Study: How IMF could control Bitcoin: kill it or join it? (link to paper)

[rikur]

http://thebitcoinnews.co.uk/2013/06/09/regulating-digital-currencies-bringing-bitcoin-within-the-reach-of-the-imf-pdf/

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

What is Bitcoin?
Conceptually, Bitcoin is two things at once. First, it is a digital currency, meaning that the unit of account it employs has no physical counterpart with legal tender status. Second, Bitcoin is what Friedrich A. Hayek described as a “private currency”: a currency provided by private enterprise aimed at combatting government monopolies on the supply of money.

V. HOW TO COUNTER THE BITCOIN THREAT VIA THE IMF
Finding a way to regulate Bitcoin is critical in light of its potential destabilizing effects on the foreign currency exchange. Although there might be a number of ways to mitigate Bitcoin’s impact via domestic legislation, those solutions are beyond the scope of this Comment. Instead, I discuss ways in which the IMF can be used to counter the threat posed by Bitcoin.

The IMF is particularly well-situated to solve this problem for two reasons. First, the IMF is an institution specifically designed to help stabilize the global economic system via the foreign currency exchange, as explained in Section III. Second, regulating Bitcoin falls squarely within the IMF’s goals, as outlined by Article 1 of the Articles of Agreement.147 In both of these respects, the IMF is able to coordinate a global response to the threat posed by Bitcoin in a way no other institution can.

There are, however, challenges that must be overcome. The most obvious obstacle to regulating the impact of Bitcoins on the foreign currency exchange via the IMF is one of enforcement. Article VII of the Articles of Agreement allows the IMF to replenish its holding of a member’s nation currency.148 It also allows the IMF to restrict the flow of a currency it deems to be scarce and to apportion its allocation accordingly.149 Both are vital tools for countering a speculative attack. The first allows the IMF to overcome any currency shortages, ensuring that it has a sufficient amount of currency to lend in an effort to offset a speculative attack. The second gives the IMF the flexibility it needs to respond in the event of an emergency shortage, and allows the member nation whose currency is in short supply to limit the domestic exchange of its scarce currency.

BTC The first option is to grant the IMF indirect control over Bitcoin by expanding the interpretation of an already existing provision of the IMF. This approach requires the least amount of change and leaves the overall IMF framework mostly intact. The second option is to grant the IMF more direct control over Bitcoin by granting it and other digital currencies quasi-membership status. This more radical approach would require and amendment of the Articles of Agreement and would fundamentally alter the existing framework’s conception of a non-state actor’s role in the IMF.

So either fight it or join it.. I Wonder what they'll end up doing.

There's lots of more details in the paper

[r3wt]

if anyone could stop bitcoin, they would have done it by now.

[TaxReturn]

by IMF != about IMF

[rikur]

by IMF != about IMF

Thanks.

[phor2zero]

 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.

Perhaps protecting fiat currency markets from a speculative attack by bitcoin users IS within the IMF's job description, but I'm not sure it's feasible. The IMF would have to engage in heavy purchasing or selling of BTC via the threatened currency. How would this affect the worldwide value of BTC?  Any Austrian Econs have comments?

[reg]

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.

Perhaps protecting fiat currency markets from a speculative attack by bitcoin users IS within the IMF's job description, but I'm not sure it's feasible. The IMF would have to engage in heavy purchasing or selling of BTC via the threatened currency. How would this affect the worldwide value of BTC?  Any Austrian Econs have comments?

the imf have exactly the same dilema as anarchists (so called by the establishment). bitcoin is not attacking any currency- its definition as a currency or commodity is not clear. so to support the existing financial structure based on debt which means its fundamental basis is unsound the imf must either stop bitcoin as a direct threat. because bitcoin does have a fundamental strong basis (in a mathematical defined blockchain) the imf must either buy into bitcoin enough to exert influence which in turn will legitamise bitcoin  and send the price higher . or endorse and continue the attacks from outside the system (their system) that the us gov +others have already started. so do they engage and thereby strengthen the perceived threat or shut down the www completely everywhere forever? its tricky. reg

[semaforo]

   Okay, so I didn't read the whole article, but I read enough to see that none of the strategies in the paper would be effective.
  
