Gavin will visit the Council on Foreign Relations

[ProfMac]

One World Government, One World Coin?

[1715457286]

1715457286

[jaime]

Certainly the core team is the weak point of bitcoin, and cooption is the most effective strategy.

Totally agree with you.

[Adrian-x]

Will Gavin tell the elites THE truth?

what is that truth of yours exactly ?

Not political not economic, just a technical explanation of how it works, and how it can be used do things like public records and smart property or contacts.  

Let the observe see allocations.

Just a technical explanation on the blockchain in the nation’s foreign policy discourse

What Bitcoin is is just a bunch of rules by using Bitcoin you agree to the rules, this is fact this is the truth.
Explaining the rules to eliminate misunderstanding is good interpretation and everything else is subjective and irrelevant when it comes to interacting with the those who would oppose change, or influence it to there benefit.

[fellowtraveler]

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-09/13/digital-economy-task-force
"Bitcoin, Tor and Gates Foundation join task force to prevent child exploitation"

I feel like you all actually believe what you're saying which is sad beyond belief.

You didn't quote the most interesting parts.

The Task Force, which launched in August, is not solely focused on child exploitation. It has developed working groups that aim to combat a range of illicit activities, to safeguard human rights and to encourage inter-agency coordination and law enforcement. It was launched off the back of a report by Thomson Reuters Fraud Prevention and Investigation unit about digital currency laundering.

The report detailed how criminal and terrorist organisations have turned to digital currency to reap profits from drug trafficking, prostitution and the dissemination of child abuse images.

Steve Rubley, managing director, Government Segment for the Legal business of Thomson Reuters points out that the digital economy provides a plethora of new opportunities and is central to how business is conducted but there are also "dark corners" where drug cartels can easily launder money and human sex traffickers operate in near obscurity.

The Task Force will include the Bitcoin Foundation, The Tor Project, Trend Micro, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Cato Institute, The Brookings Institute, the US Agency for International Development and Vital Voices. The group will educate the public and work collaboratively across stakeholder groups including government agencies, law enforcement, academia, NGOs and industry.

A statement released by Thomson Reuters and ICMEC said: "The approach will be a balanced view of both the advantages and disadvantages surrounding the digital economy -- a place where people can enjoy the convenience of digital currencies, but where there are controls in place to regulate them like any other form of money."

This may be the most disturbing thing I've read all year. Especially these:

"It has developed working groups that aim to combat a range of illicit activities, to safeguard human rights and to encourage inter-agency coordination and law enforcement."

"The approach will be a balanced view of both the advantages and disadvantages surrounding the digital economy -- a place where people can enjoy the convenience of digital currencies, but where there are controls in place to regulate them like any other form of money."

Where can I read more about this on the Bitcoin Foundation website, are there any further details on the plans for this? Please post URLs anyone, if there's anything relevant. (If not, that's even scarier.)

Gavin, in case you are listening, here's my two cents for your CFR meeting: The rulers in high places are aware of Bitcoin by this point at its potential, and they recognize that the awful service provided by banks is leading inevitably to a shake-up that's going to involve technological improvements based on digital currencies. They accept this. Therefore their next step is going to be a slow noose-tightening. They will act incrementally.

Their number-one concern will be to protect their control over the unit-of-account. Their secondary concern will be protecting KYC/AML. I suggest you take advantage of this and get them on board with colored coins. You can point out to them that dollar-coin, euro-coin, rupee-coin, etc will enable them to protect their control over the unit of account, while simultaneously giving users the other benefits of cryptocurrency technology. Also point out to them that they will continue to have KYC/AML control if they do this, since colored coin issuers will have to by KYC/AML compliant when dealing with bank wires in/out.

I think offering them a way to control the unit-of-account and preserve KYC/AML will be tempting enough that they will see this as an acceptable scenario, which will hopefully make it possible to drop bank opposition to Bitcoin businesses and especially bank opposition to colored coin issuers.

