Why do people fear regulation so much?

[un_ordinateur]

(I know I'll be saying things that will some people will strongly dissagree. But I'm trying to have an intelligent conversation)

Don't get me wrong: any overly restrictive regulation; outlawing bitcoins, etc... would of course be bad.

What I don't get is that some people seem to fear ANY form of regulation whereas reasonable and balanced regulation can, on the contrary, help an industry strive.

The fact that food additive and pharmaeutical is regulated is good: I can trust that they are safe and won't poison me.

Net neutrality laws, benefit Internet and benefit the end user, even if telecoms don't like them.

In the same fashion, imagine that law required that bitcoin exchanges are required to publish an audit every quarter. The Mt.Gox fiasco would have never happened.

In any case, if we ever hope that bitcoin be used as commonplace currency, it should be treated as such. Which means the same taxes, regulation, etc... You may dissagree with those laws, but it is another debate; how much must the governement tax and regulate money. But I think that somebody that really hopes for Bitcoin becoming mainstream, should rejoince at any reasonable regulation that consider bitcoin on an equal footing with regular money.

[1715491054]

1715491054

[1715491054]

1715491054

[1715491054]

1715491054

[byt411]

Because BitCoin is a decentralized currency. It was created as one, meant to be one, and will end up as one.
If it is centralized, it means 100% hashrate is controlled by someone. They can then do what they like and launch a 51% attack and destroy bitcoin. And the governments can force us to use pieces of paper again.

[glendall]

The problem I have with it is that regulation by the government would in itself not bother me.

But the fact is, the banking industries (wealth management companies etc etc, all the same 2/3 companies in reality) have effectively taken over public government's policy making ability.  This is most notorious in the United States (which sets most of the world's financial policies) where Goldman Sachs employees basically set economic policy.

In contemporary times much economic policy is not set by government to benefit citizenry, but instead, to enlarge the power of the banks.

So where does that leave us? The banking industry is against bitcoin naturally, because it is the first and only realistic hope people have escaping out of their greedy fingers in your pocket.  So it goes to figure that most regulation made will just in a effect be a penalty against bitcoin primarily before anything else.

We don't ever want to get the place where we are with fiat, where companies are leveraged 100x+ to 1 for every dollar they have, take massive systemic risks on the regular to increase quarterly profits, charge you exorbitant fees to take out your own money, are able to freeze you out of you the monetary system if you have a non-corporate opinion or tell the truth (ie wikileaks), have the power to repeal saftey guards in the economy that prevent Great Collapse ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Legislation ) , print money magically from nothing, controlled by a private company run by a handful of people profiting 6% for every dollar they create ( google federal reserve 6% dividend) ,  and so powerful that they even if they fail they can be bailed out by taxpayer debt when they fail.

The banking industry heads have more say on policy making than most elected officials -- it's a bad situation, bitcoin is the only hope that I see, and does not need regulation to prosper (just look at its history already).

Regulation = control

Control = limiting others' power to increase your own

http://prof77.wordpress.com/politics/an-updated-list-of-goldman-sachs-ties-to-the-obama-government-including-elena-kagan/

[keithers]

One of the major problems with regulations would be the state and government licenses.   The exchanges, or business may be forced to be licensed in each state or country that a person is trying to purchase bitcoins from.  Not to mention that you may need to register with all appropriate forms of ID, any place that you purchase or store bitcoins.  Major un-needed headache

[corebob]

Basically because revolution always comes from below. Anything applied to it from above can only weaken it.

[leopard2]

the problem with regulation it is not here to protect us 

simple example

exchange cash for btc at a physical location in any quantity (a process that would almost annihilate the need for exchanges)

a) good regulation: makes sure no one gets mugged, cash is checked for counterfeit

b) bad regulation: outlaws this via AML and KYC in the first place, enforces a horrible bureaucracy, plus taxes. in many countries even the withdrawal or deposit of cash from your own bank account is severely restricted!

that is why people fear regulation, for the same reason they fear bacteria, because most of them make you ill

[Dafar]

I want some regulation... this shouldn't be the wild wild west where hackers and scammers roam free. Right now that's how it is and you have to be extremely careful in securing your money, which is one of the problems that needs to be overcome for mass adoption. There should be some protection, without the kind of deception, bureaucracy and control we get form banks.

