Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated?

[RodeoX]

It seems to me that not working with regulators is a sure path to the most onerous regulations.

[1679603517]

1679603517

[1679603517]

1679603517

[1679603517]

1679603517

[cointoss]

Wait. All of you posters who seem to be supporting government regulation being built into Bitcoin itself should clarify what you are supporting here.

Which of these things, exactly, are you posting in support of?

For instance we can ensure that it remains possible to track the flow of money through Bitcoin.

We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data.

...

We can work with them to find ways to apply AML rules to Bitcoin transactions

...

There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made.

...

Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation.

...

developing P2P blacklist technologies

[Loozik]

Tell me what are factual differences (if any) between theft under threat of killing and taxes?

The latter is legalized (ironically by the very same people who collect those taxes).

Yeah, people doing business as ''states'', ''regulators'' are merely acting like mafia that gained monopoly over legislation and justice enforcement. ''Justice'' here is a misnomer  

I do not think people providing excellent service as Bitcoin Foundation should engage in talks with mafia.

[RodeoX]

Just to be clear I in no way support changing bitcoin to include regulatory features. Following the rules should be up to the user, just like other laws.

[Loozik]

Wait. All of you posters who seem to be supporting government regulation being built into Bitcoin itself should clarify what you are supporting here.

Which of these things, exactly, are you posting in support of?

For instance we can ensure that it remains possible to track the flow of money through Bitcoin.

Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation.

Okay, so we've learned deflation can be dangerous.

[melvster]

Wait. All of you posters who seem to be supporting government regulation being built into Bitcoin itself should clarify what you are supporting here.

Which of these things, exactly, are you posting in support of?

For instance we can ensure that it remains possible to track the flow of money through Bitcoin.

We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data.

...

We can work with them to find ways to apply AML rules to Bitcoin transactions

...

There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made.

...

Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation.

...

developing P2P blacklist technologies

I dont think it makes too much sense to build govt regulation into bitcoin 0.8+ ... that would be a hard fork or a new coin (maybe the same thing).  Because each regulation would be different in each country.  I do think that having a conversation with regulators to explain the system is healthy and looking at the recommendations.

Arbitrary freezing of funds would make bitcoin sterile.  

I would LOVE to see cypto currency used for public good (my idea was to give 10% of mining rewards to charity) but again this should be a new coin.

Deflation / Inflation cannot be controlled centrally.  It's trivial to print new bitcoins and settle in fractions or cash, as gold does.

The illegal link in the BC argument is pretty absurd ... you can encode information by using any image gallery, or by timestamps on facebook and twitter ... to prevent the sharing of links you have to shut down the internet, and maybe even paper!

Anyone can fork btc and introduce arbitrary measures, whether anyone will use that fork is a different question.

Each country will be different.  

[Jace]

Seriously now, WTF is this thread is all about. I thought Bitcoin was created to avoid regulation and centralization in the first place.

So, NO! Of course we don't want to work with regulators. Bitcoin is unregulated by nature, let's keep it that way. For people who love regulation, stick with your euros and dollars please. Everybody happy.

[Loozik]

So, NO! Of course we don't want to work with regulators.

And you know what? - regulators didn't want to work with us (whoever ''us'' is) either. Look at the OP quotes (in bold in my post) to see what happened - this is very funny:

----------------------------------------------------------

A. One guy (from Australia) from Bitcoin Foundation says:
Hi! I would like the board to discuss opening up lines of communication with money regulators - particularly FinCEN and AUSTRAC (I'm from Australia).
Note it is not the so called regulators who seek contact with Bitcoin Foundation guys. It is the guy within Bitcoin Foundation who wants other Bitcoin Foundation guys to co-operate with the so called regulators. Funny, isn't it?

B. The Australian guy continues:
I think it would be better if some organisation like the Bitcoin Foundation could offer guidance draft rules and work with the regulators.
He just makes a pretty neutral suggestion, but pointing his finger at guys (geeks) who have no clue how to defend against bureaucrats.

