Imagine in 1990's that all emails should have a paid postage stamp...

[bitpump]

If BitLicense was around in the 1990's...
Imagine if the government had mandated in the 1990's that all emails must purchase a postage stamp before being sent, and that your real physical address and name had to be used on every email. It could've been claimed to be intended to "prevent crime" and "provide accountability" but in reality it would've severely crippled an amazing new form of communication. That is what BitLicense is doing to Bitcoin in the realm of money.

On reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3a3p80/if_bitlicense_was_around_in_the_1990s/

[neoneros]

it would still have worked, not as it did as we know it now. It would have prevented a lot more spam and physing attacks via mail. Sending an attachment would be costly, so no more massive memes. The world would have been pretty boring. Like with everything regulated. Regulation is always involved with things that are making life interesting, but can bring you to the edge of where interesting becomes obsessive  and bad for your health. Regulation is in a way meddling with the natural course of evolution, or if you will the basis of intelligent design. It was intended to be fun and might cause you to die a bit early, so let us regulate it, make it safer, keep the population growing like the economy, because the sky is the limit here and there is a lot of sky left!

[bryant.coleman]

it would still have worked, not as it did as we know it now. It would have prevented a lot more spam and physing attacks via mail.

It would have reduced the amount of spam and phishing attacks, but I really doubt whether such steps would have eradicated email-related crime all together. If postage stamps were made mandatory for emails within the United States, then you can always conduct your email-spam campaign from some other country, which is having lax laws and regulations regarding the internet.

[WhatTheGox]

If BitLicense was around in the 1990's...
Imagine if the government had mandated in the 1990's that all emails must purchase a postage stamp before being sent, and that your real physical address and name had to be used on every email. It could've been claimed to be intended to "prevent crime" and "provide accountability" but in reality it would've severely crippled an amazing new form of communication. That is what BitLicense is doing to Bitcoin in the realm of money.

On reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3a3p80/if_bitlicense_was_around_in_the_1990s/

Retweet: https://twitter.com/bitpump/status/611093727952666624

So we have to ask ourselves why was it different back then? communication digitally can still be of great value yet there is something different with bitcoin that provides an extra threat.  Maybe since the only real thing which had a big incentive to fight email was the postal service and they probably dont have the fire power.

[melody82]

If BitLicense was around in the 1990's...
Imagine if the government had mandated in the 1990's that all emails must purchase a postage stamp before being sent, and that your real physical address and name had to be used on every email. It could've been claimed to be intended to "prevent crime" and "provide accountability" but in reality it would've severely crippled an amazing new form of communication. That is what BitLicense is doing to Bitcoin in the realm of money.

On reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3a3p80/if_bitlicense_was_around_in_the_1990s/

Retweet: https://twitter.com/bitpump/status/611093727952666624

So we have to ask ourselves why was it different back then? communication digitally can still be of great value yet there is something different with bitcoin that provides an extra threat.  Maybe since the only real thing which had a big incentive to fight email was the postal service and they probably dont have the fire power.

The difference is that the USPS doesn't spend untold sums of money on lobbying.  Forget representation, after citizens united the flood gates are open.  Now we truly have a government that is 100% run by business interests.

[BillyBobZorton]

Regulation sucks because it kills the original intend of Bitcoin, I don't think Satoshi wanted as much regulation as we are seeing.
Then again, regulation seems mandatory if we want to reach an audience that goes beyond internet geeks and connoisseurs, so its a double edged sword.

[Beliathon]

If BitLicense was around in the 1990's...
Imagine if the government had mandated in the 1990's that all emails must purchase a postage stamp before being sent, and that your real physical address and name had to be used on every email. It could've been claimed to be intended to "prevent crime" and "provide accountability" but in reality it would've severely crippled an amazing new form of communication. That is what BitLicense is doing to Bitcoin in the realm of money.

On reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3a3p80/if_bitlicense_was_around_in_the_1990s/

Retweet: https://twitter.com/bitpump/status/611093727952666624

This is brilliant and dead on. Kudos bitpump. Result would've been people breaking the law until it became a joke and was taken off the books, sort of like what's happening with cannabis now.

[Bizmark13]

Funnily enough, much of the early research that went into the design of Bitcoin and the concept of cryptographic money was born out of anti-spam measures designed to introduce a cost to sending emails.

[oblivi]

It looks like there's people already organizing against this:
https://act.eff.org/action/stop-the-bitlicense

I wonder was satoshi thinks about the impending regulation hell that's coming.

[Beliathon]

I wonder was satoshi thinks about the impending regulation hell that's coming.

Over the course of the past six years satoshi's net worth in bitcoin went from $0 in value to $300 million+, and he/she/they still haven't dumped a penny of it. So I'd say Satoshi's reaction is probably the same as mine: smug indifference.

[Nagle]

that all emails must purchase a postage stamp before being sent,

That was proposed around 2000 as an anti-spam measure. You'd have to use CPU cycles to generate a Bitcoin-like proof of work to get a token that would get your email forwarded. 

[bitnanigans]

The difference with email is that it didn't involve money. Everyone likes to pay attention to something when there's monetary value involved. Remember nobody really paid attention to bitcoin when it wasn't worth anything.

