Should we be trying harder to stop the BTC black market?

[BlackHeartFund]

yeah acoindr, I think you're mostly right, although I do hate to tell my fellow libertarians who are from the USA that gun laws do work, if what you are trying to prevent are premature deaths.

How the hell do you figure that? First, you need to explain what is a premature death? Do you mean like a teenager dying, possibly from something drug related? I have news for you. Thanks to the US "war on drugs" which has had little success in curbing drug use, but large success in escalating violence, I can tell you drug dealers would NOT be prevented from getting guns because of gun laws...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Now check te rate of the US an then calculate a mean of the EU countries.
That's how the hell we figure that.

Also, the drug dealers with guns are not what racks up the death count.
Sure, smart criminals get their guns anyways, even here in holland.
But the law prevents dumb criminals (of which there are many more than smart ones) from playing around with toys that are a danger to society.

Your logic doesn't compute. Your chart shows firearm related death rates, and your argument is gun laws prevent premature deaths right? Well, Colombia tops the list at #1 with the U.S. at #10, but how can that be? Doesn't the U.S. have some of the most relaxed gun laws? And besides that, Colombia has a population of under 50 million, whereas the U.S. is over 300 million... yet the U.S. is not number one on your chart. How can that be? I'll tell you. It's because there are a lot of societal factors behind gun related crimes and deaths. You can't broad brush everything and say the solution is gun laws. I don't have time to argue this properly, but I hope this can shed some light.

By the way, what would you do if someone broke into your house and held a gun on your family?

a) Columbia is an ultra right wing hellhole where literally everyone is armed and people get shot by government sponsored death squads.
 
b) you don't seem to understand what per capita means.

c) that wouldn't happen because where I live illegal handguns cost $3000 so crackheads, kids, and anyone else who would break into a house DON'T HAVE THEM.

[1715179201]

1715179201

[1715179201]

1715179201

[1715179201]

1715179201

[BlackHeartFund]

I'm saying that if the USA banned all guns except hunting rifles, there would be an extreme drop in murders and accidental shootings, obviously.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo6686900.html

hahaha, well that settles it! Science and reality be damned, some jackass got a book published! Let's go give everyone in Japan Glocks and watch the violence there DECREASE.

LMFAO too much guys, come on already. Go argue gun control in the political forum, this is silly.

[acoindr]

I'm saying that if the USA banned all guns except hunting rifles, there would be an extreme drop in murders and accidental shootings, obviously.

No there wouldn't. There would be a violent revolt against the government for trying to abolish the 2nd Amendment, which has nothing to do with hunting rifles, by the way.

I am not advocating anything, lol you are making me sound like a left wing activist, I just came herr to talk about the basic long term future of BTC/fiat exchanges, and how criminals and government criminal investigations threaten them! I am just stating the obvious with regards to gun laws, really nothing to argue about.

You're right. I'm sorry. It's a bit of an emotional topic; the right to keep and bear arms is one of the founding principles of my country.

It doesn't matter. Whether governments try to outlaw Bitcoin or not they can't stop it. And they don't have jurisdiction over every country either, so all they will do is make it a political issue.

If the western economic powerhouse nations shut down the exchanges... as I said, 10k BTC pizza will be back.

No it wouldn't. Bitcoin would route around, and probably flourish more. In case you haven't noticed it's the "illegal" areas that are thriving most with Bitcoin right now. At least the community is trying to put the currency to more legitimate uses, and even allow taxes and regulation if that's what people desire. Bitcoin is just a tool that allows people to do with it what they wish. The neat thing about it is it doesn't make anybody ask permission of anybody else, which includes authoritarian governments.

Certainly I see the romantic appeal of fighting the global system at any cost, but some of us here would actually like to advance BTC in our lifetimes. What freedom do you gain by holding worthless BTC with no where to exchange them? This chance at economic freedom will be lost and we will all be back to fiat for the rest of our lives.

There will always be a way to exchange bitcoins, just as there is now a way to buy drugs in pretty much any city in the U.S. despite the trillion dollar drug war to prevent it - which, btw, has greatly enriched drug lords...

[acoindr]

b) you don't seem to understand what per capita means.

My mistake on that one. I glanced at the chart and didn't notice the ratio.

c) that wouldn't happen because where I live illegal handguns cost $3000 so crackheads, kids, and anyone else who would break into a house DON'T HAVE THEM.

