Bitcoin at the US Senate

[fizzmine]

I would like to attend this meeting, even if I have to sit quietly in the back. Is there information on how I might be able to do that? I,d also like to help any way I can (I'm near DC)

11/18/13 02:30PM Beyond Silk Road: Potential Risks, Threats, and Promises of Virtual Currencies

 SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building  

http://www.aoc.gov/capitol-buildings/dirksen-senate-office-building

These hearing are normally open to the public but you may wish to call ahead.

U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs:

340 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC, 20510
(202) 224-2627

Good... good.  Judging by the meeting title they will be focusing on a small and trivial application of the technology.  By the time they fully grasp the implications of of the more profound applications of cryptocurrency, it will be far to late to be able to take any action to prevent its growth (if its not too late already).

[knight22]

- Bitcoin was NOT developed to undermine the utilization of fiat currencies or replace money transmission business (this is one of the more common misconceptions about the Bitcoin software. People believe that Bitcoin was made to replace business like Visa, Paypal, Western Union, etc. This is, of course, a delusional belief. The Bitcoin software could never replace such business because it not offer the necessary structure required to operate such business. So it is important the enquirers understand that the Bitcoin software was initially developed to offer an alternative way to transmit money. I would tell the enquirers that any financial institution today could use the Bitcoin software to transmit money, including any departments of the federal government such as the IRS.)

I don't agree with this but making them believe so is the right thing to do

[Lauda]

Bitcoin Foundation shouldn't even exist..

This is also correct.

[augustocroppo]

Bitcoin Foundation shouldn't even exist..

This is also correct.

Why the Bitcoin foundation should not exist?

[Lauda]

Bitcoin Foundation shouldn't even exist..

This is also correct.

Why the Bitcoin foundation should not exist?

Why should it exist?

[deepceleron]

Bankers funnel millions into the coffers of lawmakers and lobbyists to do their bidding and get laws written that are favorable to them. There are many companies that use Bitcoin as a foundation of their business, and consumers that do not want to have banking extract wealth from them by inserting itself into their money storage and payments, and it is reasonable for a lobbying group to exist that can collectively represent their interests too.

[corebob]

You can also post ideas here, of course. Although I think Patrick prefers to use the Foundation forum, I read both.

...
- Bitcoin was NOT developed to undermine the utilization of fiat currencies or replace money transmission business (this is one of the more common misconceptions about the Bitcoin software. People believe that Bitcoin was made to replace business like Visa, Paypal, Western Union, etc. This is, of course, a delusional belief. The Bitcoin software could never replace such business because it not offer the necessary structure required to operate such business. So it is important the enquirers understand that the Bitcoin software was initially developed to offer an alternative way to transmit money. I would tell the enquirers that any financial institution today could use the Bitcoin software to transmit money, including any departments of the federal government such as the IRS.)
...

You make some good points here. Still, I have to say that fiat based businesses is doing just fine replacing them self these days. While that is not a good argument at the Senate, I hope bitcoin has what it takes to replace them if the time comes.

[matt608]

It's Foundation and Empire!  Azimov was right!

[waxwing]

I like many think that attendance of such hearings is a big mistake.

But if you are going to go and talk to the US government about Bitcoin, please reassure us that you don't intend to get involved in discussions about tainting coins or tying coins to government sanctioned identities.

If the "core" team goes anywhere near that I'm sure I will not be the only one abandoning Bitcoin, or doing everything in my power to support a fork which removes anything of that kind.

Honestly, it is much better not to engage with the government about these things - not necessarily because government is evil and we must all be anarchist, but because the whole point of Bitcoin is to have no centre, and therefore no spokespeople.

Bitcoin speaks for itself.

[chsados]

To the people bashing this you are either just mindless anarchists or just flat out dumb.

What the Bitcoin Foundation is trying to do is get the US powers that be to understand bitcoin and not stiffen bitcoin businesses in the US.

Unfortunately the US is a land of laws, and bitcoin can attempt to explain laws that should be put in to place that won't stop adaptation.

Bitcoin can go on without the US saying so, but it can also become successful quickly if the US adapts sensible laws.

Regardless, bitcoin will live whether the US attempts to thwart it or not.

[Rassah]

I would like to attend this meeting, even if I have to sit quietly in the back. Is there information on how I might be able to do that? I,d also like to help any way I can (I'm near DC)

11/18/13 02:30PM Beyond Silk Road: Potential Risks, Threats, and Promises of Virtual Currencies

 SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building  

http://www.aoc.gov/capitol-buildings/dirksen-senate-office-building

These hearing are normally open to the public but you may wish to call ahead.

U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs:

340 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC, 20510
(202) 224-2627

Excellent, THANK YOU! (sent a tip for your help with this 0.003)

[AgeraS]

On the 18th November, which is a bit over a week from now, members of the Bitcoin community will be testifying in front of the US Senate in two committee hearings...

Waste of time. A decentralized currency doesn't need that.

+1

Centralized Regulation is the antithesis of Decentralized.   

