Rainey Reitman leads the activism team at the Electronic Frontier Foundation and she'll be talking about financial censorship (May 17-19th). She is particularly interested in the intersection between personal privacy and technology, particularly social networking privacy, locational privacy, and online data brokers. https://www.eff.org/about/staff/rainey-reitmanhttp://www.bitcoin2013.com/index.htmlhttps://twitter.com/RaineyReitman/status/301034326856957952Also, just so this thread doesn't degrade into a "EFF should accept bitcoin" thread, the stated EFF position is that if they spend time and resources defending themselves, then it becomes difficult for them to do their jobs defending others. Although Bitcoin is not illegal, their goal for better or worse is not to make themselves the subject of a controversy. |
|
|
|
Excellent article in a gambling pub, Erik. Thanks for "finding" it. When I pumped Bitcoin at the 2011 annual KPMG online-casino-fest in Gibraltar, I started to learn the reasons why they feel the way they do about Bitcoin, the ideal digital casino chip. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5266Gibraltar is home to 22 of the top 28 online gaming companies in the world. The jurisdiction welcomed them with open arms unlike the US. I meet with these guys and also hang out with them. The bottom line is that online mega-casinos do not seem to perceive the payment method as a "competitive advantage" so they happily receive the other fee-based payment alternatives. They tend to focus more on the competition for eyeballs and affiliates feeding them traffic so in many ways it resembles the economics of online porn. Also, more than one CEO said to me privately that their business has regulators up the ass on a daily basis about money laundering. So, in that context, Bitcoin is the last thing they wanted to entertain. FYI, for your enjoyment, Ruth started the "SatoshiDice" of her day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Parasolhttp://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Ruth-Parasol_TX20.html |
|
|
|
Because Bitcoin does not require trust in a financial intermediary (e.g., a bank) it is an incredibly efficient method for transferring amounts large and small. For international money transfers it is swifter than SWIFT (clears in an hour and non-reversible. It is less costly than PayPal.
A government that intentionally hobbles its economy by taking steps to outlaw or prohibit the open use of Bitcoin will find itself drop versus competitor nations that are more accommodating of it.
Stephen, Sadly, governments do not care about efficiency in payments. If they did, they would not be attaching massive amounts of paperwork and compliance via AML which adds complexity and even more cost. Governments care about traceability and identification within the system. That is their dominant care. Other competitor governments that do not likewise "hobble" their economy via FATF/OECD compliance will undoubtedly find themselves in the same position as the "grey" list or "black" list countries of today. The situation today proves that efficiency/speed of international money transfers is not a competitive advantage weapon for nation-States, because they all come into line with the exception of Iran and North Korea. The current empirical evidence shows that even somewhat accommodating nations like Cyprus, Mauritius, Liechtenstein, Gibraltar, etc have actually come more into the fold via tax treaties and coordinated AML/KYC banking guidelines. |
|
|
|
Photo is not shopped. I was present when it was made. But ask DF himself what he means by it, he is quite responsive to comments in his blog: http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.comGreat photo, flix. Thanks for posting. Next time, please let me know and i'll try to get there and join you guys. |
|
|
|
|
Brainwallet could put these guys out of business. I hope they understand that.
|
|
|
|
|
Great news, Charlie.
Congratulations!
|
|
|
|
Bottom line is, if coin mixing were built into the client, there would never be a need for anyone to use a coin mixing service, and thereby deliberately and identifiably participate in so-called "money laundering". Rather, they would be exchanging coins in the normal course of business, the same way I can go to the grocery store with a twenty and ask for two tens without being guilty of "laundering" the twenty.
This process would also help greatly toward network scalability. If coupled with a scheme where small penny txids (such as those generated by p2pool) were consolidated into amounts large enough to be valid for mixing, this also would defragment them without forcing whoever owns those outputs to deanonymize themselves... this would dramatically reduce the storage burden on near-future clients who will only be tracking unspent transactions instead of the whole block chain.
Mike, do you know the current status of this type of effort? |
|
|
|
the fact that it is still-in-beta cryptographic play money and not officially recognized as money in any jurisdiction in the world.
According to bitcoin.se it is now classified as money in Sweden. As bitcoins today are accepted as a means of payment by a multitude of merchants in Sweden as well as abroad bitcoins fulfill the conditions for being classified as a means of payment. Provision of means of payment requires registration according to [some articles of law].
(Translated by me.) This should mean that bitcoin will now be treated as other currencies with regard to regulation of exchangers, exemption from VAT and other laws about money. I translated that post also; however it is from an advisory letter to a particular recipient. We would need to see the full statement or change in bitcoin status announced publicly. While exemption from VAT may be good, any new "legitimacy" or definitions as "real money" would serve to decrease bitcoin's freedom not enhance it. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not a currency?  This is an important blog post by Warren Mosler (if you can ignore his flawed economic background). Thanks for posting julz. It's common knowledge that bitcoin is both a payments system and a unit of account. However, the part about 'officially sanctioned' players and the desire of some to legitimately recognize bitcoin as 'real money' contradicts the fact that it is still-in-beta cryptographic play money and not officially recognized as money in any jurisdiction in the world. This will have implications for those that wish to use bitcoin online with businesses, such as businesses that want to offer online poker to U.S. players. |
|
|
|
I find it offensive that a company would require identification papers for trading a math puzzle just as I would find it offensive if a company required identity papers to purchase toothpaste or rubber bands.
