So I spoke with Loretta Sanchez today about bitcoins...

[Goldenmaw]

You're assuming that a significant number of people will stop using it because the government tells them to. I think this assumption is less and less valid every day.

And you're assuming that the government won't allocate a huge portion of its ridiculous oppress-the-masses budget to turn bitcoin busts into the latest weed raid.

[1713925189]

1713925189

[1713925189]

1713925189

[1713925189]

1713925189

[1713925189]

1713925189

[1713925189]

1713925189

[enmaku]

It'll be a fun ride for us in the US, assuming we pick the right moment to step off the train before it wrecks.

Bitcoins will proliferate elsewhere, and it will creep back here one day, when our country realizes that unless it competes with the countries utilizing this superior currency, it will straggle and die off as a world power.

You're assuming that a significant number of people will stop using it because the government tells them to. I think this assumption is less and less valid every day.

This.
Remember those riots in Bolivia a while back after they tried to privatize the nation's water supply to the point of making it illegal to collect rainwater or drink from a stream or lake? I think people are starting to figure out that the corporate way isn't always the best way and that the government way... Well, let's be honest, it's usually the same as the corporate way.

[Goldenmaw]

This.
Remember those riots in Bolivia a while back after they tried to privatize the nation's water supply to the point of making it illegal to collect rainwater or drink from a stream or lake? I think people are starting to figure out that the corporate way isn't always the best way and that the government way... Well, let's be honest, it's usually the same as the corporate way.

I am struggling to discover the relevance to our discussion, here.  Do we drink money?

[BitterTea]

This.
Remember those riots in Bolivia a while back after they tried to privatize the nation's water supply to the point of making it illegal to collect rainwater or drink from a stream or lake? I think people are starting to figure out that the corporate way isn't always the best way and that the government way... Well, let's be honest, it's usually the same as the corporate way.

I am struggling to discover the relevance to our discussion, here.  Do we drink money?

What he's saying is that there are many people who are much less willing than you to follow stupid rules.

[Goldenmaw]

What he's saying is that there are many people less willing to follow ridiculous rules than you are.

Would you prefer a violent collapse of this country?  It is so heavily dependent on income tax now that the present power structure would not survive a sudden and total halt of income from us.

[enmaku]

This.
Remember those riots in Bolivia a while back after they tried to privatize the nation's water supply to the point of making it illegal to collect rainwater or drink from a stream or lake? I think people are starting to figure out that the corporate way isn't always the best way and that the government way... Well, let's be honest, it's usually the same as the corporate way.

I am struggling to discover the relevance to our discussion, here.  Do we drink money?

What he's saying is that there are many people who are much less willing than you to follow stupid rules.

Exactly.

The people having free ownership over what falls freely from the skies is in their best interest. The government or a greedy corporation having ownership of that resource and then re-selling it is not. Governments are supposed to be acting in the best interest of their people. Occasionally they grow corrupt and occasionally they need to be reminded that we outnumber them tens of millions to one, in some cases.

It's not just about what rules are smart and what rules are stupid, it's about what rules benefit society and what rules harm them. An international, deflationary, secure and largely anonymous currency is in the best interest of all the peoples of the world, so any society that outlaws it is not acting in the interest of their people.

[enmaku]

What he's saying is that there are many people less willing to follow ridiculous rules than you are.

Would you prefer a violent collapse of this country?  It is so heavily dependent on income tax now that the present power structure would not survive a sudden and total halt of income from us.

"Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants."
-Thomas Jefferson

[Goldenmaw]

Prepare to bleed, then.  The people aren't on our side, yet.  They don't even know what bitcoins are, and when they hear about them, they hear about illegal drugs and laundering.  There is no chance for that kind of victory without the public massively behind us.

[Fhtagn]

Prepare to bleed, then.  The people aren't on our side, yet.  They don't even know what bitcoins are, and when they hear about them, they hear about illegal drugs and laundering.  There is no chance for that kind of victory without the public massively behind us.

I agree. While I love Bitcoin and am sympathetic to Libertarian principles, I think a lot of people here vastly overestimate Bitcoin's current power and influence. To succeed as anything more than a club for idealists, Bitcoin needs the general public's approval.

[MacFall]

You're assuming that a significant number of people will stop using it because the government tells them to. I think this assumption is less and less valid every day.

And you're assuming that the government won't allocate a huge portion of its ridiculous oppress-the-masses budget to turn bitcoin busts into the latest weed raid.

The war on drugs is already helping to bankrupt the Federal government, and it's about as effective at ending drug use as pissing in a bathtub is effective at lowering the tub's water level. A war on bitcoin would put a few people in jail, certainly. But the added cost to the state would only hasten the state's demise. I do not welcome or call for additional state aggression, but it must be recognized that the state is already overextended, and every new war it starts, whether on foreigners or its own people, makes it less effective at each war it persists in fighting.

And few things would win sympathy to the bitcoin community faster than political aggression against its users.

[Goldenmaw]

Hmmmn.  That's an interesting point.  You might be right, unless there's some other unguessed-at mechanic behind these aggressions.

[FatherMcGruder]

Trying to decide if I'd tap that.

...

...

...

Nope.

[MacFall]

Hmmmn.  That's an interesting point.  You might be right, unless there's some other unguessed-at mechanic behind these aggressions.

I do not reject the possibility, but as I cannot speculate without veering into conspiracy theory, I will decline to speculate.

[Goldenmaw]

Yep.  This goes right into space alien territory.  Good call.

[Fhtagn]

Yep.  This goes right into space alien territory.  Good call.

* Fhtagn puts on his tin foil hat

[Goldenmaw]

Maybe tomorrow, my friend.  I'm pooped from those riotous good arguments in the Silkroad thread.

[gigitrix]

Reason for the throwaway account is I like to keep my internet alias' unrelated to my real identity (being a minor, people don't take you seriously if they know your a kid).

I've got to say dude, you're the first bitcoin minor I've seen, but not the first bitcoin miner

[b2931938]

Reason for the throwaway account is I like to keep my internet alias' unrelated to my real identity (being a minor, people don't take you seriously if they know your a kid).

I've got to say dude, you're the first bitcoin minor I've seen, but not the first bitcoin miner

. I know of a number of other people who are minors and who openly proclaim so, and then I'm certain there are others like myself, who wish to pretend to be an adult so people don't freak out when we are doing 3-4 digit (left of decimal) trades (I understand why they would freak out 100% too, as hypocritical as it sounds, I wouldn't knowingly do large transactions with a minor).

[Dobrodav]

That thread finally made me google Loretta Sanchez.

Committee on Armed Services
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces (Ranking Member)
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
Committee on Homeland Security
Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security
Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence
Joint Economic Committee

I am not surprised that she is aware of bitcoin.

Should we count on her ? ( i` am mean, should US bitcoiners count on her ?)
Pretty narrow specter of interests  - huh ?

Well, suit for  your self.

[b2931938]

This is bad.  This is an image we have to shake, by any means necessary.

What means do you propose? What is your aim? Merely to "shake this image", or to prevent some individuals from using Bitcoin to perform the types of transactions which gives us this image?

If a large enough people think that violence should be used against some Bitcoin users, and doing so will "shake this image", do you support using such violence?

You know damned well what my aim is.  As long as the word "bitcoin" is associated with "drug money" and "laundering" it will be impossible to sell it to the united states populace, and therefore impossible to squeeze the powers that be into accepting it as a valid form of exchange that doesn't need to be obliterated by any means necessary.

Your anarchistic fantasy of unstoppable free trade can't last, because unless bitcoin graduates from the back-alley territory it is in, the value of the bitcoin will be annihilated when uncle sam drops the hammer on using it for illegal goods.  Bitcoins HAVE to be traded for goods and services in great numbers and in broad daylight, and this crap is hindering that.

Edit:  I propose we retrofit the DEA to break down people's doors and rough them up a bit, you know, really step on their civil liberties.  Maybe fire off a couple rounds into their Corgis for absolutely no reason.  That'll do the job, as per your specification.

Edit of the edit:  Wait.  That's what the DEA already orchestrates, in a way.  I guess we're good to go as is!

For some reason, I was compelled to google* "DEA raid corgi" and I found out this actually happens. They just "Bang" shoot your dog, based on the SUSPICION of you being involved in something illegal. How exactly is this innocent until proven guilty?

Just came to mind, lets say that you are mining bitcoins and consuming unreal amounts of electricity and "non-existent" thermal scans show a incredible amount of heat in his living room. DEA gets warrant based on "you has pot farm, supar seckret sources tells me so". DEA breaks through your front door and finds your dog, of course, because they have a warrant, they shoot it. They then find out there is not a single illegal substance anywhere to be found in your house. What happens now?