NY Hearings - lets live blog this puppy : - )

[threecats]

I'll start - great intro! Whoever that dude is.

[1679513810]

1679513810

[houseo]

awkward to have sound on at work. live blogging appreciated.

[threecats]

Open minded first five minutes then a cliche ridden summary of the dangers.  In the balance good.

[threecats]

Barry Silver marking territory and sucking up.

I am bottling homebrew so if anyone else wants to help blog this jump in : - )

[podyx]

link to stream please?

[houseo]

http://www.totalwebcasting.com/view/?id=nysdfs

[podyx]

ty guys

[meanig]

Seems like the theme of the hearing will be whether Bitcoin should be governed with existing laws or should they come up with a new set of "Bit Laws".

[podyx]

satoshis angels husband approves 

[Dafar]

The guy talking right now is good (wilson)


I like how Cameron and Tyler are always treated as 1 person, lol

[meanig]

Wilson was great

[Rannasha]

Winkelvoss just reading from a paper, not very inspiring.

[threecats]

Wilson excellent!  Winklevoss stumbling trying to blow own trumpet ree'peatedly.

[Rannasha]

Q&A time, lets see how the panelists do without prepared statements

[threecats]

Chairman has switched to using "bitcoin" instead of "virtual currency" the last three - four times.

[kwest]

Is this being recorded? I'd like to show this to some other people later.

[jamesc760]

I am beginning to change my view on the Winklevoss twins. I am now starting to like them a little. Yes, I understand they have a vested interest; however, they are fighting for bitcoin. Whoever champions bitcoin is a friend.

[podyx]

pretty bullish overall

[BitcoinAshley]

I'm watching until I leave for work.

Very bullish.

2 DA MOON!

[Dafar]

I am beginning to change my view on the Winklevoss twins. I am now starting to like them a little. Yes, I understand they have a vested interest; however, they are fighting for bitcoin. Whoever champions bitcoin is a friend.

I've always liked them more than Zuckerburg

[merkin51]

Fair play to that Wilson guy, he was / is fucking great.

[sgbett]

strikes me that the typical AML/KYC seems like a reasonable amount of regulation.

I think maybe they are just trying to ensure there isn't a whole bunch of other crap on top of that.

I hope.

[sgbett]

Fair play to that Wilson guy, he was / is fucking great.

is that the wilson guy? the one busting all kinds of nuts about regulation at the moment?

I'd have to a agree!

[BitcoinAshley]

Fuck yeah Wilson! Attack mode. 

(He just ranted about the burdensome legacy banking infrastructure, all the forms to fill out, and how it could easily be put into code and automated.)

[Rygon]

Impressed by the Wilklevoss twins.

[segeln]

Impressed by the Wilklevoss twins.

no, it bit boring and  not very inspirational

[merkin51]

The twins have done fine, not as engaging and confident as Wilson, but they've not done btc any harm here.

[sgbett]

Dr Evil Attack!

 *chuckles*

[BitcoinAshley]

Great, the female regulator just cited Rpietila original research. (Regarding the number of people who own half the bitcoins, which is pure speculation.)

*FACEPALM*

You'd think they'd have at least done a little more research, it is their job after all...

[sgbett]

ROFL Facebook reference from wilson, right in the face of winklevosses!!!

"if you were an early employee of Facebook you'd be loaded right now" priceless.

[Rygon]

Why in the world are they asking about price volatility? Are the regulators also speculators? 

[threecats]

Glad we are finally out of the money laundering shit. Now sniffing around US exchange question.

[BitcoinAshley]

Oh great, the asshole regulator on the right just started talking about "spending vs. hoarding." Yet another keynesian fuckwad.

HODL HODL HODL

[Dafar]

Hoarding is not a problem at all, when money appreciates it gives people incentive to spend as well because it feels like free money.

[BitcoinAshley]

Oh, Winkle doing a good job explaining why HODLING is actually necessary to facilitate transactions... the market cap and liquidity we have now is simply not enough to be able to absorb the transaction volume we'd expect with more and more adoption. 

[keithers]

you can tell that each person speaking to the panel is very careful not to speculate on to what the max price they think bitcoin will reach...

[threecats]

Now it's getting really interesting! Visions of how bitcoin will disrupt traditional NY finance

[threecats]

dunno  which winlklevii is which but the one on the left is hitting some home runs.

[Rygon]

I think Fred Wilson is getting a little bit too preachy about how the current system sucks and how banks will fight back.

[threecats]

yeah but to his credit he is the least-scripted guy in the room.

that chairman guy is on board though. he is having a hard time hiding it!

[threecats]

ooooo  winkleviii naming western union as target!

[sgbett]

is that guy suggesting they go build a bank!

there is a thought...

[sgbett]

"banks are close to coming on  board.."

i wonder if he is alluding to wells fargo?

[sgbett]

MOAR FREEDOMS!!!

[jamesc760]

Yep, Wells Fargo. In 2-3 months, they will come out as a bitcoin friendly bank and will faciliate merchants to seamlessly work with bitcoins. From what I hear and read between the lines...

[sgbett]

Yep, Wells Fargo. In 2-3 months, they will come out as a bitcoin friendly bank and will faciliate merchants to seamlessly work with bitcoins. From what I hear and read between the lines...

I'm afraid I can only confirm this if you can rewrite it in a foreign language, and be a good and news source.

[jamesc760]

what is the next panel at 2:30?

[BitcoinAshley]

Well, I'd summarize the first session as follows:

CCMF

[Bitcoin BEAR]

This is neither bullish nor bearish. It is completely neutral. The senate hearings was a bit bullish because they seemingly embraced Bitcoin. This is more of an interview to determine what to do to regulate it.

[windjc]

This is neither bullish nor bearish. It is completely neutral. The senate hearings was a bit bullish because they seemingly embraced Bitcoin. This is more of an interview to determine what to do to regulate it.

Lol. Regulation=bullish. This is bullish.

[Dalmar]

Bitcoin is very MURICAN... what an argument 

[kkaspar]

I think that the most entertaining part was the "Competition is no threat to BTC because the fake internets didn't survive".
He went c(h)oo-c(h)oo religious zealot style with that one...

[keithers]

seems like mostly positive news coming out of that hearing so far, hopefully the next one is the same.   I'm sure all the major banks are tinkering back and forth on whether or not to hop into the bitcoin space.   Wells Fargo, could very well be the first to come on board, however in the past they have been the most conservative with their major moves.   Wells was one of the only majors that didn't  need the bank bailout a few years back.

I have heard from a few reliable sources that one of the major banks is very close to publicly backing bitcoin, and that this may happen in the upcoming months.  

