Bitcoin anarchy in need of some rules | NY Post

[Wilikon]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/bitcoin_anarchy_in_need_of_some_zTFr06G6IWEWYp3OSvJ99L

Members of the bitcoin community are starting to wonder if anarchy is the best policy, as recent turmoil raises interest in possible new regulations.

The digital currency, which is minted using computers running algorithms, had been plummeting in value for two days after soaring to above $200 a bitcoin earlier this week.

The exchange that handles the most bitcoin transactions, Mt.Gox, halted trading yesterday because of troubles, and the CEO of Coinlab, Peter Vessenes, said the exchange would be open to some oversight.

“We’d be happy to be regulated,” said Vessenes, who also is with the Bitcoin Foundation, an organizing body. “There is no self-regulatory organization for these. It’s pre-regulated right now, but we’re not anti-regulation.”

Vessenes runs North American trading for Mt.Gox. Yesterday, the market shut because of volatility, driven by a flood of new users interested in the currency and other users looking to sell at a market high point.

There was a lag in processing orders, helping fuel the panic, Vessenes said. There are some bitcoin enthusiasts who are against rules, however.

The currency, based on free open-source computer code that anyone can access, was created to stand apart from the traditional money system, and it attracted libertarians and anti-government types.

Still, the volatility in the price of bitcoins — rising from about $45 just a month ago to more than $250 this week and back down to around $100 yesterday — has some people questioning if no rules are good rules.

One venture capitalist, who was investing in bitcoin-based startups, said there need to be some rules and order before the currency can take off.

“Right now you have a bunch of anarchistic market dilettantes who don’t understand how markets work and don’t understand the perils of markets,” he said. “People who understand markets need to get involved.”

[1715166428]

1715166428

[1715166428]

1715166428

[1715166428]

1715166428

[Chet]

oh sure, regulate it so we can go right back to bowing to the banksters!!!

And who/what would write/enforce regulations? The US? the EU? oh how about the UN?

[Melbustus]

“anarchistic market dilettantes”

Now there's an odd phrase...

[Mike Christ]

And once again, the gigantic boner of men with this disturbing fetish for absolute control springs into action.  Say no to government regulation, kiddos.  Regulation does nothing but rig the game in someone's else's favor--specifically, not yours.  The market is being regulated, and we're the ones doing it.  Don't give up your freedoms for the false promise of stability.

[Melbustus]

Don't give up your freedoms for the false promise of stability.

Indeed, much has been given up in the name of security, stability, and "piece of mind".

[#Darren]

Spoken as though Mt Gox was the authority on bitcoin, when they are nothing of the sort. They are just businessmen exploiting the market.

[Stunna]

Seems like a slippery slope to me :|

[btcmind]

I would suggest to have something better than regulation. Law 2.0, which opensources contracts. That "regulation" is skewed in favor of some elect few is the whole problem. Basel III is a joke. Everything market based is better than corporation based. But what if MtGox would theoretically reach 100% market share and corner the market? Anyway, government action could be possible, but then hopefully the system in place will be too robust to shutdown completely.

[IIOII]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/bitcoin_anarchy_in_need_of_some_zTFr06G6IWEWYp3OSvJ99L

“We’d be happy to be regulated,” said Vessenes, who also is with the Bitcoin Foundation, an organizing body.

 

Some day there will be a rude awakening of the TBF fanboys.

[Lethn]

There was a lag in processing orders, helping fuel the panic, Vessenes said. There are some most bitcoin enthusiasts who are against rules, however.

fixed that for them

It's precisely because of people who understand the markets that Bitcoin was invented in the first place.

[jubalix]

I am not sure you could regulate BTC if you wanted to until you can crack SHA.....and thats the whole point.

the so called "Anarchy" is free market discipline and creation, The market will discipline failing exchanges and produce an exchange that is better or a better exchange solution that central regulation ever could so the Anarchy is inmho opinion very very good.

Where players in that market make false representation and can brought to book, it will happen. What I see here is a failed market player trying to excuse its failings by calling for regulation....and hoping to be that regulator.

