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

[jdillon]

The OP's post is very slippery. It's written as if it's describing the situation from a neutral stance, but it's full of political games.

OK, you might have missed it for the straw men, but there's an actual thing in there. Retep is opposed to improving scalability so transactions can remain on the blockchain. He has some opinions about what the blockchain should be used for, and he wants to cap the network at 7 transactions per second, and blow fees through the roof so that most of the current uses of Bitcoin will have to go somewhere else.

What's slippery is you anti-privacy lot never once mentioning how the massive blockchain you keep on pushing will result in bloat that even Gavin thinks will soon make operating a node cost $100/month. You'll have no choice but to move to a big data center with a fast connection right out in the open, and users will have no alternatives other than continuing to have every transaction they make recorded publicly for regulators to analyze.

Good luck keeping the regulators away under those conditions. Moving your blacklisted coins will be a matter of hoping that the few, if any, pools still running that don't follow AML know your customer regulations aren't busy trying to find another country to set up shop in.

This is a tough argument for him to win and making transactions cost $1 or $10 or $100 would not be very popular, so when the core developers try to scale the network up he's trying to make you think that it's part of some kind of pro-government plot involving the Bitcoin foundation.

Funny how the core developers seem to mostly agree with him, with the exception of Gavin. Guess who's getting their salary paid by big businesses?

Peter is damn right to say that we need technology that keeps Bitcoin regulators away from the core of Bitcoin. FWIW I think you should just submit a pull request to the foundation bylaws, and add a section on anonymity and decentralization. See how they respond, if at all.

[1715089190]

1715089190

[1715089190]

1715089190

[1715089190]

1715089190

[1715089190]

1715089190

[1715089190]

1715089190

[1715089190]

1715089190

[cypherdoc]

the regulators main function is to preserve the status of the USD monetary system since most of them are captured by the banking system today.  since Bitcoin collides with that system in just about every possible way, you can expect them to try and change Bitcoin in the ways the OP outlined.  that will not be acceptable to just about every Bitcoin supporter in existence today.

its becoming apparent that they will try and attack the developers of the Bitcoin system to force them to insert unfavorable changes in due time.  if the developers capitulate to these demands they can be assured that either Bitcoin will be forked or other developers will take their place.

[QuestionAuthority]

Your subject is kind of a backwards way of thinking; it assumes you have control over making regulations. Personally I’d like to keep firearms from being regulated but that hasn’t worked out well for me so far.

[glendall]

What purpose would any sort of regulation have besides transferring a percentage of Bitcoin's value to the self-appointed people who came up with the idea?

I trust the software behind it, not anyone trying to control it.

Couldn't care less if Paypal and other giants get an unfair cut of this resource. There are many currencies, perhaps we should try a free currency for a change, as an experiment for comparison.

[paybitcoin]

I think Bitcoin can handle both regulated scenarios and unregulated scenarios, just like paper money is handled legally and illegally today.

Full traceability will be the norm for everyday consumers and businesses using green addresses or some other trust mechanism, but with the possibility of being used anonymously with enough caution. The FBI, IRS, or equivalent would step at the same time and in the same way as if they are catching millions of paper US dollars going across the border.

The question is, at what quantity of 'anonymous' Bitcoins does the regulation begin? I think for USD bills it starts raising eyebrows with $6,000-10,000 moving around...

[westkybitcoins]

Coercion of innocent parties is wrong. No amount of grandstanding or excuses about "we're protecting everyone" changes that.

[QuantumQrack]

Bitcoin will remain unregulated.  It doesnt matter if people in the community want it regulated or if government(s) want it regulated.  Bitcoin, by nature, is unregulated.  They cannot seize your btc unless under duress, etc.  You are your own bank.

[Brushan]

Bitcoin will remain unregulated.  It doesnt matter if people in the community want it regulated or if government(s) want it regulated.  Bitcoin, by nature, is unregulated.  They cannot seize your btc unless under duress, etc.  You are your own bank.

Until the devs fork it and say: "Here is the regulated Bitcoin 2.0 which will be worth 10000USD because of big company involvement, if you don't want use it then use the unregulated Bitcoin 1.0 for illegal activities which will be worth about 2USD."

Looking at the majority of people involved in Bitcoin i'd place my money on that everybody would go for 2.0. Of course, the Bitcoin Foundation together with other large companies (paypal, banks etc), will make a plan to slowly manipulate us into believing that a regulated Bitcoin will be much better for everyone. If you ask me, it has already begun.

[QuantumQrack]

Bitcoin will remain unregulated.  It doesnt matter if people in the community want it regulated or if government(s) want it regulated.  Bitcoin, by nature, is unregulated.  They cannot seize your btc unless under duress, etc.  You are your own bank.

Until the devs fork it and say: "Here is the regulated Bitcoin 2.0 which will be worth 10000USD because of big company involvement, if you don't want use it then use the unregulated Bitcoin 1.0 for illegal activities which will be worth about 2USD."

Looking at the majority of people involved in Bitcoin i'd place my money on that everybody would go for 2.0. Of course, the Bitcoin Foundation together with other large companies (paypal, banks etc), will make a plan to slowly manipulate us into believing that a regulated Bitcoin will be much better for everyone. If you ask me, it has already begun.

If there is ANY kind of change to bitcoin that serves more regulation, I am OUT of bitcoin.

[Brushan]

Bitcoin will remain unregulated.  It doesnt matter if people in the community want it regulated or if government(s) want it regulated.  Bitcoin, by nature, is unregulated.  They cannot seize your btc unless under duress, etc.  You are your own bank.

Until the devs fork it and say: "Here is the regulated Bitcoin 2.0 which will be worth 10000USD because of big company involvement, if you don't want use it then use the unregulated Bitcoin 1.0 for illegal activities which will be worth about 2USD."

Looking at the majority of people involved in Bitcoin i'd place my money on that everybody would go for 2.0. Of course, the Bitcoin Foundation together with other large companies (paypal, banks etc), will make a plan to slowly manipulate us into believing that a regulated Bitcoin will be much better for everyone. If you ask me, it has already begun.

If there is ANY kind of change to bitcoin that serves more regulation, I am OUT of bitcoin.

I fully agree and unfortunately i think that is the way we are heading. Just look at how the sentiment of the big Bitcoin names has been changing lately. From talks about an unregulated deflationary currency to removing all of that to invite big business. All the signs are there for all of us to see. Greed is killing Bitcoin and i don't mean the speculators. People are selling out and soon there won't be anything different between having a Mastercard and a Bitcoin address.

[nwbitcoin]

This is a great question, and one that highlights the first major problem to be faced by bitcoin users.

They understand tech, but are very naive about politics.  We need regulation because that is how you keep others from creating regulations and it makes far more sense to create the regulations in house, than to give it to someone who has an unknown agenda.

Realistically, the governments of the world are not going to chase down every alt coin out there, but bitcoin is the big one, with the name everyone recognises.  If they regulate bitcoin, then they will be happy that they are still in control, and are able to manage the risk to the real prize, tax income.

I would suggest that the rules put in place, manage some of the major complaints against bitcoin, along the lines of money laundering, tax evasion etc.

Maybe a best practice guideline suggesting that all bitcoin transactions greater than x are made through a third party to prevent anonymous transactions.

What the ideological bitcoin believer needs to understand is that governments are not interested in their sub $1000 deals.  They want to make sure that they know about the $100k deals from South America and the extra cashflow coming from large corporates.

If the regulations are put in place now, but done in a best practice, no need for laws type of way, then everyone will be happy!

[ErisDiscordia]

This is ridiculous. We get the ultimate gift for freeing individuals from the yoke of the power of the government/corporation complex and what do we do with it? Cry for our overlords to kindly regulate it for us?? No way in hell am I going to support this. Stay unregulated. It's time that TPTB learned that they do NOT in fact own the world are NOT free to do with it as they please. Begging them for permission to defy them kind of defeats the point, doesn't it?

Also if I read the phrase "we need regulation, because x.." one more time, I think I'm going to throw up. YOU may think YOU need regulation but WE do not need anything. Get it right.

[nwbitcoin]

This is ridiculous. We get the ultimate gift for freeing individuals from the yoke of the power of the government/corporation complex and what do we do with it? Cry for our overlords to kindly regulate it for us?? No way in hell am I going to support this. Stay unregulated. It's time that TPTB learned that they do NOT in fact own the world are NOT free to do with it as they please. Begging them for permission to defy them kind of defeats the point, doesn't it?

Also if I read the phrase "we need regulation, because x.." one more time, I think I'm going to throw up. YOU may think YOU need regulation but WE do not need anything. Get it right.

Let me ask you a question.

What stops someone from putting a bullet in your head and stealing all your stuff?

The answer is regulations.

There will always be someone who breaks those regulations, and that is why we have the police, but in essence, the majority of people need some form of guidance to what you can and can't do.

Without it, there is nothing stopping me from stealing or cheating you out of your bitcoins and leaving you destitute.

Now can you see why a handful of rules and regulations might be useful?

However, I would only suggest a small number of rules, maybe 10 or so!
 

[Brushan]

We need regulation because that is how you keep others from creating regulations and it makes far more sense to create the regulations in house, than to give it to someone who has an unknown agenda.

I have seen many users post this argument and i don't understand it. HOW can you regulate a currency that was designed impossible to regulate? To me it looks like the people in charge are trying to make either a fork or a central bank-type layer so that it can be regulated. Because let's face it, Bitcoin right now CAN'T be regulated if we don't let them regulate it. They want to close all the exchanges? Fine! We have TOR, we can meet in the streets and people will find other ways to bypass that. That's why 'm not afraid of the government forbidding Bitcoin. But it looks to me like they want to change the whole nature of Bitcoin and that is what's dangerous. And even more because many Bitcoin users have no problem with that.

[virtualmaster]

Buy bitcoins when they are cheap and sell them when they are expensive.
Governments may do that also.
Any other regulation is undesirable.

[AlgoSwan]

so if you don't want money regulators involved with bitcoin then you don't want to ever turn your bitcoin into fiat

This is so important. Removing fiat from BTC exchanges also prevent future manipulations.

[helohe]

better be safe than sorry, and fork bitcoin already, whoever wants to stay with the original bitcoin then which will eventually be changed to include regulation can do that

[nwbitcoin]

We need regulation because that is how you keep others from creating regulations and it makes far more sense to create the regulations in house, than to give it to someone who has an unknown agenda.

I have seen many users post this argument and i don't understand it. HOW can you regulate a currency that was designed impossible to regulate? To me it looks like the people in charge are trying to make either a fork or a central bank-type layer so that it can be regulated. Because let's face it, Bitcoin right now CAN'T be regulated if we don't let them regulate it. They want to close all the exchanges? Fine! We have TOR, we can meet in the streets and people will find other ways to bypass that. That's why 'm not afraid of the government forbidding Bitcoin. But it looks to me like they want to change the whole nature of Bitcoin and that is what's dangerous. And even more because many Bitcoin users have no problem with that.

You need to think outside your comfort zone.

Anything that involves people can be regulated.

Just because you don't want regulations, doesn't stop others from creating some, and enforcing it!

This is why its better to be first to the table with some suggestions!

What most ideological people don't get is that their ideas for not regulating bitcoin don't actually work - if you go and just use TOR and shun Fiat, you are removing the advantages of bitcoin, and the threat to governments - you are basically doing their regulations for them!

Think of it this way.
You have a wonderful Apple pie on your kitchen window, which is warm, and smells delicious.
If you give the bully a small slice, he will leave you alone, happy that he got some pie.
If you don't, he might take the whole pie, and give you a small slice.
If you run away with the pie, he might come after you and not only steal your pie, but also smash it into your face.
If you run away, you might out run the bully, but also end up away from the house, not able to watch TV while eating your pie with no plate, cutlery, or lemonade!

The point is, when you have something that someone else might want, the first move is to be reasonable, because it stops them being unreasonable!

[ErisDiscordia]

Let me ask you a question.

What stops someone from putting a bullet in your head and stealing all your stuff?

The answer is regulations.

I have been posed this question numerous times and have thus had much incentive to think about it a lot. And my answer(s) differ from your answer. Please consider:

I came to the conclusion that what stops people from stealing from me/putting a bullet in my head can be summarized in 3 points:

1. people have little reason to randomly kill me. I admit that they can have reasons to steal from me, though.
2. What stops them from stealing my stuff even when they have reasons to do so is FEAR of retribution. This is the crucial point imo. Right now this fear of retribution manifests itself as fear of getting arrested, sentenced, fined and put into jail by the authorities. This is where we fail massively as a society I think, but I won't go into detail on why I think it's not a good idea to relegate responsibilities for the most crucial parts of your life (such as protection of your property, your education, health care, retirement etc.) to a monopolistic central authority. I'm certain you can find some arguments for why that might be the case. Fear of retribution can also take the form of the belief that if found stealing my stuff, he'll get shot in the face (by me) or found out and otherwise punished by my friends or some people/organization I paid for protecting my stuff. Ultimately we don't need regulation for this, but this is what we use as of now.
3. Finally please have some trust in people. Let me ask YOU a question: is regulation the only thing stopping you from stealing other peoples stuff and shooting them in the face? Or is it just there to protect YOU against those OTHER people, who might want to do that. Who told you people are like that? Oh yes, might have been the same people, who are regulating you to keep you safe But my question still stands.

In the end I'm just allergic to central power, I heard it's a chronic condition, feel free to ignore me

[proudhon]

Bitcoin will remain unregulated.  It doesnt matter if people in the community want it regulated or if government(s) want it regulated.  Bitcoin, by nature, is unregulated.  They cannot seize your btc unless under duress, etc.  You are your own bank.

Until the devs fork it and say: "Here is the regulated Bitcoin 2.0 which will be worth 10000USD because of big company involvement, if you don't want use it then use the unregulated Bitcoin 1.0 for illegal activities which will be worth about 2USD."

Looking at the majority of people involved in Bitcoin i'd place my money on that everybody would go for 2.0. Of course, the Bitcoin Foundation together with other large companies (paypal, banks etc), will make a plan to slowly manipulate us into believing that a regulated Bitcoin will be much better for everyone. If you ask me, it has already begun.

I'm still confused by this whole discussion, and I think people aren't thinking this through and are failing to appreciate the nuance of what it would even mean to regulate bitcoin, or any other payment system built on the distributed, blockchain model.

Can we all pause for a moment and try to explain what it would even mean to "regulate bitcoin"?  By its nature, a distributed, majority rules rule, blockchain system is resistant to top-down, state imposed regulation of itself.  In that sense, neither bitcoin, nor litecoin, nor any other system based on this model can simply be regulated upon in the sense that some authority declares it should behave a certain way and then it is so.  Again, the system is resistant to that by design.  I get the sense that people are worried that the system will be regulated in this sense.  It practically cannot be.

On the other hand, points of contact with the traditional financial system (e.g. banks) can be regulated upon in a top-down authoritarian way.  Regulation at these points of contact is practically impossible to prevent.  In some cases regulation in this sense may even be desirable.

Can we please get clear about which sense of regulation we're talking about here.