Financial regulation

[anonymous_hero]

Just wondering what people's thoughts are.  Some have postulated that there's simply no way this exercise in libertarian government will go on forever in its relatively unregulated state.

The USG has already issued limiting statements about it to some extent (see here).

[ReCat]

I don't see why it'd be regulated. It's basically cash of the internet. Why regulate cash?

[naphto]

I don't see why it'd be regulated. It's basically cash of the internet. Why regulate cash?

This. They will do nothing.

[gangstabit]

I think it depends on a country. Max Keiser said that USA will probably try to make it illegal. I tend to agree with him, I voted make it illegal to buy bitcoin for fiat, just seeing how usa government does things. Europe will try to restrict it but will not be as radical as USA, latin america will totally embrace it, asian countries could go either way. This is just my stupid speculation based on stereotypes.

People who think government can't screw with bitcoins are naive imo. Sure they can't shut down the bitcoin itself, but they can do a lot to make it hard to use it. I hope I'm wrong though.

there will be blood

[1m1nd]

It does not threaten the basis of state power*. Ergo, they will do nothing to curtail it.

Some parts of the state apparatus benefit from anonymous international currency transfers.

*Monopoly on legitimate violence

I think it depends on a country. Max Keiser said that USA will probably try to make it illegal. I tend to agree with him, I voted make it illegal to buy bitcoin for fiat, just seeing how usa government does things. Europe will try to restrict it but will not be as radical as USA, latin america will totally embrace it, asian countries could go either way. This is just my stupid speculation based on stereotypes.

People who think government can't screw with bitcoins are naive imo. Sure they can't shut down the bitcoin itself, but they can do a lot to make it hard to use it. I hope I'm wrong though.

Max Keiser is a shill, don't listen to a word he says.

[wachtwoord]

I don't know what they'll do, but have no doubt they'll come up with something utterly retarded.

[ReCat]

I think it depends on a country. Max Keiser said that USA will probably try to make it illegal. I tend to agree with him, I voted make it illegal to buy bitcoin for fiat, just seeing how usa government does things. Europe will try to restrict it but will not be as radical as USA, latin america will totally embrace it, asian countries could go either way. This is just my stupid speculation based on stereotypes.

People who think government can't screw with bitcoins are naive imo. Sure they can't shut down the bitcoin itself, but they can do a lot to make it hard to use it. I hope I'm wrong though.

there will be blood

If they make it hard to use, they'd just be making the internet in general hard to use. Not bitcoins. The internet in general.

[gangstabit]

If they make it hard to use, they'd just be making the internet in general hard to use. Not bitcoins. The internet in general.

true, but haven't they already done that? internet gambling and piracy come to mind

make examples of a few people, make everyone scared, that's what the government does

[ReCat]

I can still pirate software and honestly I haven't noticed anything changing other than napster no longer being available.

[gangstabit]

I can still pirate software and honestly I haven't noticed anything changing other than napster no longer being available.

definitely, they can't kill it. There are some insane laws in USA though. Remember Aaron Schwartz?
I guess gambling is a better example. You can still gamble online, however most reputable casinos won't accept USA customers. They don't kill it, they just make it hard to do which in turn hurts the industry because a lot of people are afraid to use the services.

[1m1nd]

I can still pirate software and honestly I haven't noticed anything changing other than napster no longer being available.

definitely, they can't kill it. There are some insane laws in USA though. Remember Aaron Schwartz?
I guess gambling is a better example. You can still gamble online, however most reputable casinos won't accept USA customers. They don't kill it, they just make it hard to do which in turn hurts the industry because a lot of people are afraid to use the services.

In that case an over supply of fear is the problem, not governments

[gangstabit]

In that case an over supply of fear is the problem, not governments

and who supplies the fear?

[1m1nd]

In that case an over supply of fear is the problem, not governments

and who supplies the fear?

cheeky! We are our own worst enemies. I'm not saying governments, central banks, whatever, are not a problem. Just that my personal preference is a focus on self control    It is not the only thing to do, but I believe material solutions are being overtraded right now 

[alexh]

I guess they will not regulate Bitcoin, more like promoting an alternative they have control over.

[anonymous_hero]

I can still pirate software and honestly I haven't noticed anything changing other than napster no longer being available.

definitely, they can't kill it. There are some insane laws in USA though. Remember Aaron Schwartz?
I guess gambling is a better example. You can still gamble online, however most reputable casinos won't accept USA customers. They don't kill it, they just make it hard to do which in turn hurts the industry because a lot of people are afraid to use the services.

Exactly.  The question is not what can they stop us from doing, but what they will make illegal.  Lots of people still pirate software because they can do so with little fear of being caught.  I'm sure that people will always be able to use Bitcoin, but making it illegal or just making the trade of Bitcoin for fiat currency illegal would be a huge blow to the currency's adoption.

It does not threaten the basis of state power*. Ergo, they will do nothing to curtail it.

Some parts of the state apparatus benefit from anonymous international currency transfers.

*Monopoly on legitimate violence

I know that in political theory, the monopoly of legitimate violence is one definition of government, but when it comes to power over someone (making them do what they would not otherwise do), money of any form is probably second only to physical violence in its power.