[DooMAD]

The first three things that popped into my head about why regulation is pointless.  There would be more if I could be bothered.

1)  Bitcoin is international and you'll never get every country to agree on how to regulate them.
2)  Regulation would not have prevented gox's poor programming and non-existent customer service.
3)  The second you introduce regulation is the second everyone who understands the currency properly dumps it.

[Lauda]

Because most of the time it has an negative impact on us.

[Lethn]

I understand where you're coming from and I definitely agree about the idea of pharmaceutical companies and food companies selling me something poisonous or worse, in fact I wish government would focus on basic things like this instead of trying to judge every facet of our lives like they currently do now. I think the reason a lot of people are, I wouldn't say afraid, but extremely sceptical and hateful of government regulation is because the regulators we have just aren't bloody trustworthy.

For an example do you remember when the senate Bitcoin hearings began awhile back? In order to 'fact find' about the currency the first thing the committee did was bring in what must have been two crime based government agencies, a child protection charity and from what I can see maybe one or two people who were actual experts on the subject. This is the kind of shit we're going to be put through all the time if the community actively goes along with the U.S regulations.

it's like a bunch of U.S Ambassadors being assigned to countries they've never actually been to and yes this is actually true.

The first three things that popped into my head about why regulation is pointless.  There would be more if I could be bothered.

1)  Bitcoin is international and you'll never get every country to agree on how to regulate them.
2)  Regulation would not have prevented gox's poor programming and non-existent customer service.
3)  The second you introduce regulation is the second everyone who understands the currency properly dumps it.

I agree with most of these points except for 3, I suspect when they introduce regulation as they have done that's when everybody who understands the currency dumps the country

[Snail2]

If you let bankers and politicians to your table they never ever will leave. Probably you have to abandon your table. This is why I'm afraid of regulation.

[un_ordinateur]

a) good regulation: makes sure no one gets mugged, cash is checked for counterfeit

b) bad regulation: outlaws this via AML and KYC in the first place, enforces a horrible bureaucracy, plus taxes. in many countries even the withdrawal or deposit of cash from your own bank account is severely restricted!

That's my point. We should be happy with good regulation.

As for AML and KYC law, well... That's USA being stupid. The rest of the world is not crazy as you. For example, Canadian banking system is one of the most sane; during the 2008 crisis, we were almost not affected. (Well, we suffered because our main trading partner was the US, and they were hit hard; the point is, up here, the forclosure rate or the employement rate did not go up that much.)

that is why people fear regulation, for the same reason they fear bacteria, because most of them make you ill

I'm sorry to tell you, but there are more bacterias in your body than there are of your own cell. Your digestive system contains several kind of bacteria that help to keep you alive. (The once did an experiment in which they raised mice in a sterile environnement; they died)

[Lauda]

I don't fear regulation because Bitcoin.

Regulation fears bitcoin.

[ISAWHIM]

The fact that food additive and pharmaeutical is regulated is good: I can trust that they are safe and won't poison me.

Regulation promises no such thing... What it promises is that there is less potential chance for being poisoned (except for the "known" side-effects/poisons), and if poisoned beyond that known poison, the company who sold you the poison, will be held responsible.

There is no claims of "safety", in regulation.

Drugs get pulled off the "regulated market", which were once regulated. Items get pulled for being unsafe. People still get screwed by regulated markets...

Enron
NYSE
AOL
Microsoft
DOW

Just to name a few "regulated" things that have been the source of some major "non-good", and "distrust".

Why do we fear it... Because it costs us, to regulate. It rewards only those regulating it. It offers little protection, and even less enforcement is actually done. The majority of regulation is simply to do nothing, and get something. "Comfort foods" for the mind.

However... Since it is "comfort food", it does fill more peoples bellies than the distasteful fear of unregulated markets. (However, it should not be forced. What should be forced is alerting people that they are participating in an unregulated market. So they are aware of the lack of "comfort food" that they will never not get.)

Regulation has many faces...

We are not talking about price regulation... We are talking about accountability and proof, regulation.

[Snail2]

Just try to imagine Ben Barnake and Christine Lagarde in the board of the Bitcoin Foundation... Scary stuff .

