Why is it so hard to regulate Bitcoin?

[cryptocurrencylive]

Why is it so hard to regulate Bitcoin?

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-06/25/regulating-bitcoin

[Noruka]

because there is no one single person you can throw in jail or tax

[marcotheminer]

because there is no one single person you can throw in jail or tax

And you cannot stop it by censoring it from servers, impossible to block it from the internet

[Meuh6879]

bitcoin is not the cloud, you can't stop it.

[blatchcorn]

There seems to be only two options: 1) allow bitcoin complete freedom 2) make it illegal to accept bitcoin as payment. The second option seems more likely at the moment, be the first is still possible

[phillipsjk]

The article mentions the 35% attack:

Semantics aside, one interesting claim the paper makes is that if the researchers' approach were adopted, the Bitcoin network would be split into miners who could choose to abide by the boycott recommendations -- or not. Initially, those who did follow the rules would make fewer profits, but if their group grew to 35% of the network then they would start negatively impacting the profits of the other miners who ignored regulatory advice.

Probably a variant of selfish mining.

Edit: It is indirectly: blocks with the [color-listed] transactions would be ignored by the participants. They came up with a way to do distributed selfish mining.

[Beliathon]

There seems to be only two options: 1) allow bitcoin complete freedom 2) make it illegal to accept bitcoin as payment. The second option seems more likely at the moment, be the first is still possible

Making bitcoin illegal may work in some parts of the world for a short period of time, but long term this draconian strategy will prove to be both politically unviable and technically impossible to enforce.

Ditto banning digital culture sharing ("piracy" being the ignorant capitalist slander term).

[jonald_fyookball]

There seems to be only two options: 1) allow bitcoin complete freedom 2) make it illegal to accept bitcoin as payment. The second option seems more likely at the moment, be the first is still possible

Making bitcoin illegal may work in some parts of the world for a short period of time, but long term this draconian strategy will prove to be both politically unviable and technically impossible to enforce.

Ditto banning digital culture sharing ("piracy" being the ignorant capitalist slander term).

Agree, long term would not work, just like marijuana prohibition is now crumbling.
But it would be a major setback.

Disagree on the stance of digital files.  What you call "sharing" I call "theft".
Artists have a right to get a fair price for their work.  I don't see how you
can call for universal rights for basic living necessities while undermining
the means to earn money... unless you just flat out admit being a communist,
in which case your view would at least be internally consistent.

[Beliathon]

Disagree on the stance of digital files.  What you call "sharing" I call "theft".

This is a very simple concept, even a child could understand it. Let me help you deprogram your brainwashing: Copying is not theft.

I'm so sorry. I realize this must be painful for you (unlearning lies always is), but there is really zero room for debate here. You're wrong. Accept it and move on.

Because the world will, and if you won't, you will be mercilessly left behind in the information age. Just like theists were in the scientific age. Yes, theists are still around today. And capitalists will still be around tomorrow.

But you'll be a laughing stock. Mocked and derided at every turn by enlightened, free-thinking people who will know that intellectual slavery is as much an ethical abomination as the physical sort.

Have you prepared your mind for this outcome ?

[Cicero2.0]

Disagree on the stance of digital files.  What you call "sharing" I call "theft".

This is a very simple concept, even a child could understand it. Let me help you deprogram your brainwashing: Copying is not theft.

I'm so sorry. I realize this must be painful for you (unlearning lies always is), but there is really zero room for debate here. You're wrong. Accept it and move on.

Because the world will, and if you won't, you will be mercilessly left behind in the information age. Just like theists were in the scientific age. Yes, theists are still around today. And capitalists will still be around tomorrow.

But you'll be a laughing stock. Mocked and derided at every turn by enlightened, free-thinking people who will know that intellectual slavery is as much an ethical abomination as the physical sort.

Have you prepared your mind for this outcome ?

This kind of begs a question. Do we own what we make? If you wrote a song would you have the right to ask for payment for someone else to downlad it? Or is intellectual property owned by society? To assume it is owned by society kind of makes the original author an intellectual slave does it not?

[jonald_fyookball]

Disagree on the stance of digital files.  What you call "sharing" I call "theft".

This is a very simple concept, even a child could understand it. Let me help you deprogram your brainwashing: Copying is not theft.

I'm so sorry. I realize this must be painful for you (unlearning lies always is), but there is really zero room for debate here. You're wrong. Accept it and move on.

