It don't think the SEC cares much about bitcoin. It has too many other things to worry about unless someone tries to sell bitcoin stocks or bitcoin securities without proper registration. There are other branches of govt that might be more interested. Again it is US only and they have't stopped online gaming.
+1 Most US Law enforcement and Regulatory Agencies are already on the record as saying they are only concerned with virtual currency to the extent is is used for illegal or fraudulent activities. This includes The Fed US Secret Service Department of Justice (FBI, DEA, ATF) Department of Treasury Security and Exchange Commission .... except in most cases the laws are so vague and subjective that they can declare lots of things "illegal" in one of there "guideline interpretations" and entrpreneurs are out of business if they wish it to be so (or face an insurmountable legal challenge) e.g. Mike Caldwell of Casascius coins https://www.casascius.com/You're in la-la land of how the govt. really operates, it must be fun living in such a denial bubble? |
|
|
|
|
Honeypot ... sounds like you are champion for
- indefinite Guantanamo Bay detentions without charge,
- extra-judicial drone killings,
- ubiquitous mass-surveillance,
- unaccountable militarised policing forces
- court martial for dissidents, whistleblowers
- political protest movement infiltration by State agents
- IRS politically-motivated harassment
rah, rah ... Hitler luvs thuggy guys like you, Jefferson not so much.
Do you know what you stand for anymore besides USA, USA, USA, rah-rah-rah!?
|
|
|
|
The current MSB/MT regulation is a massive economic boom for the GreenDots, PayPals, and Western Unions of the world. They will move massive sums of money in lobbying to kill any attempt that opens the flood gates for competitors.
Maybe this time will be different, it certainly is needed.
Classic regulatory capture. This does suggest why Bitcoin businesses should try and fight the regulators and exempt themselves whenever possible. The whole notion that placing a transaction on the blockchain is somehow the equivalent of transmitting sovereign currencies from one place or time to another on behalf of another party seems rather a stretch legally. Exactly. And that is exactly what must be challenged. Yes, I agree, the racket needs to be challenged ... but for that to happen you will need to put a strongman in the Whitehouse, one with a single passport and a brain. |
|
|
|
.... the senate was quiet and smiley because they know that their regulators are out there stabbing it in the back to death on a daily basis ....
watch what they do, not what they say.
ok what are regulators doing in the usa regarding bitcoin? ... so far we've had pre-emptive seizure of Gox funds (main exchange), cease and desist orders, industry-wide subpoenas in State of NY, warning letters from FinCEN (makes me wonder if any of the mega banks ever got warning letters, cease 'n desist or subpoenas for sub-prime CDO mark-to-model accounting?), banks severing business without warning or reasons offered may also be due to regulator pressure ... and probably more ... but most of the original entrepreneurs in bitcoin space have given up on US, the only ones playing now seem to be able to 'know' how to grease the palm of the regulators to keep their doors open |
|
|
|
|
.... the senate was quiet and smiley because they know that their regulators are out there stabbing it in the back to death on a daily basis ....
watch what they do, not what they say.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the analysis. While the Global GDP is 87 Trillion. Online Sales is just 1 Trillion.
Ok, Bitcoin probably wont have significant uptake for on-line sales for some time, imho. It can however compete immediately and directly with any electronic transfers of value information (SWIFT, FEDWIRE, etc) today, particularly across borders where capital controls and other political censorship or other interference in payment systems is taking place. Care to put a number on that for me? Thnx. |
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
You bring up a HUGE issue. There is no Regulator at the Federal Level for "money transmitters" the "Money Service Business" category that FinCEN put the bitcoin industry in with the March 18th Guidance.
This is some thing the National Money Transmitter Assocaition is trying to address with upcoming "Industry Symposium for Legislative Action - (ISLA)" February 18, 2014 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST in Washington DC. I agree to a certain extent. I generally oppose new regulation but the current situation is just a nightmare of asinine proportions. They are less than 100 companies in the world which have licenses in all fifty states. There is some legal opinion that is is easier and cheaper today, to form a new bank (or buy an existing bank or credit union) and thus bypass the entire issue because banks and credit unions are not MSBs and their national charter makes them outside the regulatory scope of most state regulations. When it is easier to form a bank then issue a prepaid card for example you know something is wrong. Still this has been a problem for twenty years now. Decades before Bitcoin was even born there have been attempts to create a single national license because the current system is broken but all attempts to date have been futile. The states certainly don't want to give up that power and control. The existing players who have already gone through that nightmare don't want it to go away. PayPal LOVES the excessive, asinine regulation. It all but guarantees there will never be a PayPal direct competitor because the burden on any startup is simply too high and without a startup the risk is too much to dump the tens of millions to jump right to the next stage of the game. The current MSB/MT regulation is a massive economic boom for the GreenDots, PayPals, and Western Unions of the world. They will move massive sums of money in lobbying to kill any attempt that opens the flood gates for competitors. Maybe this time will be different, it certainly is needed. You say all this and you cannot smell the deep stench of CARTEL?!!! The money business in the USA is a racket from top to bottom, Federal Reserve is the racketeer in chief ... how else do you think was the whole sector able to extort hundreds of billions from the taxpayer in 2008 and get away with it? Crawling to the racketeers asking for permission to run you own shop inside their protection network and expecting it to end well is the height of naivete, or just plain insane. It's a racket, refuse to see that, deny the reality and you get what you deserve. |
|
|
|
For the record FinCEN's mission is to safeguard the financial system from illicit use and combat money laundering and promote national security through the collection, analysis, and dissemination of financial intelligence and strategic use of financial authorities. That is their stated mission ... as with everything to do with govt. the actual mission is much deeper and more subtle and has been determined by lobbyists and cunning lawyers writing in loopholes and hooks to get the "framework" that state-sanctioned cartels and cronies can operate with impunity under. I see you are still on the deluded trip that the regulations are there for your benefit. Newsflash, they are not or the financial/monetary system would not be in such a parlous state and bitcoin would not be needed or demanded ... i.e. you wouldn't be here incessantly spouting the establishment line. |
|
|
|
I have a few more back-of-envelope figures that might be relevant for the "1 million" or other saturation level choice ... Gross World Product http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product... approx. GWP= 85 x10^12 [us$] ..... (trillion, round figure, PPP basis.) Typical money velocity for widely held/used money http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money... approx. V= 4.1 Money stock circulating, M = 18 x10^6 [xbt] ... (assume some irretrievably lost and circa 2025 stock mined) Bitcoin price, B [us$] Governing equation; GWP = B.M.VB = GWP/(M.V) => Upper bound case where bitcoin denominates ALL global transactions B = 1.152 x10^6 [us$] => 10% GWP denominated in [xbt] B = 115.2 x10^3 [us$] => 1% GWP denominated in [xbt] B = 11,520 [us$] (NB: this is based purely on white trade and discounts black/grey market monetary demand, including transfers that circumvent capital controls, private transfers, off-balance sheet, etc monetary TX and storage demands.) |
|
|
|
|
SEC has little to zero jurisdiction outside the facist USA .... you need to alter your title to "Why Bitcoin is Doomed in USA" ... sub-title "And Other Like-Minded Backward Repressive States"
The current clamping down on an Internet communications protocol will be looked back upon in the future as an equivalent historical transgression equal in insanity to the Spanish Inquisition driven by the Catholic Church or the colonial slavery era.
