Bitcoin at the US Senate

[Lauda]

Took a little while for me to find it, but here you go:

  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49841.0

It'll probably make for some interesting reading now that we have some hind-sight, but I've not bothered yet.

Thank you for your share.
The ANN thread is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.0

Hopefully we won't regret the opinions of those members, too much. At least now we have somewhere to point our fingers at, once this goes wrong.

[1714059036]

1714059036

[1714059036]

1714059036

[augustocroppo]

Took a little while for me to find it, but here you go:

  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49841.0

It'll probably make for some interesting reading now that we have some hind-sight, but I've not bothered yet.

Wow... The responses in that topic are completely the opposite of few responses in this topic. It was a refreshing reading.

Only the last item on this list seems good. Collecting (bitcoin!) donations to fund infrastructure is a good idea.

+1

Gavin is trying to save Bitcoin, and that is highly praiseworthy. If he wants to centralize 'power' then he should go for it. But those other efforts will take him off on spaghetti-tangents of endless debates. They are not the silver bullets that Bitcoin needs.

Why? Because in the end, it's all about the infrastructure and its peripherals; no ease, no security, no trust - no liquidity and no Bitcoin.

And, as in other economies, it's the wealthy who can make that infrastructure happen...fast and big.

Easily, the most debilitating force in Bitcoin is the legacy of the Wagner-to-the-moon effect which has permeated the minds of the early (large) Bitcoin holders. They have preferred to watch their stash dwindle to a fraction of its conversion value rather than putting it into productive use within the sphere of Bitcoin development and Bitcoin support for entrepreneurs.

Bitcoin VC/bounties is moribund...which DEinspires everyone else.

The Bitcoin wealthy have a tremendous responsibility but no obligation. Overwhelmingly, they focus on the obligation and void the responsibility. That is the mind of the opportunist, which is fine, but parading as idealists is really no fun to watch.

Corralling them into a serious fund is a tall order, but if anyone is in position to do so then it's Gavin.

-jack

[corebob]

Took a little while for me to find it, but here you go:

  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49841.0

It'll probably make for some interesting reading now that we have some hind-sight, but I've not bothered yet.

Thank you for your share.
The ANN thread is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.0

Hopefully we won't regret the opinions of those members, too much. At least now we have somewhere to point our fingers at, once this goes wrong.

The Linux project is already about to become the backyard project of a few multinational corporations.
Its a good model but at some point in the future the community might have to be prepared to fork.
What I'm trying to figure out is if there is any way to ruin the currency without breaking the current protocol. If it is, we have a problem. Even the developers knows that

[tvbcof]

Took a little while for me to find it, but here you go:

  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49841.0

It'll probably make for some interesting reading now that we have some hind-sight, but I've not bothered yet.

Thank you for your share.
The ANN thread is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.0

Hopefully we won't regret the opinions of those members, too much. At least now we have somewhere to point our fingers at, once this goes wrong.

The Linux project is already about to become the backyard project of a few multinational corporations.
Its a good model but at some point in the future the community might have to be prepared to fork.
What I'm trying to figure out is if there is any way to ruin the currency without breaking the current protocol. If it is, we have a problem. Even the developers knows that

One of the things that has been high on my mind since very soon after I studied Bitcoin was what happens in the case of a code fork?  That can actually be noted in my post on the aformentioned thread in fact.

Because I feel it likely that the existing blockchain will form a value core for whatever fork becomes dominant, I figure that I'll just wait it out.  Nobody can transfer value without a secret key, and a fork which makes that possible will probably not become the successful one.  (Though it is more possible that the successful fork will force a value transfer which would suck.)

The main problem is that sitting on BTC without spending it is quite inconsistent with an _exchange_ currency.  Bitcoin being couched as such will lose a lot of credibility and confidence in the case of an otherwise not terribly threatening event such as a code fork.

As of a day or two when I thought of it, I like to say "Bitcoin is in it's infancy...it hasn't even hit it's first code/core team fork yet."

[ffssixtynine]

My statements (I am assuming I am one of the "people") are directed towards the foundation. I would like Bitcoin to be accepted, just not compromised or handed over to any central authority in any way, shape or form. Acceptance would mean greater value and far less risk involved, although lets not discount the possibility of the Foundation doing a bad job and swaying Bitcoin in the wrong direction. I dislike the potential outcomes that might result if the foundation become THE authority, so that is my main gripe personally.

Ok, in that case I am more understanding and I certainly agree with you in general. So if there isn't a Foundation, how do we do it? Or is it specifically 'this' foundation that's the problem? In which case I agree that it is imperfect, but I think it is a reasonable option.

I live in the UK, and if I am not mistaken most of the World has been rioting and trying to speak out against their government.

Well, except they haven't. In a handful specific countries they had uprisings for all kinds of reasons. Money was only one of them. In the US they had the 1% stuff which I'd argue has been more successful than they get credit for. We all know about the 1% now, it's passed into common parlance.

The current system does not seem to be working very well, the economic collapse, war, poverty and so on are shining examples of this.

Again, this is just cherry picking. Look at the history of man kind. In fact we live in one of, if not the most, stable and safe periods ever. Not everywhere, not everyone, and there are huge problems - but there always have been. It's the details that change, human beings are the constant. People fight wars over money, power, religion, land, food, water, nationalism, family disputes!

It's always been this way. People are corrupt. Money corrupts. Financial systems come and go. I'm not excusing any of it, and being in the UK I loath what our government are doing to everyone under 40/students, just saying that a lot of people sound very tin foil hat to me. Always strive to make things better, but you should also put the current situation into perspective. My parents lived under the genuine and real fear of a nuclear war. Before that WW2. Before that the even more deadly WW1. There was also the great depression. That's just the last 100 years. I'd much rather be living today, even with the economic problems that exist.

I can strongly recommend reading up on the Roman Republic and how it led to the Roman Empire. When you understand the politics and economics at the time, you do have this curious realisation that nothing really changes, except politicians aren't slaughtering each other in Washington and putting heads on sticks!

Bitcoin will change none of this, only shuffle the pack again. That's not to say it won't bring good to some societies but I hope you get my point.

[chsados]

I am quickly realizing just how many conspiracy nut jobs bitcointalk.org harbours. 

[tvbcof]

I am quickly realizing just how many conspiracy nut jobs bitcointalk.org harbours. 

I've actually been surprised at the number of people who are interested in Bitcoin and yet have the standard level of horror at the thought of entertaining any non-mainstream hypotheses when it comes to analyzing our world.  I suspect that a fair number of the participants here did the standard collage thing, have a good 6-fig job, and don't have any interest in rocking the boat or being seen as 'unusual' by their friends and colleagues.  That was the environment I'd been in until I quit earlier this year.  Still, having even heard of Bitcoin is in and of itself enough to cause questions about one's normalcy, or at least that has been the case until fairly recently.

[dmartig]

Senate don't give a damn, they just wanna destroy BTC

there are five items on the senates agenda which make the above a ridiculous statement.

1- how can we get revenue from this
2- how can we get revenue from this
3- how can we get revenue from this
4- how can we get revenue from this
5- how can we get revenue from this

[Anon136]

Senate don't give a damn, they just wanna destroy BTC

there are five items on the senates agenda which make the above a ridiculous statement.

1- how can we get revenue from this
2- how can we get revenue from this
3- how can we get revenue from this
4- how can we get revenue from this
5- how can we get revenue from this

we can only pray that they will be so shortsighted. let them try to benefit on net by taxing bitcoin while they are simultaneously losing their monopoly control over the issuance of currency, lets see who wins out on that exchange 

[rednazbtc]

Senate don't give a damn, they just wanna destroy BTC

there are five items on the senates agenda which make the above a ridiculous statement.

1- how can we get revenue from this
2- how can we get revenue from this
3- how can we get revenue from this
4- how can we get revenue from this
5- how can we get revenue from this

They can't.

[Lauda]

Senate don't give a damn, they just wanna destroy BTC

there are five items on the senates agenda which make the above a ridiculous statement.

1- how can we get revenue from this
2- how can we get revenue from this
3- how can we get revenue from this
4- how can we get revenue from this
5- how can we get revenue from this

Like I said, they don't really give a damn about the people nor bitcoin. Only personal interest.

[allthingsluxury]

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.

Obviously there isn't a need. But trying to spread understanding and such can't be seen as a bad thing, right?

Agreed.

[illpoet]

In the last fifty years i can't think of very many things that the us government hasn't made a total mess of. we put a man on the moon and that was pretty good.  Other than that im coming up short.  Maybe bitcoin will be different.  I figure it can't hurt to talk to the senate, its not like we have anything to hide.  Bitcoin does solve some serious problems with the us economy (quanitative easing) so maybe we'll get lucky.  Bitcoin has shine that i can only compare to gold fever right now so maybe the senate will be like "Omg we can all get rich!" Yes the united states senate collectively uses Omg in a sentance.

[simondlr]

The senate is going to think about it, regardless of whether the foundation or the bitcoin community complies. They can, and unfortunately are backed by the world's largest military (yes, I'm using this to prove a point). They have the authority and power to regulate it in some manner. Do we want them to make stupid, uninformed decisions? NO. That could happen if we don't rock up there. Snubbing them, will make it worse. If you also think the Bitcoin Foundation will try and introduce measures into the Bitcoin protocol to give control the US, then you are naive. It undermines the neutrality of it, and will decrease the value of Bitcoin, and even worse, create a fork.

We should be there at the hearing, be level-headed and make sure stupid decisions are not being made. The Bitcoin Foundation is perfect for this, and Patrick Murck is a wonderful candidate.

I think we should get more businesses in this thread, people like Circle who just received $9 million in funding. Do you think they want to snub the senate? No way. They have large amounts of money on the table, and are the people that are actively developing services that makes everyones Bitcoin worth more.

[corebob]

Took a little while for me to find it, but here you go:

  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49841.0

It'll probably make for some interesting reading now that we have some hind-sight, but I've not bothered yet.