Because the world will, and if you won't, you will be mercilessly left behind in the information age. Just like theists were in the scientific age. Yes, theists are still around today. And capitalists will still be around tomorrow.

But you'll be a laughing stock. Mocked and derided at every turn by enlightened, free-thinking people who will know that intellectual slavery is as much an ethical abomination as the physical sort.

Have you prepared your mind for this outcome ?

No room for debate, GTFOH.

Who is going to pay people to create music, books, and software
If anyone can copy it for free?  

There will be no professional authors, musicians, or programmers
under your model.  That's not any world I'd want to live in.

[BitBlitz]

The article failed the "Can they talk about Bitcoin without a photo of Casascius coins?" test.  Didn't read.  Already know the answer..

[ArnoldChippy]

Disagree on the stance of digital files.  What you call "sharing" I call "theft".

This is a very simple concept, even a child could understand it. Let me help you deprogram your brainwashing: Copying is not theft.

I'm so sorry. I realize this must be painful for you (unlearning lies always is), but there is really zero room for debate here. You're wrong. Accept it and move on.

Because the world will, and if you won't, you will be mercilessly left behind in the information age. Just like theists were in the scientific age. Yes, theists are still around today. And capitalists will still be around tomorrow.

But you'll be a laughing stock. Mocked and derided at every turn by enlightened, free-thinking people who will know that intellectual slavery is as much an ethical abomination as the physical sort.

Have you prepared your mind for this outcome ?

This kind of begs a question. Do we own what we make? If you wrote a song would you have the right to ask for payment for someone else to downlad it? Or is intellectual property owned by society? To assume it is owned by society kind of makes the original author an intellectual slave does it not?

The idea of doing something once and then being paid multiple time over for decades after - and with no further effort on the part of the originator - is immoral in my opinion.

[jonald_fyookball]

Disagree on the stance of digital files.  What you call "sharing" I call "theft".

This is a very simple concept, even a child could understand it. Let me help you deprogram your brainwashing: Copying is not theft.

I'm so sorry. I realize this must be painful for you (unlearning lies always is), but there is really zero room for debate here. You're wrong. Accept it and move on.

Because the world will, and if you won't, you will be mercilessly left behind in the information age. Just like theists were in the scientific age. Yes, theists are still around today. And capitalists will still be around tomorrow.

But you'll be a laughing stock. Mocked and derided at every turn by enlightened, free-thinking people who will know that intellectual slavery is as much an ethical abomination as the physical sort.

Have you prepared your mind for this outcome ?

This kind of begs a question. Do we own what we make? If you wrote a song would you have the right to ask for payment for someone else to downlad it? Or is intellectual property owned by society? To assume it is owned by society kind of makes the original author an intellectual slave does it not?

The idea of doing something once and then being paid multiple time over for decades after - and with no further effort on the part of the originator - is immoral in my opinion.

Why is that immoral?  You believe people must necessarily trade their time for money?
If that were true, no one would move up in the world, we would all be "wage slaves"

If you create something that stands the test of time, and are able to successfully
market it on an ongoing basis, why shouldn't you be allowed to keep doing so?

[justusranvier]

There will be no professional authors, musicians, or programmers
under your model.  That's not any world I'd want to live in.

Exactly.

Also, if we don't cut the hearts out of human sacrifices at the top of a pyramid, then the sun will stop rising and spring will never come.

That's not any world I'd want to live in.

[jonald_fyookball]

There will be no professional authors, musicians, or programmers
under your model.  That's not any world I'd want to live in.

Exactly.

Also, if we don't cut the hearts out of human sacrifices at the top of a pyramid, then the sun will stop rising and spring will never come.

That's not any world I'd want to live in.

I can't tell whether you are agreeing with me or mocking me.

[justusranvier]

I can't tell whether you are agreeing with me or mocking me.

Good.

[beatljuice]

Even though this is off topic and I shouldn't take the bait - here is my 2 satoshi on copying intellectual property.

People are free to choose how they want to share their work. If they want to give it away free, then so be it. I will probably donate to them if I like the work and they accept bitcoin. If they want to charge for their work - more power to them. I probably won't buy it (I do occasionally by music from my favorite artists that have been around a long time), but they should be able to distribute it in whatever way they like. There is plenty of great IP out there that is truly free that I can enjoy without the need to "steal" from people.

The reason I put "steal" in quotes is because it isn't a black and white issue to me. It's like personal space. You may not like me standing just a few inches away from you. I'm not breaking any laws by standing close to you, but it may make you uncomfortable. Some people feel more comfortable being protected by laws that govern how they deal with each other. When the laws make sense, like don't kill people, I have no problem with them. And we could pass a law that says you can't stand closer than 2 feet from a person without their permission.