I have reasons for saying this. In fact it will only help us if this happens, by eliminating problems with Bitcoin businesses and colored coin issuers being able to maintain bank accounts. We can obtain this by offering the illusion of control, but for them it will only be a pyrrhic victory. (They will not be able to believe that though, and will be seduced.) The truth is, the cryptocurrency epoch has come. With the above pieces in place, Lex Cryptographia will be a foregone conclusion. (It is anyway, but this will only make it easier.)

[knight22]

One World Government, One World Coin?

One world government is impossible to achieve with one world decentralized currency.

[Kouye]

One world government is impossible to achieve with one world decentralized currency.

It might be possible, as long as it's non-hierarchical. 

[bitbouillion]

One world government is impossible to achieve with one world decentralized currency.

It might be possible, as long as it's non-hierarchical. 

The optimum non-hierarchical government is a government that doesn't exist.

[jbreher]

Gavin, in case you are listening, here's my two cents for your CFR meeting: The rulers in high places are aware of Bitcoin by this point at its potential, and they recognize that the awful service provided by banks is leading inevitably to a shake-up that's going to involve technological improvements based on digital currencies. They accept this. Therefore their next step is going to be a slow noose-tightening. They will act incrementally.

Their number-one concern will be to protect their control over the unit-of-account. Their secondary concern will be protecting KYC/AML. I suggest you take advantage of this and get them on board with colored coins. You can point out to them that dollar-coin, euro-coin, rupee-coin, etc will enable them to protect their control over the unit of account, while simultaneously giving users the other benefits of cryptocurrency technology. Also point out to them that they will continue to have KYC/AML control if they do this, since colored coin issuers will have to by KYC/AML compliant when dealing with bank wires in/out.

Hey Chris -

Don't get me wrong - I respect the work you are doing with the OT concept. However, I fear you might be looking at the problem from too far back with your OT lenses. I really don't feel like offering up any bone is going to accomplish anything here. What's more, what bone _could_ be offered? Will Bitcoin, the base protocol, sprout colored coin garb? I think the chances are remote. We could offer up the next layer, but to what end? Distraction?

Maybe I'm just missing your point. What do you hope to accomplish, and how?

[stash]

Good news for bitcoin investors like me. Bad news for crypto anarchists like Amir taaki.  

[Elwar]

You may want to mention that most Bitcoin mining machines have lights on them when they are mining.

And with the thousands of mining machines you have

a thousand points of light...New World Currency


but that probably wouldn't be prudent at this juncture

[LightRider]

Gavin, here is my advice:

1. Put up a sign with a giant middle finger on it.
2. Say nothing.
3. Leave the room.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Tell the rothschilds to go fuck themselves.

[coinrevo]

the big wheels of power are turning. wells fargo + US government discussing "rules of engagement". no coincidence that they are using militaristic terms. cryptocurrency community should come up with "rules of engagement" of their own. what a strange coincidence that the CFR has invited the lead developer of bitcoin at exactly the same time. 20 people in a room discussion what the future rules of finance should be - what do you call that? A Q&A session.

Wells Fargo has convened a group of finance executives, virtual currency experts and representatives from the US government to discuss “rules of engagement” with Bitcoin, amid concern about the money laundering risks of the new currency.
...
“State authorities moving in the direction of regulating virtual currencies are sometimes discovering problems in applying existing laws to the technological currencies.”

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/cf57a59c-7d39-11e3-a579-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2qOoyLijd

[fellowtraveler]

Gavin, in case you are listening, here's my two cents for your CFR meeting: The rulers in high places are aware of Bitcoin by this point at its potential, and they recognize that the awful service provided by banks is leading inevitably to a shake-up that's going to involve technological improvements based on digital currencies. They accept this. Therefore their next step is going to be a slow noose-tightening. They will act incrementally.

Their number-one concern will be to protect their control over the unit-of-account. Their secondary concern will be protecting KYC/AML. I suggest you take advantage of this and get them on board with colored coins. You can point out to them that dollar-coin, euro-coin, rupee-coin, etc will enable them to protect their control over the unit of account, while simultaneously giving users the other benefits of cryptocurrency technology. Also point out to them that they will continue to have KYC/AML control if they do this, since colored coin issuers will have to by KYC/AML compliant when dealing with bank wires in/out.

