This crack down is not just restricted to USA. Earlier today a New Zealander commented that his bank refused to send his money to MtGox because the middle bank ( which NZers seem to need to use ) declined to do it based on being associated with money laundering / Liberty Reserve.
So it is happening. Cut off the fiat, cut off the bitcoin community.
Topic: Banning and regulating Bitcoin (Read 2852 times)
I think regulatory efforts will be focused on the exchange points. I mean, how else could they do it?
Sticks. Sticks hitting faces.
[EDIT]Sorry, what I meant to say is that you should all sell all of your coins right now. Never mind the price, just get what you can for them. Then forget about bitcoins and never come back to this forum. Ever.[/EDIT]
This guy gets it
I think regulatory efforts will be focused on the exchange points. I mean, how else could they do it?
Sticks. Sticks hitting faces.
[EDIT]Sorry, what I meant to say is that you should all sell all of your coins right now. Never mind the price, just get what you can for them. Then forget about bitcoins and never come back to this forum. Ever.[/EDIT]
I think regulatory efforts will be focused on the exchange points. I mean, how else could they do it?
Sticks. Sticks hitting faces.
I think regulatory efforts will be focused on the exchange points. I mean, how else could they do it?
It doesn't work that way. The regulations are being aimed at "virtual currency." You would just be trading one virtual currency for another one. As the regulatory engine ramps up to full speed the legislation passed will become more all encompassing eventually crushing all forms of competition.
ill paste you this you may have read it already. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2574555
bitcoin is not owned by any country so bitcoin cant be regulated by a country at the moment. the only thing that can be regulated are the FIAT exchanges and the businesses that hold digital forms of dollars on a database that represent the actual FIAT in a bank account EG bitstamp/mtgox.
on the trading floor you are not playing with bank account FIAT (real currency in fincens eyes) you are playing with digitial fiat (convertible virtual currency in fincens eyes).
i do not want fincen regulating bitcoin itself. i do not mind them however regulating the people playing with FIAT. and i have at many times facepalmed teentrepreneurs (teenage entrepreneurs) who play with fiat but feel they dont need licences purely because they class themselves as a bitcoin business.
bitcoin is its own country, its own economy. not one other country can claim it is their property to then regulate it. the most they can do is make it illegal to obtain, which would drag bitcoin more underground and cause more problems for them.
i prefer people to individually have a moral compass, to do their own due diligence on who they trade with and decline trading with anyone that sounds shady. rather then having a government control bitcoin for their own purposes and freezing assets without warning.
that way when my american friends come to me and say they are low on cash, i can pay them a wage or give them some donated bitcoin so they can buy a nice pizza on foodler the same night. without all the regulatory paperwork, bureaucratic nightmare of 2-5 delay in transferring 'real currency'.
bitcoins number one selling point is that it is it's own economy away from government ownership and control. any future regulations brought in by gavin allowing american government to decide changes to bitcoin-QT updates that auto tax or freeze public addresses would ruin bitcoin and make bitcoin property of the US government. which then ruins all of the appeal of bitcoin for people in europe, asia, england. that want to trade with americans, just without the bureaucratic nightmare
I'm very skeptical that bitcoin can even comply. It may not be possible to create the necessary consensus within the community. The power to regulate is the power to destroy and I think the community understands that on a fairly conscious level. That's why the regulation topic is such a contentious issue on the forums and reddit. Regulatory compliance is merely the thin edge of the wedge that would eventually split bitcoin in two if we let it. Was Satoshi's vision for bitcoin based upon principals or compromise? We all know the answer. Bitcoin will be regulated, but only to the extent it is declared illegal and outlawed in the US and probably other parts of the western world as well. The regulation topic is a nebulous intellectual tar baby, it's a blackhole sucking up a lot a brain power that would best be focused on other things, like developing bitcoin services for people in parts of the world who would actually be appreciative instead of telling you that you need to apply for a MTB license.
Fortunately large parts of the community are located outside the United States. Enough, I think, to veto any attempt by coerced US-based developers to fundamentally destroy Bitcoin by changing into something the opposite of what it currently is.I've been saying for almost a year that the brain power you are talking about should forget about trying to hit the moving target of regulatory compliance in the US and should instead develop censorship-resistant business models that are viable even in the presence of a hostile regulatory environment.