[merkin51]

Bitcoin is very MURICAN... what an argument 

As gut wrenchingly sickening as that was, it's the kind of jingoistic shit that will win over many people over there.

[BitchicksHusband]

Great, the female regulator just cited Rpietila original research. (Regarding the number of people who own half the bitcoins, which is pure speculation.)

*FACEPALM*

You'd think they'd have at least done a little more research, it is their job after all...

Shouldn't financial regulators be required to be familiar with the Pareto Principle before regulating anything?  I mean, this has been well-known for over a hundred years already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

TL;DR:  EVERY financial system will necessarily share this property.  Always.

[threecats]

The context is bullish. A clearly positive hearing in front of a panel that clearly wants to maintain NY / wall street competitiveness. And the presuppositions shared by ALL in the room are important to notice: that BTC is here to stay, and the only real question is how to safely get NYC on this train which is clearly leaving the station.

It also did not hurt that some well respected panelists gave very clear, articulate visions of what may lay ahead in the bitcoin ecosystem.

[threecats]

Bitcoin is very MURICAN... what an argument 

As gut wrenchingly sickening as that was, it's the kind of jingoistic shit that will win over many people over there.

Guranteed everyone in on that Wells Fargo meeting tonight was watching this hearing.

[RyNinDaCleM]

This is neither bullish nor bearish. It is completely neutral. The senate hearings was a bit bullish because they seemingly embraced Bitcoin. This is more of an interview to determine what to do to regulate it.

Lol. Regulation=bullish. This is bullish.

lol Keep dreaming!
Why would regulation be bullish by default? Because they allow Bitcoin to exist and work with it? lol. They know they can't stop it, so their main reason for regulation is revenue. They just want their cut of others' profits. The AML practices have already been in place for nearly a year.

[Dalmar]

Bitcoin is very MURICAN... what an argument  

As gut wrenchingly sickening as that was, it's the kind of jingoistic shit that will win over many people over there.

China will be very angry for getting dissed on that panel. ''Invest in anything China bans'' followed by ''Bitcoin is very Murican''..

Some Chinese officials must be pissed and preparing retaliation.  

[MatTheCat]

MOAR FREEDOMS!!!

FOOLS! THE WILL OF KARHU CANNOT BE OVERCOME!



WITH THESE NY HEARINGS YE ONLY MOCK KAHRU!
GIVE ALMS NOW OR KARHU SHALLT BESTOW THEE NO MERCY!

[windjc]

This is neither bullish nor bearish. It is completely neutral. The senate hearings was a bit bullish because they seemingly embraced Bitcoin. This is more of an interview to determine what to do to regulate it.

Lol. Regulation=bullish. This is bullish.

lol Keep dreaming!
Why would regulation be bullish by default? Because they allow Bitcoin to exist and work with it? lol. They know they can't stop it, so their main reason for regulation is revenue. They just want their cut of others' profits. The AML practices have already been in place for nearly a year.

Yeah I'm not an idealistic fanatic like yourself. I believe we need exchanges backed by banks. I believe we need funds backed by the SEC. I believe in a strong growing bitcoin Eco system. I believe these are the things we need as soon as possible. Bitcoin needs to operate with a certain amount of regulatory guidelines.

[segeln]

as a german I was very content with that Hearing. I think the BTC issue is doing fine.
The Regulators have been  at least  neutral,not to say positive about BTC. My Impression-

Bitcoin is Freedom. Bitcoin is very American."

very good

[Bitcoin BEAR]

This is neither bullish nor bearish. It is completely neutral. The senate hearings was a bit bullish because they seemingly embraced Bitcoin. This is more of an interview to determine what to do to regulate it.

Lol. Regulation=bullish. This is bullish.

lol Keep dreaming!
Why would regulation be bullish by default? Because they allow Bitcoin to exist and work with it? lol. They know they can't stop it, so their main reason for regulation is revenue. They just want their cut of others' profits. The AML practices have already been in place for nearly a year.

What he said^  

[coinpharmer]

speaking as one who couldnt watch, thanks for all the posts about it, keep it comming ! =)


.... MERICA!

[RyNinDaCleM]

This is neither bullish nor bearish. It is completely neutral. The senate hearings was a bit bullish because they seemingly embraced Bitcoin. This is more of an interview to determine what to do to regulate it.

Lol. Regulation=bullish. This is bullish.

lol Keep dreaming!
Why would regulation be bullish by default? Because they allow Bitcoin to exist and work with it? lol. They know they can't stop it, so their main reason for regulation is revenue. They just want their cut of others' profits. The AML practices have already been in place for nearly a year.

Yeah I'm not an idealistic fanatic like yourself. I believe we need exchanges backed by banks. I believe we need funds backed by the SEC. I believe in a strong growing bitcoin Eco system. I believe these are the things we need as soon as possible. Bitcoin needs to operate with a certain amount of regulatory guidelines.

No, I agree SEC is good for the exchanges. But it's good for those who use the exchange, not necessarily for Bitcoin itself (not that it's bad for it either, but it doesn't matter). Those who use the exchange can have a path of recourse once it's all set in motion, but I don't think that equates to guaranteed bullish

[Ibian]

This is neither bullish nor bearish. It is completely neutral. The senate hearings was a bit bullish because they seemingly embraced Bitcoin. This is more of an interview to determine what to do to regulate it.

Lol. Regulation=bullish. This is bullish.

lol Keep dreaming!
Why would regulation be bullish by default? Because they allow Bitcoin to exist and work with it? lol. They know they can't stop it, so their main reason for regulation is revenue. They just want their cut of others' profits. The AML practices have already been in place for nearly a year.

Most people - that's the 99% - won't get on board without official approval. That's why we need regulations. The actual form of the regulations won't matter much at all to us.

[windjc]

This is neither bullish nor bearish. It is completely neutral. The senate hearings was a bit bullish because they seemingly embraced Bitcoin. This is more of an interview to determine what to do to regulate it.

Lol. Regulation=bullish. This is bullish.

lol Keep dreaming!
Why would regulation be bullish by default? Because they allow Bitcoin to exist and work with it? lol. They know they can't stop it, so their main reason for regulation is revenue. They just want their cut of others' profits. The AML practices have already been in place for nearly a year.

Yeah I'm not an idealistic fanatic like yourself. I believe we need exchanges backed by banks. I believe we need funds backed by the SEC. I believe in a strong growing bitcoin Eco system. I believe these are the things we need as soon as possible. Bitcoin needs to operate with a certain amount of regulatory guidelines.