[xyzzy099]

http://www.coindesk.com/why-regulating-bitcoin-will-not-work/

[Lauda]

http://www.coindesk.com/why-regulating-bitcoin-will-not-work/

Some regulation would be okay I assume, but the governments tend to take a bad stance here.

[anth0ny]

What I don't get is that some people seem to fear ANY form of regulation whereas reasonable and balanced regulation can, on the contrary, help an industry strive.

Generally such people are using the term "regulation" to mean "a law I don't like.

The fact that food additive and pharmaeutical is regulated is good: I can trust that they are safe and won't poison me.

Well, it's nice that there are laws against poisoning people, but the current regulations go way too far.

Net neutrality laws, benefit Internet and benefit the end user, even if telecoms don't like them.

How so? Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy whatever Internet service that someone is willing to sell to me?

In the same fashion, imagine that law required that bitcoin exchanges are required to publish an audit every quarter. The Mt.Gox fiasco would have never happened.

Enron was required to publish an audit every quarter.

But I think that somebody that really hopes for Bitcoin becoming mainstream, should rejoince at any reasonable regulation that consider bitcoin on an equal footing with regular money.

I think I can agree with that. On the other hand, there are currently a lot of bad regulations over "regular money".

My main issue with regulations is that I want to be able to buy whatever I want from whomever I want, so long as I'm not hurting anyone else in the process. If I want to buy pot, or non-neutral Internet access, or bitcoin, I should be able to do so without the government interfering. I'm an adult. Let me make adult decisions.

[un_ordinateur]

Net neutrality laws, benefit Internet and benefit the end user, even if telecoms don't like them.

How so? Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy whatever Internet service that someone is willing to sell to me?

You said later: "as I'm not hurting anyone else in the process". Non-neutral network hurt other buisnesses. If people have to begin signing "distribution contracts" with Internet providers in order for poeple to be able to access their website, you're hurting every startup and killing whats makes Internet so awesome: The fact that I can setup a website in my home computer, and the whole world can access it for free!

It's one of the beneftis of Bitcoin too, that it's neutral! There is no processor that can chose wether to let go a transaction or not.

In the same fashion, imagine that law required that bitcoin exchanges are required to publish an audit every quarter. The Mt.Gox fiasco would have never happened.

Enron was required to publish an audit every quarter.

Fine, but there's a difference between deliberate fraud and stupidity. People deliberately can hide cash or facts, and no amount of regulation can prevent that. However, by requiring to publish an audit, it would have forced Mt.Gox to check wether it had enough BTC on had to cover all it's users funds. And their problem would have been found sooner.

My main issue with regulations is that I want to be able to buy whatever I want from whomever I want, so long as I'm not hurting anyone else in the process. If I want to buy pot, or non-neutral Internet access, or bitcoin, I should be able to do so without the government interfering. I'm an adult. Let me make adult decisions.

I agree with that.

[descarte]

I think a bit of regulation gives government some peace of mind. Full regulation takes away the spirit of bitcoin. I don't think many government knows how to deal with it yet, and hence the controversy.

[justusranvier]

Why do people hate being lied to, mugged, and raped so much?

As long as they give you a pat on the back afterwards, only take half your wallet, and just use the tip it should be fine, right?

[marhjan]

You say you're interested in an intelligent conversation.  First off some here are actually anarcho-capitalists, libertarians, anarchist/minarchists and the like.  If you're not of that bent, then of course there will be disagreement - I'm open to debate and not saying anyone who disagrees is 'brainwashed' etc.  But the decentralized nature of btc is what drew many of us to it in the early days before it was a 'get rich quick' scheme etc.  That some of us have gotten rich is not irrelevant but just a different conversation.  Those of us who value certain core principles/ideologies are NOT NECESSARILY interested in btc 'going mainstream' per se.

(I know I'll be saying things that will some people will strongly dissagree. But I'm trying to have an intelligent conversation)

Don't get me wrong: any overly restrictive regulation; outlawing bitcoins, etc... would of course be bad.

What I don't get is that some people seem to fear ANY form of regulation whereas reasonable and balanced regulation can, on the contrary, help an industry strive.

The fact that food additive and pharmaeutical is regulated is good: I can trust that they are safe and won't poison me.
YOU think this is good - and it's understandable.  I wish the FDA/DEA etc would go away and allow everything to be legal - there would of course be industry groups that rose up to offer some degree of security/labeling - but all would be legal.

Net neutrality laws, benefit Internet and benefit the end user, even if telecoms don't like them.
Net neutrality is bullshit.  Sure it's nice - but there is zero reason broadband providers should be forced by anyone to look at web forums and streaming video content in the same way and for the same price

In the same fashion, imagine that law required that bitcoin exchanges are required to publish an audit every quarter. The Mt.Gox fiasco would have never happened.
You/we don't need a government to provide this.  Consumers need to DEMAND it from exchanges.  MtGox has been a trainwreck waiting to happen ever since June 2011 for anyone who was paying attention.  Its implosion will be one of the best things to happen to btc in a long time.

In any case, if we ever hope that bitcoin be used as commonplace currency, it should be treated as such. Which means the same taxes, regulation, etc... You may dissagree with those laws, but it is another debate; how much must the governement tax and regulate money. But I think that somebody that really hopes for Bitcoin becoming mainstream, should rejoince at any reasonable regulation that consider bitcoin on an equal footing with regular money.

I understand where you are coming from - perhaps this will provide some insight into where those of us who are against ALL regulation come from.  I'm not some kid and I've been on this forum since 2011 although not always overly active.

[anth0ny]

Net neutrality laws, benefit Internet and benefit the end user, even if telecoms don't like them.

How so? Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy whatever Internet service that someone is willing to sell to me?

You said later: "as I'm not hurting anyone else in the process". Non-neutral network hurt other buisnesses.

In the same sense that offering low prices and great service hurts other businesses?

If people have to begin signing "distribution contracts" with Internet providers in order for poeple to be able to access their website

People can't be forced to sign anything.

In the same fashion, imagine that law required that bitcoin exchanges are required to publish an audit every quarter. The Mt.Gox fiasco would have never happened.

Enron was required to publish an audit every quarter.

Fine, but there's a difference between deliberate fraud and stupidity.

And you think Gox is the latter? C'mon.

People deliberately can hide cash or facts, and no amount of regulation can prevent that. However, by requiring to publish an audit, it would have forced Mt.Gox to check wether it had enough BTC on had to cover all it's users funds. And their problem would have been found sooner.

Yeah, I don't think so.

My main issue with regulations is that I want to be able to buy whatever I want from whomever I want, so long as I'm not hurting anyone else in the process. If I want to buy pot, or non-neutral Internet access, or bitcoin, I should be able to do so without the government interfering. I'm an adult. Let me make adult decisions.

I agree with that.

You agree that I should be allowed to buy pot? But your drug regulations, which you support, are why I can't. You agree I should be allowed to buy non-neutral Internet access? But your net neutrality regulations, which you support, would say I can't. You agree I should be allowed to buy bitcoin without the government interfering? But your money services business regulations say I can't.

[Zimbabwecoin]

One problem with regulation is that a small business has a very hard time complying with all the regulations. As an example, to be a money services business in all 50 states costs millions of dollars. The application fees run into 6 figures, attorney fees are ridiculous, and then bonding requirements in individual states often run between $50,000 and over a million. So that is easy for a company like Western Union. But, not for a small company that tries to compete.

[DooMAD]

Go buy some mintchip or some other government-backed coin if you want a regulated digital currency.  But you'll see where it falls down compared to Bitcoin in this article.

[practicaldreamer]

Why do people fear regulation so much ?

I don't know - but all I can say for sure is that in the absence of some kind of regulation, in the light of the Gox fiasco, there is little chance that I would have much success in converting my family and friends to BTC (if indeed I had the desire in the first place to talk them into it)

And to be fair to them, my families and friends bank deposits in the UK are currently guaranteed up to £85k (per account) by the UK Government - how is BTC going to compete with that ? People entrust their capital to third parties because they offer some kind of insurance and security against loss - and they are prepared to pay for it. At the minute in BTC land you'd be as well off entrusting your BTC to the bloke down the market.

