.

[chydenius]

.

[1715158000]

1715158000

[1715158000]

1715158000

[1715158000]

1715158000

[vokain]

This is a lot more reasonable than one has usually come to expect. Watching with interest

[zerodrama]

Bitcoin Foundation - mono-archist hacks.

There's other ideas in play.

[zerodrama]

This is a lot more reasonable than one has usually come to expect. Watching with interest

As am I.  Back in the Moneypunk 1.0 days of the 1990s, we imagined that we were going to take down the nation-state, the Illuminati, the Warburg/Rothschild cabal, the Fed, and all the rest with our charming little server-based 'electronic currencies' that were no more database-driven websites that were one subpoena or capricious administrative decision away from being shut down.

Today, even though Bitcoin is distributed and has no single point of failure, the Moneypunk 2.0 community members are much more pragmatic and mature in their approach.  It appears that OECD regulators recognize this and are willing to give those of us who are more interested in making money by the boatload than in taunting Sauron the benefit of the doubt, even if begrudgingly.

Those who are offended by this process can migrate to Perfect Money, any of the alternative *coins, or fork the code and start their own True Scotsman system.  The cat is out of the bag and the horse has left the barn.  The code is in the wild, Satoshi's paper explains what the code does, and one can find countless recommendations for improving the protocol by googling the Bing.

The Same People arguing for the One True Scotsman are The Same People compromising everything they promised.

This is just the back of Wall Street's hand grabbing everything they put absolutely no effort into by de facto orders.

Not on my watch.

[Come-from-Beyond]

This comes by way of someone close to Bitcoin discussions in Washington, DC.  Apparently, FinCEN agents are looking for members of the Bitcoin community to form a self-regulatory organization with voluntary approval procedures to work with financial regulators.

If anyone at the Bitcoin Foundation sees this post, I would be willing to serve with such an organization.  

Fuck Washington, DC.
Fuck FinCEN.
Fuck Bitcoin Foundation.

[btceic]

This comes by way of someone close to Bitcoin discussions in Washington, DC.  Apparently, FinCEN agents are looking for members of the Bitcoin community to form a self-regulatory organization with voluntary approval procedures to work with financial regulators.

If anyone at the Bitcoin Foundation sees this post, I would be willing to serve with such an organization.  

Fuck Washington, DC.
Fuck FinCEN.
Fuck Bitcoin Foundation.

So long as one is not subject to US jurisdiction, this sentiment is a matter of personal taste.  However, if one transacts with Americans and especially if one resides within the USA, this sentiment can lead to unfortunate consequences, unless one has closed all of one's bank and credit card accounts.

Obviously, Bitcoin per se is beyond direct regulation, and all the regulation talk is about the USD/Bitcoin interface.  However, until we can pay for food, clothing, housing, etc. directly with Bitcoin—and I do not mean using Bitcoin to buy Gyft cards, as wonderful a development as that is—we will not escape that interface, if we want to integrate Bitcoin into our financial lives.  One day, perhaps, but not today.

FinCEN, the Fed, the US Treasury, FATF, et al. are notoriously jealous of their legacy system, as profoundly broken as it is, and if we insist on using it, then we will be subject to their regulations and statutes.  I'm not suggesting that this is a good thing.

What do the individuals who bluster impotently on these discussion boards think that they are achieving?  Waggling one's little bottom at Sauron does not make the Forces of Darkness quake in fear.  It makes the community look like a pack of snot-nosed little punks.

Real revolutionaries embrace disruptive engineering, entrepreneurship, and entertainment.

Rather than fling boogers at men with guns, badges, drones, and warrantless wiretaps, we should be spending our efforts developing P2P exchange networks, real financial services (including car loans and mortgages), full-service retail outlets (for food, clothing, and other consumer goods), and large-scale outreach initiatives to get the masses on our side.

Until then, and as long as Mt. Gox 'suffers a DDOS attack' every time someone refreshes its website more than twice in a minute, bluster makes us look silly.

+1

[Lohoris]

Fuck Washington, DC.
Fuck FinCEN.
Fuck Bitcoin Foundation.

So long as one is not subject to US jurisdiction, this sentiment is a matter of personal taste.  However, if one transacts with Americans and especially if one resides within the USA, this sentiment can lead to unfortunate consequences, unless one has closed all of one's bank and credit card accounts.

Obviously, Bitcoin per se is beyond direct regulation, and all the regulation talk is about the USD/Bitcoin interface.  However, until we can pay for food, clothing, housing, etc. directly with Bitcoin—and I do not mean using Bitcoin to buy Gyft cards, as wonderful a development as that is—we will not escape that interface, if we want to integrate Bitcoin into our financial lives.  One day, perhaps, but not today.

FinCEN, the Fed, the US Treasury, FATF, et al. are notoriously jealous of their legacy system, as profoundly broken as it is, and if we insist on using it, then we will be subject to their regulations and statutes.  I'm not suggesting that this is a good thing.

What do the individuals who bluster impotently on these discussion boards think that they are achieving?  Waggling one's little bottom at Sauron does not make the Forces of Darkness quake in fear.  It makes the community look like a pack of snot-nosed little punks.

Real revolutionaries embrace disruptive engineering, entrepreneurship, and entertainment.

Rather than fling boogers at men with guns, badges, drones, and warrantless wiretaps, we should be spending our efforts developing P2P exchange networks, real financial services (including car loans and mortgages), full-service retail outlets (for food, clothing, and other consumer goods), and large-scale outreach initiatives to get the masses on our side.

Until then, and as long as Mt. Gox 'suffers a DDOS attack' every time someone refreshes its website more than twice in a minute, bluster makes us look silly.

+1

+2

[oakpacific]

The problem is what will happen if  said organization fail to prevent some illicit behaviour technically unpreventable?

Also, anyone still spreading the Gox "fake DDOS" FUD is free to go to #gox to ask for a DDOS advisory report issued by Prolexic of any particular day from user neofutur, and then call Prolexic to check if it is legit.

[puffpuffpass]

seems legit.

[Come-from-Beyond]

So long as one is not subject to US jurisdiction, this sentiment is a matter of personal taste.

Half-measures will lead to complete fail of Bitcoin. 1st they regulate it, 2nd they shutdown it.

[BCB]

I'm aware of this also. Great idea. Hope it develops further.

[Razick]

Until then, and as long as Mt. Gox 'suffers a DDOS attack' every time someone refreshes its website more than twice in a minute.

Haha, sad but true.

[cryptoanarchist]

I think I already self-regulate my bitcoin usage. When I say:

Fuck DC
Fuck FinCEN
Fuck Bitcoin Foundation

...it's because I know they're full of power-mad psychopaths that would like to control bitcoin for themselves, and I want them to know I don't fear them at all.

I don't need permission from them to trade USD<->BTC, nor will I ever. They can jerk themselves off talking about regulations all they want, but they're just going to look dumb when none of it matters.

[Razick]

Bitcoin is a currency that knows no borders. They can of course regulate businesses and and their own citizens usage, but they have no authority over the currency itself.

tl;dr
fu america

Things have been screwed up, which is why we should work to un-screw them. America is still great place to live though.

tl;dr
fu you. 

[drrussellshane]

Ruck fegulations!

