[LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining)

[stereotype]

And what could they do about that, exactly?

They wouldnt be able to stop everyone from installing it obviously, but the damage that could be done to bitcoin if just running the bitcoin client is deemed illegal is enormous.
Im not looking forward being put at risk of breaking laws from just about every regulator in the world and Id rather not risk finding out what exactly it is they could do.

Thats a scary world, you think you live in.

[dexX7]

On top of that, I have some fears that polluting the blockchain with asset management may put bitcoin as a whole at risk.

Somewhat similar discussion:

https://www.google.com/search?q=porn+blockchain+site:bitcointalk.org

[jeffshed]

troll hat-

i think puppet might be an american and is a little sad his country is cracking down BTC securities so much...

troll hat off-

[crumbs]

And what could they do about that, exactly?

They wouldnt be able to stop everyone from installing it obviously, but the damage that could be done to bitcoin if just running the bitcoin client is deemed illegal is enormous.
Im not looking forward being put at risk of breaking laws from just about every regulator in the world and Id rather not risk finding out what exactly it is they could do.

You think the SEC has control over what software people install on their computers?  

Bitcoin can already be used to transfer money to terrorists and drug dealers.  If you think those things are less of a problem for the government then unregulated securities you're definitely smoking crack.

Unregulated securities directly threaten the very lifeblood of governments -- money.  If you think that drugs or terrorists are a greater concern to governments, you must be new here

*That said, i doubt colored coins will be the undoing of bitcoin.

[MikeyVeez]

I have some fears that polluting the blockchain with asset management may put bitcoin as a whole at risk.

Why and how?

Regulators might try to argue that each bitcoin client is a security exchange.

And what could they do about that, exactly?

Are you guys mentally retarded 5 year olds? Lets see throw a couple hundred million in hardware take over 51% of the network and destroy it, while throwing morons like you in jail.

Or just kill anything it had going for itself with overburdened regulation.

[Bitcycle]

Things that aren't going to happen-

1. Government destruction of billions of dollars in value held mostly by politically connected people.

   a. Destruction of the blockchain in a year or two, since that's exactly what such an action would represent.

[MikeyVeez]

I have some fears that polluting the blockchain with asset management may put bitcoin as a whole at risk.

Why and how?

Regulators might try to argue that each bitcoin client is a security exchange.

And what could they do about that, exactly?

Don't encourage him, man.

I'm not sure he's trolling, actually I think he isn't, that's why I'm answering

And what could they do about that, exactly?

They wouldnt be able to stop everyone from installing it obviously, but the damage that could be done to bitcoin if just running the bitcoin client is deemed illegal is enormous.
Im not looking forward being put at risk of breaking laws from just about every regulator in the world and Id rather not risk finding out what exactly it is they could do.

Irrelevant: they might decide to do anything for any random reason, so we shouldn't really care about what they "might" do.
Anyway it's not possible to prevent colored coins from being implemented, there's much interest and they'll hopefully be sooner or later, so it's again even more irrelevant to worry about that.

Good you morons. So then you can tell people hey get unboard with bitcoin because well it's illegal, don't you want to join? The only reason bitcoim has had this much success is because of it going mainstream, not by silk road criminals, which is where you would take bitcoin again if you implement colored coins.

They won't even need to do anything, it will just destroy itself, by people losing confidence in it.

[MikeyVeez]

Things that aren't going to happen-

1. Government destruction of billions of dollars in value held mostly by politically connected people.

   a. Destruction of the blockchain in a year or two, since that's exactly what such an action would represent.

Yes politically connected people lmao, good one. Nigerian pirates?

[mr_random]

Irrelevant: they might decide to do anything for any random reason, so we shouldn't really care about what they "might" do.

I find your argument weak - "they could do anything therefore don't worry". Surely you recognise that some actions they take are more probable than others. And the introduction of a mechanism by which each client acts as a distributed exchange will certainly influence the probabilities assigned to future actions.

Anyway it's not possible to prevent colored coins from being implemented, there's much interest and they'll hopefully be sooner or later, so it's again even more irrelevant to worry about that.

This however I agree with. It's going to happen one way or the other. However I would prefer it to happen later when Bitcoin is further established and entrenched within the economic sphere rather than sooner at Bitcoin's current relatively early state of existence.

[pedrog]

So, are we rich yet? Are we?

[hobbymd]

So, are we rich yet? Are we?

we are almost there just a bit more, meanwhile read the latest news here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=312830.msg3437604#msg3437604

[Ytterbium]

I have some fears that polluting the blockchain with asset management may put bitcoin as a whole at risk.

Why and how?

Regulators might try to argue that each bitcoin client is a security exchange.

And what could they do about that, exactly?

Are you guys mentally retarded 5 year olds? Lets see throw a couple hundred million in hardware take over 51% of the network and destroy it, while throwing morons like you in jail.

