Avoiding Regulatory Traps in the P2P Economy

[lightcoin]

"At Bitcoin2013, one of the big topics of discussion was regulation, which no one is excited about but everyone anticipates. The United States Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN, recently issued “guidance” as to how Bitcoin transactions will be regulated under their current regulatory regime, and the general consensus offered by the “Issues of Regulatory Compliance” panel at Bitcoin2013 was that all businesses which buy and sell bitcoins should register as a Money Services Business with the Federal Government and as Money Transmitters with every state government whose jurisdiction the business plans to operate in. There is heated debate between proponents and opponents of State regulation, and rightly so: regulation always protects incumbents more than it protects consumers. Any lobbying for regulation by Bitcoin-related organizations, even if the motivations appear innocent, should be looked at as a threat to Bitcoin as a whole. State regulations only serve as a barrier to entry for new businesses, which will lead to centralization and cartelization of the Bitcoin economy. This completely goes against the motivations for Bitcoin’s invention in the first place. While lobbying defensively to stave off new laws and regulation would be understandable (though likely a futile effort long-term), offensive lobbying which would help shape new laws and regulations is just that: it’s offensive, to both Bitcoin users and entrepreneurs."

You can read the rest here

If you like what you're reading, please upvote on Reddit!

[ixne]

There is heated debate between proponents and opponents of State regulation, and rightly so: regulation always protects incumbents more than it protects consumers.

This statement alone is highly debatable. 

Any lobbying for regulation by Bitcoin-related organizations, even if the motivations appear innocent, should be looked at as a threat to Bitcoin as a whole.

Telling people what to think rather than providing premises should be a huge red flag that what you are reading is more propaganda than honest argument.

State regulations only serve as a barrier to entry for new businesses, which will lead to centralization and cartelization of the Bitcoin economy.

Regulation as an issue has a long history of debate, and is certainly not specific to Bitcoin.  While it is not entirely clear how much regulation in any area is necessary, the idea that all regulation is bad is the purview of anarchists and other extremists and as such is not an argument that most people would consider worth their time.

[lightcoin]

There is heated debate between proponents and opponents of State regulation, and rightly so: regulation always protects incumbents more than it protects consumers.

This statement alone is highly debatable. 

Did you check the citation that is linked to in the actual post? It's pretty much a fact; however, I'll edit the post to say "often" rather than "always," because you're right, there is probably an exception or two in the thousands of regulations on the books. I try not to make such polar statements when reality is not usually so black and white, so thank you for catching that.

Any lobbying for regulation by Bitcoin-related organizations, even if the motivations appear innocent, should be looked at as a threat to Bitcoin as a whole.

Telling people what to think rather than providing premises should be a huge red flag that what you are reading is more propaganda than honest argument.

It's both. I am providing reasons and citations (in the form of links) for the statements I make, so there are honest arguments behind the propaganda I am publishing. It's up to each individual to decide whether the arguments and citations are valid or not.

State regulations only serve as a barrier to entry for new businesses, which will lead to centralization and cartelization of the Bitcoin economy.

Regulation as an issue has a long history of debate, and is certainly not specific to Bitcoin.  While it is not entirely clear how much regulation in any area is necessary, the idea that all regulation is bad is the purview of anarchists and other extremists and as such is not an argument that most people would consider worth their time.

I'm not dismissing regulation in general, but specifically regulation by the State. The whole thesis of the post is that peer regulation is superior to State regulation. That you would consider a position which rejects violence or the threat thereof as "extreme" is sad.

[franky1]

best advice:

avoid regulatory traps by not avoiding regulation.


get a licence if you want to handle thousands of peoples fiat balances

[acoindr]

... Any lobbying for regulation by Bitcoin-related organizations, even if the motivations appear innocent, should be looked at as a threat to Bitcoin as a whole. ...

Except that it's not.

[joesmoe2012]

best advice:

avoid regulatory traps by not avoiding regulation.


get a licence if you want to handle thousands of peoples fiat balances

Just an FYI, attempting to avoid financial regulations is a serious crime in the USA.

