Report on the Bitcoin Foundation's Trip to Washington D.C.

[qwk]

We started a dialogue – the first step in understanding each other.

I just wanted to express my thanks for that.

[1714809652]

1714809652

[1714809652]

1714809652

[1714809652]

1714809652

[qwk]

I guess it's time for me to become a member and support them.

I would have gladly paid the membership fee for you.

You may be trolling from time to time but I greatly appreciate your personal engagement behind "the idea".

[xcsler]

i imagine bitcoin in the same way i imagine a foreign exchange from pound to euro, dollar to yen.. etc.

the country that owns the FIAT should ensure they control that fiat. but they should not try controlling the opposing countries FIAT.

EG USA.. should have controls to protect the dollar but should have no policies to control pounds, yen, euro or bitcoin.

bitcoin is its own country, its own population and community. it is not owned by another country

You read my mind.
When the US gov. does try to restrict usage of bitcoins this is exactly the argument that should be made.
The US should be allowed to control the supply of the US dollar and in which currency taxes are to be paid.
It should have no say in whether or not dollars can be exchanged for wheat, copper, yen, euros, gold or bitcoins.

[TraderTimm]

Great, so now they're "briefed" on Bitcoin.

The next steps are dependent on whether they think Bitcoin is a threat to the dollar, and by extension, to the policies of the Fed and Treasury. Don't forget to throw in the law enforcement concerns about all the "bad things" you can do with Bitcoin. (Naturally they'll overlook that you can do the same with cash.)

If they accept Bitcoin, they'll put out some softball regs to see where it goes, place the framework for further governmental "hooks" to get some of that tasty revenue stream.

If they reject Bitcoin, they'll use every flaw and wrinkle they can devise about the Bitcoin network, and the foundation members, to make sure nobody uses Bitcoin again. Dirty tricks, making sure exchanges and payment processors have onerous requirements, the whole ball of wax.

So, guess which one it will be?

(Hint: They like the dollar just fine...)

Just watch, this isn't some goddamned game show, the stakes are real and they've just been raised.

[LightRider]

Another problem with a single prominent lobbying group is that they are subject to blackmail and other forms of exploitation. Now that you have been to their house and have been scrutinized, you should be wary of delegitimizing personal situations.

[acoindr]

... to make sure nobody uses Bitcoin again.

You mean make sure nobody uses Bitcoin in a transparent "legal" way in the United States again.

They can't stop people using it. The cat is out of the bag on that one. They also can't stop other countries making it perfectly legal, which Germany is headed in the direction to do and Finland seems to certainly favor, which makes them look like fools and tyrannical ones at that.

You're right that they have to be careful how they play it. If they're smart they will realize Bitcoin already checkmated the system and whether it's the current version or something later on which succeeds wildly the concept and methodology are here to stay; so they instead should frame themselves in a flattering light. As the saying goes if you can't beat them join them.

As for relation to the dollar et al. that's what markets are about. Many people will still have reason to value the dollar and other fiat, just as they have reason to value precious metals. The difference is fiat no longer gets a free pass. Politicians have to actually be responsible for fiat to stay competitive.

[NewLiberty]

The "government" may be a faceless institution, but it is also made up of individual people, and those in the room were those who have some modest decision making power.  Creating person to person relationships, being sane and reasonable (and on the side of right) as well as pointing out how by exercising government power without knowledge hurts their own goals is the best way to knock them back on their heels.  It has a chance, greater than zero, of changing minds.

In international negotiations, reasonable people may disagree whether having an embassy in "enemy" territory is good or not.
You are completely right that it is optimistic hubris to imagine that we can make a change in the way people think, but to not try is just to assure that it won't happen.

And your other point, about the risks of these ambassadors getting corrupted and seduced by their position and the process of diplomacy is a valid one.  Its up to the rest of us to check in on them and keep them on the right track.  Since they are asking for that input too, lets not abandon them.

I appreciate this response and I think your metaphor was well placed and apt.

I suppose my stance is one where I don't see the business folk needing to comply with regulation at all. I think we have the tools and ability available to us to say "This is our sandbox you need to lobby us."

I think it's a better strategy. Let them come to us and beat on the door. We should respond to their regulation by out-innovating them. "Oh now it's illegal to transfer money to an exchange. OK, it's a set back. Let's create our own way to do this without them." I think bitcoin ATMs and localbitcoins and onion sites are great ways to achieve this, for example.

I always see regulation as an excuse for a lack of innovation. It's a slipper slope. I would rather push the mindset of "We're better than them" than "We need to work with them"

I agree with all that.  Resilient systems tend to route around damage, problems and failures, and regulation can be a type of that.  It is a testament to the resiliency of Bitcoin that it can do so as nimbly as it does.

Rather than a need to comply, compliance can also be an optional exercise of the robust feature set of Bitcoin, in that Bitcoin makes compliance less onerous for those that would want to do so for their own reasons.  
Compliance regimes always favor the large enterprise against the small, and thus they stifle innovation.   Bitcoin can lowers the burden for that compliance and gives individual enterprises a leg up by making compliance more easy.  

Certain industries require a high degree of accountability, which Bitcoin fosters.  With Bitcoin we have the whole range from deep anonymity to transparent operations in the bright light of day.  Bitcoin's feature set is just better, so yes, in a way it is a big favor to have this discussion with those in the government that are reaching out to learn.  Perhaps in time they will come to realize that.

The USA has about 1 in 5 people dependent on the government for their well-being, certainly at least some of those can awaken to what is happening and be allies.

[QuestionAuthority]

The Bitcoin Foundation won't disclose what legislators they met with on day 2 of their trip.

http://thegenesisblock.com/bitcoin-foundation-on-capitol-hill-day-two-legislators/

Poking at the beast.

           USA                                    Bitcoin Foundation
              V                                         V

[Bit_Happy]

Great work, thank you 

[LightRider]

The Bitcoin Foundation won't disclose what legislators they met with on day 2 of their trip.

http://thegenesisblock.com/bitcoin-foundation-on-capitol-hill-day-two-legislators/

Government industry collusion is not a very transparent process.

[hmmmstrange]

i imagine bitcoin in the same way i imagine a foreign exchange from pound to euro, dollar to yen.. etc.

the country that owns the FIAT should ensure they control that fiat. but they should not try controlling the opposing countries FIAT.

EG USA.. should have controls to protect the dollar but should have no policies to control pounds, yen, euro or bitcoin.

bitcoin is its own country, its own population and community. it is not owned by another country

You read my mind.
When the US gov. does try to restrict usage of bitcoins this is exactly the argument that should be made.
The US should be allowed to control the supply of the US dollar and in which currency taxes are to be paid.
It should have no say in whether or not dollars can be exchanged for wheat, copper, yen, euros, gold or bitcoins.

Let's see the Bitcoin Foundation propose regulating the banking industry themselves.

[TheButterZone]

The Bitcoin Foundation won't disclose what legislators they met with on day 2 of their trip.

http://thegenesisblock.com/bitcoin-foundation-on-capitol-hill-day-two-legislators/

Poking at the beast.

           USA                                   Bitcoin Foundation
              V                                         V

"Poking at the beast" may not really be an apt analogy as far as big beats small, because MythBusters showed that elephants give a wide berth to mice if they see them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXiMs65ZAeU

Would be interesting to figure out what analogy IS apt, though.

[tgerring]

We, the bitcoin users,  don't need the bitcoin foundation to represent us. We have no faces. If any user, US government included, has any problem using Bitcoin, we can help him in the bitcointalk forum. But nearly all the questions a government could have about Bitcoin are very well explained in satoshi's paper and the source code. The only words the foundation had to say in that meeting: read the paper and the code as all of we did, it's all explained there.

Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska described the internet as "a series of tubes"... in 2006! What makes you think any government is going to read source code to understand a technology?

It's time to pull our collective heads out of the ground and recognize that doing nothing is the worst possible approach. If we (as a community) don't communicate with US government officials, Bitcoin will remain over-regulated, preventing legitimate businesses from springing up.

You can want "no regulation" as much as you want, but it's not going to happen with Bitcoin any time soon. Accept it.

well this is wrong on many levels, every single thing you said is irrelevant or clearly wrong

-there is no bitcoin regulation now... yeah it wont happen soon, it is already the reality...

-he didnt say doing nothing... what he is saying is that we should ALL be doing something, not a few rich corrupt bitcoin business owners behind closed doors

-yeah, because the government agencies funded with BILLIONS cannot understand bitcoin, yet a bunch of young adults on an internet forum can, i cant even believe your serious with that one

I'm not sure if you're being facetious or naive.

Either way, troll harder.

[QuestionAuthority]

The Bitcoin Foundation won't disclose what legislators they met with on day 2 of their trip.

http://thegenesisblock.com/bitcoin-foundation-on-capitol-hill-day-two-legislators/

Poking at the beast.

