2013-08-12 Politico: Congress starts looking into Bitcoin

[Arvicco]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/congress-starts-looking-into-bitcoin-95464.html?hp=l3

The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee on Monday sent letters to several agencies requesting that they disclose their virtual currency policies, how they developed them, how agencies are coordinating and finally what they plan to do going forward.

“The more folks that we talked to related to this issue, it became very clear to us that this is not a sort of technology that’s going away,” a committee aide said. “This isn’t something that’s a flash in the pan. It’s something that’s going to be with us.”

Now, this is interesting. Looks like initial arrogant attitude among politicos "this ridiculous thing is going to die off soon" is slowly developing into something like "this stuff might be for real, now how do we control it?".

[1713566141]

1713566141

[1713566141]

1713566141

[Phinnaeus Gage]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/congress-starts-looking-into-bitcoin-95464.html?hp=l3

The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee on Monday sent letters to several agencies requesting that they disclose their virtual currency policies, how they developed them, how agencies are coordinating and finally what they plan to do going forward.

“The more folks that we talked to related to this issue, it became very clear to us that this is not a sort of technology that’s going away,” a committee aide said. “This isn’t something that’s a flash in the pan. It’s something that’s going to be with us.”

Now, this is interesting. Looks like initial arrogant attitude among politicos "this ridiculous thing is going to die off soon" is slowly developing into something like "this stuff might be for real, now how do we control it?".

I believe that the Senators need to be educated on how they can benefit via Bitcoin before they act, i.e. payola.

[solex]

I believe that the Senators need to be educated on how they can benefit via Bitcoin before they act, i.e. payola.

AHA! Idea for website..

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

** Political Campaign Direct Donations **

Politician name 1 :  Bitcoin address 1

Politician name 2 :  Bitcoin address 2

Politician name 3 :  Bitcoin address 3

Politician name 4 :  Bitcoin address 4

...

Get your money direct to the politician YOU support!
You the voter are encouraged to donate to the politician of your choice with bitcoins
This saves intermediary banking/card fees and gets your politician 2% more cash in their pocket to fund their worthy campaign!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Get this up and running for the 2014 Senatorial elections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2014

[marcus_of_augustus]

This is great! Hopefully they can develop guidelines that we as a community can get behind.

You are joking right?

Satoshi developed all the guidelines we need to get behind.

If you don't agree with them perhaps you are playing in the wrong game?

[kjlimo]

This is great! Hopefully they can develop guidelines that we as a community can get behind.

You are joking right?

Satoshi developed all the guidelines we need to get behind.

If you don't agree with them perhaps you are playing in the wrong game?

I agree the comment was laughable, b/c I doubt the Senate is going to represent the interests of this community point for point; however, I don't think Gweedo was saying he didn't agree with Satoshi's guidelines... just saying that he was hoping the Senate comes up with additional guidelines that we can all get behind.

I'm not sure Satoshi fully thought through every application of this project... I'm pretty sure that was by design.  Satoshi wanted this project to grow and find new applications for itself which requires additional thought and establishment of process for how to implement those new applications and ideas.

Growth is good, organized growth is better.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Growth is good, organized growth is better.

All the evidence from economic history shows that to be wrong ... most centrally planned "growth" endeavours are epic failures.

The only one rule the Senate could possibly put in place that would be better is "Do not touch Bitcoin" ... anything else will be a hindrance, a perversion, a compromise, a vested-interest loophole-riddled bastardisation ... so that is what I'm fully expecting (mainly because most people think, erroneously, like you do).

[Stephen Gornick]

The article includes a link supposedly to the letter by Tom Carper (committee chair) and Tom Coburn.   But that link just goes to another Politico URL, which requires login I believe.

Does anyone have a link to the letter?

[aigeezer]

The commenters at the site seem to "get it" so far. Erik set the tone:

" erikvoorhees
• 9 hours ago

I wonder what Washington will do when they realize that Bitcoin is not actually a US phenomenon, and that by its very nature, it cannot be controlled. It is absolutely the most important invention since the internet itself, if you care about individual liberty, privacy, and the ability to avoid monetary debasement."

One commenter "gets it" but only part way (bolding mine):

"... Doesn't that sound like a Beltway talking head? The only opinions that count are California and New York. News flash time, dude: the country is a he11uva lot bigger than that"

[westkybitcoins]

Growth is good, organized growth is better.

All the evidence from economic history shows that to be wrong ... most centrally planned "growth" endeavours are epic failures.

The only one rule the Senate could possibly put in place that would be better is "Do not touch Bitcoin" ... anything else will be a hindrance, a perversion, a compromise, a vested-interest loophole-riddled bastardisation ... so that is what I'm fully expecting (mainly because most people think, erroneously, like you do).

+1

We need less regulation and control, not more, over the U.S. economy, and really all economies in general.

And to help out those who don't quite get it, it needs to be made quite clear to all involved that "We're not regulating or controlling anything here. Other than prosecuting actual crimes, you're on your own, so you'd better act like it." Of course, the supposed protections are at best laughable as it currently stands, but it's amazing the number of people who are convinced that the feds really are looking out for them.

[Arvicco]

Picked up by:

Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/13/congress-starts-investigating-bitcoin/
Reuters: http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/08/13/usa-senate-bitcoin-idINL2N0GE10K20130813
TheHill: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/316859-senate-panel-investigates-bitcoin

[HeliKopterBen]

The only feasible way at this point for a government to gain somewhat control would be to start buying as much as possible while prices are still relatively low.  A 51% attack would be extremely costly and likey a failure.  Gaining market share is the only way any entity can position themselves to take advantage of the upcoming economic changes.

[Wekkel]

The only feasible way at this point for a government to gain somewhat control would be to start buying as much as possible while prices are still relatively low.  A 51% attack would be extremely costly and likey a failure.  Gaining market share is the only way any entity can position themselves to take advantage of the upcoming economic changes.

The Government could tax it or accept it as alternative payment of tax. Any improvements of the Bitcoin economy or, more precise, lower prices relative to Bitcoin, would also benefit the Government as holder of Bitcoins.

Reality however dictates that a Government using and holding Bitcoin is basically screaming that its own debt notes (treasuries) are suspect. Therefore, I do not see a Government acquiring Bitcoin very soon. First, the old system must come under pressure.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Before anyone trumpets the benefits of Senate making up rules about bitcoin you need to ask yourself this ....

"Is there a Senator that you would allow to administer your computer system that holds bitcoins?"

And then think through the ramifications of the inevitable answer to that ....

[HeliKopterBen]

The only feasible way at this point for a government to gain somewhat control would be to start buying as much as possible while prices are still relatively low.  A 51% attack would be extremely costly and likey a failure.  Gaining market share is the only way any entity can position themselves to take advantage of the upcoming economic changes.

The Government could tax it or accept it as alternative payment of tax. Any improvements of the Bitcoin economy or, more precise, lower prices relative to Bitcoin, would also benefit the Government as holder of Bitcoins.

Reality however dictates that a Government using and holding Bitcoin is basically screaming that its own debt notes (treasuries) are suspect. Therefore, I do not see a Government acquiring Bitcoin very soon. First, the old system must come under pressure.

Agreed but I don't think attempting to tax bitcoin transactions would generate enough revenue denominated in bitcoin, especially in the event of a substantial price increase.  Their best bet would be to try to corner the market before someone else does and with a 1.5 billion $ market they have the funds (or can print the funds) to gain a substantial share.  However, the government never thinks outside of the box. 

Eventually, it is not bitcoin that will have to comply with government, but government that will have to comply with bitcoin.

[marcus_of_augustus]

They probably just want some plebe aide to do all the legwork and get them up to speed with how they get their kickbacks and bribes in the new internet anonymonies .. then they can go on SR and get wild with hookers and blow like they used to ...

[bitcool]

Power. Power is addictive.

[2dogs]

In the meantime, price is being affected...positively!

[Stephen Gornick]

Their best bet would be to try to corner the market before someone else does and with a 1.5 billion $ market they have the funds (or can print the funds) to gain a substantial share.

Though the value of bitcoin at the current exchange rate multiplied by the ~11.3 million BTC issued to-day equals some number a little over $1 billion, that is not what the cost would be to acquire "a substantial share".  Nobody knows where the exchange rate would end up if another round of heavy buying were to be attempted.

But what benefit do you see they would gain from buying lots of coins?

[TraderTimm]

I've made a post in "Discussions" that was spurred by all this renewed interest in Bitcoin and controlling/regulating it.

Please read:
    
Future Proofing - Mesh Networking As Insurance Against ISP Attack

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=274018.0

[HeliKopterBen]

Their best bet would be to try to corner the market before someone else does and with a 1.5 billion $ market they have the funds (or can print the funds) to gain a substantial share.

Though the value of bitcoin at the current exchange rate multiplied by the ~11.3 million BTC issued to-day equals some number a little over $1 billion, that is not what the cost would be to acquire "a substantial share".  Nobody knows where the exchange rate would end up if another round of heavy buying were to be attempted.

But what benefit do you see they would gain from buying lots of coins?

I dont see much benefit other than frontrunning a substantial worldwide wealth transfer and amassing their peice of the pie while prices are still relatively cheap. That is all anyone can do.