Mike Hearn, Foundation's Law & Policy Chair, is pushing blacklists right now

[Abdussamad]

You guys seem to think regulation is some kind of option. It is not. There will be regulation no matter how you feel about it. If you feel that destroys bitcoin, then sell yours to a grown up.

idiot

tell me how bittorrent is regulated, mr know it all

It must be because I'm an idiot, but I fail to see what bittorrent has to do with anything? It is a tool for downloading. Why would that garner financial regulation?

Well , he's comparing thepiratebay with bitcoin , so If i were to guess , you're not the idiot

He's comparing one p2p protocol with another. Can't you understand that?

[1714504258]

1714504258

[1714504258]

1714504258

[1714504258]

1714504258

[1714504258]

1714504258

[niothor]

You guys seem to think regulation is some kind of option. It is not. There will be regulation no matter how you feel about it. If you feel that destroys bitcoin, then sell yours to a grown up.

idiot

tell me how bittorrent is regulated, mr know it all

It must be because I'm an idiot, but I fail to see what bittorrent has to do with anything? It is a tool for downloading. Why would that garner financial regulation?

Well , he's comparing thepiratebay with bitcoin , so If i were to guess , you're not the idiot

He's comparing one p2p protocol with another. Can't you understand that?

In order to use torrents , before you start the torrent and use dht, peer exchange or anything else you have to grab the .torrent file or the magnet link.
And without a place to go and grab those bits of information , you could run your utorrent all day long and connect to whole damn world , you won't get a a bit.

I fail to see the resemblance between bitcoin and torrenting.

[westkybitcoins]

What other measure would you guys suggest to meet existing legal requirements? Trying to convince lawmakers that bitcoin should be anonymously traded is an absolute non-starter. If that is the foundation's opinion then bitcoin may be declared illegal and the tracking of coins will move to law enforcement. So, what are our other options?

So let it be declared illegal in the U.S.

Then all of you who are so concerned can just stop using it and go on about your lives without facing any further risks.

Instead, you'd rather see a key aspect of Bitcoin eliminated, the anonymity, and in a way that's obviously destined for abuse no less.

That says enough right there.

This is not a matter for debate anymore. It doesn't matter what you or I or any agency wants to happen. There WILL be an anonymous cryptocurrency. We WILL take steps to ensure that Bitcoin is that currency. And if Bitcoin is morphed into one that's just another tool for tracking, then another will be built and we'll leave yours alone from that day forward. Will you then try to justify changing that new one too, because you like it and want to use it and make money with it but have to deal with regulators to do so? Is your goal simply to see U.S. financial tracking expanded, period? Because right now, that's all that's being pushed.

[NorbyTheGeek]

...tell them to shove their kyc/aml up their ass

Yeah, that should work.

You guys seem to think regulation is some kind of option. It is not. There will be regulation no matter how you feel about it. If you feel that destroys bitcoin, then sell yours to a grown up.

@RodeoX, I know some people aren't voicing their concerns very eloquently, but there's no need to come down to that level.

I understand the points being raised.  Bitcoin is something that governments currently do not have any control over.  So, governments will do whatever they can to gain some control.  That is a fact.  Whether it be for "protecting the public" or "tracking the criminals" or "getting their share of the pie" or any other reason you can think of, good or bad.  But they will do whatever they can to get some control.

And even though Bitcoin is global, what the U.S. Government does WILL have an impact on how the currency is used worldwide.  For example, they can dictate that no U.S. Bank is allowed to do business with any Bitcoin exchange unless their conditions are met.  I can see that having a major effect on Bitcoin if no one is allowed to trade USD to BTC.

I can understand that maybe the Foundation is working to self-regulate in a way that the U.S. Government can stomach.  It's the only explanation that makes any logical sense.  But I do agree that these discussions should be more open to the public.  An RFC type of approach would solicit many different ideas from more of the world's population than a discussion open only to those who paid to join a Foundation.

The Foundation needs to be more open to outside ideas and criticism.  Foundation members are not elite, and what power does any group of people really have over an open-source piece of software?  If you want to continue to represent the Bitcoin community, you need to represent the Bitcoin community.  Otherwise, you will be replaced.

[RodeoX]

You guys seem to think regulation is some kind of option. It is not. There will be regulation no matter how you feel about it. If you feel that destroys bitcoin, then sell yours to a grown up.

Of course regulation is going to happen.

That's why we should work to nullify it via code - design our systems to be immune to regulatory attack just like the filesharing space did successfully.

I personally oppose most regulation and use all manor of privacy software, however once you involve fiat money you run into existing law. There is the rub. You don't "own" dollars, you have the right to use them. And there are all sorts of laws about how you may use them.

We could choose to not engage with government, but what would happen? Countries around the world would try banning it's use and eventually it may be seen as simply a tool for crime. I think it is much wiser to develop our own approach to address their concerns and shape future regulation.

I support anyone's right to disagree. Anyone could form a group of like-minded peers and make an attempt to give bitcoin a special legal status that can disregard laws. A status that allows you to receive stolen goods or transfer money around the world with no need to obey international agreements. But I don't think it will work.    

EDIT: @NorbyTheGeek   Well said sir.

[callem]

blacklisting/redlisting will destroy Bitcoin.

the real question is, can it even been done?

It could - but within a short period of time most coins would end up being some shade of gray/pink so it would accomplish nothing in the end except possibly as bad PR for bitcoin since everything would be traceable to some kind of questionable transaction at some point in history.

If it were such a great idea we'd all be checking serial numbers on our banknotes - just in case they were from a bank heist xx years ago.

A far better solution would be to just track down criminals and prosecute them. Just like any other crime using any other currency.

