Why do people fear regulation so much?

[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.