It is Much better to see more stable and efficent exchanges be opened. I suspect some not insignificant bitcoin trade has as a result of the Gox debacle gone elsewhere and as I speak, many people are working out who to provide better exchanges

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/bitcoin_anarchy_in_need_of_some_zTFr06G6IWEWYp3OSvJ99L

Members of the bitcoin community are starting to wonder if anarchy is the best policy, as recent turmoil raises interest in possible new regulations.

The digital currency, which is minted using computers running algorithms, had been plummeting in value for two days after soaring to above $200 a bitcoin earlier this week.

The exchange that handles the most bitcoin transactions, Mt.Gox, halted trading yesterday because of troubles, and the CEO of Coinlab, Peter Vessenes, said the exchange would be open to some oversight.

“We’d be happy to be regulated,” said Vessenes, who also is with the Bitcoin Foundation, an organizing body. “There is no self-regulatory organization for these. It’s pre-regulated right now, but we’re not anti-regulation.”

Vessenes runs North American trading for Mt.Gox. Yesterday, the market shut because of volatility, driven by a flood of new users interested in the currency and other users looking to sell at a market high point.

There was a lag in processing orders, helping fuel the panic, Vessenes said. There are some bitcoin enthusiasts who are against rules, however.

The currency, based on free open-source computer code that anyone can access, was created to stand apart from the traditional money system, and it attracted libertarians and anti-government types.

Still, the volatility in the price of bitcoins — rising from about $45 just a month ago to more than $250 this week and back down to around $100 yesterday — has some people questioning if no rules are good rules.

One venture capitalist, who was investing in bitcoin-based startups, said there need to be some rules and order before the currency can take off.

“Right now you have a bunch of anarchistic market dilettantes who don’t understand how markets work and don’t understand the perils of markets,” he said. “People who understand markets need to get involved.”

[Chief Satangkai]

“We’d be happy to be regulated,” said Vessenes”

WTF!?  I mean WTF...

[nuggets4all]

Well, scratch Coinlab from the list of Bitcoin services I‘ll patronize...

[nwbitcoin]

This is just the beginning - I remember the exact same stories appearing about copyright on the internet in the 90s

Someone is going to step in as the guardians of bitcoin, the self appointed have always known that - and looks like MTGox or and the Bitcoin Foundation are taking the role.

The sooner we have a decentralised exchange up and running, the better - otherwise, bitcoin is just going to become another toy of the banks and governments!

[Carlton Banks]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/bitcoin_anarchy_in_need_of_some_zTFr06G6IWEWYp3OSvJ99L

...the volatility in the price of bitcoins...has some people questioning if no rules are good rules.

*adopts "patience with a child" tone*

Nooooo, we're aware of rules, we have chosen the rules we like and adopted them. If you don't like those rules, adopt your own private currency

“People who understand markets need to get involved.”

What, the same people that "understand the markets" so well that we have the current mainstream financial system?

Once again, journalism seems to want to defeat itself, and truthfully, it sounds like the status quo is scared to death of Bitcoin (as it exists now, anyway)

[cdog]

It just needs to grow more, the volatility is a result of the market still being comparatively small.

When BTC gets to $10B or $100B market cap (we cant predict what # it takes) it will begin to stabilize and swings will be increasingly smaller.

[QuestionAuthority]

I agree with Vessenes, Bitcoin needs to be and will be regulated by all countries eventually. Financial regulation and oversight has been one of the premier tools of crime fighters since the days of Al Capone. The best way to fight crime is to remove the profit from criminal activity. Tracking the flow of currency increases the risk and helps remove the ability to profit.

[kerogre256]

Let them think they can regulate the bitcoin, and when they wake up it will be too late, people hates banks, big government and too big to fail and fork with less regulation will be always most sucessful

[marcus_of_augustus]

Let them think they can regulate the bitcoin, and when they wake up it will be too late, people hates banks, big government and too big to fail and fork with less regulation will be always most sucessful

This one.

Bring on the contrived rules and edicts from the privileged few to aid the privileged few ... the sooner the new rules are known the sooner the true bitcoin will learn how to route around them and fork as/when needed.

NB: We can play this game ad infinitum ... and we have home field advantage.