Now, if a law like that were passed there would be people that would say "that's a stupid law i'm going to violate it because it's stupid." And that's a perfectly understandable attitude. But my point is: why would I want to stand next to anyone who believes in a stupid law like that, and would want to enforce it? Why would you want to even listen to music made by someone that believes in that system that you don't? It seems rather hypocritical to me.

[Beliathon]

Disagree on the stance of digital files.  What you call "sharing" I call "theft".

This is a very simple concept, even a child could understand it. Let me help you deprogram your brainwashing: Copying is not theft.

I'm so sorry. I realize this must be painful for you (unlearning lies always is), but there is really zero room for debate here. You're wrong. Accept it and move on.

Because the world will, and if you won't, you will be mercilessly left behind in the information age. Just like theists were in the scientific age. Yes, theists are still around today. And capitalists will still be around tomorrow.

But you'll be a laughing stock. Mocked and derided at every turn by enlightened, free-thinking people who will know that intellectual slavery is as much an ethical abomination as the physical sort.

Have you prepared your mind for this outcome ?

This kind of begs a question.

Well first of all, you're using the very commonly mistaken definition of that phrase. Here is what begging the question actually means.

Do we own what we make?

Property is theft!

If you wrote a song would you have the right to ask for payment for someone else to download it?

Only if I was providing power for the electricity of the computers involved by riding a stationary-bicycle which generated electricity. Only then would I ask for some payment.

Or is intellectual property owned by society?

Why does it need to be OWNED by anyone? Why can it not simply "be"?

The often invisible architecture of your language comes with all sorts of nasty assumptions about the world and your place in it...  Do you see the damage capitalism has done to your mind? Language wires our brains to think a certain way.

You have been taught obedience to capitalism and property since you could speak - your formative years as a human being. Think about that. Think about how difficult it is to unlearn something that you've been learning your entire life - without even knowing you've been programmed!

To assume it is owned by society kind of makes the original author an intellectual slave does it not?

Once again, songs, thoughts, art - these things do not need to be owned. When nature paints for you a breathtaking sunset or stunning rainbow, does a forest fairy pop from the ground and demand a payment for the pleasure you derived from viewing these things? When you swim naked in a lake, does a mermaid come and ask for payment? No, only humans do this insane thing, and only for the past few thousands years. We lived for half a million years before some asshole looked up at the sun and said, "hey, the sky-god says you should give me your share. If you don't you will be punished by the gods".

Such was the birth of capitalism.

[ArnoldChippy]

Disagree on the stance of digital files.  What you call "sharing" I call "theft".

This is a very simple concept, even a child could understand it. Let me help you deprogram your brainwashing: Copying is not theft.

I'm so sorry. I realize this must be painful for you (unlearning lies always is), but there is really zero room for debate here. You're wrong. Accept it and move on.

Because the world will, and if you won't, you will be mercilessly left behind in the information age. Just like theists were in the scientific age. Yes, theists are still around today. And capitalists will still be around tomorrow.

But you'll be a laughing stock. Mocked and derided at every turn by enlightened, free-thinking people who will know that intellectual slavery is as much an ethical abomination as the physical sort.

Have you prepared your mind for this outcome ?

This kind of begs a question. Do we own what we make? If you wrote a song would you have the right to ask for payment for someone else to downlad it? Or is intellectual property owned by society? To assume it is owned by society kind of makes the original author an intellectual slave does it not?

The idea of doing something once and then being paid multiple time over for decades after - and with no further effort on the part of the originator - is immoral in my opinion.

Why is that immoral?  You believe people must necessarily trade their time for money?
If that were true, no one would move up in the world, we would all be "wage slaves"

If you create something that stands the test of time, and are able to successfully
market it on an ongoing basis, why shouldn't you be allowed to keep doing so?

Well where does all this stop?
 
If I give you the recipe for a meal which you find enjoyable, will you pay me a royalty every time you make it?

Do these artists pay a royalty for the very use of words and language - of which they are not the originators - but is the tool they use as the basis of their work?

I'm afraid those days have now gone for the average artist, that where a short period of effort guaranteed a lifetimes comfort with optional idleness.

This is why so many musicians have had to go back to live performance to bolster their lifestyle.

I won't be a wage slave so these people can live charmed lives and nor should you.