Does Bitcoin Require Regulations?

[Yakamoto]

Welcome to the forum. I had a similar experience and I made posts kind of like this. Everyone is a noob at one time or another.

Anyways,

No, Bitcoin does NOT need regulations. Regulations just helps to gain control over it. It is decentralized for a reason.

Think of it like this;

If you give privacy to the masses, some will corrupt it.

If you give information to the government, some will corrupt it.

But who controls the people? The masses, or the government? Who can change the people to bow to their will? The government, or small groups of people?

[BetMoose]

Technology will be our regulator.

In cryptography we trust.

Now there is a very good thought!

Of course it has gone right over the heads of the gaming types.

I agree with you to some extent. Technology will be our regulator.

Exactly. Eventually, the radical transparency and funds-control offered by the blockchain and crypto will make much of what regulators do in the legacy financial system redundant. Proof-of-reserves, multi-sig, blockchain audits, etc, will allow consumers far more immediately verifiable information about the entities with which they choose to transact, plus more secure control of funds. Providing that sort of transparency and info to consumers was one of the main drivers for the existing regulatory body.

bitcoin is not money. governments have said it out loud in the US, UK, and multiple countries of Europe. so they and all of us agree that bitcoin itself will no be regulated by financial regulators, because its an ASSET! (which is a good thing)

so lets close the book on discussions of financial regulation of bitcoin.

now then, the oversight of BUSINESSES however will be apparent, for exchanges that use FIAT deposits/withdrawals they have to follow the current FIAT rules. also the business ethics side (consumer rights) there are already agencies in place such as BBB(better business bureau) OFT(Office of Fair Trading) etc.

so as long as businesses run ethically and control FIAT responsibly, then bitcoin can be left to do what it does best.

What are your thoughts on the recent Erik Voorhees SEC ruling and subsequent fines?

[franky1]

Technology will be our regulator.

In cryptography we trust.

Now there is a very good thought!

Of course it has gone right over the heads of the gaming types.

I agree with you to some extent. Technology will be our regulator.

Exactly. Eventually, the radical transparency and funds-control offered by the blockchain and crypto will make much of what regulators do in the legacy financial system redundant. Proof-of-reserves, multi-sig, blockchain audits, etc, will allow consumers far more immediately verifiable information about the entities with which they choose to transact, plus more secure control of funds. Providing that sort of transparency and info to consumers was one of the main drivers for the existing regulatory body.

bitcoin is not money. governments have said it out loud in the US, UK, and multiple countries of Europe. so they and all of us agree that bitcoin itself will no be regulated by financial regulators, because its an ASSET! (which is a good thing)

so lets close the book on discussions of financial regulation of bitcoin.

now then, the oversight of BUSINESSES however will be apparent, for exchanges that use FIAT deposits/withdrawals they have to follow the current FIAT rules. also the business ethics side (consumer rights) there are already agencies in place such as BBB(better business bureau) OFT(Office of Fair Trading) etc.

so as long as businesses run ethically and control FIAT responsibly, then bitcoin can be left to do what it does best.

What are your thoughts on the recent Erik Voorhees SEC ruling and subsequent fines?

he was converting to FIAT, so serves him right for ignoring FIAT rules. if he converted bitcoin to litecoin, no one would have touched him. 

[Swordsoffreedom]

Welcome to Bitcoin.

I suggest you learn about the protocol by reading the white paper.

93% who have seen and voted agree...
I am apart of that 93%.

He-he You mean your one of the three that clicked agree and not one of the forty three users that voted
I disagree which is NO

[Ron~Popeil]

Technology will be our regulator.

In cryptography we trust.

Now there is a very good thought!

Of course it has gone right over the heads of the gaming types.

I agree with you to some extent. Technology will be our regulator.