No, I agree SEC is good for the exchanges. But it's good for those who use the exchange, not necessarily for Bitcoin itself. Those who use the exchange can have a path of recourse once it's all set in motion, but I don't think that equates to guaranteed bullish

I do. US exchanges that are completely trustworthy and banked backed ventures that are designed to make bitcoin easier to acquire, sime to handle and readily available is extremely bullish. Techies and bitcoin evangelicals have very limited perception of the way most humans live their lives. Simplicity, security, ease of handling, feeling mainstream, these are the qualities bitcoin needs to be widely adopted. Bitcoin needs to be attractive to people who don't think like you do.

[Biodom]

I liked Mr Wilson the most with take no-nonsense attitude and a clear drive for innovation that you would expect from a VC; Winklevoss brothers scored a bunch of home runs as well. I was thinking that the audience might spontaneously rise and burst into hymn recital. Messrs. Silbert and Liu were a bit too cautious and "programmed". I think if too much regulation will happen, Mr. Liu will take his funds to Hong Kong or Canada vs Wilson and Winklevosses who are clearly fighting for US to be the hub of it all. All and all-it was quite entertaining.
With just 0.5% in illicit trade, why 50% of time was devoted to it?

[BitcoinAshley]

The only thing that would have made it better, is if the jingoistic shit at the end had been expressed thusly:
"Such american. Very freedom."
i.e. a DOGEcoin plug.


Oh well, I guess I'm still satisfied with the way it went.

I like how they didn't mention ANY alts by name at all, yet they stopped saying "digital currency" and were exclusively talking about Bitcoin the entire time. (Which is fine, I'm not complaining.)

[Biodom]

This is neither bullish nor bearish. It is completely neutral. The senate hearings was a bit bullish because they seemingly embraced Bitcoin. This is more of an interview to determine what to do to regulate it.

Lol. Regulation=bullish. This is bullish.

lol Keep dreaming!
Why would regulation be bullish by default? Because they allow Bitcoin to exist and work with it? lol. They know they can't stop it, so their main reason for regulation is revenue. They just want their cut of others' profits. The AML practices have already been in place for nearly a year.

Most people - that's the 99% - won't get on board without official approval. That's why we need regulations. The actual form of the regulations won't matter much at all to us.

Bonkers. First of all, i could care less if 99% people use it tomorrow or not. I could accumulate bitcoin slower. Second, I am fine with it taking 10-12 years: 0.035% right now (2mil out of 7bil), 0.12% in 2015, 0.3% in 2016 (slow down to double a year from 400-500%), 0.6% in 2017, 1.2% in 2018 (still just 100mil people), 2.4% in 2019, 4.8% in 2020, 9.6% in 2021, 19.2% in 2022, 38.4% in 2023, 76.8% in 2024, everyone in 2025.

[jamesc760]

Charles Lee, the inventor of litecoin, is speaking right now.

BTW, he is NOT of Chinese descent and has no relationship to Bobby Lee, the CEO of Chinese exchange.

[jamesc760]

He's actually reading from a prepared statement.

[jamesc760]

Van Cleef, a lawyer, is reading from a prepared statement and is about a new bitcoin money service company called co-optus(?).

[virtualfaqs]

Charles Lee, the inventor of litecoin, is speaking right now.

BTW, he is NOT of Chinese descent and has no relationship to Bobby Lee, the CEO of Chinese exchange.

I did not know that. And I could have sworn some media have said they were brothers.

[Dalmar]

Charles Lee, the inventor of litecoin, is speaking right now.

BTW, he is NOT of Chinese descent and has no relationship to Bobby Lee, the CEO of Chinese exchange.

What? Isn't that his brother? And he sure as hell looks Chinese.

[Biodom]

Who cares about cooptus nonsense? Is this a longest informercial on gov airways or what?

[nak]

Who's this nutjob talking about a "centralised" cryptocurrency? Doesn't that default the ethos of bitcoin?

[merkin51]

What the fuck is this shit? Jesus H Christ in a chicken basket... bring back Freddie!

[threecats]

what a snoozefest. wtf are these people`? is this some affirmative action effort for obscure cryptocurrency variations?

poor charles lee. he must feel like he got bumped down into economy.

[sgbett]

I think the guy eating his lunch at the back is very bullish news.

[sgbett]

I think the guy eating his lunch at the back is very bullish news.

My mistake, he is know drinking his coffee which is highly indicative of a breakout to the downside.

[humanitee]

I think the guy eating his lunch at the back is very bullish news.

My mistake, he is know drinking his coffee which is highly indicative of a breakout to the downside.

It's gonna be a healthy movement though, so that's good.

[jerk]

I think the guy eating his lunch at the back is very bullish news.

My mistake, he is know drinking his coffee which is highly indicative of a breakout to the downside.

Well played!!! 

[threecats]

I think the guy eating his lunch at the back is very bullish news.

My mistake, he is know drinking his coffee which is highly indicative of a breakout to the downside.

Well played!!! 

all in!!

[sgbett]

has somebody bet her she can't get through the session without saying 'laundering'

[threecats]

poor charles lee, silently suffering between the two establishment blondes ...

and unlike the previous panel, these two chicks are all to willing to head down the criminal rabbit hole of discussion about criminal activity  ....

[KFR]

Am I missing something?  What's the "systemic threat" posed by mining?

[threecats]

"mining is a systemic threat"  " maybe there is a back door somewhere"  ...

[humanitee]

Am I missing something?  What's the "systemic threat" posed by mining?

Polluted groundwater

[podyx]

poor charles lee, silently suffering between the two establishment blondes ...

and unlike the previous panel, these two chicks are all to willing to head down the criminal rabbit hole of discussion about criminal activity  ....

lee is just here to pump litecoin

[sgbett]

not one to put a dampener on things, but regulating only at the exchanges seems kind of futile should it become possible to use BTC in its intended final form (i.e. no longer needs to be converted back to fiat to be of use) its not like that hasn't already kind of started. *shrugs*

not that i'm suggesting they do otherwise. or could even do if they wanted...

[sgbett]

"if the blockchain is attacked, another currency will arise"

what like litecoin !? hehe

[threecats]

wow, chick on the right is subtly egging on bitcoin doubts. subject to attack, regulators should be concerned ...

[Rygon]

Wow, I'm surprised at the panel's concern about a 51% attack.

[KFR]

Charles Lee seems like an odd choice for this particular panel but I'm damn glad he's there - go Chuck.

[Biodom]

"this is hard stuff" LOL Facepalm

[RyNinDaCleM]

I like how coblee said the USG should mine to prevent a 51% attack

[sgbett]

oh my.

first her testimony appears to be centred around

"I think as a consumer stuff like this is great"

careful not to gather any hard evidence.

second, only the USD has any value, and is zero risk. so thats the only thing you can use to prove you are rich enough to deserve to run a business.

yikes.

please. stop talking now.