What if you live in a really ritzy area, the kind of house that might have paintings worth a few hundred grand in them? Are you saying those type rich people are not allowed the protection of a gun either?

[BlackHeartFund]

No there wouldn't. There would be a violent revolt against the government for trying to abolish the 2nd Amendment, which has nothing to do with hunting rifles, by the way.

I'm sure a lot of people would get into shootouts with the agents rounding up the guns... this is the nightmare scenario for 2nd amendment absolutists of course. I'm not saying it would be easy, desirable, or even possible, simply that if the country did it, murders/gun deaths fall. There is no possibility of even an individual state in the USA considering this in my lifetime or yours, so it's really just theory.

You're right. I'm sorry. It's a bit of an emotional topic; the right to keep and bear arms is one of the founding principles of my country.

I get that, and I know the history. Communities should set their own priorities,  and I think that as long as we remain (somewhat) democracies, Texas will allow handguns, and British Columbia won't.   :-)

No it wouldn't. Bitcoin would route around, and probably flourish more. In case you haven't noticed it's the "illegal" areas that are thriving most with Bitcoin right now. At least the community is trying to put the currency to more legitimate uses, and even allow taxes and regulation if that's what people desire. Bitcoin is just a tool that allows people to do with it what they wish. The neat thing about it is it doesn't make anybody ask permission of anybody else, which includes authoritarian governments.

I disagree with the premise that the illegal industries currently dominate the bitcoin marketplace... not talking about possible tax positions... talking about blatantly illegal goods/services. SR gets the press because it's sexy, but they have made 5 million USD at best right? One scammer took the market for that much in a single period. The market cap for BTC is about 122 million.

there will always be a way to exchange bitcoins, just as there is now a way to buy drugs in pretty much any city in the U.S. despite the trillion dollar drug war to prevent it - which, btw, has greatly enriched drug lords...

I have to respectfully disagree again. Drugs have intrinsic value, people will always trade for them in any currency, under any circumstances. Right now the speculation that BTC use will grow accounts for a good chunk of its market value. If BTC trading is forced deep underground and never accepted more widely, it's value will drop to almost nothing. There is no value in a bitcoin unless there is a market for them.

What good is a cryptocurrency that can't be used on anything but buying drugs and hitmen? Other than, well, those things.

[BlackHeartFund]

What if you live in a really ritzy area, the kind of house that might have paintings worth a few hundred grand in them? Are you saying those type rich people are not allowed the protection of a gun either?

Yes, rich people too.

No guns for anyone, except hunting rifles.

How often do you honestly believe million dollar art heists at gun point happen in countries that have very few guns? Come on, that's Hollywood.

Not to mention that if some Italian Job is happening on you, chances are you aren't going to wake up in the middle of the night half asleep, and shoot a bunch of professional cat burgers without being shot yourself, or your family being shot. If you have top notch security and they still get past it, yes, I think you should let the Picasso go. Far, far, far more rare than someone accidentally killing their own young child with a handgun. I can remember that happening twice in the USA last year alone, so if the options are to arm every fucking drunk idiot in this country with a lethal weapon, or lose a few fancy pantings, my choice is obvious,

[crazy_rabbit]

What if you live in a really ritzy area, the kind of house that might have paintings worth a few hundred grand in them? Are you saying those type rich people are not allowed the protection of a gun either?

Yes, rich people too.

No guns for anyone, except hunting rifles.

How often do you honestly believe million dollar art heists at gun point happen in countries that have very few guns? Come on, that's Hollywood.

Not to mention that if some Italian Job is happening on you, chances are you aren't going to wake up in the middle of the night half asleep, and shoot a bunch of professional cat burgers without being shot yourself, or your family being shot. If you have top notch security and they still get past it, yes, I think you should let the Picasso go. Far, far, far more rare than someone accidentally killing their own young child with a handgun. I can remember that happening twice in the USA last year alone, so if the options are to arm every fucking drunk idiot in this country with a lethal weapon, or lose a few fancy pantings, my choice is obvious,

+100

[BlackHeartFund]

Just for the record gentlemen, keep in mind... I love guns as much as the next guy. I have a membership at one of the only gun ranges in Vancouver. I personally would like it if I could own a few guns and keep them in my house... but I don't think I should be legally allowed to. That would mean that everyone is allowed to be heavily armed, including spree killers, people about to have a breakdown, and drunk guys who kill their families because a gun is handy instead of just seriously assaulting them (and then getting arrested before they are dead)... huge difference. Not to mention that bugler you are talking about... here they run when you turn the lights on... in an armed country you had better shoot first or they will.