Thank you for your share.
The ANN thread is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.0

Hopefully we won't regret the opinions of those members, too much. At least now we have somewhere to point our fingers at, once this goes wrong.

The Linux project is already about to become the backyard project of a few multinational corporations.
Its a good model but at some point in the future the community might have to be prepared to fork.
What I'm trying to figure out is if there is any way to ruin the currency without breaking the current protocol. If it is, we have a problem. Even the developers knows that

One of the things that has been high on my mind since very soon after I studied Bitcoin was what happens in the case of a code fork?  That can actually be noted in my post on the aformentioned thread in fact.

Because I feel it likely that the existing blockchain will form a value core for whatever fork becomes dominant, I figure that I'll just wait it out.  Nobody can transfer value without a secret key, and a fork which makes that possible will probably not become the successful one.  (Though it is more possible that the successful fork will force a value transfer which would suck.)

The main problem is that sitting on BTC without spending it is quite inconsistent with an _exchange_ currency.  Bitcoin being couched as such will lose a lot of credibility and confidence in the case of an otherwise not terribly threatening event such as a code fork.

As of a day or two when I thought of it, I like to say "Bitcoin is in it's infancy...it hasn't even hit it's first code/core team fork yet."

Just to clearify...

What I meant is that changing the current protocol in a non compatible way will force a fork, and the fork will win no doubt.
If it is possible to make a change on top of the current protocol that say removes anonymity, a fork is needed, and should technically work side by side with the new version.
A fork that is not backward compatible will never work imo.

[tvbcof]

One of the things that has been high on my mind since very soon after I studied Bitcoin was what happens in the case of a code fork?  That can actually be noted in my post on the aformentioned thread in fact.

Because I feel it likely that the existing blockchain will form a value core for whatever fork becomes dominant, I figure that I'll just wait it out.  Nobody can transfer value without a secret key, and a fork which makes that possible will probably not become the successful one.  (Though it is more possible that the successful fork will force a value transfer which would suck.)

The main problem is that sitting on BTC without spending it is quite inconsistent with an _exchange_ currency.  Bitcoin being couched as such will lose a lot of credibility and confidence in the case of an otherwise not terribly threatening event such as a code fork.

As of a day or two when I thought of it, I like to say "Bitcoin is in it's infancy...it hasn't even hit it's first code/core team fork yet."

Just to clearify...

What I meant is that changing the current protocol in a non compatible way will force a fork, and the fork will win no doubt.
If it is possible to make a change on top of the current protocol that say removes anonymity, a fork is needed, and should technically work side by side with the new version.
A fork that is not backward compatible will never work imo.

Ya, I am thinking more along the lines of a disagreement and fracture of the development team, or a new development team which the bulk of the users consider to represent their interests more.  Say, for instance, there was a dis-agreement about whether to change the proof-of-work algorithm or something like that.  Ultimately, a protocol change implies a codebase change though.  Being open-source the decision is really made mostly by the users, and the makeup of the userbase is subject to shift around over time for various reasons.

[marcus_of_augustus]

I lived in DC for 9 years and I used to go these types of hearings now and then.  Often they were late, completely distracted, and were simply told to be a certain place at a certain time.  I went to Internet hearings and it was clear some of them had never used the Internet, someone told them it was all porn, and they did not understand why anyone would be against laws restricting dangerous porn unless they were some kind of predator.  The witnesses are pre-chosen and read prepared statements.  Questions are in sound bites and are designed to get themselves noticed.  Since it is lawyers they never ask questions unless they already know the answer.

This is a bit of an exaggeration and they are all not that bad but don't expect some kind of groundbreaking revelation to come from these hearings.

It looks like Gwar is playing at my old DC hangout the night before and I am sure that will be much more interesting than the hearings

http://www.930.com/event/339667-gwar-washington/

Interesting take. So maybe it is already baked in that the Senate just want to use the hearings as a stage for sound-bites to bash bitcoin, to strut and preen and whatever other secondary hidden agenda? Lawyer-like, the Senate already know the answers they want to hear to the questions they choose to ask.

In which case, the foundation maybe walking somewhat naively into a firestorm by their own choosing. A constant stream of negative soundbites for bitcoin beginning Monday might be exactly what the recent media propaganda pump is being primed for.

[igorr]

if BTC go up, then he kill all other legal currency, Gold, USD, RUR, Yuan, no government would not allow it,
because now is the price so high, compare it for gold, 1kg gold = 100 BTC,  realistic ?

[Lauda]

I think the key is to get Bitcoin in the hands of as many people as possible.  To do that the exchanges need bank accounts.

To do that we need a bitcoin country. So why not build a country?

[corebob]

if BTC go up, then he kill all other legal currency, Gold, USD, RUR, Yuan, no government would not allow it,
because now is the price so high, compare it for gold, 1kg gold = 100 BTC,  realistic ?

It could kill those governments too.
It is getting quite realistic since the fiat currencies are designed around growth and not balance. I think they will implode.