[sgbett]

way to not know how the block chain works.

[threecats]

she is getting out there ... a lock box for your cryptocurrency  ...

[Biodom]

I like how coblee said the USG should mine to prevent a 51% attack

Who said they already don't do that. Notice the steeply rising "unknown" pool %. Unknown=US, china, etc.?

[Alias]

She actually thinks the only way people trade/transact Bitcoins is by trading private keys? Oh wow.  

[threecats]

so much of this is about setting up a nanny state to protect us from what we are already doing ...

[Alias]

Someone should walk in and blow all of their minds by talking about trading Colored Coins (particularly one's that represent fiat currencies) on a decentralized exchange!   They think they have it all figured out and they're still years behind on the technology!

[KFR]

Actually she raises a good point that a lot of muggles don't get about the distinction between the private key and the coins stored at its corresponding address.  Me sending you coins via the network is technically (and probably legally) distinct from me giving you a private key.  This distinction is something regulators need to grok fully before they can do their job.  

[Torque]

Who cares about cooptus nonsense? Is this a longest informercial on gov airways or what?

For anyone interested, it's Coeptis that the lawyer was talking about.  I had to Google it to find some info on it.
http://www.coeptis.com
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f7488616-561a-11e3-96f5-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2riztTRxv

It's interesting, as I remember the whole e-Gold fiasco and how the US Government eventually shut it down.  Not sure if Douglas Jackson still has enough clout to resurrect something like this.  Why would we trust something like this again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-gold

[threecats]

"in the midst of the sale, the cryptotransmission goes down"

[humanitee]

"in the midst of the sale, the cryptotransmission goes down"

cryptocompany*

made me laugh

[sgbett]

In the midst of the sale, the world explodes. WHERE IS MY DOLLARS HUH?

[Alias]

Actually she raises a good point that a lot of muggles don't get about the distinction between the private key and the coins stored at its corresponding address.  Me sending you coins via the network is technically (and probably legally) distinct from me giving you a private key.  This distinction is something regulators need to grok fully before they can do their job.  

It is an interesting situation. If there is an identity attached to the private key, it is like giving someone the password to your online banking account. If there is no identity attached to the private key then it is similar to an off-chain transaction. Ultimately there is some interesting money laundering potential with trading private keys.

[sgbett]

By jove I think she has got it!

A shame the awkward silence in the room made it seem like nobody else did

[threecats]

bitstamp has gone down by ten since these chicks started talking ....

[humanitee]

Shit, done carbon'd to hard ya'll

[RyNinDaCleM]

Someone should walk in and blow all of their minds by talking about trading Colored Coins (particularly one's that represent fiat currencies) on a decentralized exchange!   They think they have it all figured out and they're still years behind on the technology!

Coloredcoins reference complete

[sgbett]

Someone should walk in and blow all of their minds by talking about trading Colored Coins (particularly one's that represent fiat currencies) on a decentralized exchange!   They think they have it all figured out and they're still years behind on the technology!

... as if by magic ...

[jerk]

Bring back panel 1!

[Alias]

Someone should walk in and blow all of their minds by talking about trading Colored Coins (particularly one's that represent fiat currencies) on a decentralized exchange!   They think they have it all figured out and they're still years behind on the technology!

Coloredcoins reference complete

They were pretty mind blown but they've totally glossed over it now! Damn it. Charlie, tell them about decentralized exchanges!!!!

Edit: Oh man, why oh why didn't he tell them that cryptocurrencies could represent fiat currencies! They'd have exploded!

[jamesc760]

An Asian nerd sandwiched between two blonde female lawyers. There's a joke somewhere...

[Torque]

I think we need to simplify it for the regulators, not make it more complicated (with discussion around colored coins).  Or else these regulations will take forever to draft/approve/publish and be overly complicated to follow and comply with.

Also I'm not sure that Panel 2 has the right mix of folks to be commenting on how bitcoins should be classified (commodity, currency, etc.), nor taxed/treated at the State level.

[Alias]

An Asian nerd sandwiched between two blonde female lawyers. There's a joke somewhere...

That was probably the motivation to create Litecoin in the first place!

[Alias]

I think we need to simplify it for the regulators, not make it more complicated (with discussion around colored coins).  Or else these regulations will take forever to draft/approve/publish and be overly complicated to follow and comply with.

Also I'm not sure that Panel 2 has the right mix of folks to be commenting on how bitcoins should be classified (commodity, currency, etc.), nor taxed/treated at the State level.

The problem for the regulators is that you can't dumb Bitcoin down. It is a complex system. You would be doing them a disservice by making it out to be simpler than it is. There are no sufficient analogies for cryptocurrencies - the sooner they wake up to that fact the better.

[sgbett]

I think most of the "unbanked" can get off there ass and visit a (soon at a corner shop near you) bitcoin ATM no?

[Alias]

Facepalm - she used "lightyears" as a unit of time.   

[sgbett]

Bingo. That girl on the left keeps nailing it.

[threecats]

bummer they missed the chance to talk about 3rd world development with  "underbanked"  ....

[Biodom]

The "QR kid" reference-cool.

[Alias]

The "QR kid" reference-cool.

Charlie's really getting into this. You tell 'em Charlie!

[Dalmar]

Charles Lee is a software developer who used to work at Google. Now, he works at Coinbase. He invented Litecoin. He is of Korean descent, not Chinese. Bobby Lee has a brother named Charlie Lee. Charles Lee, of Coinbase and Litecoin, is NOT Charlie Lee, brother to Bobby Lee of China exchange.

They probably look the same to ignorant white people; however, us more civilized folks can tell the difference.

Isn't the guy at the hearing the same guy as in this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le5ByHtssnc&t=20m18s

He admits being the brother of Bobby Lee. WTF?

[Ibian]

One of the more fascinating aspects of this panel is the fact that they are trying to understand things that most of us consider the basics. We really are early adopters, every one of us.

[Torque]

I think we need to simplify it for the regulators, not make it more complicated (with discussion around colored coins).  Or else these regulations will take forever to draft/approve/publish and be overly complicated to follow and comply with.

Also I'm not sure that Panel 2 has the right mix of folks to be commenting on how bitcoins should be classified (commodity, currency, etc.), nor taxed/treated at the State level.

The problem for the regulators is that you can't dumb Bitcoin down. It is a complex system. You would be doing them a disservice by making it out to be simpler than it is. There are no sufficient analogies for cryptocurrencies - the sooner they wake up to that fact the better.

I don't disagree with you that bitcoin has complexity to it under the hood.  But on the surface, it has a sort of simplicity once you understand the 5-6 core attributes.  From a regulation standpoint, however, the first panel was very concerned about the speed at which regulators can publish useful guidelines and proper compliance regulations, and how easy (or difficult) and cost effective it will be to adhere to those regulations.  Too much cumbersome or expensive US regulation, and you stifle (or complete stop) the ability for small bitcoin developers and businesses to be able to adopt and move forward.

[virtualfaqs]

Charles Lee is a software developer who used to work at Google. Now, he works at Coinbase. He invented Litecoin. He is of Korean descent, not Chinese. Bobby Lee has a brother named Charlie Lee. Charles Lee, of Coinbase and Litecoin, is NOT Charlie Lee, brother to Bobby Lee of China exchange.

They probably look the same to ignorant white people; however, us more civilized folks can tell the difference.

Google yields about the same results for Charlie or Charles Lee inventing Litecoin. The problem is because the Charlie is a nickname for Charles. I'm still confused. Probably need pics and bullet point of the difference.  

[Dalmar]

He must be trolling us. That guy at the hearing is the brother of the BTCChina CEO, not Korean.

[P_Shep]

Charles Lee is a software developer who used to work at Google. Now, he works at Coinbase. He invented Litecoin. He is of Korean descent, not Chinese. Bobby Lee has a brother named Charlie Lee. Charles Lee, of Coinbase and Litecoin, is NOT Charlie Lee, brother to Bobby Lee of China exchange.

They probably look the same to ignorant white people; however, us more civilized folks can tell the difference.

Isn't the guy at the hearing the same guy as in this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le5ByHtssnc&t=20m18s

He admits being the brother of Bobby Lee. WTF?

I think he was being facetious.

[fonzie]

He must be trolling us. That guy at the hearing is the brother of the BTCChina CEO, not Korean.

Confirmed!

[virtualfaqs]

Got me good!  Thank goodness I figured this out before selling my BTC! 

[the_sunship]

One of the more fascinating aspects of this panel is the fact that they are trying to understand things that most of us consider the basics. We really are early adopters, every one of us.

had a conversation a few weeks ago at a party with someone who kept calling it "bidcoin".

At least they got the name correct.....

[Toxonaut]

i was actually expecting the guy to suddenly go like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1ggGGGqu_k

[Torque]

Good lord, the media spin already... sheesh that was fast   

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/in-praise-of-bitcoin-with-little-regard-for-banks/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1&

[P_Shep]

Good lord, the media spin already... sheesh that was fast

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/in-praise-of-bitcoin-with-little-regard-for-banks/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1&

WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE POOR BANKS?!

[alexeft]

Good lord, the media spin already... sheesh that was fast

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/in-praise-of-bitcoin-with-little-regard-for-banks/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1&

WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE POOR BANKS?!

NO.

[P_Shep]

[samurai1200]

Excellent. Thanks for the live blog everyone. Someone must have recorded this?!

[TERA]

Do you guys really live in a fantasy world where the exchange price was following everything said at the conference in real time?

[sgbett]

Excellent. Thanks for the live blog everyone. Someone must have recorded this?!

go to the link http://www.totalwebcasting.com/view/?id=nysdfs its "archived"

[R2Pleasent]

One interesting thing I noticed this time, as opposed to the last hearing, is that the Bitcoin backers seemed to be much more on the defensive.  In the previous hearing, law enforcement officials came on and were the ones tackling the regulation questions.  They gave a positive outlook on the situation, and the Bitcoiners really didn't face as much questioning in terms of regulation.  Now, this isn't the fairest direct comparison; there were no law enforcement officials being questioned in the NY Hearings.

However, now the Bitcoiners were having to answer really tough questions.  Questions they don't have an answer to, whether they admit it or not.  They are being asked how Bitcoin can be regulated to prevent money laundering and illicit activity.  They bring up past successful investigations by law enforcement, such as the Silk Road shutdown, but offer very little insight into how they themselves can combat these issues.  They're alluding to the notion that law enforcement just needs to continue investigating the bad guys, and they'll do their best to enforce KYC.

Unfortunately, I don't think these answers were satisfactory to the panel.  Granted, they're nearly impossible to satisfy here, but to give the answer "you guys just need to keep working hard at finding the criminals" made me cringe a bit.  The government understands that it can expend a bunch of resources going after these guys, and if they invest enough into it, they should be able to find them.  But they're saying they want Bitcoin and Bitcoin-based businesses to make sites like Silk-Road more difficult / impossible to run.

I would have said that there have been many advancements since Silk Road 1.0 was created.  Exchanges were not even requiring customers to verify their identities up until Q2 2013.  That's under 1 year ago.  Buying Bitcoin has become less anonymous everyday, and you will not find a notable exchange which provides service to US citizens without completing KYC verification.  Furthermore, the successful Silk Road raid has scared a vast majority of potential clients and sellers away from this type of marketplace.  We've also seen many new illegal marketplaces shut down due to operators fleeing with users' funds.  The confidence in the Dark Markets is very low right now.

If you look how far Bitcoin has come in just 2 years, where people could easily and without fear of repercussions trade contraband with BTC, to today, where only the most technology-savvy users can be confident at all in anonymity, and with the Dark Markets, it is night and day.  It's unfair to expect things to change overnight, but there have been obvious and major progressions over a fairly short time span.

Furthermore, if the government refuses to accept crypto-currency and figure out a way to keep the average user happy, it will simply slip into the underworld.  There is no way for the government to shut these things down.  The criminals will find a way to continue on crypto with or without government approval of Bitcoin.  These are decentralized instruments, and by over-regulating them, you will just kill the currency and the criminals will operate with other derivatives of crypto.  By working with Bitcoin and Bitcoin businesses, you keep the volume in your playing field, where you can at least call some of the shots.

All in all I don't think this was the best showing for Bitcoin in general.  The cool new feeling of Bitcoin is wearing off and the government is starting to really focus in on the negative aspects (in their POV).  Realistically, I don't think we have an answer for these problems at the end of the day.  The government wants absolute control, they always want absolute control, and I think they're starting to realize that crypto is a step in the wrong direction in achieving this goal.  No one should be surprised.  The more popular Bitcoin gets, the more it's going to get hated by governments.  Bitcoin, at its roots, is designed specifically to exclude the need for authority.

Final side note, hilarious to see those Winklevoss leeches on the panel.  You can just see how scummy they truly are.  In nearly all questions they answer, all it looks like to me is them saying "please let my Bitcoins be worth more, please!"  These twinkle twins look like they'd toss each other under the bus if it meant making a quick buck.  Some of these guys, I believe truly exist in the currency for the right reasons, but the twinkle twins only believe in a panned out pump and dump.  Who would expect anything else from them. 