[rebuilder]

Regulating Bitcoin and regulating, say, exchange operators are not one and the same. Currently we take it entirely on faith that the exchanges actually hold 100% of the funds people put into them. Sooner or later, some of them are sure to experience a bank run, revealing not all funds are there to be had in some cases.

When Vessenes says "they" would be happy to be regulated, ask yourself who he speaks for.

[AlgoSwan]

Outside of the insiders, no one really knows what happened last week. What we do know for sure is that the market is always the final arbiter.

Regulation? Why? Just remove all fiat money in BTC exchanges. Problem will be solved instantly. BTC should be traded only with tangible assets: gold, silver, palladium, wheat, orange juice... All fine except paper. And never allow short selling on BTC. Infinite printing of fiat and short selling at futures markets create bubbles and chrash. Sounds familiar?

BTC will be fine. Don't worry. Just mine it, use it, maybe hoard it!

[gollum]

Bitcoin dont need regulation!

Just give it time and stability will emergy and the bitcoin economy will mature.
People talking about regulation do not understand the natural laws that create order in chaotic systems.

[FreddyFender]

Let them think they can regulate the bitcoin, and when they wake up it will be too late, people hates banks, big government and too big to fail and fork with less regulation will be always most sucessful

This one.

Bring on the contrived rules and edicts from the privileged few to aid the privileged few ... the sooner the new rules are known the sooner the true bitcoin will learn how to route around them and fork as/when needed.

NB: We can play this game ad infinitum ... and we have home field advantage.

I think the main thing that has these people upset is the discordant nature of the exchanges and the dearth of knowledge available for newbies. We can view rules as externally-imposed detrimental decrees, or as self-imposed, mutually beneficial adoptions.
In nature we see the concentration of herds, the tight coordination of swarming, the relaxed benefit of a watering hole, and shared vigilance of defense as normal. We have in place currently with Bitcoin's environs none of these - just a straight-out, competitive race for the fittest. Some do require the herd, the swarm, the watering hole. For others, the solo advantage has not been countered by anything, therefore, why would they not wreak, and wreak, and wreak when it is to their advantage? Bitcoin's version of the cyber watering hole will be provided, and external rules shunned. What the community adopts next is a survival mode akin to the herd, the agile maneuverings of a swarm in flight, and the vigilance of shared knowledge.
Given time, this will happen through dynamics or we can build with foreknowledge and deftly place new protocols externally, that enhance Bitcoin instead of trying to ruin Bitcoin's protocols to the benefit of the few.
I predicted that the next phase of interference would be rule mongers feigning righteous anger or trying to garner the commons to impose rules, rules, rules. Low and behold, guess who came to dinner?

[Stephen Gornick]

Members of the bitcoin community are starting to wonder if anarchy is the best policy,

We don't have anarchy.    Competing exchanges have been regulated out of existance.   BitMe.com shut down hours after FinCEN guidance was released saying they would be classified as a money transmitter.  If we had anarchy, BitMe would still be taking cash and selling bitcoins.

If he had anarchy, then the operators of ICBIT exchange would be willing to share info like who they are and where they are located.  Because trading of futures contracts is a regulated activity in most areas they operate anonymously.   When the exchange rate was skyrocketing, over the past weeks there was lots of interest in buying contracts but there wasn't much liquidity.  Part of the reason is counterparty risk - who feels comfortable sending larger amounts of bitcoins to sites operated anonymously?

If we had anarchy, or just free markets even, we wouldn't have had such a spike to $266 because hedging and shorting would have absorbed the upward pressure and then on the way down short covering would have provided support rather than seeing a drop to mid-double digits.

We need LESS regulation, not more.  We need MORE freedom to transact among ourselves without intervention.

[jubalix]

I add regulation just means I want my version of anarchy not yours

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/bitcoin_anarchy_in_need_of_some_zTFr06G6IWEWYp3OSvJ99L

Members of the bitcoin community are starting to wonder if anarchy is the best policy, as recent turmoil raises interest in possible new regulations.

The digital currency, which is minted using computers running algorithms, had been plummeting in value for two days after soaring to above $200 a bitcoin earlier this week.

The exchange that handles the most bitcoin transactions, Mt.Gox, halted trading yesterday because of troubles, and the CEO of Coinlab, Peter Vessenes, said the exchange would be open to some oversight.