C. And here comes the FUD out of the blue:
Otherwise we'll have a situation pretty soon where they try to implement something unworkable, the criminals flood into the Bitcoin system then the argument for 'shutting down bitcoin' grows in popularity.
I wonder where he gets this ''pretty soon'' idea from?

-------------------------------------------------------

D. The other guy (a developer) replies:
The Bitcoin Foundation itself is in a difficult position: we all know who it's funded by, and everyone involved is publicly known.
Clearly he caught the bait (FUD) and is sincerely afraid of decent persons involved in Bitcoin Foundation.

E. The scared developer makes concessions to requests that haven't been even made by the so called regulators, i.e.:
We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data.
...
We can work with them to find ways to apply AML rules to Bitcoin transactions
...
There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made.
...
Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation.
...
developing P2P blacklist technologies

In my opinion the so called regulators, even if any meeting were to be held in the future, wouldn't even put forward such request - they have no clue what the Bitcoin system is all about.

-------------------------------------------------------

The problem is: now that this thread is open to public, the so called regulators were given numerous concessions (luckily of one man on behalf of this man only) on a silver plate + were given the info on what's possible to regulate. Bitcoin Foundation guys shoot themselves in the foot.

EDIT: Apologies to Bitcoin Foundations guys. I thought OP / retep / Peter Todd was a member of Bitcoin Foundation and spoke on your behalf while proposing going to bed with regulators. I was misleaded (my bad) by his quoting BF' private forum.

[Brushan]

I'm in no way against regulating exchanges if Bitcoin benefits from it. But i really hope that if the Bitcoin Foundation ever makes a suggestion of changing the protocol to make Bitcoin easier regulated that we protest so loudly that they would never dare to make a suggestion like that again. And if they do make a suggestion like that then it's clear that they have sold out to the same people that Bitcoin was designed to fight.

[cypherdoc]

So, NO! Of course we don't want to work with regulators.

And you know what? - regulators didn't want to work with us (whoever ''us'' is) either. Look at the OP quotes (in bold in my post) to see what happened - this is very funny:

----------------------------------------------------------

A. One guy (from Australia) from Bitcoin Foundation says:
Hi! I would like the board to discuss opening up lines of communication with money regulators - particularly FinCEN and AUSTRAC (I'm from Australia).
Note it is not the so called regulators who seek contact with Bitcoin Foundation guys. It is the guy within Bitcoin Foundation who wants other Bitcoin Foundation guys to co-operate with the so called regulators. Funny, isn't it?

B. The Australian guy continues:
I think it would be better if some organisation like the Bitcoin Foundation could offer guidance draft rules and work with the regulators.
He just makes a pretty neutral suggestion, but pointing his finger at guys (geeks) who have no clue how to defend against bureaucrats.

C. And here comes the FUD out of the blue:
Otherwise we'll have a situation pretty soon where they try to implement something unworkable, the criminals flood into the Bitcoin system then the argument for 'shutting down bitcoin' grows in popularity.
I wonder where he gets this ''pretty soon'' idea from?

-------------------------------------------------------

D. The other guy (a developer) replies:
The Bitcoin Foundation itself is in a difficult position: we all know who it's funded by, and everyone involved is publicly known.
Clearly he caught the bait (FUD) and is sincerely afraid of decent persons involved in Bitcoin Foundation.

E. The scared developer makes concessions to requests that haven't been even made by the so called regulators, i.e.:
We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data.
...
We can work with them to find ways to apply AML rules to Bitcoin transactions
...
There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made.
...
Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation.
...
developing P2P blacklist technologies

In my opinion the so called regulators, even if any meeting were to be held in the future, wouldn't even put forward such request - they have no clue what the Bitcoin system is all about.

-------------------------------------------------------

The problem is: now that this thread is open to public, the so called regulators were given numerous concessions (luckily of one man on behalf of this man only) on a silver plate + were given the info on what's possible to regulate. Bitcoin Foundation guys shoot themselves in the foot.

please list the identities of the bolded quotes.

[Stampbit]

Deregulation! We need bitcoin derivatives traded on secret dark markets by major institutions who are simultaneously manipulating variables to really set this volatility swing in full motion!