Search for "Vancouver burglary murder", like me you won't find much. We have violence and violent people of course, but everyone having a gun has been proven to increase that violence exponentially.

When I was younger I was a freedom absolutist, but I guess as I've aged I've come to the conclusion that we have formed societies to protect ourselves and our families, and the decision by a society to ban most guns and heavy ammunition has positives that clearly outweigh the negatives. Just like drinking and driving laws, are you freedom or nothing guys against those too? I'm not saying that the USA should ban guns, in fact I don't even know how this topic got derailed. Something about illegal automatic weapons not being dangerous.

I like the idea of people having power over government, but with modern militaries we are so far beyond the days of keeping authoritarianism and tyranny in check with violence or the threat thereof, it doesn't seem rational to me. Some 18th century ideals are fantastic, but their specific remedies are so outdated it is hard to comprehend.

[Arto]

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

[BlackHeartFund]

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

We get it... if you're terrified of everyone around you all the time, carry a gun so your dick doesn't feel so inferior, and in exchange allow tens of thousands of additional violent deaths a year. As long as YOU aren't afraid of getting out of your car at the grocery store.

Funny, I have never carried a gun in my life..  I'm in my 40's... I live in a city with 3 million+ people and extreme poverty... yet I don't think anyone has attempted to have me do anything by force since, I don't know, elementary school. What are you guys so afraid of constantly? Other guns I guess lol

[mobodick]

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

lol, this stupid person doesn't realize that there are other options than fighting or arguing.
Also i don't agree with the equal footing thing.
There are more ways of dealing force than just with guns. Many more. No equality there.
And the last paragraph basicly tries to argument that guns do not lead to lethal situations because they are lethal.
Statistics tell us that guns do in fact lead to more lethal confrontation.
The wrong assumption is that everyone who can own a gun is civilized.

[acoindr]

BlackHeartFund, I really wish I had time to continue this discussion as it's a fun one

I've got to go, but I'll just address a few ones because I simply have to...

I'm sure a lot of people would get into shootouts with the agents rounding up the guns... this is the nightmare scenario for 2nd amendment absolutists of course.

No, that's not how it would work. lol It would never get as far as agents rounding up guns, and they wouldn't be that stupid. Estimates put gun ownership in America at about 80 million. There are about 300 million Americans, so I'd say about 1 out of every 3 Americans being armed is about right.

Now, if the relatively few people in Washington tried to craft such a gun control law you can bet, first of all, even more Americans would acquire guns. Second, there would soon likely be organized militias to give some order and direction to those 80 plus million armed citizens, and an armed march on Washington would probably happen, with the government powerless to stop it. How many agents do they have? A few hundred thousand, at most? Even the US military doesn't come close to those numbers, with only about 1 million on active duty; and many officers would join pro 2nd Amendment ranks anyway, because they swore to uphold the Constitution, not whatever leader is in power at the time.

The Founders of America knew what they were doing.

there will always be a way to exchange bitcoins, just as there is now a way to buy drugs in pretty much any city in the U.S. despite the trillion dollar drug war to prevent it - which, btw, has greatly enriched drug lords...

I have to respectfully disagree again. Drugs have intrinsic value, people will always trade for them in any currency, under any circumstances. Right now the speculation that BTC use will grow accounts for a good chunk of its market value. If BTC trading is forced deep underground and never accepted more widely, it's value will drop to almost nothing. There is no value in a bitcoin unless there is a market for them.

First of all, bitcoins are not going anywhere. You have to realize there are many industries Bitcoin threatens to take over and dominate - both legal and illegal. Let me just give one example of each. International money transfer fees are multi-billions of dollars every year. As you know Bitcoin can effectively drop the transfer fee on any amount of money to near zero or zero. On this fact alone bitcoins value can be estimated to be worth billions of dollars annually in savings. Next example, is of course drugs, where bitcoin is already flourishing. How much market share does bitcoin currently have on global drug trade? 1%? Less than .2%? Now consider how much the global drug trade is worth priced in dollars... Trillions. And you respectfully disagree and say bitcoins value if forced underground would drop to almost nothing?  