Don't get me wrong - I believe in BTC - but I suspect that a lot of its current price is a reflection not of the few quid people like me (idealists  ) have tied up in it, but more the dollars that the likes of this bloke have siphoned into it. Nothing radical in this chap - nothing emancipatory or idealist or libertarian here - just naked self interest. He doesn't want regulation either  

Or is the future of BTC to be one whereby it becomes an unregulated anonymous means by which the IMF is unable to tax the rich to pay for the debt that they (the rich) have forced upon the 90% of the world population ??

I, for one, sincerely hope not.

[anth0ny]

Why do people fear regulation so much ?

Because governments are so often so bad at it, I think.

I don't know - but all I can say for sure is that in the absence of some kind of regulation, in the light of the Gox fiasco, there is little chance that I would have much success in converting my family and friends to BTC (if indeed I had the desire in the first place to talk them into it)

What kind of regulation, exactly?

[redhawk979]

We can't give big bad government our IDs and information if we want to use Exchanges, so regulation is bad. *

*but its ok to give your photo, palm print, ssn, bank acct # and name to some no-name company to use their Bitcoin ATM.

[QuinnHarris]

It depends what you mean by regulation.  Most likely you mean the modern government variety.  So as related to an exchange it would mean some set of rules some bureaucrats devise to attempt to solve past problems.  What do you think the chance the bureaucrat will consider tools so customers can personally validate their holdings or mechanisms for multiple parties to check each other in real time.  All technically possible.  Or better yet distributed exchanges.  Instead they will use the limited technology they know and government force to impose a less efficient and effective set of rules that can't be easily avoided by those who develop better methods.  It will also create the pretense the problem has been solved reducing the motivation and profit for providing superior solutions.  It might seem to help in the short term but the long term results will be a system in the general sense in less well regulated.

It also creates an incentive for regulatory capture where powerful parties supposedly regulated by government have an incentive to collude with the regulators to have regulations or laws changed to favor them over less powerful competition or even new entrants.  This essential gives private organization indirect access to government force.

[Skoupi]

I think people afraid that regulation will come from people that don't view bitcoin as a protocol and thus it will be irrational.

[CurbsideProphet]

One of the major problems with regulations would be the state and government licenses.   The exchanges, or business may be forced to be licensed in each state or country that a person is trying to purchase bitcoins from.  Not to mention that you may need to register with all appropriate forms of ID, any place that you purchase or store bitcoins.  Major un-needed headache

I agree, it's a major barrier to entry for the little guy.  I don't really mind if you need a license but they should have affordable, a money transmitter license is simply not something the average business person can afford and that's what should change.

[ISAWHIM]

I think the question is too vague...

You would have to elaborate on what regulations... (Not all regulations are feared.)

I like regulation that saves me from potential losses. (Even if only self-regulated.)

I don't like regulation that operates under the ploy of protecting me, (though it might in some rare way), creating limitations on how, where, or why I spend my earned income.

[BlueNote]

Because trading is not a crime, and this so-called "regulation" criminalizes trade.  If you and I agree to exchange bitcoin for dollars, that is not a crime. There is no victim. We have a right to voluntarily exchange our property.

If, on the other hand, you steal my bitcoins or my dollars (or otherwise obtain them fraudulently), then that is a crime - an actual crime with a real flesh-and-blood victim and actual provable damages. There are LAWS against crimes like THEFT and FRAUD. There have been since...forever. Those laws are essentially just. It would be nice if they were properly enforced.

Please note that the existence of laws against theft and fraud do not magically stop people from committing such crimes. Likewise please note that criminalizing trade through "regulation" does not magically stop people from committing crimes either, but it does introduce something new into the picture - the punishment of provably innocent parties, and the intentional distortion of markets by government and corporate forces bent on power and control.

If we want to see some measure of justice, we should advocate that laws against theft and fraud be properly enforced, not that innocent people be punished for non-crimes or that certain groups be given control over markets other than the people who voluntarily participate in them.
 

[bananas]

historically regulation makes more bad than good, and also put everything in the hands of thosze who already have power

[anth0ny]

Because trading is not a crime, and this so-called "regulation" criminalizes trade.  If you and I agree to exchange bitcoin for dollars, that is not a crime. There is no victim. We have a right to voluntarily exchange our property.

If, on the other hand, you steal my bitcoins or my dollars (or otherwise obtain them fraudulently), then that is a crime - an actual crime with a real flesh-and-blood victim and actual provable damages. There are LAWS against crimes like THEFT and FRAUD. There have been since...forever. Those laws are essentially just. It would be nice if they were properly enforced.

Please note that the existence of laws against theft and fraud do not magically stop people from committing such crimes. Likewise please note that criminalizing trade through "regulation" does not magically stop people from committing crimes either, but it does introduce something new into the picture - the punishment of provably innocent parties, and the intentional distortion of markets by government and corporate forces bent on power and control.

If we want to see some measure of justice, we should advocate that laws against theft and fraud be properly enforced, not that innocent people be punished for non-crimes or that certain groups be given control over markets other than the people who voluntarily participate in them.

Very well said. In addition, in the case of Bitcoin, I think the money services regulations are a big contributor to making things less safe for us all. If it weren't for these regulations I think you'd see a lot more in-person exchange to/from BTC, and therefore a lot more people holding their BTC in personal wallets rather than at these huge exchanges.

The fact that people are in jail for selling BTC in-person without a license is just appalling, and anyone who claims to be a supporter of Bitcoin ought to agree with that.

[frito]

whos talking about regulating bitcoin.

Just the end points like exchanges, where it is necessary to entrust both fiat and BTC to a third party in order to be able to trade in real time.

Another interesting regulatory application would be tracing stolen coins to the point of exit: BTC to fiat or a product/service with the help of non Gov body such as Bitcoin Foundation+law enforcers in respective end points(where the BTC got changed to fiat/product/service). And ability to return stolen coins to the owner.

[anth0ny]

whos talking about regulating bitcoin.

Just the end points like exchanges, where it is necessary to entrust both fiat and BTC to a third party in order to be able to trade in real time.

Like when I buy a cheeseburger "in real time" at a restaurant and have to entrust both fiat and a cheeseburger to a third party?

Read above: requiring a license to exchange BTC and USD is what causes the consolidation, which is what causes the massive heists. If I could convert BTC/USD at my coffee shop in the morning, I wouldn't have to store BTC in Mt. Gox (nor USD in My Bank, for that matter).

Would a coffee shop be willing to set up a terminal where they can offer this? I think you could convince them to do so. A coffee shop probably isn't going to be willing to get licensed as a money services business, though.

Does that require trust? Yeah. Buying $100 of BTC from a coffee shop requires about as much trust as buying $100 of electronics equipment from an electronics store.

[Lauda]

historically regulation makes more bad than good, and also put everything in the hands of thosze who already have power

History repeats itself?

[teukon]

In the same fashion, imagine that law required that bitcoin exchanges are required to publish an audit every quarter. The Mt.Gox fiasco would have never happened.

Horrible errors like this die out due to market forces; akin to how unfit species die out due to evolutionary forces.
Once upon a time, the main way of buying and selling bitcoins was via PayPal.  It took a long time for this to break down, but it did in the end, without state coercion.
Once upon a time, most mining pools employed the dreadfully flawed "proportional reward system".  It took more than a year for the market to shake this off, but it managed eventually, even without new laws.
I'm fully confident that, without any threat of violence at all, events such as the Mt.Gox fiasco will become relics.

[apulunas]

bitcoin will get a regulation eventually, it is inevitable. mtgox will just make it sooner.

[byt411]

bitcoin will get a regulation eventually, it is inevitable. mtgox will just make it sooner.

I'd like to see them try to regulate bitcoin. The max they can do is just govern bitcoin exchanges...

[Bitcoinpro]

they don't its just the forum hierarchy and their legion of alts they are the biggest scam crew you can think of look at how much they have gotten away with at gox all in it together, they will be throwing a big party at Mark's cayman islands mansion you can bet on that

[davidgdg]

...The fact that ...pharmaeutical is regulated is good: I can trust that they are safe and won't poison me.

You need to distinguish between what is seen and what is not seen.

You see the "good" effects of regulation. You don't see the bad. Pharmaceutical regulation raises the cost of drug development and medical research  by orders of magnitude. The consequence of that is that many life-saving medicines and treatments never reach the market at all.

Thus millions die. It's just that you don't know who they are.

[Lauda]

The problem is not regulating, the problem lies in how it is going to get regulated.

[Thanatopsis]

But to be realistic, there will have to be some form of regulation by the time Bitcoin really breaks out into the mainstream. Governments, and a large part of the public in my opinion, will expect a certain minimum standard of regulation i order to allow Bitcoin to have a meaningful role in the payment system.

There will have to be rule to ensure that Bitcoin does not become the favorite tool of child porn producers, extortionists and terrorists (just to foreshadow some inflaming headlines we are sure to see at some point) which means thare has to be some kind of effective Anti Money Laundering regulation.

The developed countries will also have to make sure that Bitcoin does not lead to rampant tax evasion. They have barely managed to effectively close the tax evasion heaven that was the Swiss banking system and now there is Bitcoin. Taxes will have to be levied regardless what kind of currency a transaction is performed in because the states need the money and will get it this or that way. Now obviously, this might lead to a major change in our system of taxation towards a consumption based system because it would be easier to control but taxation there will be non the less.

Now right now nobody knows how that regulation will look but it will surely come...

Lets just hope they take the time to actually think of new regulations for bitcoin. Regulations adapted to the new kind of system Bitcoin is instead of just saying "all the old rules apply and then some" grinding the whole process to a screeching halt.

[DooMAD]

If there were a practical way to do it without breaking the purity of a two party transaction, sender and receiver, someone would have made an alt that does it already.  All regulation will do is add middlemen.  If anything, the situation with gox proves beyond all doubt that adding third parties to mix is a recipe for disaster. 

As usual, Andreas says it best:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jy6XIBnThpY
Minutes 15:00 through 21:00 are the parts you need to watch if you think regulation is needed or wanted.
But really you should watch the whole thing to fully understand how this currency actually works.

[Thanatopsis]

Then governments will go ahead and break Bitcoin if they so choose.

Or, more likely, they will require all merchants and banks and exchanges and everyone else to reliably prove that the Bitcoins they have just accepted were not from an illegal source or were part of a money laundering transaction. Just like they are doing with cash today. Which you can't because that would "break bitcoin". Which will mean, that you won't be able to use Bitcoin to buy anything in any developed country. Which makes it a fun experiment but after all pretty much useless.

There will have to be some kind of assurance that basic standards of AML assurance are maintained. Otherwise Bitcoin can never break out of it's current role and go "mainstream". Governments will simply not allow it and while they can not shut it down, they can make it effectively worthless.

I absolutely agree that blacklisting is pointless and stupid. I also think we will have to think of something else to achieve the desired effect.

[DooMAD]

Then governments will go ahead and break Bitcoin if they so choose.

Or, more likely, they will require all merchants and banks and exchanges and everyone else to reliably prove that the Bitcoins they have just accepted were not from an illegal source or were part of a money laundering transaction. Just like they are doing with cash today. Which you can't because that would "break bitcoin". Which will mean, that you won't be able to use Bitcoin to buy anything in any developed country. Which makes it a fun experiment but after all pretty much useless.

There will have to be some kind of assurance that basic standards of AML assurance are maintained. Otherwise Bitcoin can never break out of it's current role and go "mainstream". Governments will simply not allow it and while they can not shut it down, they can make it effectively worthless.

I absolutely agree that blacklisting is pointless and stupid. I also think we will have to think of something else to achieve the desired effect.

Cash is accepted everywhere without proof to show it hasn't been laundered or obtained via illicit means, so I'm gonna go ahead and call bullshit on that.  Also, governments aren't going to waste "their" money enforcing rules on something they're not going to profit from.  There's no incentive for them to want to regulate it.  The US has already said they have no place in regulating it, so you might wanna go buy mintchip or something if you think regulation is the way forward. 

[_Miracle]

We already have highly regulated money systems that... are not working.
It's time to have other options.

Bitcoin needs to stay as it is.

I do agree that regulations be in place when bits convert to fiat (exchanges are a good example).

My concern is that regulators will attached old rules to a new technology and drag it down.
We will see?

[vailixi]

Consenting to be regulated is like saying that you don't have the authority to act of your own accord and that you don't have the intelligence to make your own decisions. You don't need to ask for permission to do something as long as you are not harming anyone else.

Word of the day..

Liberty