[waxwing]

To the people bashing this you are either just mindless anarchists or just flat out dumb.

What the Bitcoin Foundation is trying to do is get the US powers that be to understand bitcoin and not stiffen bitcoin businesses in the US.

Unfortunately the US is a land of laws, and bitcoin can attempt to explain laws that should be put in to place that won't stop adaptation.

Bitcoin can go on without the US saying so, but it can also become successful quickly if the US adapts sensible laws.

Regardless, bitcoin will live whether the US attempts to thwart it or not.

You accuse us of being dumb, but actually I think that is a naive position. Yes, you can enter into a dialogue with state power to negotiate a set of rules for Bitcoin. What happens when they say that (a) all ownership of bitcoin must be registered with a government department (b) all buying and selling must be through regulated exchanges - thus exchanging in a localbitcoins style transaction is illegal, (c) such buying and selling through regulated exchanges is subject to KYC, AML and all stolen bitcoins will be illegal to transact with (and confiscated by the government, no doubt).

Maybe you understand and accept all that, and you just don't see its awful implications. This will just be the beginning. Given the chance, they will cripple bitcoin any way they can to try to remove its obvious superiorities over their fiat currencies. This is not about individuals being evil or in conspiracies, it's the inevitability of incentives.

I'm going to (indulgently) quote something I myself wrote on another thread:

It is disappointing to see so many intelligent people come to such an appallingly bad conclusion as "coin tainting is acceptable".

The failure here is to not understand that some things are principles, not matters for arbitration.

Look at the complete destruction of these principles in modern life:
the right to a fair trial and innocent until proven guilty
the right to free speech
the right to privacy

These are the principles which, in a slow and painful process since the Enlightenment, have created a whole new superior order of civilisation. But they have been abandoned.

Example: the right to free speech. Since terrorists and child pornographers and racist hate-mongers use this right, and we don't find that acceptable, we limit free speech in these cases. But any limitation of free speech for any reason means that speech is conditionally free, not actually free. And that means that a certain privileged group in society has to act as the arbiter.

So many intelligent people, certainly many or even most among those I know, think that this is an acceptable state of affairs - some things cannot be tolerated, so let's be "reasonable". There is nothing reasonable about this at all - a 1% reduction in freedom is actually a 100% reduction - something is free, or it is conditional. If it is conditional (and this is the point that I think people don't understand), human nature dictates that the conditionality will be exploited by the corrupt to gain more and more power for themselves and those with their views.

Now back to bitcoin. Money should be fungible - this is exactly freedom in the context of money. Money can still function if it is not free, as it does now for example with bank accounts, but it is a very different thing - it's really a multiparty contract in which one of the parties is some arbitrating organisation (usually a branch of government), which has the ultimate say in which money can and cannot be spent.

Gold could be used as a pure, free form of money but it was very subject to physical limitations. Bitcoin does not have those limitations and can be kept genuinely free. Please consider this. Just because pure freedom is not possible in the physical world does not mean it is impossible in the platonic realm of digital data.

[chsados]

To the people bashing this you are either just mindless anarchists or just flat out dumb.

What the Bitcoin Foundation is trying to do is get the US powers that be to understand bitcoin and not stiffen bitcoin businesses in the US.

Unfortunately the US is a land of laws, and bitcoin can attempt to explain laws that should be put in to place that won't stop adaptation.

Bitcoin can go on without the US saying so, but it can also become successful quickly if the US adapts sensible laws.

Regardless, bitcoin will live whether the US attempts to thwart it or not.

You accuse us of being dumb, but actually I think that is a naive position. Yes, you can enter into a dialogue with state power to negotiate a set of rules for Bitcoin. What happens when they say that (a) all ownership of bitcoin must be registered with a government department (b) all buying and selling must be through regulated exchanges - thus exchanging in a localbitcoins style transaction is illegal, (c) such buying and selling through regulated exchanges is subject to KYC, AML and all stolen bitcoins will be illegal to transact with (and confiscated by the government, no doubt).

And how is entering a discussion going to make this happen faster?  They will do this whether they (the powers that be) want to or not.  By offering dialogue at least it leaves open discussion to not let this happen.  Just sitting back and not being proactive and pretending the government is not interested is not going to achieve anything.

And again, even if they did deem something like localbitcoins illegal, it is not enforceable.  

You can also post ideas here, of course. Although I think Patrick prefers to use the Foundation forum, I read both.

Hi Mike,

Well, here is my suggestions...

I think one of the biggest issue at the moment is a wide spread misconception about what exactly is Bitcoin. As evidenced by this forum, there is a mass of people which are not aware that Bitcoin is just a software which allows people to use a medium of exchange defined as BTC. There are many people projecting their expectation and insecurities over the concept of the Bitcoin software.

If I was called to testify, I would ensure to be prepared to explain how exactly the Bitcoin software works in every detail, but with simple explanations. In other words, I would really teach the enquirers as best I could about the Bitcoin software. I would even do live demonstrations to let the audience to understand better what exactly the Bitcoin software can do.

I believe that providing the most accurate information to people in position of power always results in good outcomes. Misinformation can lead to wrong decisions and serious failures. It is important to ensure the enquirers understand that:

- BTC is NOT a currency (the enquirers need to be assured that BTC is a digital medium of exchange which is evaluated against national currencies, mainly the USD. This is very important because it will shape the future decisions to create laws regarding the utilization of BTC in the financial market. So they have to learn that BTC has to be regulated as medium of exchange, not as currency.)

- Bitcoin was NOT developed to undermine the utilization of fiat currencies or replace money transmission business (this is one of the more common misconceptions about the Bitcoin software. People believe that Bitcoin was made to replace business like Visa, Paypal, Western Union, etc. This is, of course, a delusional belief. The Bitcoin software could never replace such business because it not offer the necessary structure required to operate such business. So it is important the enquirers understand that the Bitcoin software was initially developed to offer an alternative way to transmit money. I would tell the enquirers that any financial institution today could use the Bitcoin software to transmit money, including any departments of the federal government such as the IRS.)

- Bitcoin do NOT facilitate criminal activities (this must be explained in very precise details because is directed correlated to national security. The enquirers must to know that transactions generated by the Bitcoin network are not under control of one single entity, but it is recorded in a single virtual ledger which is quite difficult to tamper. So there is a way to keep track of how much money is transmitted in the Bitcoin network.)

+1 
This is exactly what I am talking about. 

The only real post of substance here other than people who really seem to have no idea how the world works and are stuck inside their little bitcoin bubble.

[Lauda]

Waste of time. A decentralized currency doesn't need that.

+1

Centralized Regulation is the antithesis of Decentralized.   

My point exactly. Don't really need the foundation either.

[waxwing]

And how is entering a discussion going to make this happen faster?  They will do this whether they (the powers that be) want to or not.  By offering dialogue at least it leaves open discussion to not let this happen.  Just sitting back and not being proactive and pretending the government is not interested is not going to achieve anything.

And again, even if they did deem something like localbitcoins illegal, it is not enforceable.  

By entering into a dialogue with the US govt. about it, you are tacitly accepting that they have any authority to make such rules. They don't. Bitcoin is not American, for a start. As much as I'm concerned about what governments think and do (I believe they can create huge problems for Bitcoin adoption), I'm even more concerned about the extent to which the general population will be swayed by their governments' propaganda. As you say, many possible rules they could make up are theoretically unenforceable. I mostly worry that people will fall into line though, especially with concepts like coin tainting, as apparently the masses have already been thoroughly and effectively brainwashed into believing that there is such a crime as "money laundering".

[chsados]

By entering into a dialogue with the US govt. about it, you are tacitly accepting that they have any authority to make such rules.

They do, like it or not.  If you fail to understand this you are living in a bubble.

And I disagree that by accepting to communicate is any indication of accepting they have authority - not sure why you think this.

If anything, they can explain how they DON'T have the authority to stop bitcoin (see localbitcoins) and why it would be in their best interest to not stifle and come up with sensible legislation.

Bitcoin is not American, for a start.

Definitely, but they can control Bitcoin in America to a limited extent.

I'm even more concerned about the extent to which the general population will be swayed by their governments' propaganda.

Yet another reason why entering into a dialogue is essential.  If we (the bitcoin foundation) is able to adequately debunk the often touted myths then job well done.  If not, then nothing lossed and they will do what they have set out to do.

If nobody steps up to the plate they will continue regardless.

Discussion can only help - I do not see how it can hurt.

[waxwing]

By entering into a dialogue with the US govt. about it, you are tacitly accepting that they have any authority to make such rules.

They do, like it or not.  If you fail to understand this you are living in a bubble.

Bitcoin is not American, for a start.

Definitely, but they can control Bitcoin in America to a limited extent.

So what authority do you think they have? They shouldn't have authority over me at all (in theory) since I neither live nor have citizenship of the US - and nevertheless their laws impact on my freedom to transfer my money between different countries and bank accounts, which is already abhorrent.
But that aside, do you really think they have ethical authority over private transfers of wealth between individuals?

Be aware I'm not making the argument that all taxation is unethical (I'm not taking a position on that, don't want to go down that road).

And leave out these ad-hominems "dumb", "living in bubble" etc. Argue the point.

[Lauda]

So what authority do you think they have? They shouldn't have authority over me at all (in theory) since I neither live nor have citizenship of the US - and nevertheless their laws impact on my freedom to transfer my money between different countries and bank accounts, which is already abhorrent.
But that aside, do you really think they have ethical authority over private transfers of wealth between individuals?

Be aware I'm not making the argument that all taxation is unethical (I'm not taking a position on that, don't want to go down that road).

And leave out these ad-hominems "dumb", "living in bubble" etc. Argue the point.

You make a good point, I concur. They should not have any authority over it. It's technically never going to be a bitcoin in america, rather on the internet 

[go1111111]

They don't even care about foundation members. The Foundation is a way to make rich its "founders". That was obvious from the day 1 when they violated their own by-laws.

How did they do that?