Any one have a summary of what happened?
Off the top of my head, so assume the below to be (observation) biased, colored and ill-remembered ( You really should watch the hearing, lengthy as it was. At least until there's a proper transcript up (I tried harvesting the closed captions, but they failed a lot - dropping entire sentences, misinterpreting terms, etc.)
)
Dude welcomed everybody, apologized for a lot of people missing as they were still traveling (really just wanting to show up for a congressional vote on something completely unrelated a few hours later).
Introduced the first panel - which was FinCEN, the AG/DoJ's criminal division, Secret Service.
They each gave testimony on their dealings with virtual currency which can basically be summarized as: money laundering, murder for hire, (child) pornography, Liberty Reserve, Silk Road.
Introductory question was whether virtual currencies are akin to the internet - basically, new and scary but we didn't know back then that it would become what it is now. Each gave testimony and basically the answer can be summarized as 'yeah, pretty spot on'.
Each gave testimony on their regulatory approaches (e.g. exchanges registering as money transmitters) and suggesting that there's no particular need for additional regulation since all the important bits already fall under existing regulation.
Asked if the push for regulation wouldn't just drive companies to other countries thus depriving the U.S. of a potential leading role in digital currencies, the FinCEN rep noted that they didn't think that was the case because other countries are introducing legislation of their own and eventually that regulation would catch up with those companies. At some point they also pointed out that cash is still the best way to launder money.
Conclusion from this panel was that they're fine with virtual currency companies but that they need to comply with regulation or face the consequences.
Quick recess, second panel. Guy from National Center for Missing and Exploited Children AND the Digital Economy Taskforce (of which Bitcoin Foundation, Tor Project and many others are apparently members but googling about I only find some Aussie group) - two positions not entirely unrelated, the Bitcoin Foundation, Circle (the company) and Jerry Brito (uni technology policy director).
The first one essentially made the case that exploitation of children happens, paid for with fiat as well as digital currencies, and thus built the bridge to the taskforce, essentially making the point that they'd prefer money to be better traceable because anonymity is a real problem.
The Bitcoin Foundation acknowledged that nefarious things can be done with virtual currencies but extolled all the virtues.
Circle was kind of there mostly to promote themselves and their interests, it seemed; when asked if regulation was too strict they figured it could actually be stricter, that they had to invest a lot of money into complying with regulations, and that their only complaint would be that regulations vary between jurisdictions but then shrugged that off. They also mentioned that at some point maybe new laws regarding anonimity would have to be discussed, that in their business they make it a point to know who's behind an account, etc. They did point out many positives sides of - specifically - Bitcoin as well. Not slagging off Circle here, just felt the contrast with the Bitcoin Foundation to be stark.
Jerry Brito gave some insights from a more neutral point of view and specifically noted that 1. people with nefarious purposes are more likely to use a centralized payment platform which is willing to look the other way rather than a decentralized platform which by its very design is public, even if pseudonymous, and later 2. that he disagrees with the FinCEN rep's point of view and that companies most likely will turn to other countries with more lax regulation.
As an aside there was the notion from the leader that it was strange that nobody knew who Satoshi was - with the leader joking that maybe it was Al Gore - with the Bitcoin Foundation and Brito explaining that this really doesn't matter, that more than half the original code was already replaced, and that the original authorship isn't an issue.
Thanks all around and ending with a quote supposedly from Einstein's wife, asking if she knew what her husband was going on about and saying that she understands the words but not the sentences, and the leader saying he came into the matter much the same and leaves with understanding some of the sentences.