Hey Chris -

Don't get me wrong - I respect the work you are doing with the OT concept. However, I fear you might be looking at the problem from too far back with your OT lenses. I really don't feel like offering up any bone is going to accomplish anything here. What's more, what bone _could_ be offered? Will Bitcoin, the base protocol, sprout colored coin garb? I think the chances are remote. We could offer up the next layer, but to what end? Distraction?

Maybe I'm just missing your point. What do you hope to accomplish, and how?

Currently anything Bitcoin-related has trouble getting a bank account.

Authorities fear losing control over the unit-of-account, and losing KYC/AML control.

Colored coins give authorities a way to support blockchain technology while preserving their unit of account. (Since colored coins are denominated in dollars, euros, etc) Also they will feel they can control the in/out process since the colored coin issuers will be KYC/AML compliant when sending/receiving bank wires.

This gives authorities incentive to allow colored-coin issuers to maintain bank accounts.

===> Once this is in place, we have many capabilities as a result:

-- Exchanges can operate anonymously and beyond any state control. To have an exchange, you must be able to trade one asset for another, such as dollars for Bitcoins. Therefore we become able to do this without having to send bank wires to the exchange. Instead, we just move Bitcoins and colored coins in/out of the exchange. (Exchange needs no bank account.) That way we can trade Bitcoins for dollars, say, yet without ever having to wire dollars in/out of the exchange. Therefore the exchange itself is now free of AML/KYC and free of the banking system in general. Exchanges can operate anonymously.

-- There is still AML/KYC when dealing with the issuer -- but most users will never have to deal with the issuer, since they can just buy/sell the colored coins from each other. The only users who will ever have to deal with banking regulations will be the ones who wire funds directly to the colored coin issuer -- but most users will never have to do that.

-- Thus: Exchanges free of the banking system.

-- And: Most users free of the banking system.

[danielW]

Good news for bitcoin investors like me. Bad news for crypto anarchists like Amir taaki.  

Well, if Bitcoin had levers of control build into it, it would not be where it is today. It will certainly be less desirable to many people in the future. Would country A use Bitcoin if country B had control over it? (clue: how is the internalisation of the Bitcoin foundation going?)

... and thats not good for investors like you. A strong, secure, trustworthy bitcoin is good for you.

but thats taking the topic off on a tangent a bit.

Carry on fellas.

[waxwing]

Gavin, in case you are listening, here's my two cents for your CFR meeting: The rulers in high places are aware of Bitcoin by this point at its potential, and they recognize that the awful service provided by banks is leading inevitably to a shake-up that's going to involve technological improvements based on digital currencies. They accept this. Therefore their next step is going to be a slow noose-tightening. They will act incrementally.

Their number-one concern will be to protect their control over the unit-of-account. Their secondary concern will be protecting KYC/AML. I suggest you take advantage of this and get them on board with colored coins. You can point out to them that dollar-coin, euro-coin, rupee-coin, etc will enable them to protect their control over the unit of account, while simultaneously giving users the other benefits of cryptocurrency technology. Also point out to them that they will continue to have KYC/AML control if they do this, since colored coin issuers will have to by KYC/AML compliant when dealing with bank wires in/out.

Hey Chris -

Don't get me wrong - I respect the work you are doing with the OT concept. However, I fear you might be looking at the problem from too far back with your OT lenses. I really don't feel like offering up any bone is going to accomplish anything here. What's more, what bone _could_ be offered? Will Bitcoin, the base protocol, sprout colored coin garb? I think the chances are remote. We could offer up the next layer, but to what end? Distraction?

Maybe I'm just missing your point. What do you hope to accomplish, and how?

Currently anything Bitcoin-related has trouble getting a bank account.

Authorities fear losing control over the unit-of-account, and losing KYC/AML control.

Colored coins give authorities a way to support blockchain technology while preserving their unit of account. (Since colored coins are denominated in dollars, euros, etc) Also they will feel they can control the in/out process since the colored coin issuers will be KYC/AML compliant when sending/receiving bank wires.

