Re: Regulation - don't let them get away with the hypocrisy

[acoindr]

Check out this video of NY superintendent of financial services Ben Lawsky on Fox Business talking Bitcoin regulation:

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/3147952575001/regulations-coming-to-bitcoin/#sp=show-clips

His comments are actually not bad and he appears to be speaking with caution and care, but the text on the screen is disturbing: "SHOULD BUSINESSES THAT ACCEPT BITCOIN NEED LICENSES TO DEAL IN THE CURRENCY?"

Come again? The question is whether businesses, which can be mom and pop ordinary people, need to ask permission to barter/privately exchange a non-government commodity. Swap out bitcoins for pretty seashells to see how absurd it sounds. That's what it comes down to.

Lawsky seems most emphatic and concerned about money laundering, but that's pure hypocrisy. From Bloomberg Jul 23, 2012:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-16/hsbc-aided-money-laundering-by-iran-drug-cartels-probe-shows.html

HSBC Holdings Plc (HSBA)’s head of group compliance, David Bagley, told a Senate hearing he will step down amid claims the bank gave terrorists, drug cartels and criminals access to the U.S. financial system by failing to guard against money laundering.

Oh, well he stepped down. Awesome, all is okay then.

Meanwhile the CEO of BitInstant, Charlie Shrem, was arrested, accused of selling over $1 million in Bitcoin to Silk Road users who would then use them to buy drugs.

[HSBC] ignored links to terrorist financing ... documents show HSBC decided to cut ties with the bank before reversing itself under pressure from Al Rajhi, which received shipments of $1 billion in cash from HSBC’s U.S. operation from 2006 to 2010, according to the report.

Make no mistake people. This isn't about morality or law enforcement. It's about power. Banks and other power players are held to different standards. If we the people don't assert our own rights we will simply be trampled over, while others get fines.

It reported the U.S. Treasury Department had fined HSBC for a transfer in April 2000 of $100,000 benefiting the Taliban which at the time was running Afghanistan, and providing Osama bin Laden with the base ...

<--- not worried about regulators

[jbreher]

I dunno. It feels like forward progress to me, on the net. I find myself taken aback that Lawsky is saying _anything_ positive.

Regulators gonna regulate. By definition. It's what they do. If our beloved Bitcoin isn't sufficiently regulation-proof, it's back to the labs for something better.

I don't want regulation to affect Bitcoin proper. But what sense tilting at windmills? If the vision is subverted by regulation, I deign to hope we'll just move on to the next, hardened, cryptocurrency.

[acoindr]

I dunno. It feels like forward progress to me, on the net. I find myself taken aback that Lawsky is saying _anything_ positive.

Regulators gonna regulate. By definition. It's what they do. If our beloved Bitcoin isn't sufficiently regulation-proof, it's back to the labs for something better.

I don't want regulation to affect Bitcoin proper. But what sense tilting at windmills? If the vision is subverted by regulation, I deign to hope we'll just move on to the next, hardened, cryptocurrency.

Aha, you touched on a key point!

It's not Lawsky himself I'm talking about, but something bigger. What we're dealing with is political perception/persuasion which may be more important than you realize. Politicians will do what they can get away with. It's how the game is played. The thing to focus on here is the "Should businesses that accept Bitcoin need licenses to deal in the currency?" Lawsky wasn't bold enough to speak those words, but the tone nevertheless was set by displaying this prominently. It's the same reason when Congress first worded the order for this to be looked into they referred to it as "ersatz" currency. Ersatz, or inferior, before they knew anything about it.

They don't need to make Bitcoin illegal if they can control who can accept it. That's just as effective. Making Bitcoin illegal (or the equivalent) wouldn't kill it, but it would curtail the level of use it could reach in the US.

[bitcerto]

Come again? The question is whether businesses, which can be mom and pop ordinary people, need to ask permission to barter/privately exchange a non-government commodity.

That's all that needs to be said. It'll be a long, hard fight - but they'll lose it. No way they can prevent, regulate or tax BTC transactions. They can't even operate a healthcare website properly (I know, it's played out, but true). At most, they can rally against the exchanges, but even that is a losing battle.

This is why people who scoff cryptos are straight up dumb. BTC and others are able to completely subvert an incredibly biased and manipulated financial system. We're taking the power right out from under them the more we use BTC. It's glorious.

The world is already watching. Everyone with an open mind is interested.

[acoindr]

Come again? The question is whether businesses, which can be mom and pop ordinary people, need to ask permission to barter/privately exchange a non-government commodity.

That's all that needs to be said. It'll be a long, hard fight - but they'll lose it. No way they can prevent, regulate or tax BTC transactions. They can't even operate a healthcare website properly (I know, it's played out, but true). At most, they can rally against the exchanges, but even that is a losing battle.

This is why people who scoff cryptos are straight up dumb. BTC and others are able to completely subvert an incredibly biased and manipulated financial system. We're taking the power right out from under them the more we use BTC. It's glorious.

The world is already watching. Everyone with an open mind is interested.

I like to agree with everything you said. That's why I'm concerned. If you think those with the power money provides will give it up without a fight, well let's just say you're more optimistic than I am.