           USA                                   Bitcoin Foundation
              V                                         V

"Poking at the beast" may not really be an apt analogy as far as big beats small, because MythBusters showed that elephants give a wide berth to mice if they see them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXiMs65ZAeU

Would be interesting to figure out what analogy IS apt, though.

Don't like that one huh. Well how about this:

 USA
   V



Bitcoin Foundation
          V

[QuestionAuthority]

Bitcoin Foundation
          V

What are they doing with that fake pistol?

They can't afford a real one because there will be nowhere in the US to exchange btc for $ after the laughing fools are done with them.

[QuestionAuthority]

Bitcoin Foundation
          V

What are they doing with that fake pistol?

They can't afford a real one because there will be nowhere in the US to exchange btc for $ after the laughing fools are done with them.

They should just trade bitcoin directly for a pistol then! After all, that would stimulate the Bitcoin economy!

I'll help! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=283473.0

You make a good point. Helping legislators understand how to better regulate Bitcoin will make it an underground success.

[yurimir]

what model of gun?

[QuestionAuthority]

what model of gun?

It's called a Cave's Lemon Launcher. It squirts lemon juice up to 50 feet.

[NewLiberty]

Sorry to insist: the report is appreciated but it seems so incomplete and vague... I think everybody would appreciate to know:

- who attended? Complete name list and agencies/organizations they represented
- what was the content of your presentations? Please share the powerpoint slides, etc.
- who asked what?
- what answers did you give them?

In other words, a complete report of the meeting. You represent all the members of the Bitcoin foundation and you just met with the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, FinCen and so on, so we should definitely know what are you telling them on our behalf.

We need full transparency, we don't need more lobbyist doing their shit "behind closed doors". We already have had plenty of that.

This is a BIG problem, something I've been watching for awhile now to see which way the foundation turns.  So far, it looks like an industry insider group intent on preserving their own interests, while work with the larger community has been limited.  If their meetings and actions are kept under a veil of secrecy, I would expect we'll be trading one corrupt banking system for another.  This should inform any community member decisions to back the BF, or not.  The U.S. government already has a monumental trust issue; I don't see any compelling reason that cancer should spread to the foundation as well.  Very troubling, these past few days of relative silence have been...

Can we discover if C-SPAN would be interested in filming these meetings?
Would that improve them?

[QuestionAuthority]

We figured out the benefits of taking minutes (and using Robert's Rules of Order) for meetings in grade school for club meetings, but that's not really the biggest issue, depending on how they move forward.

The foundation needs to decide if they want to be an Industry advocacy group for the rich kids, or a community based group and/or developer network.  Putting development in the hands of big Industry puts both Bitcoin and the foundation at risk in my opinion.  Bitcoin would be at risk by alienating the interests and trust of the broader user base, and also by putting important code commits at the mercy of a single organization under the influence of a single nation.  My opinion is the current structure and membership of the foundation is perfect as a Industry advocacy group, and as such minimal transparency is really necessary - but they need to reject any influence they might have over the code or the appearance of such.  Riding the fence does not seem to be a wise move here, and puts them at risk, and puts the base code at risk if they hold significant influence over it.

Developers informing Industry about implementation etc., is a good thing, and likewise Industry informing developers about their concerns is also a good thing.  Industry wielding direct influence over code changes puts the entire ecosystem at great risk of Industry insider corruption and government interference.  If the code used by the majority of full nodes is under the direct influence of what amounts to just an Industry insider group, bad things^tm can happen.  If they can't let go of code influence, and want to run it as an exclusive industry group with secret meetings and such, it could get ugly.

The code isn't brain surgery it's C++ using the boost library. Even with the extreme use of STL, boost and really long functions there are still masses of coders that can understand the nature of any changes that are implemented. No covert changes could be made that wouldn't be immediately recognized by someone using Bitcoin. Let's say, if TBF were contacted by some three letter agency and attempted to code involuntary address tagging using the send IP with a TOR block it would immediately cause a rebellion. This is the open source concepts greatest strength. It's greatest weakness, of course, is bad code written by people trying to help. Some people will tell you how confusing it would be to simple users worldwide if Bitcoin needed to be forked for some reason. I don't believe that and I think the immediate correction to the large block fork in March proved how easy it would be to fix. The problem won't come in the form of code influence it will be in regulations that fail to promote business infrastructure and cripple Bitcoin in the US. If a great coder sees a flaw in this argument please fill me in. I would love to know if anyone believes clandestine code could be implemented successfully.