2014-07-04 Bloomberg.com - Bitcoin Faces Regulatory Backlash as EU Tells Banks..

[RTRC]

The "amount of future BTC buyers" has almost no limit, since the fiat system is massively overloaded with debt. Old, tired propaganda will not work when people see Bitcoin rising much faster than gold.

But how many people do you really think are keeping tabs on things like the price of gold and the price of bitcoin? Not everyone has money invested in Gold or silver and as a result, a lot of people could really care less what the value is. Unless if you tune in to a lot of business news channels, you're likely to here nothing about prices of things such as bitcoin and gold.

Everybody who has access to a QR code could be a future BTC buyer. Just because they could be doesn't mean they will be. Bitcoin had a rocky start. Many people made it out to be a scam. When I asked my parents what they thought of Bitcoin last winter, their first answer was just a monologue reiterating every bad headline from the media that came out during Bitcoins first couple of years. They knew nothing of what bitcoin was trading at and they had no clue how many people had begun accepting bitcoin as a payment. Go ask your average adult on the streets and I'm sure you'll hear the same response. The media is strong when it comes to convincing idiots to think a certain way.

[cjp]

To all you people who seem to like regulation so much, I'd like to point to the following texts in the proposal:

the creation of an entity that is accountable to the regulator would need to be a mandatory requirement for a VC scheme to be regulated as a financial service and for it to be allowed to interact with existing regulated financial services.

The entity would be called the ‘scheme governance authority’, which is a non-governmental entity that establishes and governs the rules for the use of a particular VC scheme. It is a legal person, and is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the central transaction ledger, the protocol, and any other core functional component of the scheme. The scheme governance authority would be required to comply with regulatory and supervisory requirements of various kinds to mitigate identified risks.

However, if a legal person is not able to exercise authority over market participants and is therefore unaccountable to a regulator for compliance purposes, it would be unreasonable to expect a regulator to guarantee integrity in their place.

So, what would happen if it turns out to be impossible in practice to establish an authority over Bitcoin? Would it make e.g. EU-based exchanges illegal? This sounds much like a disguised version of what China is doing.

It might be that the actual regulations will be such that the EU accepts a situation where the ‘scheme governance authority’ can not change Bitcoin's transaction rules, but can act as a centralized database to attach identity information to Bitcoin addresses, with compulsory cooperation of (EU-based) exchanges. The document doesn't seem to specify to what degree exchanges will be allowed to accept "mixed" coins and other coins with unclear origin (e.g. freshly mined coins).

[notthematrix]

To all you people who seem to like regulation so much, I'd like to point to the following texts in the proposal:

the creation of an entity that is accountable to the regulator would need to be a mandatory requirement for a VC scheme to be regulated as a financial service and for it to be allowed to interact with existing regulated financial services.

The entity would be called the ‘scheme governance authority’, which is a non-governmental entity that establishes and governs the rules for the use of a particular VC scheme. It is a legal person, and is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the central transaction ledger, the protocol, and any other core functional component of the scheme. The scheme governance authority would be required to comply with regulatory and supervisory requirements of various kinds to mitigate identified risks.

However, if a legal person is not able to exercise authority over market participants and is therefore unaccountable to a regulator for compliance purposes, it would be unreasonable to expect a regulator to guarantee integrity in their place.

So, what would happen if it turns out to be impossible in practice to establish an authority over Bitcoin? Would it make e.g. EU-based exchanges illegal? This sounds much like a disguised version of what China is doing.

It might be that the actual regulations will be such that the EU accepts a situation where the ‘scheme governance authority’ can not change Bitcoin's transaction rules, but can act as a centralized database to attach identity information to Bitcoin addresses, with compulsory cooperation of (EU-based) exchanges. The document doesn't seem to specify to what degree exchanges will be allowed to accept "mixed" coins and other coins with unclear origin (e.g. freshly mined coins).

Well this can technicly not be done since normal bitcoin wallets can have multiple adresses , and when one offshore exchange does allow normal transfers its useless ...
you are probalbly not aware that most btcoin exchanges have offshore banking license.
http://www.aspenassurance.com/offshore-banking-licenses buy one in bitcoins
so most people do not have a clue that government is power less against bitcoin because a bank in qatar has very different opionions as a bank in ilse of man , ukraine , brasil , russia , usa , european contry's...
so forget about this , multiple country's already opened up offshore banking for bitcoin.
so blocking is a past station even china has softned because of this here:
http://www.coindesk.com/btc-e-now-offers-trading-chinese-yuan/

[V.Kodoff]

Fuck Eu !

You must be americunt ?

[ThomasCrowne]

All the while every single one of those telling Banks not to work with crypto-based account(s) are undoubtedly picking up as much as they can on the down-low.

Question of the Have's not wanting to see the Have-Not's increase their respective station(s) in life I'm thinking.