[bryant.coleman]

Over the course of the past six years satoshi's net worth in bitcoin went from $0 in value to $300 million+, and he/she/they still haven't dumped a penny of it. So I'd say Satoshi's reaction is probably the same as mine: smug indifference.

That is because he is an ideologically driven person, and doesn't care much about making a profit. Anyway, last year he posted a message, stating that he was not Dorian Nakamoto. So we can be sure that he is alive and well. And his total BTC stash is estimated at BTC980,000. He became the first Bitcoin billionaire in 2013 December, when the value of his coins reached $1,176 million. Right now, his BTC stash is worth some $250 million.

[Gleb Gamow]

http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/bill602p.asp

The whole thing is bunk. There is no Congressman named Tony Schnell; no Bill 602P (Congressional bill designations begin with either H.R. or S., depending upon whether they're House or Senate bills); no law firm of Berger, Stepp and Gorman; no such address as 216 Concorde Street in Vienna, Virginia; and no editorial in The Washingtonian. This hoax actually began with a Canadian version that was later Americanized:
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/bill602p.asp#K8fq0RKC5dAUUDqj.99

Yet, total unknowns were able to come to this forum promising everything under the sun, whereupon brainiacs emptied their wallets to the tune of over a hundred million dollars worth of bitcoins to never see their precious again in spite of fellow brainiacs warning them beforehand of the ruses. BTW, the practices continue.

[Kprawn]

If BitLicense was around in the 1990's...
Imagine if the government had mandated in the 1990's that all emails must purchase a postage stamp before being sent, and that your real physical address and name had to be used on every email. It could've been claimed to be intended to "prevent crime" and "provide accountability" but in reality it would've severely crippled an amazing new form of communication. That is what BitLicense is doing to Bitcoin in the realm of money.

On reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3a3p80/if_bitlicense_was_around_in_the_1990s/

Retweet: https://twitter.com/bitpump/status/611093727952666624

Am I the only person, that does not understand why OP has linked the email users to BitLicense? If you take this scenario, you should have made the following statement.

" Imagine in 1990's that all email service providers & developers should pay a license to operate. " - You as a user of Bitcoin, has no obligation to pay anything... It's only the service providers and the APP developers. Right?

So how do you bring these two things together, in that statement?

No Bitcoin user, has to pay a license to use Bitcoin. It's only the businesses operating within this scene, that has to adhere to that. 

[hua_hui]

If BitLicense was around in the 1990's...
Imagine if the government had mandated in the 1990's that all emails must purchase a postage stamp before being sent, and that your real physical address and name had to be used on every email. It could've been claimed to be intended to "prevent crime" and "provide accountability" but in reality it would've severely crippled an amazing new form of communication. That is what BitLicense is doing to Bitcoin in the realm of money.

On reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3a3p80/if_bitlicense_was_around_in_the_1990s/

Retweet: https://twitter.com/bitpump/status/611093727952666624

Am I the only person, that does not understand why OP has linked the email users to BitLicense? If you take this scenario, you should have made the following statement.

" Imagine in 1990's that all email service providers & developers should pay a license to operate. " - You as a user of Bitcoin, has no obligation to pay anything... It's only the service providers and the APP developers. Right?

So how do you bring these two things together, in that statement?

No Bitcoin user, has to pay a license to use Bitcoin. It's only the businesses operating within this scene, that has to adhere to that. 

Probably OP can link to pay VAT for each bitcoin transaction. It is more relevant! But the fact is that many countries have cancelled VAT for Bitcoin!

[bryant.coleman]

Benjamin Lawsky is again creating problems for the Bitcoin sector, by enacting stupid regulations such as the Bitlicense. BTW, I read somewhere last month that Lawsky is about to step down from the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) this month. I just hope that someone who is more sane, and not easily bribed by the bankers, will replace him.

[Beliathon]

I just hope that someone who is more sane, and not easily bribed by the bankers, will replace him.

Not likely, there are very few politicians these days who're unfriendly to bribery.

[Argwai96]

If BitLicense was around in the 1990's...
Imagine if the government had mandated in the 1990's that all emails must purchase a postage stamp before being sent, and that your real physical address and name had to be used on every email. It could've been claimed to be intended to "prevent crime" and "provide accountability" but in reality it would've severely crippled an amazing new form of communication. That is what BitLicense is doing to Bitcoin in the realm of money.

On reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3a3p80/if_bitlicense_was_around_in_the_1990s/

Retweet: https://twitter.com/bitpump/status/611093727952666624

Am I the only person, that does not understand why OP has linked the email users to BitLicense? If you take this scenario, you should have made the following statement.

" Imagine in 1990's that all email service providers & developers should pay a license to operate. " - You as a user of Bitcoin, has no obligation to pay anything... It's only the service providers and the APP developers. Right?

So how do you bring these two things together, in that statement?

No Bitcoin user, has to pay a license to use Bitcoin. It's only the businesses operating within this scene, that has to adhere to that. 

Probably OP can link to pay VAT for each bitcoin transaction. It is more relevant! But the fact is that many countries have cancelled VAT for Bitcoin!

governments try to vat all bitcoin sales and buy but since they can own the network they just decide is easier not to vat for bitcoin.