“We’d be happy to be regulated,” said Vessenes, who also is with the Bitcoin Foundation, an organizing body. “There is no self-regulatory organization for these. It’s pre-regulated right now, but we’re not anti-regulation.”

Vessenes runs North American trading for Mt.Gox. Yesterday, the market shut because of volatility, driven by a flood of new users interested in the currency and other users looking to sell at a market high point.

There was a lag in processing orders, helping fuel the panic, Vessenes said. There are some bitcoin enthusiasts who are against rules, however.

The currency, based on free open-source computer code that anyone can access, was created to stand apart from the traditional money system, and it attracted libertarians and anti-government types.

Still, the volatility in the price of bitcoins — rising from about $45 just a month ago to more than $250 this week and back down to around $100 yesterday — has some people questioning if no rules are good rules.

One venture capitalist, who was investing in bitcoin-based startups, said there need to be some rules and order before the currency can take off.

“Right now you have a bunch of anarchistic market dilettantes who don’t understand how markets work and don’t understand the perils of markets,” he said. “People who understand markets need to get involved.”

[Agorista]

Should we centralize (read: regulate) power to a smaller group and assume they will honest/competent, or should we decentralize (read: deregulate) power, being honest with ourselves that many other people are not honest?

There is inherent good in decentralization, and not only in currencies. Centralization and regulation, or decentralization and deregulation. I will take the latter. I will live in reality and adjust accordingly.

[gollum]

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" - John Acton

Nobody should have more power than they can hendle. Distributed power means no one is to big to fail. Right now MtGox is to-big-to-fail for Bitcoin and their failure or success will be interpreted as bitcoin's failure or success.

[DastanX]

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" - John Acton

Nobody should have more power than they can hendle. Distributed power means no one is to big to fail. Right now MtGox is to-big-to-fail for Bitcoin and their failure or success will be interpreted as bitcoin's failure or success.

so true

[AlgoSwan]

If we had anarchy, or just free markets even, we wouldn't have had such a spike to $266 because hedging and shorting would have absorbed the upward pressure and then on the way down short covering would have provided support rather than seeing a drop to mid-double digits.

Exactly. If last 10 years of silver paper market (so called futures market) doesn't give any clue about the ugly side of manipulation and regulation, nothing will give.

[gogxmagog]

ask 3 anarchists to define anarchy and get 4 answers.

[gradient vector]

bitcointalk.org is the only bitcoin regulation needed. That and an equitable judicial system.

[Herodes]

“We’d be happy to be regulated,” said Vessenes, who also is with the Bitcoin Foundation, an organizing body. “There is no self-regulatory organization for these. It’s pre-regulated right now, but we’re not anti-regulation.”

I never liked that guy much. And what's this. He should state if he speaks as a private person, the chief of the Foundation or the chief of Coinlab. I'd say, if you can't take the heat, it's time to get out of the kitchen. Bitcoin is not something that shall be regulated to death, then the free market will create new exchanges, out of the hands of the regulations.

[Herodes]

I agree with Vessenes, Bitcoin needs to be and will be regulated by all countries eventually. Financial regulation and oversight has been one of the premier tools of crime fighters since the days of Al Capone. The best way to fight crime is to remove the profit from criminal activity. Tracking the flow of currency increases the risk and helps remove the ability to profit.

Read this. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=100747.0
And esp. this
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213

Nobody is fighting crime. Banks are assisting crime. Not even the govt. dares fight those banks.

[pheaonix]

we don't we regulations, we need exchanges that can actually handle exchange.

there is a huge difference between regulating a market and having actual tools, instead of angelfire hosted "exchanges" that crash when people exchange.

[Luno]

Involvement from real institutional investors and businneses that pay real taxes and have liabilities to real share holders creates a demand for regulation. So some of you anti everything asked for this yourself by wishing big money to join.

The first years of CC net shopping boomed internet porn and gambling and other line of business thet isn't known for great bookkeeping skills. A lot of these businesses went underground and eventually out as supermarkets and other everyday  businesses wanted a piece of the cake.

Buying something online with a credit card in the late 90'ies early zeros, usually flew through customs as a private gift shipment. Fake front web shops sold "stuff" wrongly labeled, just like Bitcoin today. It was just too easy. Do you really think this can go on forever?

As a larger portion of the real economy joins in, the hubs of Bitcoin, like exchanges and other heavily engaged in dealing with real banks, have to comply first, the rest will follow.

Bitcoin is an accounting system and a very good one, it's the DARPA un-nukeable wet dream for accountants! people understanding the mechanics of Bitcoin know that doing transactions in Bitcoin leaves a trail, maybe not a very direct one, but one that combined with the resources of a state can be traced to an IP. The fact that only illegal transactions have the interest of authorities at the moment means that toolz are being developed right now. Practices that in the end will make Bitcoin as easy to govern as everything else . Bitcoin is an experiment in market forces and economic theories and the most interesting one ever, if Bitcoin is going to survive that way, Bitcoin free trade zones have to develop and the borders guarded by exchanges dealing in something like gold/Bitcoin only.

There are forks and other mechanisms in the Bitcoin idea that never will make it completely governable. However hard forks and alt coins spouting everywhere is not a solution for a world currency that both belongs to the people and multinational corporations!

The anarchist libertarian minded Bitcoin followers do see the contradiction in real world adaptation of Bitcoin and it at the same time staying completely un-regulated.

So ultimately, Bitcoin is the newest iteration of the millennium old dilemma of free enterprise vs. state. There can never  be  peaceful co existence, we will end with either assimilation or isolation, there is no middleground

[marcus_of_augustus]

we don't we regulations, we need exchanges that can actually handle exchange.

there is a huge difference between regulating a market and having actual tools, instead of angelfire hosted "exchanges" that crash when people exchange.

Yes, excellent point. it is like a boat that got overloaded and sunk (mt. Gox) ... engineers say "build a bigger boat", idiots say "we need regulations" ... regulations don't stop boats sinking, physics will.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Buying something online with a credit card in the late 80'ies early 90'ies

Neat time travel trick? WWW was invented circa 1993-94 ... credit card purchases came some time after.

Re: state versus free enterprise ... monetary freedom means state is doomed, they just don't know it yet.

[Luno]

Buying something online with a credit card in the late 80'ies early 90'ies

Neat time travel trick? WWW was invented circa 1993-94 ... credit card purchases came some time after.

Re: state versus free enterprise ... monetary freedom means state is doomed, they just don't know it yet.

Sorry,  in my mind was the resent movie on the first guys making millions on the first payable porn sites, must have been 98-00 then. Thanks for pointing out. At least my point is getting through that these two outcomes are the only ones possible in the long run.

[Mike Christ]

Couldn't have it any other way.  Get the government out of my personal life, please and thank you.

[caveden]

Members of the bitcoin community are starting to wonder if anarchy is the best policy,

We don't have anarchy.    Competing exchanges have been regulated out of existance.   BitMe.com shut down hours after FinCEN guidance was released saying they would be classified as a money transmitter.  If we had anarchy, BitMe would still be taking cash and selling bitcoins.

If he had anarchy, then the operators of ICBIT exchange would be willing to share info like who they are and where they are located.  Because trading of futures contracts is a regulated activity in most areas they operate anonymously.   When the exchange rate was skyrocketing, over the past weeks there was lots of interest in buying contracts but there wasn't much liquidity.  Part of the reason is counterparty risk - who feels comfortable sending larger amounts of bitcoins to sites operated anonymously?

If we had anarchy, or just free markets even, we wouldn't have had such a spike to $266 because hedging and shorting would have absorbed the upward pressure and then on the way down short covering would have provided support rather than seeing a drop to mid-double digits.

We need LESS regulation, not more.  We need MORE freedom to transact among ourselves without intervention.

Great post Stephen!

[Herodes]

Members of the bitcoin community are starting to wonder if anarchy is the best policy,

We don't have anarchy.    Competing exchanges have been regulated out of existance.   BitMe.com shut down hours after FinCEN guidance was released saying they would be classified as a money transmitter.  If we had anarchy, BitMe would still be taking cash and selling bitcoins.

