Is regulation really coming to Bitcoin ?

[Kazimir]

Bitcoin is already regulated. There is no other form of money that follows such strict rules as Bitcoin.

Except other than fiat, Bitcoin is regulated transparently, for and by everyone, through cryptography. The elite authorities that currently regulate old fashioned money will need a while to grasp this new paradigm.

[byt411]

Bitcoin is already regulated. There is no other form of money that follows such strict rules as Bitcoin.

Except other than fiat, Bitcoin is regulated transparently, for and by everyone, through cryptography. The elite authorities that currently regulate old fashioned money will need a while to grasp this new paradigm.

Through cryptography and democracy. If the devs push out unreasonable updates, we, as the community and as the users, can decide what features we want and what we don't want.

However, the point that you made is very true; Bitcoin is regulated by its users. Despite that, a government would still attempt to regulate it, such as by banning it, or making all users report their bitcoin transactions, etc.

[crazyivan]

I can only wish we do have some regulation related to consumer protection. This is the weakest BTC point ATM. However, I do not see that being implemented for at least a year or so.

[neoneros]

First you have to explain what you mean by "regulation", then we can have this discussion.

Regulation is a very broad principle, when discussing, you could bring your own definition of it and go from there. Regulation will be implemented in different ways for different countries and governments. There is no single way to enforce regulation. The question would be, what type of regulation could regulate the blockchain? What are the cons and pros.

[mrcashking]

First you have to explain what you mean by "regulation", then we can have this discussion.

Regulation is a very broad principle, when discussing, you could bring your own definition of it and go from there. Regulation will be implemented in different ways for different countries and governments. There is no single way to enforce regulation. The question would be, what type of regulation could regulate the blockchain? What are the cons and pros.

As far as i know they will not be able to regulate the blockchain or Bitcoin all they will be able to do is regulate centralized services like exchanges and that may actually be a blessing for some because banks will start to accept the power of it at that point.

There will of course be those that are against that as myself but that is where decentralized markets and exchanges will be used which will by pass that. Whatever they try we will always have a means to bypass it, unless of course they take out the internet..

I voted YES but it will only be an attempt.

[neoneros]

The best the governments can try is to tax the bitcoins and enforce it. Or even ban the use of bitcoin for it undermines the state and deem everyone who uses bitcoin a criminal. It is bad form of regulation, only showing the fear of governments to lose control, the only reason governments will fear it is because the fear is transfered by the bankers who thought they had the power over the government who thought they had the power over the masses. The tables are turning, slowly, but turning..

[Eastwind]

The Reserve Bank of Australia does not believe that bitcoin regulation is worth the cost as it may require international cooperation.  Regulation cost money that's the bottom line.

Regulation costs money, but it could also potentially bring in money for the government. from taxes and other things.
They would also want to regulate it to try and prevent money laundering, but obviously, they would fail. If banning cryptocurrencies also counts as "regulation", then it could also occur.

The central banks can wait for the bitcoin technology to mature. Then they will regulate it and bring in more taxes and other things. At present, it is not worth the effort and bitcoin might die. It is not their responsibility to help bitcoin technology.

[Lauda]

The best the governments can try is to tax the bitcoins and enforce it. Or even ban the use of bitcoin for it undermines the state and deem everyone who uses bitcoin a criminal. It is bad form of regulation, only showing the fear of governments to lose control, the only reason governments will fear it is because the fear is transfered by the bankers who thought they had the power over the government who thought they had the power over the masses. The tables are turning, slowly, but turning..

They're actually just missing out on the potential of Bitcoin or hurt themselves if they ban it. We do have countries that have done this, and it hasn't prevented any "illegal activities" in the world.
Regulation is coming, but Bitcoin is something very new. Regulating it isn't a simple task.

[ensurance982]

First you have to explain what you mean by "regulation", then we can have this discussion.

Well I think this discussion covers the meta-discussion about what regulation is, already - it's part of the discussion to outline what people consider to be regulation and what kind of regulation they expect.

[Poolie]

The Reserve Bank of Australia does not believe that bitcoin regulation is worth the cost as it may require international cooperation.  Regulation cost money that's the bottom line.

Regulation costs money, but it could also potentially bring in money for the government. from taxes and other things.
They would also want to regulate it to try and prevent money laundering, but obviously, they would fail. If banning cryptocurrencies also counts as "regulation", then it could also occur.

The central banks can wait for the bitcoin technology to mature. Then they will regulate it and bring in more taxes and other things. At present, it is not worth the effort and bitcoin might die. It is not their responsibility to help bitcoin technology.

Why does regulation have to do with central banks? It's the governments that do the regulating and collecting the taxes. I don't think you know what you're talking about because you contradict yourself here.

[ensurance982]

The Reserve Bank of Australia does not believe that bitcoin regulation is worth the cost as it may require international cooperation.  Regulation cost money that's the bottom line.

Regulation costs money, but it could also potentially bring in money for the government. from taxes and other things.
They would also want to regulate it to try and prevent money laundering, but obviously, they would fail. If banning cryptocurrencies also counts as "regulation", then it could also occur.

The central banks can wait for the bitcoin technology to mature. Then they will regulate it and bring in more taxes and other things. At present, it is not worth the effort and bitcoin might die. It is not their responsibility to help bitcoin technology.

