Bitcoin at the US Senate

[Rassah]

From the Forbes article (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/11/13/sanitizing-bitcoin-coin-validation/):

In the short term, they talk about a limited database that keeps track only of registered identities and their activities with participating companies, but it’s obvious that their ambitions are grander and that a longer term prospect is to take advantage of the transparency of the Bitcoin system to keep track of which Bitcoin is tainted by associations with black markets. Waters says that the development of that aspect will depend on “community feedback".

This is the kind of disaster we're trying to warn you about. How long will it be before pressure is brought to bear on core developers to make coin tainting part of the core software?
In a global network, who gets to decide which coins are tainted?

Please do not cooperate with this, it will be the end of Bitcoin.

Possessing money and transferring money should never have been made a crime. That act was the beginning of limitless government power over free speech and free enterprise.

Good thing we have CoinJoin, DarkWallet, and some future wallet integration to look forward to. Oh, and other bitcoin-using countries that don't give a crap about this. Yes, this is annoyinng and scary, but hopefully not bitcoin-threatening.

[1713952344]

1713952344

[1713952344]

1713952344

[1713952344]

1713952344

[1713952344]

1713952344

[Rassah]

http://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=955322cc-d648-4a00-a41f-c23be8ff4cad

The list of people appearing at the Senate banking committee has been published. Tony Gallippi from BitPay will be there, as will Chris Larsen of Ripple and the president of BIPS.

What the hell? Did they move it from Monday the 18th to Tuesday the 19th? Or is this a follow-up meeting? (I'm going to have to change my schedule at work now)

I see, this is a complete different hearing in front of a different Senate hearing than the original one in this post.  This hearing is the "The Present and Future Impact of Virtual Currency" before the COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND FINANCE and SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC POLICY.

So there are hearing on Monday and Tuesday.

My first thought, too, but there are no hearings scheduled for Monday in there.

[Rassah]

Ah, found it!

Monday, Nov 18th, is the original hearing with Homeland Security guys
http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/beyond-silk-road-potential-risks-threats-and-promises-of-virtual-currencies

Tuesday, Nov 19th, is a different hearing with Banking guys
http://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=955322cc-d648-4a00-a41f-c23be8ff4cad

[uMMcQxCWELNzkt]

At least they did not call in Inaba(Josh) from BFL lol.

[Rassah]

At least they did not call in Inaba(Josh) from BFL lol.

They should have. It would have stalled any discussions, decisions, and legislation for at least "two weeks"^TM (i.e. a year)

[Arksun]

It's going to be very interesting to see how the market reacts during this period.  One could argue they already are, it wouldn't surprise me if we see a sudden big movement in the price of Bitcoin up or down just before the hearings, and then shortly after.

It's something we see a lot in other markets like precious metals whenever there is going to be an announcement on employment figures or QE tapering, the market plays its little game around it with a sharp bounce.

[waxwing]

From the Forbes article (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/11/13/sanitizing-bitcoin-coin-validation/):

In the short term, they talk about a limited database that keeps track only of registered identities and their activities with participating companies, but it’s obvious that their ambitions are grander and that a longer term prospect is to take advantage of the transparency of the Bitcoin system to keep track of which Bitcoin is tainted by associations with black markets. Waters says that the development of that aspect will depend on “community feedback".

This is the kind of disaster we're trying to warn you about. How long will it be before pressure is brought to bear on core developers to make coin tainting part of the core software?
In a global network, who gets to decide which coins are tainted?

Please do not cooperate with this, it will be the end of Bitcoin.

Possessing money and transferring money should never have been made a crime. That act was the beginning of limitless government power over free speech and free enterprise.

Good thing we have CoinJoin, DarkWallet, and some future wallet integration to look forward to. Oh, and other bitcoin-using countries that don't give a crap about this.

I fervently hope you're right. The CoinJoin idea won't be helpful in the true nightmare scenario (which is pretty much described in the article): only greenlisted addresses can be used to buy goods and services in the USA (and in this scenario, also the EU, Russia, China and everywhere there's a decent sized economy). At this point Bitcoin would just die out as it would be offering little or nothing of interest (the greenlisting functioning as the third party, which collects fees etc, and who knows how long 'limited supply' would last). If people still saw the value in a blockchain they would just make government controlled ones.

On balance, my crystal ball says that outcome is very unlikely. But that's what the powers that be are going to be pressing for. The international part of the argument is the only thing keeping me optimistic. But think of it this way: such actions will not only dramatically suppress the growth of the Bitcoin economy, but also make all of us trying to keep using it feel like criminals.

[NewLiberty]

Ah, found it!