+666
I'm very skeptical that bitcoin can even comply. It may not be possible to create the necessary consensus within the community. The power to regulate is the power to destroy and I think the community understands that on a fairly conscious level. That's why the regulation topic is such a contentious issue on the forums and reddit. Regulatory compliance is merely the thin edge of the wedge that would eventually split bitcoin in two if we let it. Was Satoshi's vision for bitcoin based upon principals or compromise? We all know the answer. Bitcoin will be regulated, but only to the extent it is declared illegal and outlawed in the US and probably other parts of the western world as well. The regulation topic is a nebulous intellectual tar baby, it's a blackhole sucking up a lot a brain power that would best be focused on other things, like developing bitcoin services for people in parts of the world who would actually be appreciative instead of telling you that you need to apply for a MTB license.
Fortunately large parts of the community are located outside the United States. Enough, I think, to veto any attempt by coerced US-based developers to fundamentally destroy Bitcoin by changing into something the opposite of what it currently is.I've been saying for almost a year that the brain power you are talking about should forget about trying to hit the moving target of regulatory compliance in the US and should instead develop censorship-resistant business models that are viable even in the presence of a hostile regulatory environment.
If this was facebook I would friend you right here and now!
I'm very skeptical that bitcoin can even comply. It may not be possible to create the necessary consensus within the community. The power to regulate is the power to destroy and I think the community understands that on a fairly conscious level. That's why the regulation topic is such a contentious issue on the forums and reddit. Regulatory compliance is merely the thin edge of the wedge that would eventually split bitcoin in two if we let it. Was Satoshi's vision for bitcoin based upon principals or compromise? We all know the answer. Bitcoin will be regulated, but only to the extent it is declared illegal and outlawed in the US and probably other parts of the western world as well. The regulation topic is a nebulous intellectual tar baby, it's a blackhole sucking up a lot a brain power that would best be focused on other things, like developing bitcoin services for people in parts of the world who would actually be appreciative instead of telling you that you need to apply for a MTB license.
Fortunately large parts of the community are located outside the United States. Enough, I think, to veto any attempt by coerced US-based developers to fundamentally destroy Bitcoin by changing into something the opposite of what it currently is.I've been saying for almost a year that the brain power you are talking about should forget about trying to hit the moving target of regulatory compliance in the US and should instead develop censorship-resistant business models that are viable even in the presence of a hostile regulatory environment.
I'm very skeptical that bitcoin can even comply. It may not be possible to create the necessary consensus within the community. The power to regulate is the power to destroy and I think the community understands that on a fairly conscious level. That's why the regulation topic is such a contentious issue on the forums and reddit. Regulatory compliance is merely the thin edge of the wedge that would eventually split bitcoin in two if we let it. Was Satoshi's vision for bitcoin based upon principals or compromise? We all know the answer. Bitcoin will be regulated, but only to the extent it is declared illegal and outlawed in the US and probably other parts of the western world as well. The regulation topic is a nebulous intellectual tar baby, it's a blackhole sucking up a lot a brain power that would best be focused on other things, like developing bitcoin services for people in parts of the world who would actually be appreciative instead of telling you that you need to apply for a MTB license.
It doesn't work that way. The regulations are being aimed at "virtual currency." You would just be trading one virtual currency for another one. As the regulatory engine ramps up to full speed the legislation passed will become more all encompassing eventually crushing all forms of competition.
Since laws may be passed to render Bitcoin a "currency" and require everyone who transmits it to become registered with the IRS and so on[...]
How would they be enforced? It's the same as anti money laundering regulations. They can try to prevent cash from being used to by illegal goods, but it's impossible to enforce.
Since laws may be passed to render Bitcoin a "currency" and require everyone who transmits it to become registered with the IRS and so on in addition to other human stupidity on the high levels of our social hierarchy that can potentially hinder the growth of BTC, couldn't we fork Bitcoin, leave all the parameters the same and change the name from Bitcoin to Jumpcoin or EscapeRegulationCoin?
There is really no name for Bitcoins which is engraved on them like in centralized technologies so why can't we change it to escape the label of "Bitcoin" or even "Cryptocurrency", they certainly can't make math illegal.
Furthermore even if we create a completely distinct crypto-coin the exchange between the crypto-coin and Bitcoin would be completely effortless in contrast to exchanging the dreaded fiat to either crypto-coin or Bitcoin.
There is really no name for Bitcoins which is engraved on them like in centralized technologies so why can't we change it to escape the label of "Bitcoin" or even "Cryptocurrency", they certainly can't make math illegal.
Furthermore even if we create a completely distinct crypto-coin the exchange between the crypto-coin and Bitcoin would be completely effortless in contrast to exchanging the dreaded fiat to either crypto-coin or Bitcoin.
Jump to: