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

[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.

[BBazaar]

To address a few questions:

FinCEN hosted the meeting, not the Foundation.

It did not subpoena the foundation. We went willingly

As far as I know, it was not recorded.  It wasn't open to press either.

The Foundation did not endorse any particular investigative or regulatory methods, nor did we lobby for any particular policy position.  The meeting was the beginning of a conversation, not a debate.  Moreover, the Foundation has not developed any particular policy position as of yet.  It is in the midst of determining its policy positions by democratic, community-driven process.  If you'd like your voice heard in this process, or would like to know more about how it works, you should consider joining the Foundation.  

I should say that we made one particular point very strongly, that the Foundation does not represent "Bitcoin".  We represent our constituent members.  We tried to be as transparent as possible about that.

MSantori, I'd be interested in knowing what direction the agencies are leaning towards in their regulatory brains.  Is the concept of virtual currency something that will be regulated into the mainstream much the way the USD operates today or will it be relegated to the outskirts of our FIAT based economy?

It would be in the best interest of the Bitcoin community and economy for the Foundation to have a general idea of what direction regulations should take.  I am a compliance officer at a broker/dealer with experience at a fortune 100 company and the big players in the finance game hire lobbyists to make their point. They have an agenda and a goal in mind in terms of how regulations should be developed and how it will impact the industry.  I'm not suggesting that the Foundation hire Lobbyists, just emphasizing the importance of that democratic, community-driven process.

I will say you've convinced me about the Foundation.  My colleague and I will be joining.

Thanks for the information and representation.

[xcsler]

Did the Foundation convey to the agencies of Bitcoin's existential threat to fiat currencies?
Do they understand what the implications to governments would be if a significant portion of all commerce was done using bitcoins as opposed to the USD?

It is disinformation that governments would suffer in a Bitcoin economy.

Governments will still raise tax revenue but the emphasis would move from income tax to asset and sales taxes. They would have to live within their means, but this will actually benefit them in the long run. Governments that live perpetually beyond their means eventually undergo systemic failure. There are countless examples. In Western countries it is a bloated welfare/entitlement state and participation in non-defense wars of choice which wreck government finances. Without printable fiat the electorate would fully understand that governments could only offer welfare which is affordable and participate in wars which are truly matters of defense.

Although I did not explicitly say that governments would suffer in a Bitcoin economy I don't believe that it is misinformation to say that Bitcoin challenges the current form of government. Bitcoin represents a threat to their fiat currencies, which as you highlighted, would mean a less active role for governments. I believe that this is the real issue at hand. It is not $ laundering, drugs, porn etc. We live in a world dominated by Keynesians and central planners. To believe that these agencies don't understand the threat that Bitcoin poses to the current system, and that they will passively endorse it as long as all AML/KYC regulations are followed is naive. Fortunately, the worldwide free market forces will determine Bitcoin's adoption and success in the long run with or without the US government's blessing.

[QuestionAuthority]

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.

The US is a warrior state. It leads by force and is willing to take extreme measures to win. Ask anyone living in Hiroshima or Nagasaki during WW2 about the willingness if US politicians to do anything to win. Regardless of what you would all like to think, Bitcoin is at war with the US and it only has one chance at survival. Politicians and regulators only think what their constituents tell them to think. Their first instinct is survival and they will lie, cheat and steal to survive (very few will do all three at once like Richard Nixon - but it does happen). Change the opinion of the public and make the public want it and the governments survival will depend on favorable regulations. The giant warrior drew first blood. If these Bitcoin businesses want to sit across a table and negotiate a peace treaty that's fine but always remember you are struggling for survival against a self serving beast that will do anything to survive.

Abraham Lincoln was the quintessential politician and reveals their nature the best: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

[blacksmithtm]

This is a load of bullshit. The regulators dont respond to anything but powerful people. And the established financial industry is way more powerful than some measly bitcoiners. All you are doing is giving credibility to an institution that has done nothing but stifle innovation, and rack up costs when it comes to the financial market. They couldnt predict the housing bubble, they couldnt stop bernie madoff, they gave trillions of dollars to institutions doing shady buisnesses. Credit Default Swaps. Very shady stuff. Now some people apparantly want to mingle with these guys. What the fuck, they are nothing but bad news. It might not seem like it, but they will work tirelessly to restrict bitcoins ability to compete with the dollar regardless of a little q & a with some bitcoiners

[hayek]

I still don't like what you are doing and do not understand why this is needed.

While you may be experiencing these "successes" in the meetings all you're doing is helping bring the enemy up to speed. Government is going to government. It's hubris to think that anything any of us do is going to change how they approach/regulate bitcoin. The only thing you are doing is bringing that regulation about faster. Additionally you are making it possible for them add a level of precision to their legislation that would not have been there had you not educated them, or you cut down on the time it would take them to get to that level of precision.

In all, I cannot justify or support what you are doing. In fact I would say that it is harmful, regardless of where your intentions are. In the end, I believe that all the foundation will have accomplished is solidifying it's members as lobbyist/shills for regulators.

No Thank You.