Or just kill anything it had going for itself with overburdened regulation.

And you think the SEC is going to do that over some unregulated stock exchanges?  You guys are seriously over-estimating the power and motivation of the SEC.

You also seem to think that the US government cares more about people playing around on virtual stock exchanges then they do about terrorists and drug dealers, which again, is totally delusional.  

Why do you think btct.co had a 1-month grace period to shut down, while the silkroad had it's server hacked, all bitcoins seized, and it's owner thrown in jail? It's because the government takes that far more seriously, and bitcoin can already be used for drug dealing and money laundering. They take that stuff way more seriously then stock exchange nonsense.

Pirateat40 got shut down because he was running a Ponzi scheme, not because he was issuing unregulated securities.

[jimmothy]

And you think the SEC is going to do that over some unregulated stock exchanges?  You guys are seriously over-estimating the power and motivation of the SEC.

You also seem to think that the US government cares more about people playing around on virtual stock exchanges then they do about terrorists and drug dealers, which again, is totally delusional.  

Why do you think btct.co had a 1-month grace period to shut down, while the silkroad had it's server hacked, all bitcoins seized, and it's owner thrown in jail? It's because the government takes that far more seriously, and bitcoin can already be used for drug dealing and money laundering. They take that stuff way more seriously then stock exchange nonsense.

Pirateat40 got shut down because he was running a Ponzi scheme, not because he was issuing unregulated securities.

Should any of these exchanges become fairly successful and host a few ponzi schemes/scams you can guarantee that the SEC will eventually try to do something about it.

Clearly both the silk road and these unregistered exchanges are illegal but there is a huge difference between them. Obviously as you said the silk road (with USD millions of illegal trade) is more of a priority than exchanges that hardly reach 1 million USD but i think they will eventually show up on their radar.

One major difference between the two illegal operations is one (silkroad) is run with tor taking the most precautions possible to stay anonymous, and the other pretends like it is immune to the US laws and take no steps to defend against sec/ the law.

This means that IF sec decided they did want to get involved they would have literally no problem finding the guys who run the illegal exchanges meaning that every stock on that exchange will immediately tank in value. So my question is why bother with these faulty, illegal, exchanges designed by a team of 1 guy raking in shitloads of btc from the scams hosted on his site.

Colored coins provides no central place to attack so that would force SEC to go after the scams themselves.

Also the fact that the exchanges has a grace period to shut down makes me think that these were not the causes of SEC and instead a preemptive strike against it.

I say if you are going to rake in the bitcoins by hosting an exchange, you better try and comply with SEC or be completely anonymous on tor because nobody wants to keep switching from one sketchy site that gets shut down, to the next sketchy site that gets shut down.

[Ytterbium]

And you think the SEC is going to do that over some unregulated stock exchanges?  You guys are seriously over-estimating the power and motivation of the SEC.

You also seem to think that the US government cares more about people playing around on virtual stock exchanges then they do about terrorists and drug dealers, which again, is totally delusional.  

Why do you think btct.co had a 1-month grace period to shut down, while the silkroad had it's server hacked, all bitcoins seized, and it's owner thrown in jail? It's because the government takes that far more seriously, and bitcoin can already be used for drug dealing and money laundering. They take that stuff way more seriously then stock exchange nonsense.

Pirateat40 got shut down because he was running a Ponzi scheme, not because he was issuing unregulated securities.

Should any of these exchanges become fairly successful and host a few ponzi schemes/scams you can guarantee that the SEC will eventually try to do something about it.

Exactly.  But we're talking about the possibility of a distributed exchange, or whether or not using colored coins will result in the SEC somehow shutting down bitcoin, as if they had that kind of power.  

They don't.  Not even close. In fact, right now they're incredibly weak. Only an act of congress could get bitcoin banned, and at the moment Congress is about as ineffective at everything as Sam.  In fact, it wasn't the SEC that shut down Pirateat40, it was the FBI/DOJ.  ANd that would have happened if he had been issuing "legitimate" securities as well.  Just look at Bernie madoff. His prosecution has nothing to do with the fact that his securities weren't properly registered.

Clearly both the silk road and these unregistered exchanges are illegal but there is a huge difference between them. Obviously as you said the silk road (with USD millions of illegal trade) is more of a priority than exchanges that hardly reach 1 million USD but i think they will eventually show up on their radar.

Sure, if they host outright scams.  Some people did speculate that labcoin caused the downfall of btct.co, and that could be right.  Burnside might have worried they were a scam and that people might go after him if they lost a lot of money.

Colored coins provides no central place to attack so that would force SEC to go after the scams themselves.

Exactly, just like the DOJ went after the silkroad itself, rather then trying to shutdown bitcoin.  But, the point is that if coloredcoins are used as virtual stocks, the reality is that it wouldn't, by far, be the reason the government would try to shut down all of bitcoin.  Drug dealers, terrorism, tax evasion and money laundering in general  are far bigger issues for the US government, and all of those things can be done on the current blockchain now, without the use of colored coins.

I don't think colored coins are a good way of dealing with virtual stocks, because people can get scammed out of colored coins just as they can be scammed out of bitcoin. You can ask to buy 100 colored coins for 1 btc, get the 100 colored coins, and then not send the btc.

But the idea that the colored coins could cause the downfall of bitcoin, or that the SEC even has the power to ban software is totally bonkers.

[jimmothy]

I don't think colored coins are a good way of dealing with virtual stocks, because people can get scammed out of colored coins just as they can be scammed out of bitcoin. You can ask to buy 100 colored coins for 1 btc, get the 100 colored coins, and then not send the btc.

But the idea that the colored coins could cause the downfall of bitcoin, or that the SEC even has the power to ban software is totally bonkers.

I agree that the government can't and will not shut down bitcoin and also that whether the securities are hosted on colored coins or on exchanges, it doesn't give the government more or less incentive to shut down bitcoin.

I don't understand the logic behind peoples claims that the government wants to shut down bitcoin. They only care about the fact that people are using it for illegal things and going after these illegal things like they always do. has nothing to do with bitcoin besides the fact that its used as the form of currency, but then again hasn't every currency in the history of currencies been used for illegal things?

[JohnyBigs]

I don't think colored coins are a good way of dealing with virtual stocks, because people can get scammed out of colored coins just as they can be scammed out of bitcoin. You can ask to buy 100 colored coins for 1 btc, get the 100 colored coins, and then not send the btc.

But the idea that the colored coins could cause the downfall of bitcoin, or that the SEC even has the power to ban software is totally bonkers.

I agree that the government can't and will not shut down bitcoin and also that whether the securities are hosted on colored coins or on exchanges, it doesn't give the government more or less incentive to shut down bitcoin.

I don't understand the logic behind peoples claims that the government wants to shut down bitcoin. They only care about the fact that people are using it for illegal things and going after these illegal things like they always do. has nothing to do with bitcoin besides the fact that its used as the form of currency, but then again hasn't every currency in the history of currencies been used for illegal things?

Uhh they care when a new form of currency is trying to replace trillions of dollars in the world, a currency that the rich cannot control, to make you a poor debt slave.

[jimmothy]

a currency that the rich cannot control.

LOL you think bitcoin is not controlled by the rich? You do realize the US government is the richest single bitcoin holder @ 125k..

to make you a poor debt slave

There is one extremely simple way to stay out of debt, don't borrow money! What does bitcoin have to do with it?

[Puppet]

but i think they will eventually show up on their radar.

Already very much on their radar, as I posted earlier and what triggered this OT subthread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297503.msg3430985#msg3430985
(Ken is CEO of VMC/Activemining).

Also the fact that the exchanges has a grace period to shut down makes me think that these were not the causes of SEC and instead a preemptive strike against it.

IN all likelihood,  the sec is still in the (informal) investigation stage, requesting documents from the exchanges and apparently at least some asset issuers. In that sense, the closure or blocking of US investors may be "voluntarily", but almost certainly a result of being asked questions. (think SEC:  "what steps are you taking to prevent US investors from using your exchange to comply with xyz". Ukyo: "Ooops").

[Ytterbium]

I don't think colored coins are a good way of dealing with virtual stocks, because people can get scammed out of colored coins just as they can be scammed out of bitcoin. You can ask to buy 100 colored coins for 1 btc, get the 100 colored coins, and then not send the btc.

But the idea that the colored coins could cause the downfall of bitcoin, or that the SEC even has the power to ban software is totally bonkers.

I agree that the government can't and will not shut down bitcoin and also that whether the securities are hosted on colored coins or on exchanges, it doesn't give the government more or less incentive to shut down bitcoin.

I don't understand the logic behind peoples claims that the government wants to shut down bitcoin. They only care about the fact that people are using it for illegal things and going after these illegal things like they always do. has nothing to do with bitcoin besides the fact that its used as the form of currency, but then again hasn't every currency in the history of currencies been used for illegal things?

"The government" could and might try to shut down bitcoin. However The SEC does not have that power. Not even close. They have the power to levy fines on corporate officers and traders who violate securities regulations. Congress could pass a law trying to ban bitcoin if they wanted, but the chances of that happening over amateur stock exchanges, as opposed to drug dealing or terrorism is pretty low.

[Lohoris]

Anyway it's not possible to prevent colored coins from being implemented, there's much interest and they'll hopefully be sooner or later, so it's again even more irrelevant to worry about that.

This however I agree with. It's going to happen one way or the other. However I would prefer it to happen later when Bitcoin is further established and entrenched within the economic sphere rather than sooner at Bitcoin's current relatively early state of existence.

Glad we agree on what's going to happen anyway, even if we didn't agree about the other details : )