[Lohoris]

I don't need permission from them to trade USD<->BTC, nor will I ever. They can jerk themselves off talking about regulations all they want, but they're just going to look dumb when none of it matters.

Of course they do matter.
They can close down exchanges, they can close down business, and while this won't outright kill Bitcoin, it will make it much less useful and easy to use.

Ruck fegulations!

lol gg

[cbeast]

It sounds like they don't know how to incorporate Bitcoin into any other regulating agencies. With voluntary regulation, they have a point of contact to harass when something happens they don't understand. Who would be willing to stick their neck out like this? It would be better to wait for a sovereign nation to adopt Bitcoin. Then FinCEN would have little to say about it. They would either outlaw it and remain in the 20th Century, or embrace it and join the globalized economy.

[acoindr]

Of course they do matter.
They can close down exchanges, they can close down business, and while this won't outright kill Bitcoin, it will make it much less useful and easy to use.

Correction: they can close down US exchanges or US businesses. The United States != the world.

[CompNsci]

Likely a reasonable thing for some of the U.S. exchanges to do, to make sure they are in compliance. I suspect the rest of the world will ignore them.

[Severian]

This comes by way of someone close to Bitcoin discussions in Washington, DC.  Apparently, FinCEN agents are looking for members of the Bitcoin community to form a self-regulatory organization with voluntary approval procedures to work with financial regulators.

Translation: The commandant is looking for a few good kapos.

[Carlton Banks]

Who would be willing to stick their neck out like this?

A shill, perhaps?

[BitcoinAshley]

You guys are missing the point... This means COIN TAINT.

It is not "self regulation" it is a central Bitcoin Taint Organization that tracks which coins were used for illegal activities and puts them on a centrally-controlled taint list. Most large Bitcoin companies will participate.

Say Dude A sells some pot on Silk Road. He receives the BTC and sends them to a mixer and then to Dude B via IRC-OTC after selling them for a wire transfer or something. Dude B sends them to somebody else. Eventually they wind up at Bitcoin100 Charity where they are sent to "Starving Kids in Moojoombo Village, Congo Fund."

Representative of SKiMVC charity visits the kids and says "www.bitcoin100.org Bitcoin100 just donated $1,000 to us, so we have enough money to install a village well and you won't have to walk 5 miles a day for water anymore!" Yayy! Everyone cheering, people dancing!
Next day, representative visits again, this time with sad look on her face. "Sorry, Bitpay wouldn't pay us for the Bitcoins, they just returned them, saying the Bitcoin Taint Council tainted them. We looked into the possibility of selling them on the black market OTC to people who didn't mind the taint, for lower than spot value, but our attorney advised against it saying we could be subject to massive fines or loss of our NPO status. Sorry, no well."

Why were they tainted? By the time they had been sent to the charity, the council's blockchain explorer had tracked them and discovered they were (1) Used for Pot sale, which is illegal in some countries. (2) Sent through a mixer, all coins sent through mixers will be tainted. (3) Sold on IRC-OTC which violates AML/FINCEN regulations.

I can think of a thousand scenarios where we could be screwed, including for "crimes" which are not really crimes. The War on Drugs will be extended to Bitcoins. Just like paypal, anyone who does not align with the subjective morality of the Taint Council will have their "account" frozen via blacklist. ALL miners will have their coins tainted unless they are registered as a FINCEN "money transmitter" and pay taxes. There will be a whitelist for mined coins.

This isn't tinfoil hat worst-case scenario bullshit. This is what is actually being proposed by people high up in the Bitcoin World. Peter Vessenes warns that there will be no grandfathering of coins. So if any of your coins were used by PirateAt40 or a silk road pot-selling teenager in the past, they will be unspendable for 99% of merchants/receivers. This could be 1% of your stash or it could be 59%.

Oh, who wants to make a bet? The Supreme Coin Taint Council will have a buyback option where you sell your tainted coins to them for 50% of spot. Then, they untaint the coins and release them back in to circulation.

This is just what Paypal does. This is just what government regulatory agencies do. Most U.S. dollars have cocaine residue on them but I can still spend them just fine. Now we're trying to make BTC worse than the USD? Worrying about whether coins are tainted every time I receive them? What do you think this will do to the price of BTC if they can be randomly tainted with no prior notice?

Beware of any "self regulation" talk because I can guarantee you they are talking about COIN TAINT. And if large businesses/organizations in the Bitcoin world start operating from a centrally controlled Taint List, I will sell all of my coins into other cryptocurrencies as well as precious metals - you should too, because that would be the end of bitcoin.

[QuestionAuthority]

You can't calm down the Nazi Party by agreeing to work with them. You don't join the Nazi Party to crush them. You can't destroy them using their rules. You must change the game and rig it in your favor. Bitcoin does this naturally. The Nazis don't see a way to defeat it using their current armament so their looking for a trusted scientist to defect and turn the tide. Don't do it!

[justusranvier]

because that would be the end of bitcoin.

...in the United States.

[acoindr]

Beware of any "self regulation" talk because I can guarantee you they are talking about COIN TAINT. And if large businesses/organizations in the Bitcoin world start operating from a centrally controlled Taint List, I will sell all of my coins into other cryptocurrencies as well as precious metals - you should too, because that would be the end of bitcoin.

You do realize a currency can't be devalued with "taint" don't you? That defeats the whole point of a currency. This is the same reason the dollars in your pocket likely have trace amounts of cocaine on them. It's not the fault of the currency unit what it was used for. Likewise nobody would be expected to check and not honor currency units that are singled out for some reason.

You can track U.S. dollars by serial number and put them on a taint list now. Why do you think that hasn't been done?

[BitcoinAshley]

Beware of any "self regulation" talk because I can guarantee you they are talking about COIN TAINT. And if large businesses/organizations in the Bitcoin world start operating from a centrally controlled Taint List, I will sell all of my coins into other cryptocurrencies as well as precious metals - you should too, because that would be the end of bitcoin.

You do realize a currency can't be devalued with "taint" don't you? That defeats the whole point of a currency. This is the same reason the dollars in your pocket likely have trace amounts of cocaine on them. It's not the fault of the currency unit what it was used for. Likewise nobody would be expected to check and not honor currency units that are singled out for some reason.

You can track U.S. dollars by serial number and put them on a taint list now. Why do you think that hasn't been done?

Let me explain.
Bitcoins can be tracked.
A centralized list, participated in by Bitpay, Coinbase, MtGox and the other major exchanges, and a select few other major companies would greatly reduce the value of coins that were tainted. Here we have a big portion of the market saying "We won't accept these coins; they aren't worth anything to us since in the past they were sent through a mixer or allegedly used for "illegal" activities."
It's harder with the USD because people aren't accustomed to checking serial numbers. But if wallet clients and online wallets started including taint-check plugins that checked coins with a centralized taint list, it would be easy to tell which ones you couldn't sell at an exchange, which ones you couldn't use at a bitpay-accepting site, which coins it'd be hard to pass off to anyone who participates in the centralized taint list. It's already happened; MtGox does its own taint tracking and in the past, locked some coins that came from Tradehill because they had originated from a known scammer.

because that would be the end of bitcoin.

...in the United States.

Well, if MtGox, Bitpay, and a few of the internationally used companies participated, it would affect more than just the U.S.

