Regulating Digital Currencies: Bringing Bitcoin Within the Reach of the IMF

[BCB]

I can't imagine this has not been commented on here previously but I could not find a reference to it.  If so admins please delete or merge.

This Comment examines the potentially destabilizing effects of emerging digital currencies on the international foreign currency exchange. Specifically, it examines “Bitcoin,” a decentralized, partially anonymous, and largely unregulated digital currency that has become particularly popular in the last few years. The paper argues that International Monetary Fund, the institution responsible for coordinating the stability of foreign exchange rates, is ill-equipped to handle the widespread use of Bitcoins into the foreign exchange market. It highlights the inability of the Fund to intervene in the event of a speculative attack on a currency by Bitcoin users. The paper concludes by suggesting an interpretation of the Fund’s incorporating document, the Articles of Agreement, which would allow it to intervene in the event of such an attack.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2248419

[1714835095]

1714835095

[1714835095]

1714835095

[davidpbrown]

I like the bit where they talk of how the IMF and nation states might want to buy Bitcoins

[BCB]

I like the idea that nation-states AND the IMF may NEED to invest in bitcoin ... and the naïveté where they think they can get more then two bitcoiner to agree on anything.

[tutkarz]

but it is beyond me how people can even think of regulating anything that wasnt issued by them and even dont belongs to them

[davidpbrown]

but it is beyond me how people can even think of regulating anything that wasnt issued by them and even dont belongs to them

You're kidding.. that's what they do! Their understanding of the world is control and exploit.. their motivation; method; and the interests they represent, count for half the reason we have a financial crisis.

[tutkarz]

but it is beyond me how people can even think of regulating anything that wasnt issued by them and even dont belongs to them

You're kidding.. that's what they do! Their understanding of the world is control and exploit.. their motivation; method; and the interests they represent, count for half the reason we have a financial crisis.

i know im stupid because my deafult thinking is that people are honest. thats why im always supriced when i discover that sometimes they are not
anyway in order to regulate bitcoin they would have to own and control it first, i wonder how they would manage to do that.

[BCB]

They would have to purchase it.

Which would drive up prices.

$1000 bitcoin in the future.

[n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU]

I can't imagine this has not been commented on here previously but I could not find a reference to it.  If so admins please delete or merge.

Some discussion/analysis also taking place in the Press section:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=224704.0

[davidpbrown]

'Regulation', only in so far as they are able to control it and bend it to their will. So, mitigating any risk they perceived it posed or having a controlling stake. The worry might be if Bitcoins are bought with debt.. that would make fiat more vulnerable than ever.

I've suggested before that perhaps the future is governments issuing their own premined coins - or at least coins they control the mining of.. but that doesn't nothing to solve debt crisis that they are responsible for - who wants smelly coins. The concept of nation state is predicated on control of money and resources. Defense of arbitrary boundaries is a silly business; but then I doubt we'll see any rapid change from governments wanting to control local currencies - if that ever changed, it would come in fits and starts.

[worldinacoin]

They can regulate the exchanges, that's about it.  I doubt they can regulate Bitcoin itself.   The usage depends on individual Bitcoiners.   

[cr1776]

The power-hungry are after one thing and that is control. Whether they claim it is "for your own good" or to "make the world a better place" the goal is the same - to control you while taking a little bit of a percent off the top for their own uses.
:-)

but it is beyond me how people can even think of regulating anything that wasnt issued by them and even dont belongs to them

You're kidding.. that's what they do! Their understanding of the world is control and exploit.. their motivation; method; and the interests they represent, count for half the reason we have a financial crisis.

i know im stupid because my deafult thinking is that people are honest. thats why im always supriced when i discover that sometimes they are not
anyway in order to regulate bitcoin they would have to own and control it first, i wonder how they would manage to do that.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

They would have to purchase it.

Which would drive up prices.

$1000 bitcoin in the future.

Only $1000 ?

I'm not selling to them for less than $10.000 !

[davidpbrown]

The power-hungry are after one thing and that is control. Whether they claim it is "for your own good" or to "make the world a better place" the goal is the same - to control you while taking a little bit of a percent off the top for their own uses.
:-)

It's interesting to consider that such behaviour is not necessarily a conscious decision but one that just follows from their pursuit of growth economies and fiat. Money is a means to control wealth, and one of the forms of wealth is exploiting people - paying them less that they are due for their efforts. If you can't control money, you can't exploit people??... it's all good.

[cr1776]

Good point!  There are certainly some "useful idiots" out there too

The power-hungry are after one thing and that is control. Whether they claim it is "for your own good" or to "make the world a better place" the goal is the same - to control you while taking a little bit of a percent off the top for their own uses.
:-)

It's interesting to consider that such behaviour is not necessarily a conscious decision but one that just follows from their pursuit of growth economies and fiat. Money is a means to control wealth, and one of the forms of wealth is exploiting people - paying them less that they are due for their efforts. If you can't control money, you can't exploit people??... it's all good.

[Gabi]

The paper concludes by suggesting an interpretation of the Fund’s incorporating document, the Articles of Agreement, which would allow it to intervene in the event of such an attack.

I'm sure your document, that mighty ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT, will allow you to intervene against the laws of math.

Good luck attacking SHA-256 

[davidpbrown]

Good luck attacking SHA-256 

Off topic but do we know why the military suggest moving to SHA3?.. maybe it's less secure and they'd prefer everyone use that?.. I couldn't find a pseudo-code for SHA3 to check it over.

[Gabi]

Good luck attacking SHA-256 

Off topic but do we know why the military suggest moving to SHA3?.. maybe it's less secure and they'd prefer everyone use that?.. I couldn't find a pseudo-code for SHA3 to check it over.

I have no idea. I trust SHA-2 more than SHA-3, because it has been tested for more years and despite that, no flaw was found.

[davidpbrown]

Perhaps they're just naturally paranoid and stability v time becomes considered a risk... too much irony sometimes.