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

[crumbs]

There's pros and cons to both, but unregulated will always communicate "under the radar" to many legit businesses that want to deal with commercially regulated companies.

But the problem is: "How do you regulate an international currency nationally?"

A government will regulate Bitcoin within its borders & as it interfaces with its currency and its citizens, no different from, say, kiddie pr0nz.  
It also may put pressure on other governments to regulate Bitcoin within their borders.  

Why a hot button like child pr0nz?  Because like Bitcoin, its consumption seems impossible to regulate -- bunch of digitized data in da tubez, or on pedo's hard drives.  But the party van shows up anyhow. 

[1679606245]

1679606245

[1679606245]

1679606245

[1679606245]

1679606245

[justusranvier]

Relevant to this thread: I Love the Smell of Crony Capitalism in the Morning

[legitnick]

Im a strong supporter of keeping Bitcoin out of the hands of regulatory governments. Bitcoin was made for the very reason of being unregulated, and some of you guys want it to be regulated

[aigeezer]

Relevant to this thread: I Love the Smell of Crony Capitalism in the Morning

"If past results are any indication attempts to force Bitcoin to conform to the old rules will cause an innovation backlash. Rendering regulations ineffective and impossible to enforce will simply be added to the list of challenges to overcome when it comes to starting a new venture."

I liked that piece, although I don't know whether the names named are fair targets or not. I'm not close enough to the action to tell - fog of war. The behaviors described certainly seem like fair targets.

Good to know you're watching 'em.       

[Severian]

Relevant to this thread: I Love the Smell of Crony Capitalism in the Morning

Well said. You zeroed in on a core issue with human nature that Bitcoin brings to the surface:

As he reveals in the interview, his ultimate goal is not to be an entrepreneur, but rather a career bureaucrat on a regulatory panel that tells entrepreneurs what they can and can't do. Determining the advisability of doing business with a company whose CEO doesn't actually want to be in the business is left as an exercise for the reader.

Americans and others around the world have been conditioned to believe that the political divisions in human beings are between "liberals" and "conservatives" when in actual fact, the true dividing line is the one between those obsessed with Ruling or being Ruled and those who perceive Liberty as the higher end: "The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians." -George Orwell, 1948

Since Bitcoin is the first money in human history that has no "Ruler" behind it, it's defining this line very clearly. Bitcoin's creator seemed to know this, per his statement about Bitcoin and libertarians.

Bitcoin will survive the authoritarians, just as it was designed to do. Exchanges might get taken down, markets smashed, but Bitcoin as an idea and a tech will outlive the commissars.

[xxjs]

Since Bitcoin is the first money in human history that has no "Ruler" behind it, it's defining this line very clearly. Bitcoin's creator seemed to know this, per his statement about Bitcoin and libertarians.

Forgetting about gold money here, are we?

[justusranvier]

I liked that piece, although I don't know whether the names named are fair targets or not.

Here's the interview I was referring to in my piece:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqtTTiJmdeA

[marcus_of_augustus]

There's pros and cons to both, but unregulated will always communicate "under the radar" to many legit businesses that want to deal with commercially regulated companies.

But the problem is: "How do you regulate an international currency nationally?"

A government will regulate Bitcoin within its borders & as it interfaces with its currency and its citizens, no different from, say, kiddie pr0nz.  
It also may put pressure on other governments to regulate Bitcoin within their borders.  

Why a hot button like child pr0nz?  Because like Bitcoin, its consumption seems impossible to regulate -- bunch of digitized data in da tubez, or on pedo's hard drives.  But the party van shows up anyhow.  

Why kiddie porn? ... because you are obsessed by it and never fail to seize an opportunity to mention it ... maybe you should check in with a shrink? ... an obsession with kiddie porn, in any manner, is probably not a healthy signal.

[crumbs]

There's pros and cons to both, but unregulated will always communicate "under the radar" to many legit businesses that want to deal with commercially regulated companies.

But the problem is: "How do you regulate an international currency nationally?"