[windjc]

One interesting thing I noticed this time, as opposed to the last hearing, is that the Bitcoin backers seemed to be much more on the defensive.  In the previous hearing, law enforcement officials came on and were the ones tackling the regulation questions.  They gave a positive outlook on the situation, and the Bitcoiners really didn't face as much questioning in terms of regulation.  Now, this isn't the fairest direct comparison; there were no law enforcement officials being questioned in the NY Hearings.

However, now the Bitcoiners were having to answer really tough questions.  Questions they don't have an answer to, whether they admit it or not.  They are being asked how Bitcoin can be regulated to prevent money laundering and illicit activity.  They bring up past successful investigations by law enforcement, such as the Silk Road shutdown, but offer very little insight into how they themselves can combat these issues.  They're alluding to the notion that law enforcement just needs to continue investigating the bad guys, and they'll do their best to enforce KYC.

Unfortunately, I don't think these answers were satisfactory to the panel.  Granted, they're nearly impossible to satisfy here, but to give the answer "you guys just need to keep working hard at finding the criminals" made me cringe a bit.  The government understands that it can expend a bunch of resources going after these guys, and if they invest enough into it, they should be able to find them.  But they're saying they want Bitcoin and Bitcoin-based businesses to make sites like Silk-Road more difficult / impossible to run.

I would have said that there have been many advancements since Silk Road 1.0 was created.  Exchanges were not even requiring customers to verify their identities up until Q2 2013.  That's under 1 year ago.  Buying Bitcoin has become less anonymous everyday, and you will not find a notable exchange which provides service to US citizens without completing KYC verification.  Furthermore, the successful Silk Road raid has scared a vast majority of potential clients and sellers away from this type of marketplace.  We've also seen many new illegal marketplaces shut down due to operators fleeing with users' funds.  The confidence in the Dark Markets is very low right now.

If you look how far Bitcoin has come in just 2 years, where people could easily and without fear of repercussions trade contraband with BTC, to today, where only the most technology-savvy users can be confident at all in anonymity, and with the Dark Markets, it is night and day.  It's unfair to expect things to change overnight, but there have been obvious and major progressions over a fairly short time span.

Furthermore, if the government refuses to accept crypto-currency and figure out a way to keep the average user happy, it will simply slip into the underworld.  There is no way for the government to shut these things down.  The criminals will find a way to continue on crypto with or without government approval of Bitcoin.  These are decentralized instruments, and by over-regulating them, you will just kill the currency and the criminals will operate with other derivatives of crypto.  By working with Bitcoin and Bitcoin businesses, you keep the volume in your playing field, where you can at least call some of the shots.

All in all I don't think this was the best showing for Bitcoin in general.  The cool new feeling of Bitcoin is wearing off and the government is starting to really focus in on the negative aspects (in their POV).  Realistically, I don't think we have an answer for these problems at the end of the day.  The government wants absolute control, they always want absolute control, and I think they're starting to realize that crypto is a step in the wrong direction in achieving this goal.  No one should be surprised.  The more popular Bitcoin gets, the more it's going to get hated by governments.  Bitcoin, at its roots, is designed specifically to exclude the need for authority.

Final side note, hilarious to see those Winklevoss leeches on the panel.  You can just see how scummy they truly are.  In nearly all questions they answer, all it looks like to me is them saying "please let my Bitcoins be worth more, please!"  These twinkle twins look like they'd toss each other under the bus if it meant making a quick buck.  Some of these guys, I believe truly exist in the currency for the right reasons, but the twinkle twins only believe in a panned out pump and dump.  Who would expect anything else from them. 

I disagree. I think it was very positive today.

Senators aren't regulators. So that was more softball, general stuff. Regulators are a different breed. The fact that bitcoins continued existence was an assumed fact speaks volumns. It sounded like the regulators were ready to write guidelines and I didn't get any indication that those guidelines would be overly suppressive. You obviously have some issue with the twins that is abnormal. The creation of the ETF is a HUGE step for the acceptance of bitcoin.

I think you assume that governments inherently hate bitcoin. I think you are wrong. Governments, like ours in the US, are run by elected officials. Their #1 priority is job security. To be reelected. Those that say governments hate bitcoin are just extremists and conspiracy theorists.

[fonzie]

One interesting thing I noticed this time, as opposed to the last hearing, is that the Bitcoin backers seemed to be much more on the defensive.  In the previous hearing, law enforcement officials came on and were the ones tackling the regulation questions.  They gave a positive outlook on the situation, and the Bitcoiners really didn't face as much questioning in terms of regulation.  Now, this isn't the fairest direct comparison; there were no law enforcement officials being questioned in the NY Hearings.

However, now the Bitcoiners were having to answer really tough questions.  Questions they don't have an answer to, whether they admit it or not.  They are being asked how Bitcoin can be regulated to prevent money laundering and illicit activity.  They bring up past successful investigations by law enforcement, such as the Silk Road shutdown, but offer very little insight into how they themselves can combat these issues.  They're alluding to the notion that law enforcement just needs to continue investigating the bad guys, and they'll do their best to enforce KYC.

Unfortunately, I don't think these answers were satisfactory to the panel.  Granted, they're nearly impossible to satisfy here, but to give the answer "you guys just need to keep working hard at finding the criminals" made me cringe a bit.  The government understands that it can expend a bunch of resources going after these guys, and if they invest enough into it, they should be able to find them.  But they're saying they want Bitcoin and Bitcoin-based businesses to make sites like Silk-Road more difficult / impossible to run.

I would have said that there have been many advancements since Silk Road 1.0 was created.  Exchanges were not even requiring customers to verify their identities up until Q2 2013.  That's under 1 year ago.  Buying Bitcoin has become less anonymous everyday, and you will not find a notable exchange which provides service to US citizens without completing KYC verification.  Furthermore, the successful Silk Road raid has scared a vast majority of potential clients and sellers away from this type of marketplace.  We've also seen many new illegal marketplaces shut down due to operators fleeing with users' funds.  The confidence in the Dark Markets is very low right now.

If you look how far Bitcoin has come in just 2 years, where people could easily and without fear of repercussions trade contraband with BTC, to today, where only the most technology-savvy users can be confident at all in anonymity, and with the Dark Markets, it is night and day.  It's unfair to expect things to change overnight, but there have been obvious and major progressions over a fairly short time span.

Furthermore, if the government refuses to accept crypto-currency and figure out a way to keep the average user happy, it will simply slip into the underworld.  There is no way for the government to shut these things down.  The criminals will find a way to continue on crypto with or without government approval of Bitcoin.  These are decentralized instruments, and by over-regulating them, you will just kill the currency and the criminals will operate with other derivatives of crypto.  By working with Bitcoin and Bitcoin businesses, you keep the volume in your playing field, where you can at least call some of the shots.