This gives authorities incentive to allow colored-coin issuers to maintain bank accounts.

===> Once this is in place, we have many capabilities as a result:

-- Exchanges can operate anonymously and beyond any state control. To have an exchange, you must be able to trade one asset for another, such as dollars for Bitcoins. Therefore we become able to do this without having to send bank wires to the exchange. Instead, we just move Bitcoins and colored coins in/out of the exchange. (Exchange needs no bank account.) That way we can trade Bitcoins for dollars, say, yet without ever having to wire dollars in/out of the exchange. Therefore the exchange itself is now free of AML/KYC and free of the banking system in general. Exchanges can operate anonymously.

-- There is still AML/KYC when dealing with the issuer -- but most users will never have to deal with the issuer, since they can just buy/sell the colored coins from each other. The only users who will ever have to deal with banking regulations will be the ones who wire funds directly to the colored coin issuer -- but most users will never have to do that.

-- Thus: Exchanges free of the banking system.

-- And: Most users free of the banking system.

Whilst the old men in power are a little slow on the uptake (if they had any nous, they would have tried to come down hard on Bitcoin by 2011 at the latest), they are not, surely, this stupid
Using colored coins at the fiat-crypto interface would be like filling in cracks in a dam with paper. Once the *perception* of value shifts from fiat to crypto, it will be meaningless. You can't point a gun at perception, to botch a well known aphorism.

It's exactly like those recent senate hearings - everyone has a big lovefest and ignores the elephant in the room. What use are the throttles on the entry point once people cut out the fiat middleman and exchange services for bitcoin directly? What use are all the AML and tax laws then? Someone might think, no, don't be ridiculous, peoples activities will still be controlled by the government ... but in the long run, what are they going to do to stop people voluntarily giving each other goods and services? Ban the mail?

Also most of the world (that's even paying attention at all) is still operating under the delusion that "Bitcoin is not really anonymous, you can trace it". The technology is already in place; CoinJoin, stealth addresses, plus about three other ways that can easily yield practical anonymity.

If Gavin wants to talk to people like this (it might be better if he didn't, but OK), why doesn't he just tell them the truth? You could say it would cause panic and uproar, but it's coming anyway ...

[justusranvier]

If Gavin wants to talk to people like this (it might be better if he didn't, but OK), why doesn't he just tell them the truth? You could say it would cause panic and uproar, but it's coming anyway ...

The next best thing after not talking to them at all would be luring them into a false sense of security.

[waxwing]

If Gavin wants to talk to people like this (it might be better if he didn't, but OK), why doesn't he just tell them the truth? You could say it would cause panic and uproar, but it's coming anyway ...

The next best thing after not talking to them at all would be luring them into a false sense of security.

Yeah, I believe that's what fellowtraveller is saying too, but really I wonder. It seems a kind of immature approach. My point is that there will be at least some nastiness at some point, but Bitcoin is strong enough now that I don't think it can be killed so why not bring it out into the open. Heck, some NSA guys are probably reading this right now and surely they're smart enough to know what's going on. We can be painted (as a "community" or whatever) as a bunch of deceitful liars if we deliberately try to hide the disruptive effect of this technology. At some point we will be painted very, very black I think. Let's not give them ammunition.

[Adrian-x]

Bitcoin is more fragile now than it was in January 2012. People are looking at the market price as success thinking this is the make or break.

Just explain how it works - if it grows it is individuals in agreement to corporate by the protocol rules. If it doesn't you get an I told you so. The economic and political implications are immaterial, they are dependent on ubiquitous adoption of the protocol.

Let others determine its utility, don't give insights that threaten the status quo.

Bitcoin achieves the new world order just without centralization and this is a threat to those who depend on it.

I also like the cardboard finger idea, that takes balls more than I have.

[Kouye]

I still don't get it. Gavin might as well end this hearing by:
"And now I'll give you the keys to control bitcoin, please do as you like", and provide them with a github link.
What would it change?

I really like LightRider's suggestion, though.