Bitcoin at the US Senate

[marcus_of_augustus]

Maybe in manner to which the Senate is accustomed you could obfuscate, stall and at eleventh hour produce a fait accomplit.

Produce an impenetrable 3000 page document on the night before the discussion, thump it on the desk when you arrive and say "What didn't you know, all the rules are in the book? So sorry, that's just the way it is now. Get back to us when you understand Bitcoin Law. (bring coders)."

[1714111871]

1714111871

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

This thread revealed one thing Silly Bitcoin dislikes more than bitcointalk.org - the Bitcoin Foundation.

[Come-from-Beyond]

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?

From https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114911.0:

I kindly ask any founder of The Bitcoin Foundation to publish addresses that were used to accept the fees. Especially I'm interested in those that were used to accept payments for Industry Memberships.

They were unable to prove they paid for the membership.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Guys, do u remember the native Americans? They did have agreements with US govt. How many of them really worked? None.

U r going to repeat the history mistake.

[corebob]

Guys, do u remember the native Americans? They did have agreements with US govt. How many of them really worked? None.

U r going to repeat the history mistake.

It doesn't really matter.
We already have government controlled digital currencies. Allowing government control of bitcoin would be unacceptable and lead to several forks.
There is no point going down that road. There is no need for it.

[Lauda]

Guys, do u remember the native Americans? They did have agreements with US govt. How many of them really worked? None.

U r going to repeat the history mistake.

This is why there should be no damn foundation.

[waxwing]

Please explain the functional difference between "currency" and "medium of exchange".

A currency can be literally converted to another currency, while a medium of exchange cannot be converted to a currency. This happened many times during periods of fast inflation in the Brazilian economy. The Brazilian central bank had to convert the currency in circulation for another, otherwise there would not be enough currency in circulation to keep the Brazilian economy stable. Thus, BTC cannot be converted to another currency because it supply and circulation are not under the control of a central authority.
Moreover, BTC cannot be literally hold by an individual, while a currency can be hold in form of banknotes and coins. No person hold any BTC, but only a private password which allows them transfer some digits from one imaginary point to another. Without a computer with access to the Internet, that process is impossible to be reproduced.

You define a currency as something that can be converted into another currency, and claim that a medium of exchange cannot be converted into a currency. Well, Bitcoin clearly can be converted into various currencies and are being converted every second.
The idea that Bitcoin "cannot be held" is nonsensical. Of course it can be held, either by taking control of a private key, or it can also be held in the form of a physical coin if you have some fetish for physical representation.
Let's ignore the fact that, say, Wikipedia defines currency as a medium of exchange, because I was interested in the functional difference you were trying to make (endless arguments about definitions being uninteresting).
If you're arguing that Bitcoin cannot be a currency because it's not physical, that's not going to convince anybody.

If you think that Bitcoin was not meant to replace the functioning of businesses like Western Union, perhaps you could explain the very first sentence of the very first thing ever written about Bitcoin by Sastoshi Nakamoto (the whitepaper):

A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.

The first sentence is describing the Bitcoin software allows payments being made using the Internet without the need of a financial institution to validate the transactions.
Which part you did not comprehend?

You stated that Bitcoin was not meant to replace businesses like Western Union. That sentence describes precisely that. Have you really failed so completely to understand the most elementary point of Bitcoin?

I would like to hear these "very precise details". If like me, you consider that the transfer of cash is itself not a criminal act, so that money laundering is not a real crime, that's one thing; but to say that cash does not "facilitate" criminal activities is a bit of a stretch... There is no difference with Bitcoin, since it functions (at least for now) just like cash, except on the internet. My point is that trying to argue with the US govt. that "Bitcoin does not facilitate criminal activities" will be a completely losing proposition, since they do believe that there is such a crime as "money laundering", and to the extent that one does believe in such a thing, Bitcoin is an excellent way to do it, obviously.
The subtext of all your comments is that you (and many others here) think that the US government can be persuaded to look at Bitcoin in a friendly way. Indeed they can, but only if it is bent to their will.

If you think that conceal or disguise money obtained from illicit trade is not a crime, then I am sure you are not properly informed about the current legislation of many countries.

I don't blame you for not completely understanding my point here (I also take it that you are not a native speaker of English, and these are very dense arguments, so my hat off to you for keeping up at all). My point, summarised: (1) money laundering is not a real crime, it's a made-up crime invented by governments to keep control over people. (2) You claimed that Bitcoin does not facilitate crime, but if we are talking about money laundering, Bitcoin obviously does facilitate it, so you are flat out wrong in this point as you were in all the other points.

Sorry but I have to call you out on it, what you wrote was basically nonsense from start to finish.

Here is a recap of a few things you said:

Bitcoin is not a currency. - not so much nonsense, just meaningless sophistry.

Bitcoin will not replace companies like Western Union. - nonsense. Once a bitcoin economy exists in sending and receiving country's economy, WU becomes obsolete.

Bitcoin does not facilitate crime. - Nonsense, of course it facilitates crime just as it facilitates productive enterprise. Just as cash does both of those things.

[JackH]

Why is a foundation representing something that cannot be represented? Seriously, what makes you guys speak for the rest of us?

[LightRider]

You should present a chart with a giant middle finger and say nothing.

[augustocroppo]

You define a currency as something that can be converted into another currency, and claim that a medium of exchange cannot be converted into a currency. Well, Bitcoin clearly can be converted into various currencies and are being converted every second.

Nope. When a currency is converted to another, the previous currency is eliminated. What you describe is not defined as conversion, but as exchange. A conversion of BTC to any currency would imply the BTC had to be eliminated. This, of course, is not what happens.

The idea that Bitcoin "cannot be held" is nonsensical. Of course it can be held, either by taking control of a private key, or it can also be held in the form of a physical coin if you have some fetish for physical representation.

Nope. No one holds any BTC. The encrypted digits which are the BTC never leave the block chain. The private key only allows a person to transfer the BTC from a certain address to another. There is no way to any person hold any BTC outside the block chain.

Nope. Physical coins only carry a private key which is not BTC, it is just a password which allows someone to transfer BTC from one address to another.

Let's ignore the fact that, say, Wikipedia defines currency as a medium of exchange, because I was interested in the functional difference you were trying to make (endless arguments about definitions being uninteresting).

I am not arguing that a currency is not a medium of exchange, I am arguing that BTC is ONLY a medium of exchange.

If you're arguing that Bitcoin cannot be a currency because it's not physical, that's not going to convince anybody.

Nope. That is not my argument. As I already said, BTC is not a currency because it cannot be converted into another currency.

You stated that Bitcoin was not meant to replace businesses like Western Union. That sentence describes precisely that. Have you really failed so completely to understand the most elementary point of Bitcoin?

Nope. The sentence do not describe that the Bitcoin software was developed to replace any business like Western Union. If you think that is what the sentence means, you are certainly projecting a delusional expectation over the meaning of words which are very easy to understand.

I don't blame you for not completely understanding my point here (I also take it that you are not a native speaker of English, and these are very dense arguments, so my hat off to you for keeping up at all). My point, summarised: (1) money laundering is not a real crime, it's a made-up crime invented by governments to keep control over people. (2) You claimed that Bitcoin does not facilitate crime, but if we are talking about money laundering, Bitcoin obviously does facilitate it, so you are flat out wrong in this point as you were in all the other points.

(1) Money laundering is not a crime. (2) Money laundering is a crime.

You are contradicting yourself with confusing statements.

So, money laundering is a crime or not?

Sorry but I have to call you out on it, what you wrote was basically nonsense from start to finish.

Here is a recap of a few things you said:

Bitcoin is not a currency. - not so much nonsense, just meaningless sophistry.

Nope. I already explained why is not a currency. I could provide more examples if necessary.

Bitcoin will not replace companies like Western Union. - nonsense. Once a bitcoin economy exists in sending and receiving country's economy, WU becomes obsolete.

Nope. There is no such thing as "Bitcoin economy" and the Bitcoin software was not designed to replace business like Western Union.

Bitcoin does not facilitate crime. - Nonsense, of course it facilitates crime just as it facilitates productive enterprise. Just as cash does both of those things.

I do not think so. However, it is useless explain to you why do not facilitate crime since you cannot even understand why money laundering is considerate a criminal activity by many legislations.

[augustocroppo]

Why is a foundation representing something that cannot be represented? Seriously, what makes you guys speak for the rest of us?

They are not speaking for the rest of us, they are speaking for themselves, which includes the main developer of the Bitcoin software. They are, however, offering the opportunity to anyone provide suggestions to improve the debate they will have with USA federal government. By the way, they can and they will represent the Bitcoin software, whatever you like or not.

[uMMcQxCWELNzkt]

Foundation mission...

Our Vision: A Peer-to-Peer Organization

We are determined to keep Bitcoin rooted in its core principles: non-political economy, openness and independence. While we aim to advance standards and security, we remain strong advocates of the liberating power of decentralized money. Our goal is to act as both an organizing body for Bitcoin and simultaneously be inclusive of the general Bitcoin community. Only then will our mission succeed.

I dislike the concept of the foundation as ulimiately they are promoting their own views and not that of the entire community. In my view they are essentially functioning as politicians and when was the last time you heard of a politician who actually looked out for those they supposedly represent. So much for the principles of "non-political economy, openness and independence".

[ffssixtynine]

Foundation mission...

Our Vision: A Peer-to-Peer Organization

We are determined to keep Bitcoin rooted in its core principles: non-political economy, openness and independence. While we aim to advance standards and security, we remain strong advocates of the liberating power of decentralized money. Our goal is to act as both an organizing body for Bitcoin and simultaneously be inclusive of the general Bitcoin community. Only then will our mission succeed.

I dislike the concept of the foundation as ulimiately they are promoting their own views and not that of the entire community. In my view they are essentially functioning as politicians and when was the last time you heard of a politician who actually looked out for those they supposedly represent. So much for the principles of "non-political economy, openness and independence".

They are functioning as a lobby and/or advisory group. I'm not sure you have much understanding of how governments work. You have to engage in politics to get things done when it comes to the law or regulation, by definition.

So how do you want to do it?

You have an incredibly diverse set of people interesting in Bitcoin and covering pretty much all extremes. So the Foundation is doing what it can to ensure Bitcoin itself is accepted by the world at large and not stopped in its tracks. Yes it can go on without the US, but that's not exactly helpful to Bitcoin or to anyone in the US>

You may not like politics or politicians (few do), or the various lobby groups (few do), but this how things are done.

Independence does not mean you stick you head in the sand and go la-la-la to the real world. That's stupidity and arrogance, not independence. What you want is light touch regulation only where it's required. We may all disagree over what that means but some regulation is unavoidable - not of Bitcoin itself but of areas such as KYC of exchanges.

So what the foundation need to do is show the potential for Bitcoin to expand the wider economy, to benefit US businesses, that it is a technology. Conversely, that making it difficult to use could push it more towards the black market, other countries may massively benefit to the US' cost, and so on.

[corebob]

I don't understand where some of you guys are coming from. If bitcoin can be regulated or controlled, bitcoin is literally a failure.
The combination of encryption, distributed networking and mathematical truths is supposed to make this impossible.

[Kouye]

You may not like politics or politicians (few do), or the various lobby groups (few do), but this how things are done.

Pathetic.
Isn't that the one thing we're trying to change, here, by letting people have some serious and real voting power through bitcoins?

[corebob]

Reading stuff like this http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg12325.html,
We can't expect the government to suggest any useful improvements to bitcoin.
Something to be prepared for?

[b!z]

I don't understand where some of you guys are coming from. If bitcoin can be regulated or controlled, bitcoin is literally a failure.
The combination of encryption, distributed networking and mathematical truths is supposed to make this impossible.

That is correct. It doesn't matter if the Bitcoin foundation talks with the gov. or not. The network will remain the same.

[augustocroppo]

Reading stuff like this http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg12325.html,
We can't expect the government to suggest any useful improvements to bitcoin.
Something to be prepared for?

I see no correlation in that post content with the subject being discussed here.

[uMMcQxCWELNzkt]

Foundation mission...

Our Vision: A Peer-to-Peer Organization

We are determined to keep Bitcoin rooted in its core principles: non-political economy, openness and independence. While we aim to advance standards and security, we remain strong advocates of the liberating power of decentralized money. Our goal is to act as both an organizing body for Bitcoin and simultaneously be inclusive of the general Bitcoin community. Only then will our mission succeed.

I dislike the concept of the foundation as ulimiately they are promoting their own views and not that of the entire community. In my view they are essentially functioning as politicians and when was the last time you heard of a politician who actually looked out for those they supposedly represent. So much for the principles of "non-political economy, openness and independence".

They are functioning as a lobby and/or advisory group. I'm not sure you have much understanding of how governments work. You have to engage in politics to get things done when it comes to the law or regulation, by definition.

So how do you want to do it?

My issue is that the foundation, in my opinion, is just repeating the same system that I was hoping Bitcoin and other new innovations might eventually free us from. Advising is great, however I don't believe we should conform to a dated political system when the "authority" is not willing to inform themselves. Think about how long human civilization has appointed representatives to speak for the people, even in a supposed democratic system the results are always inevitable. Even if the foundation has Bitcoins best interests at heart today, tomorrow those interests will shift until eventually the core philosophies have been eroded. Sometimes new definitions need to be invented, thats how innovation works. Law, politics, education and economics should adapt to new advances.

Honestly though, I have not yet considered what I "want to do" on these matters, that is something the entire community would need to reflect upon. I do however feel with the advent of social media and so on, there is a far lesser need for advisers. The general public need to be informed, not the dinosaurs who will only care if they can somehow control and manipulate it.

You have an incredibly diverse set of people interesting in Bitcoin and covering pretty much all extremes. So the Foundation is doing what it can to ensure Bitcoin itself is accepted by the world at large and not stopped in its tracks. Yes it can go on without the US, but that's not exactly helpful to Bitcoin or to anyone in the US>

That in my opinion touches at the root of my dislike for the foundation, I don't believe such an extreme set of views can ever be represented by a small group of people. Doing "what it can to be accepted" is not always a good idea, the US a doing what it can do prevent terrorism and look how that is turning out. This is one example of many.

You may not like politics or politicians (few do), or the various lobby groups (few do), but this how things are done.

Independence does not mean you stick you head in the sand and go la-la-la to the real world. That's stupidity and arrogance, not independence. What you want is light touch regulation only where it's required. We may all disagree over what that means but some regulation is unavoidable - not of Bitcoin itself but of areas such as KYC of exchanges.

Politics as a system is fine, it is the way we choose to go about conducting politics that I feel needs to change. We cannot keep looking to the same broken system hoping for acceptance and answers. I don't just see Bitcoin as a potential alternative to making transactions, but rather an opportunity to use our intelligence and creativity to reinvent how we live and our roles in society. My views are perhaps Utopian, I just look at the current political/financial systems as extra weight, while we are willing drag the excess behind us we are giving a select few a free ride at our expense.

Finally, I agree to below except one small correction:

So what the foundation need to do is show the potential for Bitcoin to expand the wider economy, to benefit US businesses, that it is a technology. Conversely, that making it difficult to use could push it more towards the black market, other countries may massively benefit to the US' cost, and so on.

So what the *community* need to do is show the potential for Bitcoin to expand the wider economy, to benefit US businesses, that it is a technology. Conversely, that making it difficult to use could push it more towards the black market, other countries may massively benefit to the US' cost, and so on.

[augustocroppo]

My issue is that the foundation, in my opinion, is just repeating the same system that I was hoping Bitcoin and other new innovations might eventually free us from.

How can a software "free us from" the current political system? 

Advising is great, however I don't believe we should conform to a dated political system where the "authority" is not willing to inform themselves.

They are willing to inform themselves, otherwise there would be no hearings.

Even if the foundation has Bitcoins best interests at heart today, tomorrow those interests will shift until eventually the core philosophies have been eroded.

What evidence you have which indicates this will happen?

Sometimes new definitions need to be invented, thats how innovation works. Law, politics, education and economics should adapt to new advances. Honestly though, I have not yet considered what I "want to do" on these matters, that is something the entire community would need to reflect upon. I do however feel with the advent of social media and so on, there is a far lesser need for advisers. The general public need to be informed, not the dinosaurs who will only care if they can somehow control and manipulate it.

How do you expect the "dinosaurs" inform the "general public" if there is less and less "advisers" from "Law, politics, education and economics" providing the necessary information?