[justusranvier]

Well, if MtGox, Bitpay, and a few of the internationally used companies participated, it would affect more than just the U.S.

I think it's plausible to assume that new companies based out of China, Russia, and even Latin America would emerge to take up the slack.

Of course, the existence of those companies probably wouldn't do much good for the Bitcoin users still stuck in the US...

[acoindr]

... that checked coins with a centralized taint list ...

Nobody of much significance to the Bitcoin economy would participate in such a scheme let me assure you. It makes no sense.

[Carlton Banks]

... that checked coins with a centralized taint list ...

Nobody of much significance to the Bitcoin economy would participate in such a scheme let me assure you. It makes no sense.

a very significant shill, perhaps? (o' Satoshi, give me the strength to continue)

[CasinoBit]

Mathematics are irrefutable, people are extremely gullible, stupid and are not programmatic, they could probably bribe Gavin to update bitcoin-qt in the download section with any code within their personal whim. Every man has its price, given the opportunity (almost) everyone would rather relax in some fancy hotel on a tropical island instead of endangering their family.

[Melbustus]

And if large businesses/organizations in the Bitcoin world start operating from a centrally controlled Taint List, I will sell all of my coins into other cryptocurrencies as well as precious metals - you should too, because that would be the end of bitcoin.

Indeed. Taint removes one of the key properties of an ideal money from bitcoin: fungibility. If bitcoins became un-fungibile in practice, I'd seriously have to rethink the benefits of bitcoin, both as a transactional unit, and a store of value.

Generally I think it's a good thing when bitcoin businesses do what they can to be as mainstream as possible, including complying with regulatory bodies, etc. But this taint issue is important to get right.

That said, don't tainted coins move rapidly through the economy, such that everyone pretty much has tainted coins (like cocaine on $100 bills)? I've never studied this, but recall reading it a couple times here... So if that's true, maybe it'll just prove grossly impractical for organizations to refuse tainted coins anyways.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Indeed. Taint removes one of the key properties of an ideal money from bitcoin: fungibility. If bitcoins became un-fungibile in practice, I'd seriously have to rethink the benefits of bitcoin, both as a transactional unit, and a store of value.

This full stop.  I would go further and say "Fungibility is a required aspect for a medium of exchange".  Period.  It isn't something optional or cool it is part of the DNA that makes something a medium of exchange.  If Bitcoin doesn't have fungibility, then it isn't a medium of exchange, and is worthless, a failed experiment.

I guarantee you the first time a merchant though no fault of their own accepts Bitcoins that later the "we need to control everything" cartel says "sorry those are tainted and worthless" that is the last time that merchant will use Bitcoin.  The resulting news story will mean hundreds if not thousands of merchants will cross Bitcoin off their list before they even start.

Loss of fungibility is death for a medium of exchange.  Period.  There is no other outcome.

[adpinbr]

This comes by way of someone close to Bitcoin discussions in Washington, DC.  Apparently, FinCEN agents are looking for members of the Bitcoin community to form a self-regulatory organization with voluntary approval procedures to work with financial regulators.

If anyone at the Bitcoin Foundation sees this post, I would be willing to serve with such an organization.  

Fuck Washington, DC.
Fuck FinCEN.
Fuck Bitcoin Foundation.

So long as one is not subject to US jurisdiction, this sentiment is a matter of personal taste.  However, if one transacts with Americans and especially if one resides within the USA, this sentiment can lead to unfortunate consequences, unless one has closed all of one's bank and credit card accounts.

Obviously, Bitcoin per se is beyond direct regulation, and all the regulation talk is about the USD/Bitcoin interface.  However, until we can pay for food, clothing, housing, etc. directly with Bitcoin—and I do not mean using Bitcoin to buy Gyft cards, as wonderful a development as that is—we will not escape that interface, if we want to integrate Bitcoin into our financial lives.  One day, perhaps, but not today.

FinCEN, the Fed, the US Treasury, FATF, et al. are notoriously jealous of their legacy system, as profoundly broken as it is, and if we insist on using it, then we will be subject to their regulations and statutes.  I'm not suggesting that this is a good thing.

What do the individuals who bluster impotently on these discussion boards think that they are achieving?  Waggling one's little bottom at Sauron does not make the Forces of Darkness quake in fear.  It makes the community look like a pack of snot-nosed little punks.

Real revolutionaries embrace disruptive engineering, entrepreneurship, and entertainment.

Rather than fling boogers at men with guns, badges, drones, and warrantless wiretaps, we should be spending our efforts developing P2P exchange networks, real financial services (including car loans and mortgages), full-service retail outlets (for food, clothing, and other consumer goods), and large-scale outreach initiatives to get the masses on our side.

Until then, and as long as Mt. Gox 'suffers a DDOS attack' every time someone refreshes its website more than twice in a minute, bluster makes us look silly.

Why are people excited about gyft, yet ignore bit plastic and multiple other prepaid debit cards charged with bitcoins that allow you to use bitcoins everywhere rather than select retail chains?

Also this is a great idea.
1) we do need to comply until we can fully self sustain our own economy, once we have the power we can "re-negotiate" our terms of compliance.
2) We really need self regulation as a way to know who's a scammer and who is legit...

[Lohoris]

Why are people excited about gyft, yet ignore bit plastic and multiple other prepaid debit cards charged with bitcoins that allow you to use bitcoins everywhere rather than select retail chains?

bitplastic doesn't even have https enabled for the registration form... they have a broken image in their homepage, and they require a "security question", which is one of the main dangers to security ever.

I wouldn't trust them with my money.

[oakpacific]

You guys are missing the point... This means COIN TAINT.

It is not "self regulation" it is a central Bitcoin Taint Organization that tracks which coins were used for illegal activities and puts them on a centrally-controlled taint list. Most large Bitcoin companies will participate.

Say Dude A sells some pot on Silk Road. He receives the BTC and sends them to a mixer and then to Dude B via IRC-OTC after selling them for a wire transfer or something. Dude B sends them to somebody else. Eventually they wind up at Bitcoin100 Charity where they are sent to "Starving Kids in Moojoombo Village, Congo Fund."

Representative of SKiMVC charity visits the kids and says "www.bitcoin100.org Bitcoin100 just donated $1,000 to us, so we have enough money to install a village well and you won't have to walk 5 miles a day for water anymore!" Yayy! Everyone cheering, people dancing!
Next day, representative visits again, this time with sad look on her face. "Sorry, Bitpay wouldn't pay us for the Bitcoins, they just returned them, saying the Bitcoin Taint Council tainted them. We looked into the possibility of selling them on the black market OTC to people who didn't mind the taint, for lower than spot value, but our attorney advised against it saying we could be subject to massive fines or loss of our NPO status. Sorry, no well."

Why were they tainted? By the time they had been sent to the charity, the council's blockchain explorer had tracked them and discovered they were (1) Used for Pot sale, which is illegal in some countries. (2) Sent through a mixer, all coins sent through mixers will be tainted. (3) Sold on IRC-OTC which violates AML/FINCEN regulations.

I can think of a thousand scenarios where we could be screwed, including for "crimes" which are not really crimes. The War on Drugs will be extended to Bitcoins. Just like paypal, anyone who does not align with the subjective morality of the Taint Council will have their "account" frozen via blacklist. ALL miners will have their coins tainted unless they are registered as a FINCEN "money transmitter" and pay taxes. There will be a whitelist for mined coins.