Monday, Nov 18th, is the original hearing with Homeland Security guys
http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/beyond-silk-road-potential-risks-threats-and-promises-of-virtual-currencies

Tuesday, Nov 19th, is a different hearing with Banking guys
http://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=955322cc-d648-4a00-a41f-c23be8ff4cad

Will look for it on C-SPAN

[Lauda]

At least they did not call in Inaba(Josh) from BFL lol.

He would have probably said: You need to pre-call me 1 year earlier. 

[Rassah]

It's going to be very interesting to see how the market reacts during this period.  One could argue they already are, it wouldn't surprise me if we see a sudden big movement in the price of Bitcoin up or down just before the hearings, and then shortly after.

I'll make sure to tweet something inoccuous while sitting in on the meeting, and make tons of profit on the resulting misdirected market move.

(I'm kidding. I don't tweet)

[Rassah]

Ah, found it!

Monday, Nov 18th, is the original hearing with Homeland Security guys
http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/beyond-silk-road-potential-risks-threats-and-promises-of-virtual-currencies

Tuesday, Nov 19th, is a different hearing with Banking guys
http://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=955322cc-d648-4a00-a41f-c23be8ff4cad

Will look for it on C-SPAN

I'll blow you kisses if I see the camera pan around 

[Rassah]

I fervently hope you're right. The CoinJoin idea won't be helpful in the true nightmare scenario (which is pretty much described in the article): only greenlisted addresses can be used to buy goods and services in the USA (and in this scenario, also the EU, Russia, China and everywhere there's a decent sized economy).

This won't fly in EU, due to their already established and fervently (publicly) defended privacy laws. If all addresses must be greenlisted, and thus known, everyone paying everyone else will know where everyone else spent their received coins on. It would be a privacy nightmare that would mandate the use of coin mixers.

[Lauda]

I fervently hope you're right. The CoinJoin idea won't be helpful in the true nightmare scenario (which is pretty much described in the article): only greenlisted addresses can be used to buy goods and services in the USA (and in this scenario, also the EU, Russia, China and everywhere there's a decent sized economy).

This won't fly in EU, due to their already established and fervently (publicly) defended privacy laws. If all addresses must be greenlisted, and thus known, everyone paying everyone else will know where everyone else spent their received coins on. It would be a privacy nightmare that would mandate the use of coin mixers.

I don't see this happening.
Greenlisting billions of addresses is not worth it.

[Rassah]

I'll blow you kisses if I see the camera pan around 

Try this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE

"Don't hash me, bro!"

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Ah, found it!

Monday, Nov 18th, is the original hearing with Homeland Security guys
http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/beyond-silk-road-potential-risks-threats-and-promises-of-virtual-currencies

Tuesday, Nov 19th, is a different hearing with Banking guys
http://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=955322cc-d648-4a00-a41f-c23be8ff4cad

Tony's in the hot seat! Tony's in the hot seat! Tony's in the hot seat! And we thought Gavin had it bad when he addressed the CIA, et al. a couple years back.

I wonder if it'll be filmed.

[justusranvier]

I fervently hope you're right. The CoinJoin idea won't be helpful in the true nightmare scenario (which is pretty much described in the article): only greenlisted addresses can be used to buy goods and services in the USA (and in this scenario, also the EU, Russia, China and everywhere there's a decent sized economy). At this point Bitcoin would just die out as it would be offering little or nothing of interest (the greenlisting functioning as the third party, which collects fees etc, and who knows how long 'limited supply' would last). If people still saw the value in a blockchain they would just make government controlled ones.

On balance, my crystal ball says that outcome is very unlikely. But that's what the powers that be are going to be pressing for. The international part of the argument is the only thing keeping me optimistic. But think of it this way: such actions will not only dramatically suppress the growth of the Bitcoin economy, but also make all of us trying to keep using it feel like criminals.

Actually, some people are going full steam ahead with constructing exactly that nightmare scenerio, and making a buck while doing it:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1qk8yl/bitcoinism_is_it_time_to_boycott_all_us_bitcoin/

[corebob]

With this as a backdrop I can't say I expect much good to come out of such a meeting

http://rt.com/usa/wikileaks-tpp-ip-dotcom-670/

[NewLiberty]

I'll blow you kisses if I see the camera pan around 

Try this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE

"Don't hash me, bro!"

Word to the wise...once they put hands on you, they have to arrest you for something.  The paperwork and liability issues are easier for them, its their training.

[BADecker]

See my topic, What if Gov puts the Dollar and Bitcoin on the Silver Standard, 1 to 1?, at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333424.0.

[Lauda]

See my topic, What if Gov puts the Dollar and Bitcoin on the Silver Standard, 1 to 1?, at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333424.0.

That' can't happen,read the replies.