Bitcoin anarchy in need of some rules | NY Post

[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!

[1714191129]

1714191129

[1714191129]

1714191129

[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!