This isn't tinfoil hat worst-case scenario bullshit. This is what is actually being proposed by people high up in the Bitcoin World. Peter Vessenes warns that there will be no grandfathering of coins. So if any of your coins were used by PirateAt40 or a silk road pot-selling teenager in the past, they will be unspendable for 99% of merchants/receivers. This could be 1% of your stash or it could be 59%.

Oh, who wants to make a bet? The Supreme Coin Taint Council will have a buyback option where you sell your tainted coins to them for 50% of spot. Then, they untaint the coins and release them back in to circulation.

This is just what Paypal does. This is just what government regulatory agencies do. Most U.S. dollars have cocaine residue on them but I can still spend them just fine. Now we're trying to make BTC worse than the USD? Worrying about whether coins are tainted every time I receive them? What do you think this will do to the price of BTC if they can be randomly tainted with no prior notice?

Beware of any "self regulation" talk because I can guarantee you they are talking about COIN TAINT. And if large businesses/organizations in the Bitcoin world start operating from a centrally controlled Taint List, I will sell all of my coins into other cryptocurrencies as well as precious metals - you should too, because that would be the end of bitcoin.

Such measures could do exactly nothing to stop illicit traders using Bitcoin, with just current technology they could find ways to easily circumvent the system, even if all major exchanges refuse to accept coins which are not "positively tainted".

[Raoul Duke]

[hayek]

This is a lot more reasonable than one has usually come to expect. Watching with interest

No, it's not.

This is how it happens. You don't put your people in with strangers.

You bring a minority of the strangers in to your organization. Assimilation I guess.

in b4 borg.

[UncleBobs]

I'm sure you mean well, but this is very depressing:

It appears that OECD regulators recognize this and are willing to give those of us who are more interested in making money by the boatload than in taunting Sauron the benefit of the doubt...

If you are more interested in "making money by the boatload" than in tackling Sauron, I suggest that there may be better ways.  Have you considered becoming a plastic surgeon, for instance? 

Bitcoin is about bringing Sauron down.  If you are just in it for the money, I don't think you get it, regardless of your long experience.

[cryptoanarchist]

Bitcoin is about bringing Sauron down.  If you are just in it for the money, I don't think you get it, regardless of your long experience.

^^this +1

If we are using Sauron here to mean the European Central Bank, the Fed, the FATF, the IMF, et al., then the idea of a single protocol bringing that down is rather quaint.  For that to happen, Bitcoin's adoption would have to be more widespread than moneypunk geeks, suburban 'anarchists', and the odd drug dealer and gun runner here and there.  The Libertarian Party has a better chance of getting one of their own elected President of the USA than that has of happening.

This is not to say that the current regime is robust.  It is rotting from the inside and has been for a long, long time.  It is like a wooden bridge that is showing signs age and wear.  If Bitcoin happens to be the last truck to drive across that bridge before it collapses—as well it may be... or not—to say that Bitcoin brought down Sauron would be overstatement.

Maybe not bitcoin by itself, but the concept of cryptocurrencies is INDEED a game changer. Even if their system wasn't "rotting", fast and free anonymous online transactions are going to win out over time simply because they appeal to the financial interests to all of us. There are people getting rich off doing things they otherwise couldn't with bitcoin - that says it all.

...how could anyone take seriously the idea that bitcoiners are going to usher in the New Age of Liberty and Freedom?

For the reasons stated above, they don't have to take us seriously. The people that don't want to use bitcoin can continue being regulated and pay excessive fees and taxes, and they won't do so well against those that do use bitcoin.

For a more clear picture of what I'm talking about:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkDaJwat6ic

[franky1]

everyone here is talking about fincen regulating bitcoin..

and here was me thinking bitcoin was free from national governments. i myself dont do drugs and hate the fact that bitcoin WAS (pre2012) propagandised as the drug dealers currency. but i far prefer the drug taint to be diluted down through natural mainstreaming efforts of adding new legit businesses to the mix. and NOT through regulating bitcoin, which would involve seizing coins/taxing coins which in the end would result in government ownership.

imagine the government taking 20% of your coins per year.. add on the coins seized through crimes, aswell as non crime related coins found in the same wallet address as crime tainted coins, within 5 years they own the majority stake. 

hundreds of years ago a group of people volunteered that they needed a leader to control the masses and volunteered that some basic rules and laws should be in place to keep the peace.. now look how this volunteered group we call government own our FIAT  spending arses!

oh well if bitcoin does become regulated by the bitcoin foundation.. there is always litecoin

[wopwop]

I'm amazed at how much people here are insisting so much to make bitcoin more adapted and are failing quite fantastically

This movement is defintely showing signs of exhaustion and desperation

[cbeast]

I'm amazed at how much people here are insisting so much to make bitcoin more adapted and are failing quite fantastically

This movement is defintely showing signs of exhaustion and desperation

Do you have an example of such an insistence?

[BitcoinAshley]

Indeed. Taint removes one of the key properties of an ideal money from bitcoin: fungibility. If bitcoins became un-fungibile in practice, I'd seriously have to rethink the benefits of bitcoin, both as a transactional unit, and a store of value.

This full stop.  I would go further and say.  Fungibility is a required aspect of a medium of exchange.  Period.  It isn't something optional or cool it is the DNA of a medium of exchange.  If Bitcoin doesn't have fungibility then it isn't a medium of exchange and as such is worthless.

I guarantee you the first time a merchant though no fault of their own accepts Bitcoins that later so "we need to control everything" cartel says "sorry those are tainted and worthless" that is the last time that merchant will use Bitcoin.  The resulting new story will mean hundreds if not thousands of merchants will cross Bitcoin off their list before they even start.

It is death to a medium of exchange.  Period.  There is no other outcome.

Well said. It amazes me that some of our "leaders" are actually considering removing bitcoin's fungibility via institutional collusion. I am told there was a discussion on it at the 2013 conference so it's not a conspiracy theory, it's a legit proposal.

... that checked coins with a centralized taint list ...

Nobody of much significance to the Bitcoin economy would participate in such a scheme let me assure you. It makes no sense.

Famous last words... quoted for the record 

Also, wopwop... get out of this thread 
I usually put up with irrational bulls/bears but this guy is like a 13 year old forgot to take his Prozac and is spelling doom around every corner; just as bad as the people predicting $1000 around every corner.

[Walter Rothbard]

If anyone at the Bitcoin Foundation sees this post, I would be willing to serve with such an organization.

Please don't refer to regulating me as "serving" me.

[adpinbr]

I have an idea. Why don't we say that we are going to regulate it, but then we don't. It would give bitcoin enough breathing space to really blow up and be even harder to stop. Government can say "yea we are doing something about it" to the banks. If they start tainting and whatever we will move on to litecoin. If they start fucking with that we go to zero coin and so on. Fuck regulation. The end game is getting rid of the dollars anyways, but we gotta get there somehow

[TTBit]

Whatever happens, I will not be subjected to any bitcoin regulation. If there is force placed on me to comply, I'd rather sell my coins and move on with my life.

[Seal]

This comes by way of someone close to Bitcoin discussions in Washington, DC.  Apparently, FinCEN agents are looking for members of the Bitcoin community to form a self-regulatory organization with voluntary approval procedures to work with financial regulators.

If anyone at the Bitcoin Foundation sees this post, I would be willing to serve with such an organization.  

Please involve me. I currently work in investment banking within the field of regulatory reporting and would seek compliance for my own platform as required.

joe@btc.sx

[JimCGSavings]

I'm definitely not in it for the money. I'm in it for the cryptocurrencies. (grin)

[BitBank]

If they are considering this, it's because of potential backlash that they would see if they established a bitcoin regulatory body.  They would get around this by allowing us to "self-regulate" by appointing some power-hungry bitcoin-using statists to act as a point of contact and report things to them that they need to be privy on.

[BCB]

If they are considering this, it's because of potential backlash that they would see if they established a bitcoin regulatory body.  They would get around this by allowing us to "self-regulate" by appointing some power-hungry bitcoin-using statists to act as a point of contact and report things to them that they need to be privy on.

I nominate Peter Vessenes

[keelba]

I would love an opportunity to work directly with FinCEN and try to help steer both sides towards a fair compromise. How could I get on that committee?

[bluemeanie1]

I don't need permission from them to trade USD<->BTC, nor will I ever. They can jerk themselves off talking about regulations all they want, but they're just going to look dumb when none of it matters.

Of course they do matter.
They can close down exchanges, they can close down business, and while this won't outright kill Bitcoin, it will make it much less useful and easy to use.

they can't close down an exchange built with this: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwUFHE6KYsM0ZkxLVmFwbXQ3ck0/edit?usp=sharing

[bluemeanie1]

I'm sure you mean well, but this is very depressing:

It appears that OECD regulators recognize this and are willing to give those of us who are more interested in making money by the boatload than in taunting Sauron the benefit of the doubt...

If you are more interested in "making money by the boatload" than in tackling Sauron, I suggest that there may be better ways.  Have you considered becoming a plastic surgeon, for instance?  

Bitcoin is about bringing Sauron down.  If you are just in it for the money, I don't think you get it, regardless of your long experience.

Plastic surgery?  No.  I studied Economics and Finance specifically to avoid gooey and smelly stuff.

If we are using Sauron here to mean the European Central Bank, the Fed, the FATF, the IMF, et al., then the idea of a single protocol bringing that down is rather quaint.  For that to happen, Bitcoin's adoption would have to be more widespread than moneypunk geeks, suburban 'anarchists', and the odd drug dealer and gun runner here and there.  The Libertarian Party has a better chance of getting one of their own elected President of the USA than that has of happening.

This is not to say that the current regime is robust.  It is rotting from the inside and has been for a long, long time.  It is like a wooden bridge that is showing signs age and wear.  If Bitcoin happens to be the last truck to drive across that bridge before it collapses—as well it may be... or not—to say that Bitcoin brought down Sauron would be overstatement.

Bitcoin fanboy bluster is as silly as gun-nut bluster about preferring to orphan one's children and to widow one's spouse, rather than surrender one's personal and home security equipment.  If no one rose up to push back Leviathan after the passage of the DMCA, the continuation of the never-ending War on Drugs, the enactment of mandatory minimum sentences for victimless 'crimes', the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, Sarbanes-Oxley, the latest NDAA, the exposure of Presidential Kill Lists, et al., ad nauseam, how could anyone take seriously the idea that bitcoiners are going to usher in the New Age of Liberty and Freedom?

More fundamentally, why should Bitcoin be against anything?  Billions of humans who live outside the OECD, and tens of millions who live within the OECD, are very poorly served by the existing payment and banking regime.  Bitcoin can empower such individuals to participate completely in the increasingly integrated global economy, and that would be revolutionary.

In all sincerity, and with no malice implied, I wish you all great good luck with your political insurrection.  I'll be over here doing business with the other 6 billion.  

Im not sure exactly what you're implying here.

something along the lines of 'The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, So We Can't Run Commercials'?

if you take the idealism out of Bitcoin, what is the point?

[BitBank]

If they are considering this, it's because of potential backlash that they would see if they established a bitcoin regulatory body.  They would get around this by allowing us to "self-regulate" by appointing some power-hungry bitcoin-using statists to act as a point of contact and report things to them that they need to be privy on.

I nominate Peter Vessenes

ha!  perfect candidate!

[Lohoris]

if you take the idealism out of Bitcoin, what is the point?

It would still be very useful, and that's one of the main reasons why it's so successful in the first place.

[Melbustus]

Indeed. Taint removes one of the key properties of an ideal money from bitcoin: fungibility. If bitcoins became un-fungibile in practice, I'd seriously have to rethink the benefits of bitcoin, both as a transactional unit, and a store of value.

This full stop.  I would go further and say.  Fungibility is a required aspect of a medium of exchange.  Period.  It isn't something optional or cool it is the DNA of a medium of exchange.  If Bitcoin doesn't have fungibility then it isn't a medium of exchange and as such is worthless.

I guarantee you the first time a merchant though no fault of their own accepts Bitcoins that later so "we need to control everything" cartel says "sorry those are tainted and worthless" that is the last time that merchant will use Bitcoin.  The resulting new story will mean hundreds if not thousands of merchants will cross Bitcoin off their list before they even start.

It is death to a medium of exchange.  Period.  There is no other outcome.

Well said. It amazes me that some of our "leaders" are actually considering removing bitcoin's fungibility via institutional collusion. I am told there was a discussion on it at the 2013 conference so it's not a conspiracy theory, it's a legit proposal.

Yes, the discussion regarding taint was during the security panel (Saturday afternoon) at the conference. I attended this panel. IIRC, Peter was advocating that institutions (exchanges, retailers, etc) reject tainted coins, on the grounds that if they did so, there'd be far less incentive for people to steal coins in the first place. Obviously that requires some sort of "taint" database, with some entity or group determining what coins are tainted. In practice, this seems pretty unworkable, so hopefully it's a non-starter. As I noted above, coins must remain fully fungible or else they cease being ideal money, in which case this whole thing gets a lot less interesting.

[bluemeanie1]

if you take the idealism out of Bitcoin, what is the point?

It would still be very useful, and that's one of the main reasons why it's so successful in the first place.

Useful for what?

if it behaves like a regular currency, then it has no unique qualities, and thus it's useless.

[Lohoris]

Of course they do matter.
They can close down exchanges, they can close down business, and while this won't outright kill Bitcoin, it will make it much less useful and easy to use.

they can't close down an exchange built with this: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwUFHE6KYsM0ZkxLVmFwbXQ3ck0/edit?usp=sharing

I've read it, and it looks exactly like Ripple.
Which basically trades IOUs.
And yes you can close down gateways exactly like you can close down exchanges, so you would have solved nothing.

[bluemeanie1]

Of course they do matter.
They can close down exchanges, they can close down business, and while this won't outright kill Bitcoin, it will make it much less useful and easy to use.

they can't close down an exchange built with this: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwUFHE6KYsM0ZkxLVmFwbXQ3ck0/edit?usp=sharing

I've read it, and it looks exactly like Ripple.
Which basically trades IOUs.
And yes you can close down gateways exactly like you can close down exchanges, so you would have solved nothing.

I don't see how this is like Ripple.  Ripple relies on a system of mutual credit, not to mention the very nature of the project is questionable.

this doesn't have 'gateways', that's Ripple you're talking about.  It's not easy to shut down the authorities.  They can be run from a cell phone or any other kind of unreliable connection(even email is possible).  It doesn't require that anyone run a server, so you could authorize transactions from anywhere, even a mobile device.  Secondly you must shut down ALL the authorities- and there could be hundreds all in different countries with different connections.  It's quite resilient.

The fact is if you want some kind of asset with backing, there must be some kind of authority somewhere, because ultimately you need to be able to redeem those assets somehow.  This system offers the MOST flexibility for designing that authority.

[Lohoris]

this doesn't have 'gateways', that's Ripple you're talking about.  It's not easy to shut down the authorities.  They can be run from a cell phone or any other kind of unreliable connection(even email is possible).  It doesn't require that anyone run a server, so you could authorize transactions from anywhere, even a mobile device.  Secondly you must shut down ALL the authorities- and there could be hundreds all in different countries with different connections.  It's quite resilient.

The fact is if you want some kind of asset with backing, there must be some kind of authority somewhere, because ultimately you need to be able to redeem those assets somehow.  This system offers the MOST flexibility for designing that authority.

Then it looks like I didn't understand your paper.

What is the difference between a ripple gateway (such as bitstamp) and your "authority"? This post seems to imply that one asset might have multiple authorities... which would be cool, but how would be that possible in practice? i.e. every single authority should be able to redeem your "coins" with the backed valuables...

[bluemeanie1]

I might point out also that if someone were to give us something very much like Ripple, that did the same things as Ripple, but licensed it as BSD/Apache, then it would be preferable to Ripple.

An interesting site about Ripple:  http://ripplescam.org

Seems we have a number of 'Top Secret Open Source Projects' in this space at moment.  Im really surprised how easy people buy this stuff.  There are currently TWO groups with open source(or claims to such) who have founded companies around the project BEFORE they have any users.  The whole space is really quite distorted, so we can expect distorted outcomes.

[bluemeanie1]

this doesn't have 'gateways', that's Ripple you're talking about.  It's not easy to shut down the authorities.  They can be run from a cell phone or any other kind of unreliable connection(even email is possible).  It doesn't require that anyone run a server, so you could authorize transactions from anywhere, even a mobile device.  Secondly you must shut down ALL the authorities- and there could be hundreds all in different countries with different connections.  It's quite resilient.

The fact is if you want some kind of asset with backing, there must be some kind of authority somewhere, because ultimately you need to be able to redeem those assets somehow.  This system offers the MOST flexibility for designing that authority.

Then it looks like I didn't understand your paper.

What is the difference between a ripple gateway (such as bitstamp) and your "authority"? This post seems to imply that one asset might have multiple authorities... which would be cool, but how would be that possible in practice? i.e. every single authority should be able to redeem your "coins" with the backed valuables...

First off, anyone can implement this concept.  Im not attempting to profit from this, at least directly.  I am interested in building p2p financial products.  I would like to USE this technology and I am looking for others who want to use this, then we can build a community of people who want this functionality.  I think that ANYONE should be able to build and market financial products and liquidity should be available to ANYONE.  Don't you agree?   

The authorities are simply some kind of entity who has identified themselves in some way.  It could simply be through the use of a key pair.  It could be some bank sanctioned by the government of Costa Rica who advertises on their website that they are an authority in this chain.  It could be the NY branch of the Federal Reserve.  These authorities, once defined, have the ability to approve the block chain.  The algorithm allows for something interesting- a kind of VOTING mechanism on what goes into the chain.  Now if you are familiar with Bitcoin, this applies to the problems of, eg. double spends.  If one authority thinks a transaction is valid, but the others dont and they overpower that authorities WEIGHT, then it doesnt get put into the chain.  This, in of itself, is quite useful because we've factored out Proof Of Work, thus we have no latency- while maintaining the integrity aspect of Bitcoin.  The only drawback is you must define these authorities in the first place.

There are other interesting advantages.  In the case of distributed exchanges, the chronology can determine market winners and losers.  How do we decide who gets to bid on trades?  What if we wanted an auction?  who decides who wins the auction if it depends on TIMING?  This also solves this problem for the users so long as they feel properly represented in the order of authorities.  If we tried to do this with PoW, then the miners might compete to put the chain in a favorable order.  In my system we make this negotiation explicit.

this order can be defined in many ways.  For instance you could have one singular FIAT authority who rules all, very easy to manage, but not very easy to sell to the public.  You could have a TRIUMVIRATE- or three equal authorities- which is fairly easy to coordinate and also non-biased.  You could extend this principle geometrically to five or more authorities.  You can also have different weight ratios for instance 1 primary authority but a school of smaller authorities that can outweigh it if unanimous(called KING AND COURT in my terminology).

Re. Ripple, specifically how this idea differs from whatever Ripple is at the moment is anyone's guess.  They have no released their source code.  At this point I dont think they can drift significantly from the core concepts, and I do know that those concepts work quite differently than what I have.  Confidence Chains is very familiar to Bitcoin developers.  ASMOF, you can use the transactions AS IS, in the system- which is very convenient for Bitcoin users and developers.

[Lohoris]

There are other interesting advantages.  In the case of distributed exchanges, the chronology can determine market winners and losers.  How do we decide who gets to bid on trades?  What if we wanted an auction?  who decides who wins the auction if it depends on TIMING?  This also solves this problem for the users so long as they feel properly represented in the order of authorities.  If we tried to do this with PoW, then the miners might compete to put the chain in a favorable order.  In my system we make this negotiation explicit.

this order can be defined in many ways.  For instance you could have one singular FIAT authority who rules all, very easy to manage, but not very easy to sell to the public.  You could have a TRIUMVIRATE- or three equal authorities- which is fairly easy to coordinate and also non-biased.  You could extend this principle geometrically to five or more authorities.  You can also have different weight ratios for instance 1 primary authority but a school of smaller authorities that can outweigh it if unanimous(called KING AND COURT in my terminology).

I still miss the point.

You talk about exchanges, but at some point there must be one entity which accepts a valuable (fiat, gold, whatever) and emits a corresponding digital IOU.

Which is exactly like Ripple.

If this doesn't work that way, how do you suggest to do it? It's totally unclear.

Re. Ripple, specifically how this idea differs from whatever Ripple is at the moment is anyone's guess.  They have no released their source code.  At this point I dont think they can drift significantly from the core concepts, and I do know that those concepts work quite differently than what I have.  Confidence Chains is very familiar to Bitcoin developers.  ASMOF, you can use the transactions AS IS, in the system- which is very convenient for Bitcoin users and developers.

I know that Ripple claims to be open but it isn't, and this is bad.
But what aims to do is known, and your project can't be "like Ripple, but open", because on paper Ripple itself "would" be open, while in practice Ripple isn't open, but your system doesn't exists at all, so...