[rhinospray]

Some other things that could happen:
- If Soros could bring the Pound to its knees, imagine how easy is to do the same with bitcoin at this stage and in the near future. Looking at the volume moved during this crash/correction anybody with just 10 million dollars can play at will with the bitcoin market, up, down, up, down, until everybody gives up and he walks away with the full bitcoin bounty.
- USA and EU tax collection agencies analyze the blockchain, identifies big holders and imprison them for tax evasion, money laundering or conspiracy against the official currencies.
- Special outrageous taxes are imposed at exchanges.
- Once bitcoin is a substantial part of the economy, it becomes an perfect target for the cyber-war. Disrupt transactions long enough and enjoy the global economy collapse.  

[jquinn]

The USG, as powerful and full of unlimited hubris as they are, cannot simply make bitcoin illegal carte blanche, although I'm sure many of them would like to do that if they could get away with it. If they were to attempt to do so, they risk looking completely toothless when everything they try is ineffectual. What will more likely happen is (1) the constant demonization of bitcoin as for money laundering, drugs, child porn, kooky libertarians, or just being a big pyramid scheme, ponzi scheme, worthless digital fantasy, blah blah blah, we've seen all that already, and I expect these attacks to only intensify. Basically they are trying to scare the not so tech savvy older folks away from BTC. They want to make it seem sketchy and illegal-ISH to discourage widespread adoption. (2) They could try to introduce highly restrictive regulations on merchants being able to accept bitcoin as payment. This would stifle adoption of bitcoin, but would not stop it. The potential advantages of BTC over costly credit card fees, etc., is incentive enough for market adoption. Their best bet is to utilize shady operatives to DDOS the main exchanges, or attack the network in other ways, and I imagine that will (or maybe already has) achieved some success. But the BTC network grows stronger by the day, and eventually much better exchanges will evolve.

I think the USG will find ways to stifle bitcoin development, but in the end they will be incapable of stopping it, even if it threatens to topple the banksters. Never underestimate the power of the market. Remember, the USG, as with all other governments, cannot rule by fear and force alone. This is why they labor tirelessly to propagandize the masses, they utterly depend on willful consent to some extent. If the market decides it loves bitcoin and opts to adopt it full scale, there will be absolutely nothing any government can do to stop it. All they can do at that point is delay the inevitable.

[anonymous_hero]

The USG, as powerful and full of unlimited hubris as they are, cannot simply make bitcoin illegal carte blanche, although I'm sure many of them would like to do that if they could get away with it.

They can make anything illegal, so long as it stands up to challenges in court, and even then they can make it illegal for a time.  There's a difference between whether something can be made illegal and whether something is enforceable.

The thing is that just if they do make it illegal, that will scare a great number of potential users from using it.  The current Bitcoin community demographics do not exactly reflect the economic demographics of any country, and for Bitcoin to achieve widespread adoption, it needs to be seen as legitimate by the market participants who see something being illegal as making it illegitimate in their minds.

[jquinn]

They can make anything illegal, so long as it stands up to challenges in court, and even then they can make it illegal for a time.  There's a difference between whether something can be made illegal and whether something is enforceable.

Yes, obviously there is a difference. And while technically the USG could try to make anything, such as water, illegal by decree (since all laws are ASSUMED Constitutional until the courts disagree), that does not mean they will be able to make such decrees, and this is my point. There are many factors at play, the USG is not all powerful, and even if the most influential interests within the USG would like to declare BTCs outright illegal, it's not so simple as pulling a few strings to make that happen. If it were that easy we'd all be crawling on all fours with chains around our hands and feet. They will try to delegitimize by making it illegal-ISH, if nothing else, but the government is stupid and slow, and such efforts will probably lag behind market development.

[1m1nd]

I can still pirate software and honestly I haven't noticed anything changing other than napster no longer being available.

definitely, they can't kill it. There are some insane laws in USA though. Remember Aaron Schwartz?
I guess gambling is a better example. You can still gamble online, however most reputable casinos won't accept USA customers. They don't kill it, they just make it hard to do which in turn hurts the industry because a lot of people are afraid to use the services.

Exactly.  The question is not what can they stop us from doing, but what they will make illegal.  Lots of people still pirate software because they can do so with little fear of being caught.  I'm sure that people will always be able to use Bitcoin, but making it illegal or just making the trade of Bitcoin for fiat currency illegal would be a huge blow to the currency's adoption.

It does not threaten the basis of state power*. Ergo, they will do nothing to curtail it.

Some parts of the state apparatus benefit from anonymous international currency transfers.

*Monopoly on legitimate violence

I know that in political theory, the monopoly of legitimate violence is one definition of government, but when it comes to power over someone (making them do what they would not otherwise do), money of any form is probably second only to physical violence in its power.

The difference between state and government is important. The full realisation of state sponsored violence is the trump card in any discussion of 'radicalism'. Most in 'western' society have not seen this first hand. What I am trying to say is this - if one believes that someone, somewhere, actually has real control of our society, then there is really nothing one can do against this. Comforting perhaps, on a subconscious level, but I see so many would-be revolutionists throwing themselves against a brick wall, losing years of their youth to an unwinnable struggle. Lucky for me, I don't believe it.

Money is only a measurement. A cypher for trust, greed and fear. These are the real things that control us. All of us. Even the us that are "them".