Exactly. Eventually, the radical transparency and funds-control offered by the blockchain and crypto will make much of what regulators do in the legacy financial system redundant. Proof-of-reserves, multi-sig, blockchain audits, etc, will allow consumers far more immediately verifiable information about the entities with which they choose to transact, plus more secure control of funds. Providing that sort of transparency and info to consumers was one of the main drivers for the existing regulatory body.

bitcoin is not money. governments have said it out loud in the US, UK, and multiple countries of Europe. so they and all of us agree that bitcoin itself will no be regulated by financial regulators, because its an ASSET! (which is a good thing)

so lets close the book on discussions of financial regulation of bitcoin.

now then, the oversight of BUSINESSES however will be apparent, for exchanges that use FIAT deposits/withdrawals they have to follow the current FIAT rules. also the business ethics side (consumer rights) there are already agencies in place such as BBB(better business bureau) OFT(Office of Fair Trading) etc.

so as long as businesses run ethically and control FIAT responsibly, then bitcoin can be left to do what it does best.

What are your thoughts on the recent Erik Voorhees SEC ruling and subsequent fines?

he was converting to FIAT, so serves him right for ignoring FIAT rules. if he converted bitcoin to litecoin, no one would have touched him. 

I don't know that it "serves him right," but he would have definitely been better off staying in crypto currency.

[Elwar]

Why are we so intent on begging governments to meddle with bit coin?

People are always begging the government to enslave their neighbors.

The thing is, so are their neighbors.

[Ron~Popeil]

Why are we so intent on begging governments to meddle with bit coin?

People are always begging the government to enslave their neighbors.

The thing is, so are their neighbors.

I am sad to say you hit the nail on the head. The only thing worse than a nanny state is a population that gets comfortable with it.

[SOAD]

I love how only three people voted yes. |Who were they? Reveal yourselves!

[Krang]

Almost certainly trolls. Bitcoin doesnt need regulation, but some will inevitably come.

[TheGambler]

I love how only three people voted yes. |Who were they? Reveal yourselves!

they'll be barked at and they know it...
probably trolls

[franky1]

the three that voted yes, probably do not know the difference between regulation, and consumer protection. they probably want consumer protection but think its all the same thing. when in fact is it not

[Neg]

the three that voted yes, probably do not know the difference between regulation, and consumer protection. they probably want consumer protection but think its all the same thing. when in fact is it not

Maybe... or they're just trolls. I'm sure there will be services that pop up that offer consumer protection though.

[cbeast]

Privacy != Anonymity. Privacy needs protection. Anonymity needs regulation.

You can't spend a million dollars worth of anonymous gift cards in any practical way, so you shouldn't be able to easily spend millions worth of bitcoins anonymously. I'm not saying it can be made impossible, but there should be regulations restricting the use of mixing. If that isn't done, then the law of unintended consequences will slap the Bitcoin community hard. Folks may really believe that anonymity yields more freedom, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

[cbeast]

Privacy != Anonymity. Privacy needs protection. Anonymity needs regulation.

You can't spend a million dollars worth of anonymous gift cards in any practical way, so you shouldn't be able to easily spend millions worth of bitcoins anonymously. I'm not saying it can be made impossible, but there should be regulations restricting the use of mixing. If that isn't done, then the law of unintended consequences will slap the Bitcoin community hard. Folks may really believe that anonymity yields more freedom, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Good point...
Though I think the FBI/who ever seized silk road and multiple other websites are already beginning to dominate the coin
They hold around 2.5% of all bitcoins don't they? (a statistic I heard a while ago)

What's your point? If someone held 99.9% of the bitcoins, it wouldn't change much except that the price would skyrocket until they let go of some of their coins.

[davidgdg]

You can regulate the bitcoin related exchange/business, but you can't really regulate bitcoin since it can travel across the whole internet. Currently all the government's regulation only apply domestically

Except for the USG of course 

[davidgdg]

"so as long as businesses run ethically and control FIAT responsibly......."

Yeah, right.

Leave Bitcoin alone anyway.

your depth perception seems limited.

personal bitcoin transactions will remain free to do whatever they want. same goes for personal loans, and other peer to peer stuff.. but businesses... ACTUAL businesses do need some ethics.

take BFL for instance. wouldnt you even agree that if BFL didn't do the 1 year 'pre-order' but instead only offered pre-orders for no longer then a month (which is an acceptable reasonable time in regards to BBB policy) then consumers would be happier.

take intersango for instance, if as a business they had to register a business with companies house and get audited, wouldn't you and everyone have been happier that they were legit and be held legally accountable

in both cases these 'companies' acted like dodgy hobbyists taking large sums and acting like they are not accountable for anything.

this is not about bitcoin. this is about businesses treating customers correctly

The best protection for consumers is competition which is exactly what regulation destroys. 