[BCB]

highly recommend this webinar today and tomorrow to anyone serious about US virtual currency regulation.

http://www.comptegrity.com/

[bluemeanie1]

There are other interesting advantages.  In the case of distributed exchanges, the chronology can determine market winners and losers.  How do we decide who gets to bid on trades?  What if we wanted an auction?  who decides who wins the auction if it depends on TIMING?  This also solves this problem for the users so long as they feel properly represented in the order of authorities.  If we tried to do this with PoW, then the miners might compete to put the chain in a favorable order.  In my system we make this negotiation explicit.

this order can be defined in many ways.  For instance you could have one singular FIAT authority who rules all, very easy to manage, but not very easy to sell to the public.  You could have a TRIUMVIRATE- or three equal authorities- which is fairly easy to coordinate and also non-biased.  You could extend this principle geometrically to five or more authorities.  You can also have different weight ratios for instance 1 primary authority but a school of smaller authorities that can outweigh it if unanimous(called KING AND COURT in my terminology).

I still miss the point.

You talk about exchanges, but at some point there must be one entity which accepts a valuable (fiat, gold, whatever) and emits a corresponding digital IOU.

Which is exactly like Ripple.

  Basically, every money system BUT Bitcoin has this notion of IOUs.  This includes the US dollar, that at one point was an IOU for gold, but now is a more complex debt instrument.  This is a common response to my statements for people who are only familiar with Bitcoin and Ripple.  Ripple did not invent the concept of a digital IOU.  It's the things that exist apart from IOUs that are what makes Ripple what it is.  How this part works is really quite mysterious, certainly not open source, the result of capital investment, and other things that make it questionable.  There are claims about Ripple, and characteristics of this digital asset XRPs which to me don't appear to add up.  With Confidence Chains, no carrier currency is required- and code I write will certainly be open source FROM THE START.  I think that alone makes it more attractive than Ripple.  I think the question of Ripple's success will be in the sheer numbers of people who simply want basic usability features(transfers, etc.) over principle and long term qualities.  There is no doubt that Ripple will appeal to many users who are not involved seriously in digital currencies.  It will be easy to use, provide some security of transfer and possibly exchange, but as of now doesn't offer the open source or even p2p/decentralization that bitcoin does.  For instance there was a user named geekmom who was recently complaining on here about how sketchy bitcoin was(she was 'out of here').  Ripple will no doubt capture users like her, but you have to ask- is Ripple really revolutionary though?  are we back to where we started?

  Bitcoin is unique in that there is demand for it, but there is no real world backing.  Some believe this is a temporary state of affairs, others believe that Bitcoin is a new kind of currency and PoW is analogous to Gold.  I leave that up to time to determine, suffices to say though that IOUs are required to preform this function of exchanging.  Other platforms have also arrived this inevitable conclusion, thus it has this in common with Ripple- but to say it's 'just like Ripple' is totally inaccurate.

If this doesn't work that way, how do you suggest to do it? It's totally unclear.

Re. Ripple, specifically how this idea differs from whatever Ripple is at the moment is anyone's guess.  They have no released their source code.  At this point I dont think they can drift significantly from the core concepts, and I do know that those concepts work quite differently than what I have.  Confidence Chains is very familiar to Bitcoin developers.  ASMOF, you can use the transactions AS IS, in the system- which is very convenient for Bitcoin users and developers.

I know that Ripple claims to be open but it isn't, and this is bad.
But what aims to do is known, and your project can't be "like Ripple, but open", because on paper Ripple itself "would" be open, while in practice Ripple isn't open, but your system doesn't exists at all, so...

TRUE.  At this point it's an idea- and it's not *my* system per se, it's just a proposal and if anyone has any legitimate arguments against this proposal, let's hear them.  If we don't hear any, one can assume this system is valid- thus software built using the idea is also valid.  Unfortunately, due to my various encounters on here I need to re-establish these basic laws of collaboration and engineering because some projects on here did not go through this process.  Im not an amateur developer and I do things right.

Ripple might deliver something attractive to the community, I'm sure they will deliver something.  They are in business after all.  The question is as to WHAT they are delivering.

Ripple might have been able to hire every expert in the field, but keep in mind- those experts cost money.  So no matter how much resources they have to spend on brainpower- they will inevitably come up with something designed to offer them a return on that investment.  Bitcoin emerged in a much different way, from the world of open source.  There have been *many* commercially produced digital currencies before and they all failed.  So Ripple isn't Bitcoin 2.0, it's a commercial software no matter what kind of licensing they offer.  Do you believe the investors behind OpenCoin are doing charity?  If the software itself is free, then the system would be designed in order to get a return on these XRP credits.  But a PR budget goes a long way, especially in the scenario where there is a lot of uneducated interest in a field of activity- which is what is going on with Bitcoin today.

[geekmom]

yeah, i'm still waiting for my $100 too.

There are other interesting advantages.  In the case of distributed exchanges, the chronology can determine market winners and losers.  How do we decide who gets to bid on trades?  What if we wanted an auction?  who decides who wins the auction if it depends on TIMING?  This also solves this problem for the users so long as they feel properly represented in the order of authorities.  If we tried to do this with PoW, then the miners might compete to put the chain in a favorable order.  In my system we make this negotiation explicit.

this order can be defined in many ways.  For instance you could have one singular FIAT authority who rules all, very easy to manage, but not very easy to sell to the public.  You could have a TRIUMVIRATE- or three equal authorities- which is fairly easy to coordinate and also non-biased.  You could extend this principle geometrically to five or more authorities.  You can also have different weight ratios for instance 1 primary authority but a school of smaller authorities that can outweigh it if unanimous(called KING AND COURT in my terminology).

I still miss the point.

You talk about exchanges, but at some point there must be one entity which accepts a valuable (fiat, gold, whatever) and emits a corresponding digital IOU.

Which is exactly like Ripple.

  Basically, every money system BUT Bitcoin has this notion of IOUs.  This includes the US dollar, that at one point was an IOU for gold, but now is a more complex debt instrument.  This is a common response to my statements for people who are only familiar with Bitcoin and Ripple.  Ripple did not invent the concept of a digital IOU.  It's the things that exist apart from IOUs that are what makes Ripple what it is.  How this part works is really quite mysterious, certainly not open source, the result of capital investment, and other things that make it questionable.  There are claims about Ripple, and characteristics of this digital asset XRPs which to me don't appear to add up.  With Confidence Chains, no carrier currency is required- and code I write will certainly be open source FROM THE START.  I think that alone makes it more attractive than Ripple.  I think the question of Ripple's success will be in the sheer numbers of people who simply want basic usability features(transfers, etc.) over principle and long term qualities.  There is no doubt that Ripple will appeal to many users who are not involved seriously in digital currencies.  It will be easy to use, provide some security of transfer and possibly exchange, but as of now doesn't offer the open source or even p2p/decentralization that bitcoin does.  For instance there was a user named geekmom who was recently complaining on here about how sketchy bitcoin was(she was 'out of here').  Ripple will no doubt capture users like her, but you have to ask- is Ripple really revolutionary though?  are we back to where we started?

  Bitcoin is unique in that there is demand for it, but there is no real world backing.  Some believe this is a temporary state of affairs, others believe that Bitcoin is a new kind of currency and PoW is analogous to Gold.  I leave that up to time to determine, suffices to say though that IOUs are required to preform this function of exchanging.  Other platforms have also arrived this inevitable conclusion, thus it has this in common with Ripple- but to say it's 'just like Ripple' is totally inaccurate.

If this doesn't work that way, how do you suggest to do it? It's totally unclear.