If he had anarchy, then the operators of ICBIT exchange would be willing to share info like who they are and where they are located.  Because trading of futures contracts is a regulated activity in most areas they operate anonymously.   When the exchange rate was skyrocketing, over the past weeks there was lots of interest in buying contracts but there wasn't much liquidity.  Part of the reason is counterparty risk - who feels comfortable sending larger amounts of bitcoins to sites operated anonymously?

If we had anarchy, or just free markets even, we wouldn't have had such a spike to $266 because hedging and shorting would have absorbed the upward pressure and then on the way down short covering would have provided support rather than seeing a drop to mid-double digits.

We need LESS regulation, not more.  We need MORE freedom to transact among ourselves without intervention.

Great post Stephen!

Agreed - but now there will be internal unrest in the foundation. Seems like there are differing viewpoints here.

[DoomDumas]

In 1913, a bunch of ultra-rich business men convinced (corrupted) the US Govt to create the Federal Reserve wich is their private property (the business men).  Their main argument was that giving them the power over money creation will bring stability.  The US economy then became very unstable.  Crash after crash, the Federal Reserve owner are just going richer and richer at the cost of all citizen.  Look to the history of "the money changers".. The history of gold, silver, banks.. Tons of examples lies in the past that clearly shows that regulation has done no good at all.  If we cant learn from the past, we are doomed to fail.

Regulation ?  ok Gox, begins by regulating yourself, then be regulated by some "authority", then you'll see what the market will do !  You may be really surprised !

[virtualmaster]

Governments are welcome to regulate bitcoin prices but only with buying or selling bitcoins.
The USA could buy some bitcoins reserves.
This bitcoin reserves could be used for bitcoin stabilization and later when the bitcoin market volume will increase could be used like gold reserves to stabilize the dollar.
I would recommend for the US government to buy at least 1 million bitcoins, for Russia and China each a half of million.
 

[antimattercrusader]

“We’d be happy to be regulated,” said Vessenes, who also is with the Bitcoin Foundation, an organizing body. “There is no self-regulatory organization for these. It’s pre-regulated right now, but we’re not anti-regulation.”

What the hell bullshit is this?!? The whole entire point of bitcoin is a worldwide, free market. If he supports regulation, why is not he involved in Fiat to Fiat Exchange? Then he can get regulated as much as his little heart desires. Leave me out of that.

I don't know if it's just the media, but I read an article today saying alot of people who invested in bitcoin wanted to see regulation after the crash, because basically, (I am paraphrasing here) they don't like loosing money. Sounds like some sore loosers. I can't imagine this this true - but if it is, it's a sad day for our community and probably humanity. We work hard to create a free market so we can prosper, take charge of our own lives, and live in freedom together then the instant there is one minor setback people go crying to mommy government for help and protection. Those who made/lost money in the recent volatility have only themselves to hold responsible. It's not government's responsibility to keep us safe from ourselves! I just cannot believe what I am reading!

What is it going to take to get away from these damn people who seem to crave government control over their life? A FTL space craft and a new planet? Even then, 200-300 years later... guess where that society will be. Unless some level of sustainable common sense culture can be created, I fear they'll be a bunch of whining ninnies seeking to give up personal responsibility too. It must be human nature. The U.S. constitution was good and we had a good run. Guess I should be thankful for that, but eventually corruption finds its way into everything. The problem with everything at this point in history is there is no choice for people who desire freedom. I don't have a problem with communism, socialism, dictatorships etc... I simply do not want to live under them. I recognize everyone has different ideas on how to live, and those who desire "stability" and "safety" (even from themselves) can go to a location where the government will "provide" that for them. Fine. But what is making me disenchanted, especially with continuing globalization and increased regulation of personal life in the United States (Think illegal > 16oz drinks in NY etc), is there is nowhere truly free left to go.

I sure hope our society does not totally collapse in on itself before space technology gets to a usable point, and brings choice back into our lives. We may be getting ready to enter a new set of dark ages and I fear suppression will mean centuries before anything like that happens, sadly. Bitcoin, the Open Source movement, and things of that nature do provide some optimism and we can "win".... except for the fact that it does appear we don't want to?

Anyone read the book "The Giver?" Nuff Said.