|
|
|
|
|
Chinese and Taiwanese fight over every thing, disagree with passion ....
chinese, taiwanese central banks on bitcoin? ... brothers-in-arms.
now we are seeing who the real enemies of humanity and freedom really are, bitcoin is good at shining the light of truth and exposing the real oppressors.
|
|
|
|
|
the killer bitcoin App is hiding in plain sight and already being used by thousands .... circumventing capital controls
.... look no further, now get out there and code!
|
|
|
|
http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/2013/12/31/another-lame-bankster-attacks-bitcoin/Another day, another banker, another ignorant jab at Bitcoin. This time it’s Steven Englander of Citibank, America’s third largest TBTF zombiebank. Mr. Englander wisely steers clear of attacking Bitcoin on the basis of made-up numbers, instead relying on rhetoric. He writes (and I comment) as follows: .... author's summary. Well, that’s it. Pretty lame kung fu, really. The joke is a banker who pretends to libertarian sympathies while advocating centralisation and government control.
It seems to me that banksters have assimilated much of government but in so doing become dependent on endless liquidity. With both trotters in the public trough, they’ve forgotten how to compete in anything like a free market. Naturally, they now want government to step in to outlaw their competition. That’s how monopoly operates, after all… What happens next will certainly be interesting. Right now it seems to me these guys have no clue what they’re up against.
|
|
|
|
|
.... and to you to Chaang Noi!
"Well played cryptonerds, well played."
|
|
|
|
It seems more like a "It' can't be" reaction then "To da Moon" for most people.
This. The objection is more of an out of hand rejection on grounds of a fundamental disbelief ("It can't be") than a sound, reasoned rejection of the numbers ... the math does not lie, we just have to be sure of the assumptions. To be fair, I'm still in the "It can't be" camp ... but bad assumptions are more dangerous than bad calculations. But it's not simply that "It can't be", but rather the general observation that infrastructure wise, we're not really there. Do you really see our current exchanges handling 100x their current load in just 6-7 months from now? Even if they somehow technologically make it and others pop up to help, how about the banking situation? Bureaucracy takes time. I agree ... but that doesn't stop the speculative adoption (price) getting way ahead of the utility adoption, and the utility infrastructure that can actually handle that price .... |
|
|
|
Agreed that the Log(Log) graph fits recent data better, however there is no principle behind the equation as there is with a logistic model of population growth with resource constraints. The Log(Log) model suggests that prices during 2014 will reach 100000 USD by summer 2014. To me, this is not a plausible growth rate for bitcoin prices.
I believe that 2012 simply under performed and that 2013 over performed with regard to the log trend line.
justusranvier brought up a great point in that USD purchasing power has been following an exponential decay model. Doesn't that suggest the growth should be super exponential, at least for some phase? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg4210004#msg4210004Right, but the dollar decay has traditionally had a much slower time constant than bitcoin adoption ... although it could be that the two wont always be unrelated. At some point, if there is a widespread loss of confidence, and a rush out of the dollar into bitcoin (the bitexit holy grail) then the two will become very much related functions in a hyper-inflation $, hyper-monetisation BTC event. A super-exponential decay of dollar purchasing power pumping up a super-exponential rise in btc/usd price. |
|
|
|
It seems more like a "It' can't be" reaction then "To da Moon" for most people.
This. The objection is more of an out of hand rejection on grounds of a fundamental disbelief ("It can't be") than a sound, reasoned rejection of the numbers ... the math does not lie, we just have to be sure of the assumptions. To be fair, I'm still in the "It can't be" camp ... but bad assumptions are more dangerous than bad calculations. |
|
|
|
My alternative approach - log vs log(log) from 01.11.2011 to present. Conclusion: The log-log model seems to better fit the data than the linear-log model, and according to this model we are actually slightly under the trend line. Comments?  Wow ... that's some wild-ass result you got!! ... but hard to argue with the math, the fit looks good (just eyeballing but some best-fit stats would be nice) if we are indeed in the super-exponential phase (vertical) right now. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