Re. Ripple, specifically how this idea differs from whatever Ripple is at the moment is anyone's guess.  They have no released their source code.  At this point I dont think they can drift significantly from the core concepts, and I do know that those concepts work quite differently than what I have.  Confidence Chains is very familiar to Bitcoin developers.  ASMOF, you can use the transactions AS IS, in the system- which is very convenient for Bitcoin users and developers.

I know that Ripple claims to be open but it isn't, and this is bad.
But what aims to do is known, and your project can't be "like Ripple, but open", because on paper Ripple itself "would" be open, while in practice Ripple isn't open, but your system doesn't exists at all, so...

TRUE.  At this point it's an idea- and it's not *my* system per se, it's just a proposal and if anyone has any legitimate arguments against this proposal, let's hear them.  If we don't hear any, one can assume this system is valid- thus software built using the idea is also valid.  Unfortunately, due to my various encounters on here I need to re-establish these basic laws of collaboration and engineering because some projects on here did not go through this process.  Im not an amateur developer and I do things right.

Ripple might deliver something attractive to the community, I'm sure they will deliver something.  They are in business after all.  The question is as to WHAT they are delivering.

Ripple might have been able to hire every expert in the field, but keep in mind- those experts cost money.  So no matter how much resources they have to spend on brainpower- they will inevitably come up with something designed to offer them a return on that investment.  Bitcoin emerged in a much different way, from the world of open source.  There have been *many* commercially produced digital currencies before and they all failed.  So Ripple isn't Bitcoin 2.0, it's a commercial software no matter what kind of licensing they offer.  Do you believe the investors behind OpenCoin are doing charity?  If the software itself is free, then the system would be designed in order to get a return on these XRP credits.  But a PR budget goes a long way, especially in the scenario where there is a lot of uneducated interest in a field of activity- which is what is going on with Bitcoin today.

[gdpone]

Yes pick me too, I want to be part of the new world bitcoin order muahahahha!  Seriously though, if you cant beat em join em.

[LightRider]

Bitcoin IS self regulating. Math doesn't require oversight.

[justusranvier]

You guys are missing the point... This means COIN TAINT.

It is not "self regulation" it is a central Bitcoin Taint Organization that tracks which coins were used for illegal activities and puts them on a centrally-controlled taint list. Most large Bitcoin companies will participate.

Say Dude A sells some pot on Silk Road. He receives the BTC and sends them to a mixer and then to Dude B via IRC-OTC after selling them for a wire transfer or something. Dude B sends them to somebody else. Eventually they wind up at Bitcoin100 Charity where they are sent to "Starving Kids in Moojoombo Village, Congo Fund."

Representative of SKiMVC charity visits the kids and says "www.bitcoin100.org Bitcoin100 just donated $1,000 to us, so we have enough money to install a village well and you won't have to walk 5 miles a day for water anymore!" Yayy! Everyone cheering, people dancing!
Next day, representative visits again, this time with sad look on her face. "Sorry, Bitpay wouldn't pay us for the Bitcoins, they just returned them, saying the Bitcoin Taint Council tainted them. We looked into the possibility of selling them on the black market OTC to people who didn't mind the taint, for lower than spot value, but our attorney advised against it saying we could be subject to massive fines or loss of our NPO status. Sorry, no well."

Why were they tainted? By the time they had been sent to the charity, the council's blockchain explorer had tracked them and discovered they were (1) Used for Pot sale, which is illegal in some countries. (2) Sent through a mixer, all coins sent through mixers will be tainted. (3) Sold on IRC-OTC which violates AML/FINCEN regulations.

I can think of a thousand scenarios where we could be screwed, including for "crimes" which are not really crimes. The War on Drugs will be extended to Bitcoins. Just like paypal, anyone who does not align with the subjective morality of the Taint Council will have their "account" frozen via blacklist. ALL miners will have their coins tainted unless they are registered as a FINCEN "money transmitter" and pay taxes. There will be a whitelist for mined coins.

This isn't tinfoil hat worst-case scenario bullshit. This is what is actually being proposed by people high up in the Bitcoin World. Peter Vessenes warns that there will be no grandfathering of coins. So if any of your coins were used by PirateAt40 or a silk road pot-selling teenager in the past, they will be unspendable for 99% of merchants/receivers. This could be 1% of your stash or it could be 59%.

Oh, who wants to make a bet? The Supreme Coin Taint Council will have a buyback option where you sell your tainted coins to them for 50% of spot. Then, they untaint the coins and release them back in to circulation.

This is just what Paypal does. This is just what government regulatory agencies do. Most U.S. dollars have cocaine residue on them but I can still spend them just fine. Now we're trying to make BTC worse than the USD? Worrying about whether coins are tainted every time I receive them? What do you think this will do to the price of BTC if they can be randomly tainted with no prior notice?

Beware of any "self regulation" talk because I can guarantee you they are talking about COIN TAINT. And if large businesses/organizations in the Bitcoin world start operating from a centrally controlled Taint List, I will sell all of my coins into other cryptocurrencies as well as precious metals - you should too, because that would be the end of bitcoin.

Spot on, as we learned today.

[vokain]

couldn't we just purposely taint every coin? instead of coin laundry...coin tainting?

[BTCetera]

This comes by way of someone close to Bitcoin discussions in Washington, DC.  Apparently, FinCEN agents are looking for members of the Bitcoin community to form a self-regulatory organization with voluntary approval procedures to work with financial regulators.

If anyone at the Bitcoin Foundation sees this post, I would be willing to serve with such an organization.  

Fuck Washington, DC.
Fuck FinCEN.
Fuck Bitcoin Foundation.

So long as one is not subject to US jurisdiction, this sentiment is a matter of personal taste.  However, if one transacts with Americans and especially if one resides within the USA, this sentiment can lead to unfortunate consequences, unless one has closed all of one's bank and credit card accounts.

Obviously, Bitcoin per se is beyond direct regulation, and all the regulation talk is about the USD/Bitcoin interface.  However, until we can pay for food, clothing, housing, etc. directly with Bitcoin—and I do not mean using Bitcoin to buy Gyft cards, as wonderful a development as that is—we will not escape that interface, if we want to integrate Bitcoin into our financial lives.  One day, perhaps, but not today.

FinCEN, the Fed, the US Treasury, FATF, et al. are notoriously jealous of their legacy system, as profoundly broken as it is, and if we insist on using it, then we will be subject to their regulations and statutes.  I'm not suggesting that this is a good thing.

What do the individuals who bluster impotently on these discussion boards think that they are achieving?  Waggling one's little bottom at Sauron does not make the Forces of Darkness quake in fear.  It makes the community look like a pack of snot-nosed little punks.

Real revolutionaries embrace disruptive engineering, entrepreneurship, and entertainment.

Rather than fling boogers at men with guns, badges, drones, and warrantless wiretaps, we should be spending our efforts developing P2P exchange networks, real financial services (including car loans and mortgages), full-service retail outlets (for food, clothing, and other consumer goods), and large-scale outreach initiatives to get the masses on our side.

Until then, and as long as Mt. Gox 'suffers a DDOS attack' every time someone refreshes its website more than twice in a minute, bluster makes us look silly.

Thank you for bringing some level headed balance into the discussion, sir. I'm with you: change will be incremental. Bitcoin is not a revolution that will take to the streets and topple an entire (legacy) system. It's only an element of a more gradual/progressive/incremental revolution.