[LightRider]

This is a load of bullshit. The regulators dont respond to anything but powerful people. And the established financial industry is way more powerful than some measly bitcoiners. All you are doing is giving credibility to an institution that has done nothing but stifle innovation, and rack up costs when it comes to the financial market. They couldnt predict the housing bubble, they couldnt stop bernie madoff, they gave trillions of dollars to institutions doing shady buisnesses. Credit Default Swaps. Very shady stuff. Now some people apparantly want to mingle with these guys. What the fuck, they are nothing but bad news. It might not seem like it, but they will work tirelessly to restrict bitcoins ability to compete with the dollar regardless of a little q & a with some bitcoiners

This "incompetence" is the intended condition. The monetary system promotes and rewards such behavior because it creates profits. And obscene profits are created by obscene behavior. If you want significant change, then I suggest investigating a resource based economy.

[NewLiberty]

I still don't like what you are doing and do not understand why this is needed.

While you may be experiencing these "successes" in the meetings all you're doing is helping bring the enemy up to speed. Government is going to government. It's hubris to think that anything any of us do is going to change how they approach/regulate bitcoin. The only thing you are doing is bringing that regulation about faster. Additionally you are making it possible for them add a level of precision to their legislation that would not have been there had you not educated them, or you cut down on the time it would take them to get to that level of precision.

In all, I cannot justify or support what you are doing. In fact I would say that it is harmful, regardless of where your intentions are. In the end, I believe that all the foundation will have accomplished is solidifying it's members as lobbyist/shills for regulators.

No Thank You.

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.

[Rampion]

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.

[og kush420]

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.

agreed,

even though they said they did not represent bitcoin, just the name 'the bitcoin foundation' itself kind of sounds like they do.
if you want a foundation representing bitcoin, why pay to get in? and why require name and address?

and great, make bitcoin business owners the ones in charge... because we know 70% of them are corrupt

this is basically a centralized political lobby controlled by big bitcoin business from what i see. until anyone can vote from their bitcoin client, this is a marketing technique by the owners to get bitcoin more accepted so they make more money. not that there is inherently something wrong with this. but i do not think they represent anyone except themselves, even just with the damn name, to represent bitcoin at least somewhat

[og kush420]

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

[hayek]

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"

[mgio]

Good job, guys. I just joined the Bitcoin Foundation.

[TheButterZone]

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"

Indeed. We don't need to campaign contribute to bribe totalitarians to exercise even the slightest modicum of economic liberty, just do it.

[LiteCoinGuy]

Great critical job being done, thanks for taking this seriously. You seem to have done a very profesionnal job and I wish that you continue this education effort. You're helping them to better understand Bitcoin and make more informed and coherent decisions about it.

Totally agree. Thank you.

[Dr.Steve]

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.

Not really. Most politicians have the IQ of a 5 year old. They need it explained to them by folks who understand Bitcoin and can explain it simply.

[Raize]

Is there any reason this was a closed door meeting? If you're going to claim to work on behalf of Bitcoin users, being as open and transparent as the Blockchain is, IMHO, integral. Minutes of the meeting should be made public, as well as with any future interactions you have with them.

Aside from that, my opinion hasn't changed from this post. Clearly someone needs to talk to them, because regulators will need to know, but make sure it's for their sake alone and not the sake of the petrodollar hegemony.

They should be coming to you, never vice-versa.

Concede nothing on our obligations to them. In fact, it's the other way around, we can simply leave the US if they start making "demands", and they'll lose the "best and brightest" among us. Seems to be that they already have lost many.

[Loozik]

It was a smashing success.  

The above is an arbitrary opinion. We want you to present facts and evidence. Based on these we will have our opinion whether it was or wasn't a smashing success.

I hit some points very hard – like how the regulatory environment has disincentivized businesses from launching in the US and from servicing US customers.  I also discussed how some businesses were simply picking up and leaving the US entirely.

Did you also hit hard on seizing / freezing / stealing $5 million from a business (MtGox) that delivers services on a voluntary basis?

Our message was straightforward: It is critical that the industry and the regulators work together to create a safe and sane regulatory environment for Bitcoin businesses in the United States.

Will this regulatory environment be applicable only to you and people working with you OR will it be forced upon others (who as it happens may not share your standards of safety and sanity)?

In case this regulation is to be forced upon non-consenting humans and businesses: when, where and in what circumstances did you get the proxy to represent those persons (some of whom might not yet have been born) and businesses (some of which might not yet have been created)?

To be sure, they asked the tough questions.

Please do not hide these questions from us.

The agencies have some very real and legitimate concerns.

Legitimate? This sounds like an arbitrary opinion. Do please list these concerns. After you have named these concerns, everybody will have an opportunity to have an opinion on whether these concerns are real and legitimate. Labeling concerns ''real'' or ''legitimate'' does not make them real or legitimate just by saying so.

We often had to give the tough answers.

I would like to know these tough answers.

I don’t think anyone believes we achieved world peace, or solved the regulatory challenges once and for all.  

So far you have only alleged the fact of the meeting having been held + you presented some opinions. You did not reveal other facts upon which achievement of any sort could be trumped out.

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

Yeah, and the second step, by your own words, is bringing ''regulatory environment'', right?

What is the third step?

[Polvos]

Atlas explained quite well the dangers of THE Bitcoin Foundation in their famous first thread... with that kind of useless actions once a year, as the meeting they are vaguely reporting here, they will atract new users to their foundation. Get te noobs and, eventually, you will get the entire Bitcoin network.

[franky1]

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