And we're not even talking about fun stuff like guns and prostitution yet.

[justusranvier]

Intellectual dishonesty, ad hominem posts... what exactly is BlackHeartFund's purpose here?

[coincollectingenterprises]

Absolutely a fascinating discussion. One could make an argument for and against though. Banks, meaning not BTC related, make a ridiculous amount of money on illegal actions, half-truth actions, manipulated markets actions, and actions that should be illegal from a moral standpoint. However, what the banks do, at least in terms of referring to the U.S. and general European banking system, is legal because they lobby the heck to make it legal.

The concept of quantitative easing, fractional reserve banking, and the federal reserve (which is neither federal nor a reserve yet has a .gov website address) is rather ridiculous. I would be bold enough to say that the system itself there is run by a black market functioning through various legal loopholes to money laundry itself into "legal" markets.

Therefore, this discussion almost seems less a discussion of stopping a black market and more of what is or is not a moral thing to allow for trading. This has definitely come up in a few posts which is great to see. So how does one determine what should or should not be allowed given, as time progresses, as does sociologically acceptable practices which dramatically change from culture to culture.

I for one am happy to see a money system not based on as a debt-based currency, fiat or not. Regulating BTC means that those with huge pockets (aka organizations that can print infinite money like the federal reserve) WILL buy out the system through some form of corruption or not.

Black markets have existed throughout history and will survive and find ways to survive.

Disclaimer: In no way am I advocating for immoral actions to go on like some of the examples in the OP. Just stating that regulated or not, those who conduct immoral acts will evolve to find new ways to continue what they do. Just reading basic newspapers over the years shows that.

[mobodick]

Absolutely a fascinating discussion. One could make an argument for and against though. Banks, meaning not BTC related, make a ridiculous amount of money on illegal actions, half-truth actions, manipulated markets actions, and actions that should be illegal from a moral standpoint. However, what the banks do, at least in terms of referring to the U.S. and general European banking system, is legal because they lobby the heck to make it legal.

The concept of quantitative easing, fractional reserve banking, and the federal reserve (which is neither federal nor a reserve yet has a .gov website address) is rather ridiculous. I would be bold enough to say that the system itself there is run by a black market functioning through various legal loopholes to money laundry itself into "legal" markets.

Therefore, this discussion almost seems less a discussion of stopping a black market and more of what is or is not a moral thing to allow for trading. This has definitely come up in a few posts which is great to see. So how does one determine what should or should not be allowed given, as time progresses, as does sociologically acceptable practices which dramatically change from culture to culture.

I for one am happy to see a money system not based on as a debt-based currency, fiat or not. Regulating BTC means that those with huge pockets (aka organizations that can print infinite money like the federal reserve) WILL buy out the system through some form of corruption or not.

Black markets have existed throughout history and will survive and find ways to survive.

Disclaimer: In no way am I advocating for immoral actions to go on like some of the examples in the OP. Just stating that regulated or not, those who conduct immoral acts will evolve to find new ways to continue what they do. Just reading basic newspapers over the years shows that.

Another question that goes along with this is how does one enforce such a thing given the many cultures that can participate?
It's one thing to know what is wrong, it's another thing to make it right. But you need both to have effect.

[coincollectingenterprises]

Absolutely a fascinating discussion. One could make an argument for and against though. Banks, meaning not BTC related, make a ridiculous amount of money on illegal actions, half-truth actions, manipulated markets actions, and actions that should be illegal from a moral standpoint. However, what the banks do, at least in terms of referring to the U.S. and general European banking system, is legal because they lobby the heck to make it legal.

The concept of quantitative easing, fractional reserve banking, and the federal reserve (which is neither federal nor a reserve yet has a .gov website address) is rather ridiculous. I would be bold enough to say that the system itself there is run by a black market functioning through various legal loopholes to money laundry itself into "legal" markets.

Therefore, this discussion almost seems less a discussion of stopping a black market and more of what is or is not a moral thing to allow for trading. This has definitely come up in a few posts which is great to see. So how does one determine what should or should not be allowed given, as time progresses, as does sociologically acceptable practices which dramatically change from culture to culture.

