US BITCOIN REGULATION "FOR" or "AGAINST"

[TheFootMan]

No, the free market brought the Ponzi scheme.  We need protection against that type of bad actor.

Is there any reason that customers could not conduct their own  due diligence ? Do we need a big brother that watch over our back ?

[Viceroy]

No, the free market brought the Ponzi scheme.  We need protection against that type of bad actor.

Is there any reason that customers could not conduct their own  due diligence ? Do we need a big brother that watch over our back ?

I'll dig up some info about how Ponzi took advantage of unsophisticated investors....

edit:
While regulators don't always catch criminals until they have already done the damage Charles Ponzi is the reason we have monetary regulations.  Even the most sophisticated investors in the world didn't recognize the madoff Ponzi scheme.

http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm


In short, no, the general public is not capable of understanding securities and investment. 

[franky1]

No, the free market brought the Ponzi scheme.  We need protection against that type of bad actor.

Is there any reason that customers could not conduct their own  due diligence ? Do we need a big brother that watch over our back ?

two things to remember. the US dollar its trademanrked and patented by the government. its their property. so they have a right to control who uses it. bitcoin is not owned by government. they have no right to control it.

secondly in a great utopia the world would work perfectly where each person does their own personal due dilegence. but some people are easily trusting. i am against one entity controlling it all. but if we all work together and 'scam tag' obvious threats to help each other, that is the closest to uptopia we will get. without having a single entity of control

[TheFootMan]

I'm not a proponent of countries. I consider myself a world citizen.

I also don't like people deciding stuff over my head, and that also goes for regulation of bitcoin.

[herzmeister]

Germany, and against, as technically at the end of the day, regulation is impossible. Try to regulate crypto-currency A, illicit activities will migrate to crypto-currency B. Regulate crypto-currency B, illicit activities will migrate to crypto-currency C.

[Explodicle]

I'm from the USA, and I voted against.

Regulations are most often created to do one of two things:
1) protect the public from unscrupulous actors
2) protect entrenched interest

So it depends.  Regulations written by lobbyists to promote a specific agenda should never exist, but they do.  Many core regulations like "a real estate agent needs a license" are important to protect the public.

I think these "protect you from yourself" regulations are paternalistic. For example with real estate agents: if I can buy and sell a house completely on my own, why shouldn't I be allowed to pick my own middleman? It even feels somewhat insulting, to think that I can't just look for an agent with good reviews on the web, or trust a friend who got a good price on his own house. Did you know that the average real estate agent lists their own homes for longer than they list their clients' homes?

As for Bitcoin, I think it solves the problem of people who think they're helping, so they use violence to enforce what they think is the right decision. There's so much power behind money that the ability to control it all will always fall into the wrong hands.

So like realators, I'd rather see the truly clueless get burned and lose their money, than see mature adults told who they should and should not be allowed to trust. Any democratic government can never be smarter than the average voter, so democratic paternalism cannot be justified.

[SaltySpitoon]

I agree that it would be very difficult for the U.S gov to regulate BTC, what I do believe they could do however is make it annoying for U.S users to use bitcoins.

[TheFootMan]

So like realators, I'd rather see the truly clueless get burned and lose their money, than see mature adults told who they should and should not be allowed to trust. Any democratic government can never be smarter than the average voter, so democratic paternalism cannot be justified.

Agreed. Also, then people would not have an excuse if they get fooled. They would actually need to look after themselves. *shock*

[Viceroy]

I am unaware of anything requiring you to use a real estate agent.  However if I choose to use one I would prefer that agent is registered trained and bonded to protect my interest.  You guys want anarchy, I prefer stability.

[QuestionAuthority]

I voted for as a protest to a ridiculous poll. Who would ever want to be controlled. As a kid did you want your parents telling you what to do? If your married do you want your wife telling you what to do? As an employee do you want your boss telling you what to do?

Change the poll to reflect reality. Do you believe regulation will cripple Bitcoin and if you do how should we change that? Do you believe upcoming regulations will be favorable or unfavorable? Do you believe legislators will try to understand Bitcoin while forming new regulations - yes or no?

[threeip]

Who would ever want to be controlled.

25% so far? I should be shocked....

[bit777]

FOR. This will give tremendous growth to bitcoin.

[blockgenesis]

Nobody ask for regulations, they come to you.

Nobody like regulations, but any serious business must either comply or be shut down. Edit : (And Bitcoin is not a business, but there are Bitcoin businesses)

..So, I wonder what can be relevant in that question. Being "For" or "Against" regulations does strictly nothing.

[Explodicle]

I am unaware of anything requiring you to use a real estate agent.  However if I choose to use one I would prefer that agent is registered trained and bonded to protect my interest.  You guys want anarchy, I prefer stability.

Why not just opt in to stable systems, or restrict your realator search to registered/bonded realators? I like stability too, but I don't think it's our place to restrict other people's choices regarding their own property.

Do you think the USA banking sector is well regulated, stable, and fair? What about gold-backed currency regulation?

[chmod755]

Austria, it depends on the type of regulation. If it affects bitcoin / fiat currency I don't really care, if it affects bitcoin / product or service I'd move to a country where this is not the case.

[sturle]

Please vote and state your home country, and your opinion "for" or "against" US bitcoin regulation here.

In what way does this vote make any sense?  US isn't going to regulate Bitcoin, in the same way the US isn't going to regulate EUR or GBP.  Economic activity involving currencies, goods and commodities are regulated.  Bitcoin is no exception.

Bitcoin is probably the most regulated currency of all to begin with.  The regulations in place for limiting supply, validating transactions, etc, are very strict and unchangeable.  Much stricter than for any fiat currency, and this is the main reason for Bitcoin's success.

[Viceroy]

FOR. This will give tremendous growth to bitcoin.

+1  

Evidenced by how much the US economy grew once the SEC regulators started regulating in 1933.  

[hashkey]

Philippines, Against

Bitcoin IMO is not compatible with regulation. Regulation would just make the use of Bitcoin more complicated and raise the boundaries for its users. Though its inevitable for bitcoin users to be a catalyst for funding evil entities, I hope one day, users would be educated on how to protect and manage their bitcoins well, by joining a trust community like the #bitcoin-otc Web Of Trust (WoT).

[Viceroy]

Liberty reserve appears to have done much worse things than launder money, like *allegedly* run a child pornography ring.

[threeip]

Agreed, but my point is that because a website or business is in a different country in no way means the USA cant shut them down.

Megauploads found that out the hard way.

They were in New Zealand I believe, maybe Australia if there's a difference 


~BCX~

Mega are in NZ.

The US can shut down who they wish (even flying marines into foreign nations if they have to).

franky1 may have a point though - if LR didn't deal with USD, could the USA act? Probably, if they were actually laundering money or dealing weapons.