OP- note that i do understand you said avoiding traps...but just wanted to throw that out there.

[lightcoin]

best advice:

avoid regulatory traps by not avoiding regulation.


get a licence if you want to handle thousands of peoples fiat balances

Just an FYI, attempting to avoid financial regulations is a serious crime in the USA.

OP- note that i do understand you said avoiding traps...but just wanted to throw that out there.

I'm going to be clear by saying that people should follow whatever their local regulations are if they don't want to get in trouble with regulators. That said, State regulations are tantamount to the operation of a criminal racket, and should be done away with immediately in favor of peer regulation as described in my post.

... Any lobbying for regulation by Bitcoin-related organizations, even if the motivations appear innocent, should be looked at as a threat to Bitcoin as a whole. ...

Except that it's not.

Except that it is, because it's a threat of violence against every Bitcoin user who would be required to jump over whatever arbitrary regulatory hurdles are propped up.

[LostDutchman]

Offshore coporations, offshore bank accounts, anonymous debit cards issued by those offshore banks.

My $.02.

[bitcryptonit]

i would say as long as we are still buying bitcoins for fiat we should just regulate what is reasonable, protest against what is not reasonable and when fiat, banks and governments will die, then we will be unreagulated as intended. we should delay aggro from governent and use this time to grow in strength so they simply wont be able to shut us down.

[joesmoe2012]

Offshore coporations, offshore bank accounts, anonymous debit cards issued by those offshore banks.

My $.02.

That's a crime in the USA, if you have assets offshore and don't declare to the govt.

[BitcoinAshley]

There is heated debate between proponents and opponents of State regulation, and rightly so: regulation always protects incumbents more than it protects consumers.

This statement alone is highly debatable. 

Any lobbying for regulation by Bitcoin-related organizations, even if the motivations appear innocent, should be looked at as a threat to Bitcoin as a whole.

Telling people what to think rather than providing premises should be a huge red flag that what you are reading is more propaganda than honest argument.

State regulations only serve as a barrier to entry for new businesses, which will lead to centralization and cartelization of the Bitcoin economy.

Regulation as an issue has a long history of debate, and is certainly not specific to Bitcoin.  While it is not entirely clear how much regulation in any area is necessary, the idea that all regulation is bad is the purview of anarchists and other extremists and as such is not an argument that most people would consider worth their time.

Are you TRYING to come off as a complete tool? You cannot lambaste a fellow for creating propaganda rather than an argument, but then, in the next sentence, do the very same thing yourself. Passing off an argument as not worth debating or as "extreme" is fallacious beyond anyone's wildest dreams.
Your statement regarding the views of voluntarists is wholly incorrect as well. At least be factually accurate when you are committing logical fallacies. Unless, of course, you are trying to commit another one - ahh yes, the "strawman," where you mischaracterize an opponent's argument to make it easier to address. Voluntarists do not think that "all regulation is bad," they think that regulation imposed by the state is bad. If you cannot wrap your head around the possibility of any regulatory/incentivary mechanisms other than state power derived from violence, perhaps it is good that you not bother to address the argument... but for real, dude, don't commit the very crime that you complained about just once sentence ago... BRL (big resounding LOL)

[LostDutchman]

Offshore coporations, offshore bank accounts, anonymous debit cards issued by those offshore banks.

My $.02.

That's a crime in the USA, if you have assets offshore and don't declare to the govt.

Oh, well!

Where is the crime in hiding assets from a warmongering government which will steal part of your assets to fight illegal wars?

[CasinoBit]

Offshore coporations, offshore bank accounts, anonymous debit cards issued by those offshore banks.

My $.02.

That's a crime in the USA, if you have assets offshore and don't declare to the govt.

Oh, well!

Where is the crime in hiding assets from a warmongering government which will steal part of your assets to fight illegal wars?

Legality and morality aren't the same thing.

It might be illegal but it is definitely not immoral the same way you might be able to swindle people out of their money in a legal way but you should not do it.

(I do not encourage illegal actions, advise your lawyer)