[tvbcof]

Deregulation! We need bitcoin derivatives traded on secret dark markets by major institutions who are simultaneously manipulating variables to really set this volatility swing in full motion!

We already have that in spades I believe.

[Loozik]

please list the identities of the bolded quotes.

OP should do this. He has more information I think.

[edmundedgar]

please list the identities of the bolded quotes.

OP should do this. He has more information I think.

Retep will correct me if I'm reading him wrong, but if I'm understanding the original post correctly the stuff that cypherdoc has phrased from "E. The scared developer makes concessions to requests that haven't been even made by the so called regulators..." wasn't a report of an actual conversation, it was something that the OP pulled out of his arse.

One of the various slights of hand in the original post was the way it plays with "work with", which starts out with an alleged actual conversation where it means "talk to them like the Tor people do to try to persuade them not to regulate us" and then, after various twists and turns of the OP's imagination, ends up meaning, "voluntarily break our software if somebody powerful thinks it might help them".

[Peter Todd]

Retep will correct me if I'm reading him wrong, but if I'm understanding the original post correctly the stuff that cypherdoc has phrased from "E. The scared developer makes concessions to requests that haven't been even made by the so called regulators..." wasn't a report of an actual conversation, it was something that the OP pulled out of his arse.

One of the various slights of hand in the original post was the way it plays with "work with", which starts out with an alleged actual conversation where it means "talk to them like the Tor people do to try to persuade them not to regulate us" and then, after various twists and turns of the OP's imagination, ends up meaning, "voluntarily break our software if somebody powerful thinks it might help them".

Yeah, you lot are hilarious. The only thing that's an actual conversation is what's quoted in my original post. You might want to re-read it to remind yourself.

I'm surprised you people haven't figured out that I 100% think the right approach is to do everything we can to ensure that at a technical level Bitcoin can't be regulated.

Don't they teach rhetoric in highschool anymore? Arguing your opponents position to show how wrong they are is a pretty basic technique.

[tvbcof]

...
Don't they teach rhetoric in highschool anymore? Arguing your opponents position to show how wrong they are is a pretty basic technique.

Such a thing is vastly to nuanced for a fair fraction of this board.  Trust me.

[Peter Todd]

...
Don't they teach rhetoric in highschool anymore? Arguing your opponents position to show how wrong they are is a pretty basic technique.

Such a thing is vastly to nuanced for a fair fraction of this board.  Trust me.

Indeed.

Friday night beer googles are the only reason I'm even looking at this thread.

[Loozik]

Retep will correct me if I'm reading him wrong, but if I'm understanding the original post correctly the stuff that cypherdoc has phrased from "E. The scared developer makes concessions to requests that haven't been even made by the so called regulators..." wasn't a report of an actual conversation, it was something that the OP pulled out of his arse.

The sentence "E. The scared developer makes concessions to requests that haven't been even made by the so called regulators..." was produced by me - it is a subtitle I gave to the conversation reported by OP. OP had nothing to do with it. Please reread my post.

[edmundedgar]

Retep will correct me if I'm reading him wrong, but if I'm understanding the original post correctly the stuff that cypherdoc has phrased from "E. The scared developer makes concessions to requests that haven't been even made by the so called regulators..." wasn't a report of an actual conversation, it was something that the OP pulled out of his arse.

The sentence "E. The scared developer makes concessions to requests that haven't been even made by the so called regulators..." was produced by me - it is a subtitle I gave to the conversation reported by OP. OP had nothing to do with it. Please reread my post.

That's what I mean, the stuff in bold that comes after that sentence.

[Loozik]

Retep will correct me if I'm reading him wrong, but if I'm understanding the original post correctly the stuff that cypherdoc has phrased from "E. The scared developer makes concessions to requests that haven't been even made by the so called regulators..." wasn't a report of an actual conversation, it was something that the OP pulled out of his arse.

The sentence "E. The scared developer makes concessions to requests that haven't been even made by the so called regulators..." was produced by me - it is a subtitle I gave to the conversation reported by OP. OP had nothing to do with it. Please reread my post.

That's what I mean, the stuff in bold that comes after that sentence.

So how could OP pull a sentence out of his arse, if the sentence wasn't his?