. That said - regardless of which path BTC takes, some people will stay with it and some people will leave and some altcoin will fill any vacuum created. The universe is probably unfolding as it should - P2P for me though, and government makes three.    :)





Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Severian on June 29, 2013, 06:33:49 PM
Forgetting about gold money here, are we?

Even when gold and silver were money, they were still subject to the whims of the State. Governments have a long history of issuing debased metal coins, including the US. Bitcoin can't be debased by any authority. That's one of the reasons banks and their vassal governments see it as a threat.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: justusranvier on June 29, 2013, 08:40:59 PM
I can follow his reasoning as he leads himself into a terrible place. It helps me step back and revisit what I want from BTC.
Thank you. That was exactly what I was hoping to achieve with the article.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: xxjs on June 30, 2013, 12:38:20 AM
Forgetting about gold money here, are we?

Even when gold and silver were money, they were still subject to the whims of the State. Governments have a long history of issuing debased metal coins, including the US. Bitcoin can't be debased by any authority. That's one of the reasons banks and their vassal governments see it as a threat.


Agree, it has happened.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: polarhei on June 30, 2013, 07:50:39 AM
If you like to make bitcoin as a reasonable way for users which do not have any credit cards, then better work with law even all people can read the source code.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: abbyd on July 04, 2013, 08:33:01 AM
I liked that piece, although I don't know whether the names named are fair targets or not.
Here's the interview I was referring to in my piece:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqtTTiJmdeA

Ewww. He would "like nothing better than to be on the board of directors of the new regulatory agency in Canada that governs and regulates digital currency".


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: polarhei on July 04, 2013, 08:38:24 AM
If you like to make bigger and legal, then it is required guidance to follow as bitcoin is designed as open transaction which everyone can monitor.

It does not mean the tools designed anomymous. The design implies this even the representation is not readable normally.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Linkkoin on December 18, 2019, 11:39:55 AM
The point is that there is a clear statement from different authorities all across the globe - if you want to play the game related to finances/money-related services, either play with the (more or less) same framework as the older ones or get banned.

As well nowadays, operating in a legal vacuum is often a disadvantage when speaking of cooperation with traditional financial institutions, like banks, payment providers etc. which often simply refuse provision of services because of that.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: FaithInCrypto on December 18, 2019, 12:53:27 PM
If I were asked the same question years ago, I'd probably had a firm answer with "unregulated Bitcoin" that time but now that Bitcoin has been used for illegal activities, I don't want to think anymore. I hope there would be a way of decentralization and modernization at the same time so both parties so everyone will be happy.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Asmonist on December 18, 2019, 02:46:09 PM
I am actually quite against regulating bitcoin. All my concern is the safety and how to penalize scammers or invaders. If it can be regulated I hope its for safety and privacy. However, if it will contrast to the usual processing and may result to more charges soon then its better to have it as it is. So far bitcoin is doing well and earning it is fine so far.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: kotik085 on December 26, 2019, 02:35:42 PM
It’s best to leave bitcoin as it is today. No need to regulate that Bitcoin has become like a dollar? Why do we need this today, because investing in bitcoin is much nicer than a dollar.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: WRAOUF on January 02, 2020, 03:09:55 PM
What is the benefit to regulation? Do gold and silver buyers have regulation? In my opinion, Bitcoin green addresses, whitelisting, colored coins, government provided deterministic wallets, and other schemes can offer full traceability. All there need to be is an incentive to use them.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: Twentyonepaylots on February 18, 2020, 05:45:50 PM
It is good that there are so many coins right now, unlike 2013. So those prefer regulation will go to certain coins, and those prefer avoiding regulation will go to certain other coins, problem solved
Only that if we want to ensure bitcoin's survivability we would need to have it be regularized in some way by the governments that currently overrule everyone. They'll find a way to tax it out unfortunately but it's a small price to pay for bitcoin's progress. Heck, it can even be debated in court once bitcoin's widely accepted whether it's fair to regulate it or not, so you won't need to worry about that. On the bright side of things bitcoin being regulated provides more security and peace of mind to the users and customers for it'll be easier to process transactions and track them if they are traceable, which can be done of course, through regulation.


Title: Re: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?
Post by: coolcoinz on February 18, 2020, 06:58:05 PM
What is the benefit to regulation? Do gold and silver buyers have regulation? In my opinion, Bitcoin green addresses, whitelisting, colored coins, government provided deterministic wallets, and other schemes can offer full traceability. All there need to be is an incentive to use them.


There are some benefits of regulation and they mainly concern platforms. Without regulation there were many exchanges owned by anonymous people or someone known by their facebook account and nothing else. These exchanges were disappearing one by one in 2014-18, like for instance quadriga and BTC-e. Regulated exchanges need to have certain collateral and undergoes normal bankruptcy procedures. It can still go bankrupt but it cannot disappear with your money. So the biggest advantage of regulation is transparency.
Gold and Silver markets are of course regulated.

Remember that regulation doesn't mean the end of the black market or p2p exchange. It's more like an official recognition.