We must protect hardworking American's from losing wealth1 by banning bitcoin and causing American's to lose wealth!
1Where losing wealth = gaining wealth in this occurrence of the words "losing wealth" only.
Topic: [2014-02-26] Sen. Manchin demands complete US ban on Bitcoin (Read 3892 times)
mother of fool is always pregnant......
Retard people with strong problems always leads. This is why we are still in a sort of middle-age.
Hey senator! I have a great idea! You could run a voodoo, or better try to fire some witches! It's the last and ultimate way to get into 23rd century!
(oh my.....*ultramega facepalm*)
Retard people with strong problems always leads. This is why we are still in a sort of middle-age.
Hey senator! I have a great idea! You could run a voodoo, or better try to fire some witches! It's the last and ultimate way to get into 23rd century!
(oh my.....*ultramega facepalm*)
He's too late...Sen Chuck Schumer already banned bitcoin back in 2011. 
...and here I thought the stupidity was just an act.
...and here I thought the stupidity was just an act.
I want a ban on idiotic Senators.
Is that possible? About as much as a ban on Bitcoin
Is that possible? About as much as a ban on Bitcoin
And asked how such a ban would be technically feasible, he admitted that the senator is still trying to gather information on “different ways to protect consumers” that might entail a ban or simply increased regulation.
Easy question. He just has to order Bitcoin to cease operations, right?I hereby ban You bitcoin
If only there were no decentralized exchanges and nodes everywhere around the world
"I hereby ban the internet."
...spending Bitcoin now will cost you many orders of wealth in the future...
U.S. Joe Manchin III
United States Senator
U.S. Joe Manchin III
United States Senator
Most stupid argument I have ever heard.
Also contradictory to his own arguments:
Quote
I am most concerned that as Bitcoin is inevitably banned in other countries, Americans will be left holding the bag on a valueless currency.
Interesting comments arising from the Coindesk version of the story: http://www.coindesk.com/us-senator-bitcoin-ban-letter-federal-regulators/
This sequence is revealing. Ignore the bitcointalk smiley artifact on #8 below, but notice #18. Small world:
------------- snip ----------------
Avatar
My2Cents • 21 hours ago Featured by CoinDesk
JPMorgan contributed $30,550 to this goon's campaign. That says everything... he is just a puppet not even worth mentioning.
102
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Bboy 360 My2Cents • 21 hours ago
1) FirstEnergy Corp $139,450
2) Mylan Inc $127,500
3) Mepco LLC $64,400
4) Dominion Resources $63,900
5) American Electric Power $61,250
6) Centene Corp $55,900
7) Jackson Kelly Pllc $50,825
Drummond Co $49,100
9) Patriot Coal Corp $48,400
10) Alpha Natural Resources $48,298
11) Boich Companies $44,200
12) CONSOL Energy $41,050
13) Wexford Capital $40,000
14) Arch Coal $35,900
15) CSX Corp $35,700
16) Peabody Energy $34,100
17) Nelson Brothers LLC $32,000
18) JPMorgan Chase & Co $30,550
19) Chesapeake Energy $28,900
20) Lewis, Glasser et al $27,600
26
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Disqsuxs Bboy 360 • 19 hours ago
remember Robin Williams said politicians should wear patches like NASCAR drivers
-------------- end snip -------------
This sequence is revealing. Ignore the bitcointalk smiley artifact on #8 below, but notice #18. Small world:
------------- snip ----------------
Avatar
My2Cents • 21 hours ago Featured by CoinDesk
JPMorgan contributed $30,550 to this goon's campaign. That says everything... he is just a puppet not even worth mentioning.
102
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Bboy 360 My2Cents • 21 hours ago
1) FirstEnergy Corp $139,450
2) Mylan Inc $127,500
3) Mepco LLC $64,400
4) Dominion Resources $63,900
5) American Electric Power $61,250
6) Centene Corp $55,900
7) Jackson Kelly Pllc $50,825
Drummond Co $49,1009) Patriot Coal Corp $48,400
10) Alpha Natural Resources $48,298
11) Boich Companies $44,200
12) CONSOL Energy $41,050
13) Wexford Capital $40,000
14) Arch Coal $35,900
15) CSX Corp $35,700
16) Peabody Energy $34,100
17) Nelson Brothers LLC $32,000
18) JPMorgan Chase & Co $30,550
19) Chesapeake Energy $28,900
20) Lewis, Glasser et al $27,600
26
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Disqsuxs Bboy 360 • 19 hours ago
remember Robin Williams said politicians should wear patches like NASCAR drivers
-------------- end snip -------------
Mr. Manchin, as the senator from one of the poorest state in the country, don't you have better thing to do, other than emulating communist regimes around the world?
Isn't this sort of thing what the Bitcoin Foundation is supposed to be for?
He lost a fortune in MTGOX and became furious
I guess the idiot don't have anything better to do rather then banning bitcoin, which is atleast helping people in many ways unlike him.
Ahahah it is funny to see how ridicolous can a government be
And asked how such a ban would be technically feasible, he admitted that the senator is still trying to gather information on “different ways to protect consumers” that might entail a ban or simply increased regulation.
Easy question. He just has to order Bitcoin to cease operations, right?I hereby ban You bitcoin
If only there were no decentralized exchanges and nodes everywhere around the world
And asked how such a ban would be technically feasible, he admitted that the senator is still trying to gather information on “different ways to protect consumers” that might entail a ban or simply increased regulation.