[gollum]

Governments are welcome to regulate bitcoin prices but only with buying or selling bitcoins.
The USA could buy some bitcoins reserves.
This bitcoin reserves could be used for bitcoin stabilization and later when the bitcoin market volume will increase could be used like gold reserves to stabilize the dollar.
I would recommend for the US government to buy at least 1 million bitcoins, for Russia and China each a half of million.
 

If the Federal Reserve ever would accept bitcoin as superior to fiat, they would not buy into bitcoin but create and mine their own alt-coin where they decide the inflation rate and other parameters.

[Luckybit]

oh sure, regulate it so we can go right back to bowing to the banksters!!!

And who/what would write/enforce regulations? The US? the EU? oh how about the UN?

Probably whoever paid him is who he wants regulating Bitcoin.

[moni3z]

Can't we just make our own foundation and lure (bribe) Gavin to it? Then these other directors and their corporations can regulate themselves all they want while the rest of us decentralize their services so they are redundant

[Luckybit]

oh sure, regulate it so we can go right back to bowing to the banksters!!!

And who/what would write/enforce regulations? The US? the EU? oh how about the UN?

There is a good point which was made in the article though. We do need self regulation of some sort and there is a lack of experts. The people running these exchanges don't know what they are doing. But how do we regulate it in a libertarian way?

Being libertarian doesn't mean no regulation, the regulation has to be designed into the protocol somehow. How do we do it internally?

[Luckybit]

And once again, the gigantic boner of men with this disturbing fetish for absolute control springs into action.  Say no to government regulation, kiddos.  Regulation does nothing but rig the game in someone's else's favor--specifically, not yours.  The market is being regulated, and we're the ones doing it.  Don't give up your freedoms for the false promise of stability.

Saying no go government regulation does not excuse you from the responsibility of regulation. The community must figure out how to regulate itself which means it probably needs some elected governing body or some form of regulation in the form of the protocol and code.

[drawingthesun]

If your into Bitcoin and want regulation and the nanny state to watch over your Bitcoin economy, then your of low intelligence plain and simple.

The entire idea of Bitcoin and what Satoshi wanted is a independent decentralized system that needs no big brother.

Please remember that those who want regulation are in a position to profit from the regulation. Please don't be stupid and agree to this rubbish, yeah a lack of regulation might get us burnt every now and then but thats a worthwhile price to pay for freedom.

[Herodes]

Those who made/lost money in the recent volatility have only themselves to hold responsible. It's not government's responsibility to keep us safe from ourselves! I just cannot believe what I am reading!

This is completely correct. I also see the same horseshit happening in my country (Norway). People who for whatever reason have something bad happening to them, calls out for regulation. Recently, a lot of investors who trusted their banks blindly to create loans in 'low-risk' investments sued one of the biggest banks here, because they lost a lot of money. If they had made a lot of money, of course they would not have sued...

The court ruled that the bank had deceived the investors, and thus needed to pay them back. Personally I think that a person is responsible for any investments that he/she does, but at the same time it is really bad when somebody is less than honest about the prospects of a certain investment as well.

I can't imagine how naive it is to just trust a banker to act in your best interest. They only act in their own interest.

At the same time I see this all the time, people fuck up, and then instead of admitting to the fault, taking responsibility, they have a too big ego or lack a spine, and point at whoever they think they can put the blame on.

The fact is that an individual always have 100% responsibility for everything that this individual does. If one does an investment without knowing what one invests in, but simply trusts someone else that it is a good investment, then one cannot blame anybody but oneself when it turns out to be a bad investment.

First, when an individual takes 100% responsibility for his own actions, then he is truly free and strong.

[Mike Christ]

And once again, the gigantic boner of men with this disturbing fetish for absolute control springs into action.  Say no to government regulation, kiddos.  Regulation does nothing but rig the game in someone's else's favor--specifically, not yours.  The market is being regulated, and we're the ones doing it.  Don't give up your freedoms for the false promise of stability.

Saying no go government regulation does not excuse you from the responsibility of regulation. The community must figure out how to regulate itself which means it probably needs some elected governing body or some form of regulation in the form of the protocol and code.

Completely agree.  The market will be regulated, and I want the regulators to be us.