[cbeast]

"so as long as businesses run ethically and control FIAT responsibly......."

Yeah, right.

Leave Bitcoin alone anyway.

your depth perception seems limited.

personal bitcoin transactions will remain free to do whatever they want. same goes for personal loans, and other peer to peer stuff.. but businesses... ACTUAL businesses do need some ethics.

take BFL for instance. wouldnt you even agree that if BFL didn't do the 1 year 'pre-order' but instead only offered pre-orders for no longer then a month (which is an acceptable reasonable time in regards to BBB policy) then consumers would be happier.

take intersango for instance, if as a business they had to register a business with companies house and get audited, wouldn't you and everyone have been happier that they were legit and be held legally accountable

in both cases these 'companies' acted like dodgy hobbyists taking large sums and acting like they are not accountable for anything.

this is not about bitcoin. this is about businesses treating customers correctly

The best protection for consumers is competition which is exactly what regulation destroys. 

You keep saying that, but it still doesn't make it true. Show evidence to support that statement and show that evidence to falsify that statement are fallacious.

[cbeast]

"so as long as businesses run ethically and control FIAT responsibly......."

Yeah, right.

Leave Bitcoin alone anyway.

your depth perception seems limited.

personal bitcoin transactions will remain free to do whatever they want. same goes for personal loans, and other peer to peer stuff.. but businesses... ACTUAL businesses do need some ethics.

take BFL for instance. wouldnt you even agree that if BFL didn't do the 1 year 'pre-order' but instead only offered pre-orders for no longer then a month (which is an acceptable reasonable time in regards to BBB policy) then consumers would be happier.

take intersango for instance, if as a business they had to register a business with companies house and get audited, wouldn't you and everyone have been happier that they were legit and be held legally accountable

in both cases these 'companies' acted like dodgy hobbyists taking large sums and acting like they are not accountable for anything.

this is not about bitcoin. this is about businesses treating customers correctly

The best protection for consumers is competition which is exactly what regulation destroys. 

You keep saying that, but it still doesn't make it true. Show evidence to support that statement and show that evidence to falsify that statement are fallacious.

You're right, consumers do need to feel safe with businesses
The current instability is to high. Especially after the inputs disaster/coinlenders as well as dogevault attacks

I was speaking in general terms and am unfamiliar with these events.

[Cryddit]

Ultimately what we have with bitcoin is the blockchain protocol.  

It means that whatever rules we all agree to (at least about things that can be checked via the blockchain) can be enforced by the laws of mathematics.  No temporal authority is required to prevent violations of those rules.

But there is a difference in kind between that clean, simplistic mathematical universe and the physical and contextual universe that everybody actually lives in.  

Banks etc. exist in a world of temporal security.  The mechanisms that (mostly and most of the time) prevent them from stealing their customers' money are all about laws and licensing and legal conformance and barriers to entry and professional accounting practices and, yes, courts and fines and possibly even jail time.  

Both of these models are limited.  But for particular subsets of applications, both work.  So far the biggest problem is that the handoffs between them have been abysmally bad.

It's the brokerages and exchanges and banks, err, excuse me I mean online wallets - people who handle other people's bitcoin - who have been the biggest stealers of it.  At some point it comes out of that mathematical-security world because someone is holding bitcoin on behalf of someone else.  And that is where it gets stolen, so far because it's not going from there into an environment with a solid framework of temporal security.  

So we need to figure this out.  Either we need businesses at the endpoints (meaning brokerages and exchanges) that are fully a part of that regulatory framework, or we need to extend the mathematical security model until those businesses have nothing left to do and can be done without.  

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

So we need to figure this out.  Either we need businesses at the endpoints (meaning brokerages and exchanges) that are fully a part of that regulatory framework, or we need to extend the mathematical security model until those businesses have nothing left to do and can be done without. 

That's simply not possible.