This is not a plan of attack- it's a plan of defense.

  If either of the methods the author recommends were implemented, it would mean that sovereign nation states would start holding reserves in BTC and would have BTC drawing rights with the IMF. This would make the value of bitcoin so high that Satoshi Nakamoto's net worth would be greater than that of I dunno, probably the hundred biggest corporations in the world. It would also mean that supposing Mr. Nakamoto didn't care to sell his bitcoins to sovereign nation states or the IMF, he would be in a position to take down any currency he wanted to, be it the dollar, the euro, the pound, or whatever.
    This paper simply illustrates what I've already come to realize- the more attention the global financial establishment gives to bitcoin, the bigger it is going to get. I predict that the IMF will slip into irrelevance while trying to ignore bitcoin.

It's much more likely that the US will try to push bitcoin underground.

 It's funny- a lot of people are hesistant to buy into bitcoin because they think it might be subject to regulatory attacks by the government. If the government did start shutting down exchanges on a massive scale and making bitcoin transactions illegal, it would actually artifically inflate the value of bitcoin, in the same way that illegalizing cocaine artificially inflates the price by 500 to 1000%. The value of bitcoin cannot be destroyed, and if it's more difficult to obtain them, it will just make them that much more valuable.

    There are hundreds of government officials mulling these questions right now, and there is no easy solution. We are all participating in the end of the world order that has dominated for the last 70 years. Expect to see oil denominated in bitcoin, and a subsequent war to maintain the dollar denomination that will end in the US's defeat and loss of status as global hegemon. Good news for the rapidly growing number of obese people in America- they won't be able to eat themselves into heart disease anymore because there won't be a disproportionate amount of the world's wealth concentrated in the US.

   I really hope the IMF does try the strategies described in this paper, because it will make me and all other bitcoin owners obscenely rich.

[BenTuras]

It's funny- a lot of people are hesistant to buy into bitcoin because they think it might be subject to regulatory attacks by the government. If the government did start shutting down exchanges on a massive scale and making bitcoin transactions illegal, it would actually artifically inflate the value of bitcoin, in the same way that illegalizing cocaine artificially inflates the price by 500 to 1000%. The value of bitcoin cannot be destroyed, and if it's more difficult to obtain them, it will just make them that much more valuable.

Do you really think a business would want to be involved in bitcoin transactions if bitcoins would become illegal ?
I think not, so an average person will not be using bitcoins, except maybe for some illegal stuff.
So declaring bitcoins illegal will end bitcoins as we know it today.

[bitcoindr.com]

I was just thinking...

What if a major player refused to deal in Gold, and ran across an entity with something that they really wanted, but that entity said "give us Gold or no deal!". But the major player also found that where they went so many other entities were dealing in Gold that they we becoming quite stable (even wealthy?) from the market that had been created using Gold. And to their dismay they had been effectively locked out of this market for refusing to deal in Gold... or Beads, or Stones, or Bitcoins...

just thinking...

B. Dr.

[semaforo]

It's funny- a lot of people are hesistant to buy into bitcoin because they think it might be subject to regulatory attacks by the government. If the government did start shutting down exchanges on a massive scale and making bitcoin transactions illegal, it would actually artifically inflate the value of bitcoin, in the same way that illegalizing cocaine artificially inflates the price by 500 to 1000%. The value of bitcoin cannot be destroyed, and if it's more difficult to obtain them, it will just make them that much more valuable.

Do you really think a business would want to be involved in bitcoin transactions if bitcoins would become illegal ?
I think not, so an average person will not be using bitcoins, except maybe for some illegal stuff.
So declaring bitcoins illegal will end bitcoins as we know it today.

     This is true, if you are thinking in the old way where nations mattered. Illegalizing bitcoin transactions would only be possible under a one world government. Bitcoins could be made illegal, but then you could probably sell all of your bitcoin on an exchange somewhere like Vanuatu, Tajikistan, or Cape Verde for the next crypto currency. Since it seems to take a few days to generate cryptocurrencies there could be an endless string of them. As has often been observed on this forum, the only way to kill bitcoin is to kill the internet.

