Why is it so hard to regulate Bitcoin?

[ThomasCrowne]

Can you imagine having a government agency trying to figure out how they are going to track every bitcoin transaction if another agency has issue(s) with just sending out e-mail(s) that don't expose everybody's address?

[Peter R]

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.

It's an important debate: where do ideas come from?  Can they really be owned?  Or are we all just building upon the work of the minds that came before us.  Seeing further by standing on the shoulders of giants.

[franky1]

reading the first page. all i can say is that beliathon and arnold chippy.

if you ever take hours making a song, you should only in your whole live be paid $0.008 (spotify's revenue from one listener) and then the song should be made free because that listener copied it?

code a program/website.. and maybe get $8-$50, just once..

your own opinions means that you wont make more then minimum wage for the hours you initially put into it. and then thats it.. no more income, ever

do you honestly think that activision should only get 1 payment of $50 for call of duty... and then the rest of the 7billion people dont have to pay because that single person that bought it, then copied it 7 billion times

do you really think that teams of hundreds of people working for over a year on the game should get a split of only $50 (meaning each employee is only paid a couple cents for a years work)....

seriously, is that your mindset?

[gbooz]

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

I think that the option 3) is also possible. The bitcoin will stay as a "parallel" currency "as it is" but with the certain regulation/limitation of its use. Like it is already in some countries, where bitcoin payments are acceptabile in parallel with other currencies and is used by the companies with a solid reputation.

[jonald_fyookball]

I changed my mind Beliathon.

If you don't even believe in the concept of property or ownership to begin with then you're right:  there is zero room for debate.

Also, if your bitcoins ever got stolen (God forbid),
don't worry, its ok because you never really owned them. 

[Velkro]

because regulators dont have idea what it is really
computer scientist (most of them) have problems to understand bitcoin, so normal people are screw.....

[ArnoldChippy]

reading the first page. all i can say is that beliathon and arnold chippy.

if you ever take hours making a song, you should only in your whole live be paid $0.008 (spotify's revenue from one listener) and then the song should be made free because that listener copied it?

code a program/website.. and maybe get $8-$50, just once..

your own opinions means that you wont make more then minimum wage for the hours you initially put into it. and then thats it.. no more income, ever

do you honestly think that activision should only get 1 payment of $50 for call of duty... and then the rest of the 7billion people dont have to pay because that single person that bought it, then copied it 7 billion times

do you really think that teams of hundreds of people working for over a year on the game should get a split of only $50 (meaning each employee is only paid a couple cents for a years work)....

seriously, is that your mindset?

Why create a special set of rules that benefit writers/musicians etc? Let them have that as a hobby and do productive work for a job, just like everyone else.

I design and make mechanical components, so who do I run to when my work's copied?

Apparently, the author JK Rowling is now worth ~ $1 Billion...
...I mean, come on, for that sh*te?

[tl121]

The article, AGAINST INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, by N. Stephan Kinsella makes a strong case that intellectual property should be abolished.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf

[synctext]

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

I think that the option 3) is also possible. The bitcoin will stay as a "parallel" currency "as it is" but with the certain regulation/limitation of its use. Like it is already in some countries, where bitcoin payments are acceptabile in parallel with other currencies and is used by the companies with a solid reputation.

Indeed, Bitcoin is most likely parallel currency for a while.

I'm one of the authors of the paper mentioned in that Wired article (http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.5440).
Clearly the Bitcoin community rejected our proposal, it took even 9 hours for my pull request to be closed.

That's fine, I love Bitcoin. The key question is now how could millions of normal people start getting into Bitcoin?
Bitcoin ATM machine's legal in EU and US require photo-ID registration.
So #2, Bitcoin without a photo ID registration is illegal today in EU+US.

Option #3 means only tech savy people will get into it. It poses insurmountably high barriers for large-scale uptake.

[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

I think that the option 3) is also possible. The bitcoin will stay as a "parallel" currency "as it is" but with the certain regulation/limitation of its use. Like it is already in some countries, where bitcoin payments are acceptabile in parallel with other currencies and is used by the companies with a solid reputation.

Indeed, Bitcoin is most likely parallel currency for a while.

I'm one of the authors of the paper mentioned in that Wired article (http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.5440).
Clearly the Bitcoin community rejected our proposal, it took even 9 hours for my pull request to be closed.

That's fine, I love Bitcoin. The key question is now how could millions of normal people start getting into Bitcoin?
Bitcoin ATM machine's legal in EU and US require photo-ID registration.
So #2, Bitcoin without a photo ID registration is illegal today in EU+US.

Option #3 means only tech savy people will get into it. It poses insurmountably high barriers for large-scale uptake.

Yes, clearly your proposal threatened the fungibility of Bitcoin, an essential property
of currency... So it was rejected for very good reason.

[jonald_fyookball]

reading the first page. all i can say is that beliathon and arnold chippy.

if you ever take hours making a song, you should only in your whole live be paid $0.008 (spotify's revenue from one listener) and then the song should be made free because that listener copied it?

code a program/website.. and maybe get $8-$50, just once..

your own opinions means that you wont make more then minimum wage for the hours you initially put into it. and then thats it.. no more income, ever

do you honestly think that activision should only get 1 payment of $50 for call of duty... and then the rest of the 7billion people dont have to pay because that single person that bought it, then copied it 7 billion times

do you really think that teams of hundreds of people working for over a year on the game should get a split of only $50 (meaning each employee is only paid a couple cents for a years work)....

seriously, is that your mindset?

Why create a special set of rules that benefit writers/musicians etc? Let them have that as a hobby and do productive work for a job, just like everyone else.

I design and make mechanical components, so who do I run to when my work's copied?

Apparently, the author JK Rowling is now worth ~ $1 Billion...
...I mean, come on, for that sh*te?

If writers and musicians can elevate their art to a degree
that others are willing to pay for it, then it is just
as valuable and productive as anything else. 

It sounds like you are jealous... that an author can create
a book than thousands or millions of people would willingly
pay money for in the marketplace, and that they will be
rewarded for their effort.

[darkota]

reading the first page. all i can say is that beliathon and arnold chippy.

if you ever take hours making a song, you should only in your whole live be paid $0.008 (spotify's revenue from one listener) and then the song should be made free because that listener copied it?

code a program/website.. and maybe get $8-$50, just once..

your own opinions means that you wont make more then minimum wage for the hours you initially put into it. and then thats it.. no more income, ever

do you honestly think that activision should only get 1 payment of $50 for call of duty... and then the rest of the 7billion people dont have to pay because that single person that bought it, then copied it 7 billion times

do you really think that teams of hundreds of people working for over a year on the game should get a split of only $50 (meaning each employee is only paid a couple cents for a years work)....

seriously, is that your mindset?

Why create a special set of rules that benefit writers/musicians etc? Let them have that as a hobby and do productive work for a job, just like everyone else.

I design and make mechanical components, so who do I run to when my work's copied?

Apparently, the author JK Rowling is now worth ~ $1 Billion...
...I mean, come on, for that sh*te?

If writers and musicians can elevate their art to a degree
that others are willing to pay for it, then it is just
as valuable and productive as anything else. 

It sounds like you are jealous... that an author can create
a book than thousands or millions of people would willingly
pay money for in the marketplace, and that they will be
rewarded for their effort.

We are watching you Mr jonald. We are watching you.

[ArnoldChippy]

reading the first page. all i can say is that beliathon and arnold chippy.

if you ever take hours making a song, you should only in your whole live be paid $0.008 (spotify's revenue from one listener) and then the song should be made free because that listener copied it?

code a program/website.. and maybe get $8-$50, just once..

your own opinions means that you wont make more then minimum wage for the hours you initially put into it. and then thats it.. no more income, ever

do you honestly think that activision should only get 1 payment of $50 for call of duty... and then the rest of the 7billion people dont have to pay because that single person that bought it, then copied it 7 billion times

do you really think that teams of hundreds of people working for over a year on the game should get a split of only $50 (meaning each employee is only paid a couple cents for a years work)....

seriously, is that your mindset?

Why create a special set of rules that benefit writers/musicians etc? Let them have that as a hobby and do productive work for a job, just like everyone else.

I design and make mechanical components, so who do I run to when my work's copied?

Apparently, the author JK Rowling is now worth ~ $1 Billion...
...I mean, come on, for that sh*te?

If writers and musicians can elevate their art to a degree
that others are willing to pay for it, then it is just
as valuable and productive as anything else. 

It sounds like you are jealous... that an author can create
a book than thousands or millions of people would willingly
pay money for in the marketplace, and that they will be
rewarded for their **effort**.

Saying I sound jealous is just a way to avoid answering the legitimate points that have been raised.

Yes, rewarded for their effort and not some superimposed fancy legal wording that can impose an offence on someone for reading and listening.

[phillipsjk]

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.

Artists do not live in total isolation. They draw on the culture around them.

The short-fiction story Melancholy Elephants explores the consequences of taking copyright to it's logical conclusion.
 

Artists have been deluding themselves for centuries with the notion that they create. In fact they do nothing of the sort. They discover. Inherent in the nature of reality are a number of combinations of musical tones that will be perceived as pleasing by a human central nervous system. For millennia we have been discovering them, implicit in the universe—and telling ourselves that we `created' them. To create implies infinite possibility, to discover implies finite possibility. As a species I think we will react poorly to having our noses rubbed in the fact that we are discoverers and not creators.

[jonald_fyookball]

reading the first page. all i can say is that beliathon and arnold chippy.

if you ever take hours making a song, you should only in your whole live be paid $0.008 (spotify's revenue from one listener) and then the song should be made free because that listener copied it?

code a program/website.. and maybe get $8-$50, just once..

your own opinions means that you wont make more then minimum wage for the hours you initially put into it. and then thats it.. no more income, ever

do you honestly think that activision should only get 1 payment of $50 for call of duty... and then the rest of the 7billion people dont have to pay because that single person that bought it, then copied it 7 billion times

do you really think that teams of hundreds of people working for over a year on the game should get a split of only $50 (meaning each employee is only paid a couple cents for a years work)....

seriously, is that your mindset?

Why create a special set of rules that benefit writers/musicians etc? Let them have that as a hobby and do productive work for a job, just like everyone else.

I design and make mechanical components, so who do I run to when my work's copied?

Apparently, the author JK Rowling is now worth ~ $1 Billion...
...I mean, come on, for that sh*te?

If writers and musicians can elevate their art to a degree
that others are willing to pay for it, then it is just
as valuable and productive as anything else. 

It sounds like you are jealous... that an author can create
a book than thousands or millions of people would willingly
pay money for in the marketplace, and that they will be
rewarded for their **effort**.

Saying I sound jealous is just a way to avoid answering the legitimate points that have been raised.

Yes, rewarded for their effort and not some superimposed fancy legal wording that can impose an offence on someone for reading and listening.

The only points I see that you raised in this post are:

1. why create special rules for artists and musicians?

2. artists and musicians should do it as a hobby , not a profession

3. JK Rolling is a billionaire.

to that , I say:

1.  no special rules are needed -- I think anyone should be
allowed to create a digital publication of any kind and copyright it.

2. No, disagree... they should be allowed to do it professionally if the market supports it
as i just got done explaining...

3. so what?  if true, then he earned it.  why does that bother you?

[allthingsluxury]

Governments can certainly hinder and slow its progress. But completely stop they cannot.

[phillipsjk]

1.  no special rules are needed -- I think anyone should be
allowed to create a digital publication of any kind and copyright it.

Do you pay the plumber every time you use the toilet?
Do you pay the electrician every time you flip a light switch?
Do you pay your car manufacturer every time you fill it up with gas? (Yes, that is a real example.)
Edit: Just to get it back on topic: Do you pay your bank every time you make a payment?

[jonald_fyookball]

1.  no special rules are needed -- I think anyone should be
allowed to create a digital publication of any kind and copyright it.

Do you pay the plumber every time you use the toilet?
Do you pay the electrician every time you flip a light switch?
Do you pay your car manufacturer every time you fill it up with gas? (Yes, that is a real example.)
Edit: Just to get it back on topic: Do you pay your bank every time you make a payment?

No, I do not pay the plumber every time I use the toilet
because that was never our agreement.  I paid him to
fix it once, and he did. 

What in the world does that have to do with someone
creating a digital publication and selling it to many people?

They are 2 different things.  One is selling a service,
the other is selling a digital item.

In both cases, however, there is an agreement between
buyer and seller, and no one is forcing anyone to
do anything.

The plumber won't fix the toilet unless I agree to pay
him his $75.  And I won't pay him his $75 unless he
fixes the toilet.

If I publish, say, an ebook, the offer is that you can
buy a copy of it for $20 knowing full well other people
are doing the same.  If you don't want it, don't buy it.
Again, no one is forcing anyone to do anything...

That's how the free market works.

If you don't believe in the free market,
then that's your right.

But if you decide to download my ebook off some torrent
site even though I didn't give you permission, I would
consider it stealing... I would consider it defrauding
me because you can just as well pay the $20 like
everyone else is doing, and if you don't like the price
I set for it, please don't read it.

[ArnoldChippy]

reading the first page. all i can say is that beliathon and arnold chippy.

if you ever take hours making a song, you should only in your whole live be paid $0.008 (spotify's revenue from one listener) and then the song should be made free because that listener copied it?

code a program/website.. and maybe get $8-$50, just once..

your own opinions means that you wont make more then minimum wage for the hours you initially put into it. and then thats it.. no more income, ever

do you honestly think that activision should only get 1 payment of $50 for call of duty... and then the rest of the 7billion people dont have to pay because that single person that bought it, then copied it 7 billion times

do you really think that teams of hundreds of people working for over a year on the game should get a split of only $50 (meaning each employee is only paid a couple cents for a years work)....

seriously, is that your mindset?

Why create a special set of rules that benefit writers/musicians etc? Let them have that as a hobby and do productive work for a job, just like everyone else.

I design and make mechanical components, so who do I run to when my work's copied?

Apparently, the author JK Rowling is now worth ~ $1 Billion...
...I mean, come on, for that sh*te?

If writers and musicians can elevate their art to a degree
that others are willing to pay for it, then it is just
as valuable and productive as anything else. 

It sounds like you are jealous... that an author can create
a book than thousands or millions of people would willingly
pay money for in the marketplace, and that they will be
rewarded for their **effort**.

Saying I sound jealous is just a way to avoid answering the legitimate points that have been raised.

Yes, rewarded for their effort and not some superimposed fancy legal wording that can impose an offence on someone for reading and listening.

The only points I see that you raised in this post are:

1. why create special rules for artists and musicians?

2. artists and musicians should do it as a hobby , not a profession

3. JK Rolling is a billionaire.

to that , I say:

1.  no special rules are needed -- I think anyone should be
allowed to create a digital publication of any kind and copyright it.

2. No, disagree... they should be allowed to do it professionally if the market supports it
as i just got done explaining...

3. so what?  if true, then he earned it.  why does that bother you?

Jonald.

Shall we (me and you) charge a copyright fee for this discussion, so that other viewers must continue to pay us to read it 20 years from now?

Have you ever read a newspaper that you didn't buy or listened to music you didn't buy - did you turn yourself in for doing so?

As I said initially, where does it all end?

[jonald_fyookball]

I agree there are real world parameters and limitations,
appropriateness, and reasonableness that can be considered.

There is for example, the "fair use doctrine" which
is part of copyright law.

Context is the key, as always.

(But I still believe in the basic principles that I profess.)