I for one am happy to see a money system not based on as a debt-based currency, fiat or not. Regulating BTC means that those with huge pockets (aka organizations that can print infinite money like the federal reserve) WILL buy out the system through some form of corruption or not.

Black markets have existed throughout history and will survive and find ways to survive.

Disclaimer: In no way am I advocating for immoral actions to go on like some of the examples in the OP. Just stating that regulated or not, those who conduct immoral acts will evolve to find new ways to continue what they do. Just reading basic newspapers over the years shows that.

Another question that goes along with this is how does one enforce such a thing given the many cultures that can participate?
It's one thing to know what is wrong, it's a nother thing to make it right. But you need both to have effect.

Quite right and also a great observation. Bitcoin really is a market that can't be enforced. Now it can be attacked by a Government outlawing it or big brother watching, so to speak. But to enforce a decentralized, global currency would suggest one culture is supreme over another.

[BlackHeartFund]

Lot of good thoughts and ideas here, thanks everyone, please keep your opinions coming.

I think I started this thread with the idea that if the bitcoin community, and the handful of successful BTC financial companies that are in regulated nations could find a decentralized way to weed out some of the more extreme criminals using the currency on our own, we may be able to avoid having far more extreme/centralized/destabilizing/authoritarian enforcement regimes imposed on us at the figurative, or literal, barrel of a gun. The options seem to be those, or at some point accepting that BTC will be 100% illegal in most nations, and have it become a completely anonymous/underground currency (which it is not now). I can certainly see why some people want the last option, but I don't. Am I being way overly ambitious/bullish on BTC? Should we be doing what's best for the next 100 years of BTC, or should we try to have it gain acceptance under our current nation-state legal structures, in the near term? Seems to be a very fundamental question, I'm sure it's been discussed elsewhere thoroughly... I'd appreciate any links.

I seem to have come across to some people as disliking the SR for moral reasons... could not be farther from the truth. I support the legalization of drugs 100%. I didn't (and still don't) have the most clear idea of what specifically I was trying to consider with this... and as you can all see, I do tend to be a touch long-winded. I certainly did not mean to sound as if I were attempting to suggest we start trying to route out the SR and similar entities here and now. I am trying to gather as much information as possible on this subject, and see if there is something of a consensus that something should or could be done about various degrees of criminality. What are the pros and cons of all ideas, not to mention the logistical, technological, and legal implications behind any proposals.

Free Marc! A man I have known and respected for 15 years. He can't accept BTC donations at the moment... the prison commissary only accepts western union! However his wife is also accepting donations if you email her... talk about someone who should be using bitcoins. In jail for selling seeds legally from inside Canada, after paying taxes to the Canadian government for them for decades. Not the first cause I would donate to by a long shot, but certainly SR users could give some love to a good and decent man who has become another drug war casualty.

Just to be clear, my concern here is 100% business. Sure some of the examples I gave are horrifying crimes... but bitcoin is an answer to monetary problems, not societal ones. My interest is having BTC thrive and be accepted as widely as possible by non-geek society. I wish I could claim altruism, but I was not thinking of this as a way to seriously reduce crime outside BTC. That is not something we have the ability to do. I am talking more about protecting our business interests from the inherent risks of dealing with serious criminals.

The biggest threat I see to the medium term growth of BTC is an internationally coordinated crack down or regulatory regime, imposed by the eternally wise ones in Washington and Brussels, on BTC everywhere under the guise of fighting terror, human trafficking, child abuse, etc. Yes, they can't regulate the blockchain... however they currently regulate the lives of nearly everyone involved in bitcoin, and I suspect very few of us are wiling to risk prison for the cause. If dealing in BTC were a potential crime in western nations, your drug dealers would eventually run out of geeks to do the mining for their transactions.

If the SR were to be the only big red flag for law enforcement, and we could fight the image of enabling some of the actually (universally agreed upon and obviously) illegal/dangerous stuff, we would be in a better position to negotiate with regulators, governments, and in courts. Once some banker-owned congressman takes it up as a distraction project and starts equating BTC with terrorism, we're done in the USA, which makes it harder everywhere.

The idea of colouring bitcoins based on scam accusations etc is as ludicrously unfeasible as it is totally unwanted and unnecessary... I totally agree with that. However when someone trading in BTC is accused and/or convicted of something serious, eg kidnapping, terrorism, etc, it seems to me that it would be in our interest to have some obvious method of tracking and exposing the suspect, before governments start taking down otherwise legal exchanges, or worse.