All in all I don't think this was the best showing for Bitcoin in general.  The cool new feeling of Bitcoin is wearing off and the government is starting to really focus in on the negative aspects (in their POV).  Realistically, I don't think we have an answer for these problems at the end of the day.  The government wants absolute control, they always want absolute control, and I think they're starting to realize that crypto is a step in the wrong direction in achieving this goal.  No one should be surprised.  The more popular Bitcoin gets, the more it's going to get hated by governments.  Bitcoin, at its roots, is designed specifically to exclude the need for authority.

Final side note, hilarious to see those Winklevoss leeches on the panel.  You can just see how scummy they truly are.  In nearly all questions they answer, all it looks like to me is them saying "please let my Bitcoins be worth more, please!"  These twinkle twins look like they'd toss each other under the bus if it meant making a quick buck.  Some of these guys, I believe truly exist in the currency for the right reasons, but the twinkle twins only believe in a panned out pump and dump.  Who would expect anything else from them. 

I agree. Thanks for your summary. +1

[virtualfaqs]

Some of these guys, I believe truly exist in the currency for the right reasons, but the twinkle twins only believe in a panned out pump and dump.  Who would expect anything else from them. 

They claimed they haven't dumped a single BTC yet and sure they've had many opportunities at multiple peaks.

[R2Pleasent]

Some of these guys, I believe truly exist in the currency for the right reasons, but the twinkle twins only believe in a panned out pump and dump.  Who would expect anything else from them. 

They claimed they haven't dumped a single BTC yet and sure they've had many opportunities at multiple peaks.

These guys are thinking a lot bigger than the average Bitcoiner.  They're already loaded.  They want to be richer than Zuckerberg just because they bought a bunch of BTC early on.  They're not here to make $10 Million, or $100 Million.  They want what Justin Timberlake wants in the Social Network, Billions. 

I guess I gotta give it to them, they have mastered making money while contributing absolutely nothing of value.

[chessnut]

HIGH FIVE WINKELWII!!

did you hear that?

he essentially said, if bitcoin is not supported or squashed, then a virtual currency without a public ledger (ie designed to be tumbled) is likely to take its place that is truly un-traceable!!

check mate!!

[BitcoinAshley]

HIGH FIVE WINKELWII!!

did you hear that?

he essentially said, if bitcoin is not supported or squashed, then a virtual currency without a public ledger (ie designed to be tumbled) is likely to take its place that is truly un-traceable!!

check mate!!

Yes I think the regulators may be starting to understand this. Which is why I wasn't perturbed by the answers that were along the lines of "Just keep doing what you're doing, you did get the Silk Road guy after all." There really IS no sure-fire way to stop people who REALLY want to be anonymous, from doing just that. A lot of people fuck up, for sure, but there IS going to be money-laundering, no doubt about it. And there is no easy way to take care of it. But crushing Bitcoin just means something even HARDER to trace is going to pop up, and attempts are already being made at making bitcoin anonymity even easier and easier.

[chessnut]

also, in the second video, Charles Lee raises a point that although bitcoin may be potentially vulnerable to attack from large foreign powers, the USA equally has the power and resources to secure the system. That could be critical if the USA needs to make a decisive decision to back Bitcoin.

[BitcoinAshley]

also, in the second video, Charles Lee raises a point that although bitcoin may be potentially vulnerable to attack from large foreign powers, the USA equally has the power and resources to secure the system. That could be critical if the USA needs to make a decisive decision to back Bitcoin.

LOL. They would start an ASIC farm and grab 40% of the hashing power, then they would say "We need over 51% so that we can fuck with the known terrorist wallets!"
Then they would gain 51%, and get really confused when BTC instantly crashes to $0 and nearly all the value travels to Litecoin, Namecoin, and DOGE.

"Hmm? But we're from the government, we're here to help! Why don't you want our AML help?"

[chessnut]

also, in the second video, Charles Lee raises a point that although bitcoin may be potentially vulnerable to attack from large foreign powers, the USA equally has the power and resources to secure the system. That could be critical if the USA needs to make a decisive decision to back Bitcoin.

LOL. They would start an ASIC farm and grab 40% of the hashing power, then they would say "We need over 51% so that we can fuck with the known terrorist wallets!"
Then they would gain 51%, and get really confused when BTC instantly crashes to $0 and nearly all the value travels to Litecoin, Namecoin, and DOGE.

"Hmm? But we're from the government, we're here to help! Why don't you want our AML help?"

-
You would think so, but did you read my earlier post? this is check mate. If the US destroys Bitcoin they will be fighting a super-virus in the next round. they want a global crypto with a public ledger, not a tumbled public ledger, so they can track criminals.
It is in their interest to protect it now and support it, especially considering that the FBI holds 1%.
the overall tone of the meeting was that cryptos are revolutionary, they are here to stay.

[Rampion]

also, in the second video, Charles Lee raises a point that although bitcoin may be potentially vulnerable to attack from large foreign powers, the USA equally has the power and resources to secure the system. That could be critical if the USA needs to make a decisive decision to back Bitcoin.

LOL. They would start an ASIC farm and grab 40% of the hashing power, then they would say "We need over 51% so that we can fuck with the known terrorist wallets!"
Then they would gain 51%, and get really confused when BTC instantly crashes to $0 and nearly all the value travels to Litecoin, Namecoin, and DOGE.

"Hmm? But we're from the government, we're here to help! Why don't you want our AML help?"

DOGE? You must be joking.

[Dafar]

Round 2 just started!

http://www.totalwebcasting.com/view/?id=nysdfs

[threecats]

law enforcement dude projecting the sum of all fears on bitcoin ....

[Dragonkiller]

everything this guy is saying he wants is already being done

[Biodom]

1. there are no bitcoin exchanges in US
2. exchanges outside of US already required all docs
3. coinbase requires name, address, credit card, cell phone for level 2 account (50BTC or 50 thou later on)

[threecats]

too bad there is not some sort of rebuttal mechanism in play at the hearings ...

[Patel]

RIP CoinJoin..?

[dancingnancy]

what are these people trying to propose anyway on this mornings panel?  just a bunch of nonsense.  why isnt the current banking establishment being brought up re: fraud and criminal negligence.

[fonzie]

what are these people trying to propose anyway on this mornings panel?  just a bunch of nonsense.  why isnt the current banking establishment being brought up re: fraud and criminal negligence.

because it´s about virtual currencies???

[dancingnancy]

please, right out of this guys mouth is "no one should keep money from crimes if virtual or not" except all banks do this currently in the usa.. virtual money panel or not, its dumb.

[Rygon]

LOL at their reference to being big holders of bitcoin.

