.

[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...