I also realize that big banks do shady business, and that most BTC exchanges follow at least their own local KYC laws... but we 're not playing by the same rules... we're not even playing the same game. We're crashing the party... it seems evident to me that they should attempt to keep us out to maintain their monopolies. If that's the case, then at some point bitcoin is going to experience serious resistance from the traditional banking cartels... and if they can get their politicians to criminalize trading of decentralized/non credit-based currencies because of hyped up terror/crime scares, it seems to me like they would be eager to pull the plug on us.

Of course at the same time, identifying dissidents under repressive regimes etc would just about destroy everything that makes BTC great, and there are thin lines everywhere. Not an easy situation, and certainly one worthy of a great deal of additional input and analysis. Really thankful to everyone who is sharing info or opinions on the matter, or ever simply reading and thinking about it.

For those of us considering additional long term investments in bitcoin speculation or BTC-related services, these seem like extremely important questions.

[Wekkel]

What do you envisage when speaking about a government outlawing Bitcoin (be specific)?

[unclescrooge]

Okay, so we all know about the silk road selling illegal drugs... most know that they used to sell illegal firearms as well. One would assume other sites have taken over that trade. I don't know a ton about the tor network, but I'm sure we have all heard rumours about everything from child pornography to human slavery to hired assassins.

I think most of us probably agree that if possible, we would turn in anyone doing any of the last four things I mentioned (2nd amendment absolutists perhaps only the final three). Since BTC is a decentralized currency, there is no big brother watching over it... so it seems to me we need some sort of community self-governance to prevent the worst criminals from taking advantage of the system. I don't have any solutions at the moment, I'm wondering if this has been discussed in great detail or attempted? Do we have a system to at least attempt to trace where the profits of the most egregious offenders are going, and attempt to catch them when they try to spend it or exchange it for fiat?

Is it the responsibility of bitcoin business owners and investors to help governments catch those doing real crimes? I think so. Or is the BTC community so wary of governments that they would avoid helping them even to catch bad people?

The case of the Silk Road is quite unique. Now that they are not selling firearms, most libertarian minded people probably don't think that the Silk Road is that bad of a thing. I think drugs should be legal and regulated. I just don't think that having BTC used as the default currency of the international illegal drug trade will help legal bitcoin businesses in the long run. Or will it? The same designation doesn't seem to have hurt the USD over the years, but obviously apples and oranges.

People are also worried that losing the black markets will cause such a drop in usage it will kill the BTC/USD exchange rate... so be it. Certainly a market correction will occur if bitcoin stops being using in the gutter, but the rate will skyrocket as our little cryptocurreny becomes widely accepted. Let litecoin have the silk road... I want the Apple store, local fishermen, and the Taj Mahal

What do you think? Should bitcoin financial institutions make a more concerted effort to restrict the funds from crime, and report to authorities? Or would that just cause one huge clusterfuck with all the, let's say, not perfectly organized BTC operators that seem to come and go?

I've spoken with three major Canadian law firms recently about creating a regulated BTC based securities exchange and financial services company, and the main concern, far above the SEC, has been that governments will act in the near future to damage bitcoin due specifically to the publicity of the silk road. Specifically the center-right, strongly anti-drug administrations currently in the US and Canada. They will say they are going after human trafficking but will spend all their resources on potheads.

My real question is, can we do anything as a community to crack down on the real criminals using bitcoins, or are we going to wait and see how and when governments do it for us?

Why would you want to tell others adults what to do with their money and ther life?

[markm]

I don't get the assumptions that bitcoin is not perfect for the banking systems of the world to co-opt.

They could end up owning almost all the coins to the same extent they ended up owning almost all the gold or almost all the governments or almost all of anything else they wanted to own most of.

It would give them "reserves" easier to bump up in purported value than gold, because gold seems to tend to hit some kind of resistance due to the people who actually use it for something practical finding its inflated price due to ever-growing bubbles more and more crazy.

With bitcoin they can stick a certain amount in their reserves, drive up the price by buying more, put more in their reserves and so on, pumping it up to arbitrary heights while the commoners continue to run around borrowing and spending debt notes as usual.

So whether the black market exists or not, I think the premises as to who will be against bitcoin in the first place are flawed / misguided.

-MarkM-