A good metaphor would be riot police with shields and clubs standing next to the ocean and trying to stop a tsunami.

  The only way for the powers that be to retain control will be a one world government with immediate arrest for any evidence of an off book transaction. This is not implausible. This is WAY bigger than the Protestant reformation, and that resulted in hundreds of years of war...

[Boussac]

So declaring bitcoins illegal will end bitcoins as we know it today.

How do you declare bitcoins illegal ?
As long as I can send a signed (transaction) message or a private key to somenone, bitcoins can be traded, right ?

A business accepting bitcoins can display prices in fiat as long as bitcoins are traded and they can make a reasonable assumption about a conversion rate.
The shoppers are not obliged to pay in bitcoins anyway.

[BenTuras]

So declaring bitcoins illegal will end bitcoins as we know it today.

How do you declare bitcoins illegal ?
As long as I can send a signed (transaction) message or a private key to somenone, bitcoins can be traded, right ?

A business accepting bitcoins can display prices in fiat as long as bitcoins are traded and they can make a reasonable assumption about a conversion rate.
The shoppers are not obliged to pay in bitcoins anyway.

The US government could just declare usage of bitcoin illegal and no US shop will accept them anymore.
Likewise for any other country.

[reg]

So declaring bitcoins illegal will end bitcoins as we know it today.

How do you declare bitcoins illegal ?
As long as I can send a signed (transaction) message or a private key to somenone, bitcoins can be traded, right ?

A business accepting bitcoins can display prices in fiat as long as bitcoins are traded and they can make a reasonable assumption about a conversion rate.
The shoppers are not obliged to pay in bitcoins anyway.

The US government could just declare usage of bitcoin illegal and no US shop will accept them anymore.
Likewise for any other country.

the us government once declared alcohol illegal-maybe you remember the out come? cocain and unlicensed weapons are illegal- maybe you know the position in the us today? Likewise for any other country.

[BenTuras]

the us government once declared alcohol illegal-maybe you remember the out come? cocain and unlicensed weapons are illegal- maybe you know the position in the us today? Likewise for any other country.

Could you buy any of those in a shop at the time it was illegal ?

[reg]

the us government once declared alcohol illegal-maybe you remember the out come? cocain and unlicensed weapons are illegal- maybe you know the position in the us today? Likewise for any other country.

Could you buy any of those in a shop at the time it was illegal ?

no, but my point was just declaring something illegal does not stop it!. I think it is too late to stop it now whatever a government or corporation or secret service does. it may well slow down adoption or drive it underground but because the fundamental basis is sound i do not believe it can be stopped other than as I previously pointed out by stopping the www all over the world, forever!. oh and complete extinction of the human race.

[semaforo]

the us government once declared alcohol illegal-maybe you remember the out come? cocain and unlicensed weapons are illegal- maybe you know the position in the us today? Likewise for any other country.

Could you buy any of those in a shop at the time it was illegal ?

Yes.

[phor2zero]

  I really hope the IMF does try the strategies described in this paper, because it will make me and all other bitcoin owners obscenely rich.

Me too!

[reg]

  I really hope the IMF does try the strategies described in this paper, because it will make me and all other bitcoin owners obscenely rich.

Me too!

+1 yes but I am afraid the masters of the IMF (central banks) will choose the all out war route. they will loose but it will be bloody- like all wars. reg.

[Hippie Tech]

Are asics a gov't or imf plot to centralize the network's hashpower and earnings ?

If they buy enough of them...

[reg]

Are asics a gov't or imf plot to centralize the network's hashpower and earnings ?

If they buy enough of them...

I am not knowledgeable enough and stand to be corrected but these are my thoughts. If asics were a government or IMF plot they would have kept them secret and not allowed general release (certainly not to china). most of the bitcoins in existence are fairly well distributed. a high enough price may concentrate some but not most I think. also just under half are still to be mined. as asic's become more available difficulty will increase and bitcoins will be further distributed. the adoption rate is exponential "apparently" so the cat is out of the bag. I do not believe anyone can stop it now. reg.