A government will regulate Bitcoin within its borders & as it interfaces with its currency and its citizens, no different from, say, kiddie pr0nz.  
It also may put pressure on other governments to regulate Bitcoin within their borders.  

Why a hot button like child pr0nz?  Because like Bitcoin, its consumption seems impossible to regulate -- bunch of digitized data in da tubez, or on pedo's hard drives.  But the party van shows up anyhow.  

Why kiddie porn? ... because you are obsessed by it and never fail to seize an opportunity to mention it ... maybe you should check in with a shrink? ... an obsession with kiddie porn, in any manner, is probably not a healthy signal.

Because i want to make you all buthurt & degenerate to spewing nerd rage. How're u feelin'?

[aigeezer]

I liked that piece, although I don't know whether the names named are fair targets or not.

Here's the interview I was referring to in my piece:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqtTTiJmdeA

Thanks! Your assessment was correct, I now believe. The interview is fascinating - I can follow his reasoning as he leads himself into a terrible place. It helps me step back and revisit what I want from BTC.

Bottom line (for me) - a robust P2P currency (with all its warts) is much more important than an interface with fiat (with all its warts).

I said it a long way up-thread, but now more than ever my preference is to keep BTC unregulated. If that must mean no interface at all with fiat, then I hope BTC takes that route despite the downside. That said - regardless of which path BTC takes, some people will stay with it and some people will leave and some altcoin will fill any vacuum created. The universe is probably unfolding as it should - P2P for me though, and government makes three.   

[Severian]

Forgetting about gold money here, are we?

Even when gold and silver were money, they were still subject to the whims of the State. Governments have a long history of issuing debased metal coins, including the US. Bitcoin can't be debased by any authority. That's one of the reasons banks and their vassal governments see it as a threat.

[justusranvier]

I can follow his reasoning as he leads himself into a terrible place. It helps me step back and revisit what I want from BTC.

Thank you. That was exactly what I was hoping to achieve with the article.

[xxjs]

Forgetting about gold money here, are we?

Even when gold and silver were money, they were still subject to the whims of the State. Governments have a long history of issuing debased metal coins, including the US. Bitcoin can't be debased by any authority. That's one of the reasons banks and their vassal governments see it as a threat.

Agree, it has happened.

[polarhei]

If you like to make bitcoin as a reasonable way for users which do not have any credit cards, then better work with law even all people can read the source code.

[abbyd]

I liked that piece, although I don't know whether the names named are fair targets or not.

Here's the interview I was referring to in my piece:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqtTTiJmdeA

Ewww. He would "like nothing better than to be on the board of directors of the new regulatory agency in Canada that governs and regulates digital currency".

[polarhei]

If you like to make bigger and legal, then it is required guidance to follow as bitcoin is designed as open transaction which everyone can monitor.

It does not mean the tools designed anomymous. The design implies this even the representation is not readable normally.

[Linkkoin]

The point is that there is a clear statement from different authorities all across the globe - if you want to play the game related to finances/money-related services, either play with the (more or less) same framework as the older ones or get banned.

As well nowadays, operating in a legal vacuum is often a disadvantage when speaking of cooperation with traditional financial institutions, like banks, payment providers etc. which often simply refuse provision of services because of that.

[FaithInCrypto]

If I were asked the same question years ago, I'd probably had a firm answer with "unregulated Bitcoin" that time but now that Bitcoin has been used for illegal activities, I don't want to think anymore. I hope there would be a way of decentralization and modernization at the same time so both parties so everyone will be happy.

[Asmonist]

I am actually quite against regulating bitcoin. All my concern is the safety and how to penalize scammers or invaders. If it can be regulated I hope its for safety and privacy. However, if it will contrast to the usual processing and may result to more charges soon then its better to have it as it is. So far bitcoin is doing well and earning it is fine so far.

[kotik085]

It’s best to leave bitcoin as it is today. No need to regulate that Bitcoin has become like a dollar? Why do we need this today, because investing in bitcoin is much nicer than a dollar.