Easy question. He just has to order Bitcoin to cease operations, right?
This Forbes article http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2014/02/26/senator-calls-for-bitcoin-ban-in-letter-to-financial-regulators/ contains the following update:
Quote
Update: A spokesperson in Senator Manchin’s office said that his call for regulation doesn’t yet extend to other cryptocurrencies, such as Litecoin or Dogecoin. And asked how such a ban would be technically feasible, he admitted that the senator is still trying to gather information on “different ways to protect consumers” that might entail a ban or simply increased regulation.
This appears as typical political damage control after the senator spoke.
@Cityguy
The problem is that if a government says X amount of bitcoins can never be traded because they were used for money laundering/drugs so on and so forth then you end up with a spending problem as those units decrease the available supply of bitcoins on the market.
Bitcoin has a controlled supply of 21 million units so you can't just say X amount of units cannot be traded.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply
Otherwise you end up with a fungiblity issue which is the concept that every unit or subunit remains equivalent and identical to any other unit or subunit. It is the property of a good or commodity whose individual units are capable of mutual substitution.
If each bitcoin is worth a different amount as another bitcoin because some are considered tainted then it becomes much more complicated to determine the value of each bitcoin.
Government paper has fungibility provided that the bills have not been marked or serial numbers have not been ‘blacklisted.’ In other words, you cannot be held responsible for the historical path of that banknote prior to its acceptance by you.
So a system of regulation should be focused on exchanges where transactions occur, not on reducing the supply of bitcoins by confiscation.
Since the argument I presented is a short of the coindesk article I'll just recommend checking that one out as well
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-fungibility-essential/
The problem is that if a government says X amount of bitcoins can never be traded because they were used for money laundering/drugs so on and so forth then you end up with a spending problem as those units decrease the available supply of bitcoins on the market.
Bitcoin has a controlled supply of 21 million units so you can't just say X amount of units cannot be traded.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply
Otherwise you end up with a fungiblity issue which is the concept that every unit or subunit remains equivalent and identical to any other unit or subunit. It is the property of a good or commodity whose individual units are capable of mutual substitution.
If each bitcoin is worth a different amount as another bitcoin because some are considered tainted then it becomes much more complicated to determine the value of each bitcoin.
Government paper has fungibility provided that the bills have not been marked or serial numbers have not been ‘blacklisted.’ In other words, you cannot be held responsible for the historical path of that banknote prior to its acceptance by you.
So a system of regulation should be focused on exchanges where transactions occur, not on reducing the supply of bitcoins by confiscation.
Since the argument I presented is a short of the coindesk article I'll just recommend checking that one out as well
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-fungibility-essential/
It won't happen IMO. Our legislators are capable of thinking critically (for the most part?) and realizing what went wrong. And they know this is going to help Bitcoin evolve. It's not a flaw in Bitcoin itself. They aren't calling it the "Wild Wild West" of Bitcoin for nothing! Things will get better.
Personally I'm just more nervous that they try to stalk it to an extreme level like the internet with PRISM only applied to Bitcoin
Aka trace every address without evidence of wrongdoing just because they can then if someone is arrested use that database to implicate you as well as the defendant even if the coins plausibly were mixed before you receive them (Aka tainted coins)
Since it may be a new concept to a few gives a bit of an overview of what I mean link and explanation
http://www.bitkoins.com/discussion/5327/tainted-coins-how-colored-coins-could-be-used-against-bitcoins-anonymity/p1
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/7966/what-are-tainted-coins-exactly
In simple terms don't mess with Fungibility
That's interesting I actually haven't seen that yet. I understand the concept. However, I don't think it will become that extreme. Now of course anything can happen so I'm not being an asshole saying that won't happen, but I think a more realistic view would be to assume that this could be a acceptable way to regulate cryptos? As awesome as Bitcoin is regarding anomimity, I think realistically for bitcoin to become regulated we are going to have to surrender some qualities. The way I see it, if it becomes regulated to the point where we have to disclose all personal info like the article said, Bitcoin is still extremely valuable and it's utility holds. Transaction rates, and it's universal quality will still make it a go 2 currency.
nonetheless very interesting.
It won't happen IMO. Our legislators are capable of thinking critically (for the most part?) and realizing what went wrong. And they know this is going to help Bitcoin evolve. It's not a flaw in Bitcoin itself. They aren't calling it the "Wild Wild West" of Bitcoin for nothing! Things will get better.
Personally I'm just more nervous that they try to stalk it to an extreme level like the internet with PRISM only applied to Bitcoin
Aka trace every address without evidence of wrongdoing just because they can then if someone is arrested use that database to implicate you as well as the defendant even if the coins plausibly were mixed before you receive them (Aka tainted coins)
Since it may be a new concept to a few gives a bit of an overview of what I mean link and explanation
http://www.bitkoins.com/discussion/5327/tainted-coins-how-colored-coins-could-be-used-against-bitcoins-anonymity/p1
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/7966/what-are-tainted-coins-exactly
In simple terms don't mess with Fungibility
It won't happen IMO. Our legislators are capable of thinking critically (for the most part?) and realizing what went wrong. And they know this is going to help Bitcoin evolve. It's not a flaw in Bitcoin itself. They aren't calling it the "Wild Wild West" of Bitcoin for nothing! Things will get better.
Jump to: