Garzik encourages regulation

[AllYourBase]

I'll posit an alternative theory. Some of the most visible Bitcoin devs will endeavor to appear as pro-gov, and make friends where friends need be made. This takes pressure of the anti-Bitcoin regulators, and gives Bitcoin time to become ever-more established, and hopefully unstopable.

If I were Gavin, or Garzik, I would shake hands with government officials and assure them that they had nothing to worry about. I would emphasize things that a Gov. official would like, and de-emphasize things which are libertarian, free-market, and anonymity related.

Put simply, I would publicly distance myself and Bitcoin from services like Silk Road, privately knowing that by so doing I'm making both Bitcoin and Silk Road more viable.

Going on a tv news interview and standing up for liberty and the right of individuals to purchase what they so please so long as they're not harming others... well, it may be the valid position morally, but it will not engender a favorable reaction from that hideous government which we are so eager to cast off, nor from the public opinion mobs to which we are unfortunately subjected.

I think there may have been a time and a place for it, but I think that time is passed.  Making statements like they are doing (even supposing they don't truly believe it), will tend to attract the kind of filth that will destroy the idea behind bitcoin.  It's not about tripling your money in a month, it's about decentralized control of money, aka not putting it all in the hands of the USG.

[unemployed]

No, that is decidedly not true.  I'm guessing you did not watch the video at all.

The regulations mentioned were clearly related to bitcoin exchanges.

I saw the video and had similar concerns to the OP.

Okay, your answer clears that you are not paid by the government. So I understand you are cooperating with the government of your country, but not for a paycheck.
"We’re working with the government to register bitcoin exchanges as MSBs (Money Service Businesses) to make sure that the long arm of the government can indeed reach bitcoin."
Still it makes me wonder, which exchanges will be reached by "the long arm of the government", and if it does have anything in common with a certain Bitcoin Exchange site in Japan. I presume more can not be said because of professionality customs.

[rezin777]

The regulations mentioned were clearly related to bitcoin exchanges.

I think some people are under the impression that Bitcoin exchanges equal Bitcoin network.

It doesn't matter. It's people trading their property at their leisure. Nobody is entitled to a single drop of it. To regulate it in the name of safety, is to claim people do not know what is best for themselves. Bitcoin is supposed to only further rectify man's own right to his own life and its fruits.

God damn every parasite out there who claims Bitcoin in any of its forms should be subject to regulation! Subject to the thieving regimes: even a single drop of the Bitcoin economy! Bitcoin will destroy these structures all in good time and there is nothing you can do about it! All you do is hinder our revolution and its scope when you ask for the state's approval of how we use our property and labor! I hope all of you apologists suffer when the time comes!

The state along with your brown-nosing attitude will be buried! Long-live a new tomorrow!

Look dude, you are preaching to the choir (after all you quoted me). I don't care about the exchanges because I don't use them or plan to ever use them. Regulate all day long, and people like me will avoid it like the plague. Try to regulate Bitcoin and expect forks. This is my point, regulators can regulate to their hearts content. It indeed doesn't matter.

If one trades Bitcoin for FRN or any other fiat, one would be mad to expect lack of regulation, after all, one would be trading for the currency of the regulators!

[rezin777]

The regulations mentioned were clearly related to bitcoin exchanges.

I think some people are under the impression that Bitcoin exchanges equal Bitcoin network.

well, they certainly enable price discovery which encourages more participation, more price discovery, which strengthens the network, etc.  their importance shouldn't be minimized either.

Indeed. I find them quite a useful tool. But they are not necessary for me to use Bitcoin.

[Anonymous]

The regulations mentioned were clearly related to bitcoin exchanges.

I think some people are under the impression that Bitcoin exchanges equal Bitcoin network.

It doesn't matter. It's people trading their property at their leisure. Nobody is entitled to a single drop of it. To regulate it in the name of safety, is to claim people do not know what is best for themselves. Bitcoin is supposed to only further rectify man's own right to his own life and its fruits.

God damn every parasite out there who claims Bitcoin in any of its forms should be subject to regulation! Subject to the thieving regimes: even a single drop of the Bitcoin economy! Bitcoin will destroy these structures all in good time and there is nothing you can do about it! All you do is hinder our revolution and its scope when you ask for the state's approval of how we use our property and labor! I hope all of you apologists suffer when the time comes!

The state along with your brown-nosing attitude will be buried! Long-live a new tomorrow!

..one would be trading for the currency of the regulators!

You're right. Thank you.

[JackH]

The regulations mentioned were clearly related to bitcoin exchanges.

I think some people are under the impression that Bitcoin exchanges equal Bitcoin network.

It doesn't matter. It's people trading their property at their leisure. Nobody is entitled to a single drop of it. To regulate it in the name of safety, is to claim people do not know what is best for themselves. Bitcoin is supposed to only further rectify man's own right to his own life and its fruits.

God damn every parasite out there who claims Bitcoin in any of its forms should be subject to regulation! Subject to the thieving regimes: even a single drop of the Bitcoin economy! Bitcoin will destroy these structures all in good time and there is nothing you can do about it! All you do is hinder our revolution and its scope when you ask for the state's approval of how we use our property and labor! I hope all of you apologists suffer when the time comes!

The state along with your brown-nosing attitude will be buried! Long-live a new tomorrow!

..one would be trading for the currency of the regulators!

You're right. Thank you.

People soon have to realize the following:

- BitCoin cannot be regulated
- BitCoin cannot be shutdown
- BitCoin cannot be represented by individuals

I am sick and tired of hearing statements of stopping it and blocking it and making it illegal. GET IT INTO YOUR MIND, THERE IS NO CENTRAL SYSTEM.

Branding the system illegal doesnt make sense either as the system can be replaced by a new "brand" anytime. Actually its only the client that has to change its name and then keep on going in the same block-chain. And once more, IT CANNOT BE SHUT DOWN!

[cypherdoc]

And once more, IT CANNOT BE SHUT DOWN!

what about the >50% network hashing rate argument?

[Anonymous]

And once more, IT CANNOT BE SHUT DOWN!

what about the >50% network hashing rate argument?

Nowhere close to viable at this point.

[cypherdoc]

And once more, IT CANNOT BE SHUT DOWN!

what about the >50% network hashing rate argument?

Nowhere close to viable at this point.

why?

[Anonymous]

And once more, IT CANNOT BE SHUT DOWN!

what about the >50% network hashing rate argument?

Nowhere close to viable at this point.

why?

1) The network has too much vested-interested. If such an attack were suspected, many would be determined to prevent it.

2) The network being as vast as it is, such an attack would require an enormous investment.

[cypherdoc]

1) The network has too much vested-interested. If such an attack were suspected, many would be determined to prevent it.

2) The network being as vast as it is, such an attack would require an enormous investment.

well, clearly what we're talking about here is gov't intervention.  they have unlimited USD's to "invest" if they want to shut it down with this method or am i missing something?

[Anonymous]

1) The network has too much vested-interested. If such an attack were suspected, many would be determined to prevent it.

2) The network being as vast as it is, such an attack would require an enormous investment.

well, clearly what we're talking about here is gov't intervention.  they have unlimited USD's to "invest" if they want to shut it down with this method or am i missing something?

I have a feeling before the US feels that threatened, we will be too large.

[rezin777]

1) The network has too much vested-interested. If such an attack were suspected, many would be determined to prevent it.

2) The network being as vast as it is, such an attack would require an enormous investment.

well, clearly what we're talking about here is gov't intervention.  they have unlimited USD's to "invest" if they want to shut it down with this method or am i missing something?

The US Government has easier, less expensive ways if they are so inclined. Control the major mining pool through undercover force (basically control 1 guy). DDOS the next top 5. Network is damaged before miners of said major pool are out of their pajamas. Public image is injured. Bitcoin takes ages to recover, if ever.

Tinfoil hat stuff of course.    We all know the US Government isn't coordinated enough to pull off such an attack.



In all seriousness, pools are becoming a centralized threat to a decentralized currency. What percentage of miners do you think have the knowledge to mine solo and are ready to do so at the drop of a hat?

[JohnDoe]

Yeah I'm growing more wary of Jeff by the day, Gavin too. Really wishing I knew C++ so I could review the code and all future commits myself.

Btw, does anyone know if the sourceforge tarball is just a snapshot of the git tree or does it get some tweaks on the way there?

[Freakin]

And once more, IT CANNOT BE SHUT DOWN!

what about the >50% network hashing rate argument?

Nowhere close to viable at this point.

why?

1) The network has too much vested-interested. If such an attack were suspected, many would be determined to prevent it.

2) The network being as vast as it is, such an attack would require an enormous investment.

The network is not too large.

The network's hashing power could be duplicated with less than $10M.  The US government could absolutely break the 50% barrier.

[Anonymous]

And once more, IT CANNOT BE SHUT DOWN!

what about the >50% network hashing rate argument?

Nowhere close to viable at this point.

why?

1) The network has too much vested-interested. If such an attack were suspected, many would be determined to prevent it.

2) The network being as vast as it is, such an attack would require an enormous investment.

The network is not too large.

The network's hashing power could be duplicated with less than $10M.  The US government could absolutely break the 50% barrier.

You have to account for the inefficiency, excess employment, etc.

That $10M figure goes through the roof.

[rezin777]

The network's hashing power could be duplicated with less than $10M.  The US government could absolutely break the 50% barrier.

Well, the good news is that the recent price increase is going to bring a surge of new hashing power. Get ready for people crying about the difficulty doubling every 2016 blocks. 

[sammoocow]

I'm pretty sure I understand the way things work, but can someone please tell me how true these 2 statements are:

• No individual, not even Garzik or Gavin, can control/regulate the way the network and transactions actually function. Garzik and Gavin can only release a client with limited functionality.
• Any 3rd party could come along and make a less restricted client if this were to happen.

[Freakin]

And once more, IT CANNOT BE SHUT DOWN!

what about the >50% network hashing rate argument?

Nowhere close to viable at this point.

why?

1) The network has too much vested-interested. If such an attack were suspected, many would be determined to prevent it.

2) The network being as vast as it is, such an attack would require an enormous investment.

The network is not too large.

The network's hashing power could be duplicated with less than $10M.  The US government could absolutely break the 50% barrier.

You have to account for the inefficiency, excess employment, etc.

That $10M figure goes through the roof.

I was accounting for that...

[Ivanish]

Lets assume for a second that big bro actually does decide to attempt to regulate the entirety of bitcoins existence (if this is even possible).

Is it not the case that alternative yet still compatible clients could be created, that lack the 'regulation' bits?

I'm generally against gov meddling in my financial affairs, seeing how if they can't steal from me to my face, they still manage to steal from me behind my back (inflating the dollar for example). They do both if/when they can.

However, for sake of argument about the life and value of bitcoin :

Wouldn't it be a 'good' thing to have a client that is 'gov approved'?

Theres always going to be a handful of people who want nothing to do with gov, but theres an even larger population of brainwashed people who still (delusional) strongly strongly trust in that which backs the USD... the 'Full Faith and Credit of the United States'.

Granted, bitcoins will never be actually 'backed' by the US by design, a client that is 'backed' by it might encourage more people to use the currency.

Even if you choose to use a non 'us backed' client (because they will exist too).

Just my ฿.02 (which is apparently worth a lot more than a lot of your $.02's at the moment *snicker*)

Maybe this is a terrible example and I have no idea what I'm talking about, but to me, anything that encourages the use of or secures (in the minds of the masses) bitcoin to the extent that more people trust and begin to use it... is a good thing, or can be.