Why does regulation have to do with central banks? It's the governments that do the regulating and collecting the taxes. I don't think you know what you're talking about because you contradict yourself here.

I think it depends on who is in charge of doing the regulation. The European Central Bank, for example, just flooded (keeps on, actually) the market with freshly minted/printed Euro. This is also a type of regulation - trying to counteract certain economic movements.

[lucullus]

Bitcoin will die if it is regulated

[ensurance982]

Bitcoin will die if it is regulated

Why would you think that?  If the regulation happens on a political level (and not the core protocol), the basic principles of Bitcoin will stay the same. It will only create legal guidelines and maybe help getting peoples' trust.

[Lauda]

Bitcoin will die if it is regulated

Why would you think that?  If the regulation happens on a political level (and not the core protocol), the basic principles of Bitcoin will stay the same. It will only create legal guidelines and maybe help getting peoples' trust.

Such thinking is actually wrong. Bitcoin can't have a (legal) connection to fiat if unregulated (on a exchange). That's one of those situations where we actually need it.
We need more businesses using/paying in Bitcoin. That's also something that regulation is going to help with.

[ensurance982]

Bitcoin will die if it is regulated

Why would you think that?  If the regulation happens on a political level (and not the core protocol), the basic principles of Bitcoin will stay the same. It will only create legal guidelines and maybe help getting peoples' trust.

Such thinking is actually wrong. Bitcoin can't have a (legal) connection to fiat if unregulated (on a exchange). That's one of those situations where we actually need it.
We need more businesses using/paying in Bitcoin. That's also something that regulation is going to help with.

Yes, I agree. Did I somehow come across as if I didn't think that regulation will help Bitcoin's adoption Anyways... Centralized exchanges aren't going away anytime soon, so we need to make them better, regulated, and insured.

[Lorenzo]

And who gets to make the regulations?

IMHO some kind of voluntary certification process for exchanges should be encouraged. Most people would prefer to deal with an exchange that is certified. Those who want to take the risk and deal with shoddy, uncertified exchanges could choose to do so as well but I'd imagine this wouldn't be popular. Different certifying organizations could exist with different interpretations of what an exchange should and shouldn't do. That way, you can pick the one that most agrees with your viewpoint and see what exchanges that they have certified.

EDIT: I'm not 100% sure but I think the US higher educational system works in a similar way. There are many colleges and universities out there but only degrees from those that are accredited by a few major organizations are really worth anything.

[Amph]

And who gets to make the regulations?

IMHO some kind of voluntary certification process for exchanges should be encouraged. Most people would prefer to deal with an exchange that is certified. Those who want to take the risk and deal with shoddy, uncertified exchanges could choose to do so as well but I'd imagine this wouldn't be popular. Different certifying organizations could exist with different interpretations of what an exchange should and shouldn't do. That way, you can pick the one that most agrees with your viewpoint and see what exchanges that they have certified.

usually is the government that regulate something, and regulation mean you lose all anon features, not a big deal for many(as we leave in facebook era) but other is really important

also in many country bitcoin is already regulated, because they have applied taxation to it

[ensurance982]

And who gets to make the regulations?

IMHO some kind of voluntary certification process for exchanges should be encouraged. Most people would prefer to deal with an exchange that is certified. Those who want to take the risk and deal with shoddy, uncertified exchanges could choose to do so as well but I'd imagine this wouldn't be popular. Different certifying organizations could exist with different interpretations of what an exchange should and shouldn't do. That way, you can pick the one that most agrees with your viewpoint and see what exchanges that they have certified.

Well the respective countries make the rules and laws. The citizens of a country and the companies who are dealing in Bitcoin then have to abide by those laws. It's effectively like dealing with FIAT money today!

[Bitware]

Most points of conversion and exchange with traditional monetary systems are already regulated.

The real questions are:

Will the Bitcoin core developers allow governments to force them change the code to adhere to any new regulations that become law?

Will 51% of the miners use - or allow the governments to force them to use - the new regulated Bitcoin code that the core developers release?

Will people offering products and services in exchange for bitcoins adhere to any regulatory changes?

For instance, if the core developers dont change the code or 51% of miners (lets say, the Chinese) refuse to upgrade the network to the new regulated code, the only alternative would be to not only place KYC/ALM (and any new regs) on money services businesses, but also onto everyone who transmits or receives bitcoins. Even little Johnny who gets a Bitcoin for gradualtion and/or the grandparents who sent it to him. Or the guy selling or buying a stereo system on craigslist for Bitcoin.

It will be interesting to see how this all develops with a blockchain with full transaction transparency.

Will it be like the DEA going after evey kid with a doobie, the RIAA going after 12 year old downloaders of MP3 music, a hands off approach , or somewhere in between?

The most interesting part will be how the enforcement will work. Can you imagine the resources and manpower they would need to track down every party and wallet for every transaction?

Then there is the issue of working across national borders. Will they outlaw sending or receiving Bitcoin to/from nations that don't 'play ball', have a treaty, or agreement?

[RodeoX]

Well obviously it is subject to regulation now. The question is what other laws will banking lobbyists think up. They spend lots of money to shape the law, how much have you spent? There is your answer.