[justusranvier]

I support anyone's right to disagree. Anyone could form a group of like-minded peers and make an attempt to give bitcoin a special legal status that can disregard laws. A status that allows you to receive stolen goods or transfer money around the world with no need to obey international agreements. But I don't think it will work.    

You're not fooling anyone with this doublespeak.

Working with regulators is the opposite of supporting the right to disagree, because regulation is in fact suppressing disagreement with unilateral measures up to and including sending armed thugs to kidnap people who disagree and lock them in a cage.

And for the last time I don't give a fuck about Bitcoin's legal status, and neither should anyone else. In fact, we should assume that's illegal and make sure our infrastructure is robust enough that it doesn't matter.

FinCEN and their ilk in the District of Criminals are the enforcement arm of the Manhattan Financial Crimes Mafia. They are gangsters and we should be using all available resources to protect society from them.

[bassclef]

We could choose to not engage with government, but what would happen? Countries around the world would try banning it's use and eventually it may be seen as simply a tool for crime. I think it is much wiser to develop our own approach to address their concerns and shape future regulation.

You don't know any of this for sure. Your crystal ball about how governments will react is no better than anyone elses. And by "our own approach" you mean the Foundation's approach behind closed doors.

[tvbcof]

..
New Conspiracy Theory:
When CIA discovered Bitcoin (in 2010) and realized the impact it could have on the World Economy they...
...

It is more likely than not in my mind that certain people within the U.S. intelligence apparatus took a significant interest in the solution at around that time if not before.  I'm pretty sure that the solution was leveraged by Wikileaks by that time since this is how I first heard of it, and I think that was late 2010.  If such an event (Wikileaks circumventing the U.S. financial embargo) did not spark a significant analysis then our intel personnel are completely incompetent/underfunded and not doing their jobs.  I find that conjecture absurd.

[callem]

...

There is the rub. You don't "own" dollars, you have the right to use them. And there are all sorts of laws about how you may use them.
...

Well, if using legal tender is now a privilege granted by government, not a right then I can think of no better argument in support of an unregulated currency like bitcoin.

  

[callem]

If the core development team is at the slightest risk of becoming politicized or even just influenced through links to the foundation, then it should be decoupled from the foundation immediately.

It seems obvious this is quickly becoming bitcoin's achilles' heel.

[Zarathustra]

I support anyone's right to disagree. Anyone could form a group of like-minded peers and make an attempt to give bitcoin a special legal status that can disregard laws. A status that allows you to receive stolen goods or transfer money around the world with no need to obey international agreements. But I don't think it will work.    

You're not fooling anyone with this doublespeak.

Working with regulators is the opposite of supporting the right to disagree, because regulation is in fact suppressing disagreement with unilateral measures up to and including sending armed thugs to kidnap people who disagree and lock them in a cage.

And for the last time I don't give a fuck about Bitcoin's legal status, and neither should anyone else. In fact, we should assume that's illegal and make sure our infrastructure is robust enough that it doesn't matter.

FinCEN and their ilk in the District of Criminals are the enforcement arm of the Manhattan Financial Crimes Mafia. They are gangsters and we should be using all available resources to protect society from them.

Exactly.
This is the hand, the hand that takes ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VIqA3i2zQw
http://www.absolutelyrics.com/lyrics/view/laurie_anderson/o_superman

[Carlor]

Why would you even think to change bitcoins just for the US regulation fetishists?
AFAIK Bitcoin is illegal in Thailand already and I didn't here any great plans to change the working system to fulfil Thailand's regulation.
Let the US forbid Bitcoins and let us see who looks like an idiot after China, Russia and Europe have sold their US $ for bitcoins...

edit:

And as I said before, the US banning Bitcoin might very well be the straw that breaks the camel's back and gives the world incentive to move away from the US Dollar as the world's reserve currency.

Exactly!

[Lauda]

This is why we shouldn't have a damn foundation.

[callem]

HAL: "I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen."

[Lauda]

How are they able to discuss/decide something without the community?

[Anon136]

I don't think its realistic to think of bitcoins fungability being ruined, maybe for a time in a some sort of a transitional stage but it would be a short lived battle that would quickly settle with bitcoin becoming anonCoin or govCoin. You simply arnt going to have mixed coins and clean coins floating around on the same blockchain with different market values and different utility, because if there was enough support to make these redlisting databases effective the government would simply crack down on miners who processed redlisted coins.

If it does become govCoin than someone would instantly create a new altcoin where the rules of the protocol dictated that some form of coinJoin or coinSwap was necessary inorder to get your transaction included in the blockchain. This might be the ultimate goal of the people in government/banking who are turning their evil sauron eye on us because they could outlaw anonCoin and say "you have no excuse anymore if you want to use decentralized digital currency just use bitcoin, look we let it stay legal"

Still i would say that even if they did manage to kill what we traditionally think of as bitcoin in this manner satoshi would still have something to be very proud of. even if they can track and micro manage bitcoin, they still cant print it .

[Carlton Banks]

HAL: "I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen."

Everybody sing it: "DAISY, DAISY..." 

[bassclef]

The protocol needs to be designed to autonomously resist and reject regulatory attacks the same way it's designed to resist technical attacks. If that leads to them trying to make bitcoin illegal, good. Let them show their hand. It would be a sign of weakness. It means they are afraid and we're on the right path.

This is the exact reason they won't ban it. They'll show their tyrannical hand to the ordinary folks who still believe the US is a free country. Our elections depend on this.

Also people on Wall St will be making money hand over fist. And we know who they own.

[tvbcof]

HAL: "I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen."

Everybody sing it: "DAISY, DAISY..." 

  Daisy, Daisy,
    give up your nonce please do.
  I'm still hash-ing,
    all for the filthy Jew.

(BTW, it's a joke people!  I should not have to explain it, but it's associated with various conspiracy theories.)