If you trade rubber bands on a the open market you'll probably be required to identify yourself. Regardless, if it offends you, you always have the option to pass. So I'm not sure what exactly is offensive here, that we ask *you* to provide identification ? Because we don't. Or that we offer a service that requires some level of identification ? David, I'm not sure why you have to feel defensive and singled out. This is not personal and it is not only about Paymium/Bitcoin-Central. It is a bitcoin industry question. The level of offensiveness comes from the legal guidelines that companies like yours have to follow; of course I know that you didn't make up the various rules of the financial framework. And, not all markets in all jurisdictions would make you identify yourself for open market trades of seemingly innocuous items. You chose France for obvious reasons, so you must operate within the rules and regulations of France. Bitcoin is neither defined nor stipulated as a "currency" in any country in the world right now, so I reject money transfer/MSB regulatory paradigms that attempt to treat it as such. I also wish that a few attorneys would step up to articulate that defense. |
|
|
|
The title is so much fail
Why? I mean the title of the article, of course. The article is full of bullshit, and the title too is bullshit. Gabi, Is that the best you could come up with? Be glad that you didn't submit that comment to Forbes. Do you have anything else to add because you're not giving me much to reply to? The main reason that I can see for preferring bitcoin at the moment is the option to not associate my identity with my money. Others may see something else like low fees and for sending money overseas. But for me personally, I have other payment methods available to accomplish that so the main differentiator becomes the things I can accomplish with Bitcoin that I cannot accomplish in other ways. I suspect that some others may feel the same way. Also look at some the largest BTC balances on the block chain besides Gox and identified exchange points. You will notice that they did not come from any of the so-called bridges; I'm not saying who they are, but that's point isn't it. |
|
|
|
|
Trace, since you just pasted your Forbes comment here, I'll re-post my reply to it here as well. I think that if you re-read the article and comments, some alternative solutions are offered. It is not going to be an easy or fun road for exchanges in 1st world KYC/AML countries that embrace OECD/FATF guidelines (that is just a fact). I have seen too many unpleasant things happen to not know what lies before them. They may try if they wish, but experience will show that it is not necessarily the road to success.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trace,
Thanks for your comment. Indeed, the censorship resistance feature provides the resiliency. FellowTraveler is a stalwart and he does great work on Open Transactions. I think you may have missed the main point of my article, because no one is suggesting isolationism and no one is suggesting that companies and individuals don’t have the right to seek regulation and to integrate with the legacy financial situation if that is their path. I am saying that playing that game is a misguided road to achieve bitcoin’s promise of a parallel nonpolitical value exchange system. That is the bigger folly.
Jurisdictions and other exchange structures should be considered for more of the end points. I don’t know about you but I find it offensive that a company would require identification papers for trading a math puzzle just as I would find it offensive if a company required identity papers to purchase toothpaste or rubber bands. Globally, liquidity will not be diminished by refusing to participate in the rules of commercial banking endpoints; it is the ease of use on the software side that is currently holding back mass adoption despite the fact that many exchange avenues exist.
Also, as you know from your work in the asset management business, the storing of value is only useful if it is beyond confiscation so depending on the particular situation gold bugs may begin to supplement by storing value on the block chain.
|
|
|
|
I posted this today at the Bitcoin Foundation website: Since the nonprofit Bitcoin Foundation launched in September 2012 I have been asked many times by potential sponsors, “Why would our organization want to support bitcoin and the foundation?” The answer lies in the primary benefits that bitcoin enables in society and those benefits are not always so easy to recognize at first.
As a decentralized and nonpolitical cryptographic money, bitcoin acts as both payment platform and unit of account. In other words, it is both the train track and the train which is what gives bitcoin the ability to function smoothly without third-party intermediaries.
Why is this significant? Without intermediaries, bitcoin is not subject to being appropriated or usurped by governments for their political agendas in the way that monarchs assumed the privileges of minting and stamping the gold coins of the realm, which were eventually ‘clipped’ and later morphed into lower grade metals. Historically, civilized society has not seen an opportunity like this before nor what kind of economic revolution can be sparked by a sustainable, independent monetary unit.....
Continued... https://bitcoinfoundation.org/blog/?p=41 |
|
|
|
|
Excellent, Erik!
Now the New Hampshire license plate slaves know what BITCOIN is!
Bill Morrissey wrote a song titled "Live Free or Die" about the irony of a prisoner serving time in the State of New Hampshire's jails and hand-stamping license plates with the motto Live Free or Die. (Wikipedia)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks julz!
You have a great media scraper.
|
|
|
|
Funny thing is that this question is actually pertinent. There are several very different ways in which a website can deal with bitcoins.
- not dealing at all. No single mention of bitcoin, and everything priced in national currency ;
- pricing in national currency, but a link provides means to pay in bitcoins, with the price being calculated from real time exchange markets, and bitcoins instantanously turned into national currency, possibly with the help of a third party like bitpay ;
- double pricing, customers can pay in the currency they want. The website receives and stores bitcoins ;
- bitcoin pricing only, customers must manage to get some bitcoins on their own (like with Silk Roard or some poker sites).
A more serious analysis of the different possibilities would be usefull, I think.
Very true, grondilu. Companies are starting to ask these questions now. When viable hedging solutions become available, savvy merchants will most likely opt for choice 4 and retain bitcoin balances. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