[threecats]

receeding hairline dude is clearly very paranoid about miners ....

[Biodom]

Receding hairline dude??? Man has to know his limitations.
How can he regulate a miner in China, Canada or Bulgaria? He will regulate a miner in US, hence other countries will get more bitcoin-simple.
Charlie Lee had a brilliant proposition yesterday-all three word agencies have to start mining NOW-it will increase their budget, LOL.
He also thinks that miners are "strategic", LOL.

[P_Shep]

receeding hairline dude is clearly very paranoid about miners ....

Christ, isn't he just! It's all he talks about!

If the US government wanted to make sure the miners couldn't do what they wanted, they could simply set up a mining operation of, say 25% of the network. Job done.

[KFR]

Zabel came across well.

[Torque]

Panel 2 is kicking ass today!  Kudos to Fred, Jeremy, and that Overstock guy (didn't catch his name)

[KFR]

John Johnson I think he said.  They are all doing a fine job.

[keithers]

I am watching some of this while I am at the office.   I am actually really impressed by Lawsky, and the people on the panel asking the questions of the bitcoiners.   They seem really open minded, and don't act as if they are economic gurus.   They seem open and willing to help move the industry forward if possible...

[BitcoinAshley]

also, in the second video, Charles Lee raises a point that although bitcoin may be potentially vulnerable to attack from large foreign powers, the USA equally has the power and resources to secure the system. That could be critical if the USA needs to make a decisive decision to back Bitcoin.

LOL. They would start an ASIC farm and grab 40% of the hashing power, then they would say "We need over 51% so that we can fuck with the known terrorist wallets!"
Then they would gain 51%, and get really confused when BTC instantly crashes to $0 and nearly all the value travels to Litecoin, Namecoin, and DOGE.

"Hmm? But we're from the government, we're here to help! Why don't you want our AML help?"

DOGE? You must be joking.

Yeah, I must be 

[Denton]

Today the panelists were much better, seems positive overall. I'm very interested in the third panel

Panel 3- The Academic View on Virtual Currencies

[Patel]

This last panel which just took place, the 3 panelists did an excellent job.

Regulators are very open minded it seems.

[Biodom]

I hope that they did not invite that Boston professor for the academic panel; he is just full of venom.

[seleme]

Overstock guy is cool as fuck.

[Denton]

I hope that they did not invite that Boston professor for the academic panel; he is just full of venom.

*Ed W. Felten- Professor of Computer Science and Public Affairs,
and Director of the Center for Information Technology Policy, Princeton University

*Susan Athey- Professor of Economics, Stanford University

[snakebit]

I missed the 1st panel but I got to say, I was really impressed with everything I heard from the 2nd panel.

[Biodom]

I hope that they did not invite that Boston professor for the academic panel; he is just full of venom.

*Ed W. Felten- Professor of Computer Science and Public Affairs,
and Director of the Center for Information Technology Policy, Princeton University

*Susan Athey- Professor of Economics, Stanford University

They don't list all people on the panel-Overstock guy was not listed.

[Denton]

I hope that they did not invite that Boston professor for the academic panel; he is just full of venom.

*Ed W. Felten- Professor of Computer Science and Public Affairs,
and Director of the Center for Information Technology Policy, Princeton University

*Susan Athey- Professor of Economics, Stanford University

They don't list all people on the panel-Overstock guy was not listed.

He kinda was. See here.
Are we going to hear about the "Deflationary Spiral of Death" from this professor of economics?

[windjc]

I hope that they did not invite that Boston professor for the academic panel; he is just full of venom.

*Ed W. Felten- Professor of Computer Science and Public Affairs,
and Director of the Center for Information Technology Policy, Princeton University

*Susan Athey- Professor of Economics, Stanford University

They don't list all people on the panel-Overstock guy was not listed.

He kinda was. See here.
Are we going to hear about the "Deflationary Spiral of Death" from this professor of economics?

No. They are both pro bitcoin.

[Dalmar]

I loved how that balding bankster earlier today was too afraid to work with BTC-e. 

[KFR]

Ripple shill.

New drinking game: every time she mentions Ripple.

[Torque]

Oh crap, Susan Athey mentioned Ripple about 3-4 times in the first 5 minutes of her opening remarks.  Heresy!

[threecats]

guy in the middle is nervous about his bitstamp short

[phr0stbyt3]

Who is that chick behind the bench that just keeps "mhm"ing everything the other guys are saying?

[Denton]

I hope that they did not invite that Boston professor for the academic panel; he is just full of venom.

Seems like he's been invited!  
EDIT: OMG it's like all the FUD and misunderstanding has been concentrated in one man 

[KFR]

Fetch the pitchforks folks.

[the_sunship]

guy has to back off that mic. where's the soundman when you need one?

[Rygon]

Dude #3 is a bear! Woohoo!

[podyx]

SINGLE DIGITS IN JUNE GUYS!!

WE ARE ALL GONNA BE RICH

[Bobsurplus]

SINGLE DIGITS IN JUNE GUYS!!

WE ARE ALL GONNA BE RICH

Fuck, you beat me to this one..

I don't see how he think he can make a statement link that.

[KFR]

He seems so angry about Bitcoin.  I still don't understand that reaction.  

[Missionary]

So the third panel is a FUD-shouting dinosaur, a "professor" bought by Ripple and one guy that seems somewhat intelligent?

[phr0stbyt3]

He seems so angry about Bitcoin.  I still don't understand that reaction.  

His buddy told him to buy and hodl in 2011 and he said no. Also, he is part of the regime wholly responsible for debt enslavement of our generation. He deserves to miss the boat.

[Bobsurplus]

He seems so angry about Bitcoin.  I still don't understand that reaction.  

He must of bought at $200 then sold at $60.

Hes been burnt by the bitcoin sun.

[phr0stbyt3]

He seems so angry about Bitcoin.  I still don't understand that reaction.  

His buddy told him to buy and hodl in 2011 and he said no. Also, he is part of the regime wholly responsible for debt enslavement of our my generation. He deserves to miss the boat.

Whoops. FTFM.

[Bobsurplus]

Here comes the rebuttals!

[threecats]

So the third panel is a FUD-shouting dinosaur, a "professor" bought by Ripple and one guy that seems somewhat intelligent?

that seems about right

[Denton]

He seems so angry about Bitcoin.  I still don't understand that reaction.  

His buddy told him to buy and hodl in 2011 and he said no. Also, he is part of the regime wholly responsible for debt enslavement of our generation. He deserves to miss the boat.

It's all clear when you hear him talking about the legitimacy of dollars. The paradigm shift that Bitcoin brings is what angers him.

[Bobsurplus]

Ripple?? who cares about ripple?