[Logik]

This argument is retarded: regulation of the exchanges has nothing to do with Bitcoin and everything to do with fiat money. FinCEN published guidelines on the exchanges because they trade fiat money for Bitcoins. Both people interviewed oversee operations involving trading fiat money for Bitcoins. The government already regulates fiat money so why would they stop just because you want to trade fiat money for bitcoins?

Bitcoin isn't special in this regard and just because the fiat side of it is/will/should be regulated doesn't mean that Bitcoin is/will/should be regulated.

#1 mistake of media is failing to distinguish bitcoin exchanges from the currency itself, and that's because they struggle to understand the concept that something can exist without a traditional "entity" owning or controlling it .

[Herodes]

This argument is retarded: regulation of the exchanges has nothing to do with Bitcoin and everything to do with fiat money. FinCEN published guidelines on the exchanges because they trade fiat money for Bitcoins. Both people interviewed oversee operations involving trading fiat money for Bitcoins. The government already regulates fiat money so why would they stop just because you want to trade fiat money for bitcoins?

Bitcoin isn't special in this regard and just because the fiat side of it is/will/should be regulated doesn't mean that Bitcoin is/will/should be regulated.

#1 mistake of media is failing to distinguish bitcoin exchanges from the currency itself, and that's because they struggle to understand the concept that something can exist without a traditional "entity" owning or controlling it .

Good post. Govts will eventually want to regulate everything though..

[AlgoSwan]

#1 mistake of media is failing to distinguish bitcoin exchanges from the currency itself, and that's because they struggle to understand the concept that something can exist without a traditional "entity" owning or controlling it .

Wasn't that same media yelling "gold" as a safe heaven almost everyday? Now they're promoting gold is not safe at all. And I totally agree with your fiat/BTC trade analysis. If we remove fiat from exchanges, there will be no talk about regulation or something.

[Bitcoinpro]

am in contact with Australian government i will report back as soon as i get any information, have been busy the last few weeks with other things otherwise i would already have something

[Herodes]

Wasn't that same media yelling "gold" as a safe heaven almost everyday? Now they're promoting gold is not safe at all.

Mainstream media is mostly just a circus, or vultures running for the next cadaver to feast on. The masses buy into the hype and entertainment, I would think..

[QuestionAuthority]

I agree with Vessenes, Bitcoin needs to be and will be regulated by all countries eventually. Financial regulation and oversight has been one of the premier tools of crime fighters since the days of Al Capone. The best way to fight crime is to remove the profit from criminal activity. Tracking the flow of currency increases the risk and helps remove the ability to profit.

Read this. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=100747.0
And esp. this
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213

Nobody is fighting crime. Banks are assisting crime. Not even the govt. dares fight those banks.

It’s not that regulation makes the drug war 100% successful or that officials involved cannot be corrupted but provides a tool to lessen the impact.

Drugs are not the only thing an unregulated barter system like Bitcoin are perfectly suited for or currently used to promote. I can think of many unsavory situations where money needs to change hands and Bitcoin + TOR would work well. Silk Road isn’t the only one. Bitcoin is well suited for child prostitution, pornography, assassination, arms dealers, bribery, extortion payments, kickback, money laundering, tax evasion and hidden payments for any number of other barbaric savageries toward society. It’s not as if you can’t use other forms of payment for these evil acts but why make a payment system perfectly suited to them?

Oh, and please don’t tell me your freshly learned Poli Sci/Sociology/Philosophy 101 bullshit preached by a professor that’s never held a real job in his life and has no children. He has the luxury of believing the anarchistic nonsense. The rest of us have to live in the real world and would like our children to grow up without being molested or given drugs by the guy down the street (shipped straight to his home from SR).

[glendall]

If you judge our current global economic situation according to history and logic, and not the P-R campaigns, then regulation leads to a very small number of corrupt wealthy elites manipulating financial markets for incredible amount of personal profit.

I'll take no regulation please.

[mobile4ever]

There was a lag in processing orders, helping fuel the panic, Vessenes said. There are some most bitcoin enthusiasts who are against rules, however.

fixed that for them

It's precisely because of people who understand the markets that Bitcoin was invented in the first place.

Classic. Put that on a T-Shirt.