Topic: Bitcoin at the US Senate (Read 67159 times)

Well since you necroed a bit adds some interesting news from Carper on marketwatch

Appropriate timing since it involved Senator Carper

Mt. Gox under investigation; bitcoin price rebounds
Announcement coming, Mt. Gox CEO quoted as saying
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/mt-gox-under-investigation-bitcoin-price-rebounds-2014-02-25?dist=tcountdown


Mt. Gox collapse riles bitcoin users, spurs policy talk
Prices fall to 3-month lows; Bitcoin CEOs try to shore up sentiment; Japan can’t help
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/mt-gox-bitcoin-site-disappears-2014-02-25

“As any industry matures, it will face growing pains and there will be individuals who believe they can use the fog of uncertainty to cover up their follies,” said Sen. Tom Carper, head of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, in a statement. Still, he said the Mt. Gox news is “ unacceptable ” and called on U.S. policy makers to provide a clear set of regulations for bitcoin.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2014/02/25/senator-says-mt-gox-bitcoin-exchange-failure-unacceptable/

Other stuff

So far, there’s little sign big investors in bitcoin and bitcoin-related ventures are ready to abandon ship after the collapse of bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox, even as the fiasco triggers recriminations and new calls for regulation.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bitcoin-turmoil-puts-andreessen-novogratz-reps-on-line-2014-02-25?dist=tcountdown

Carpers official post
http://www.carper.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=8c329058-a043-4214-b123-c781d953ed22

This is a how great things seems to be the currency is becoming more and more valued in the United States

I found http://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=955322cc-d648-4a00-a41f-c23be8ff4cad ,
but where exactly is the webcast going to be broadcasted?

POSTPONED: The Digital Trade Agenda
http://www.finance.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=7da1b80e-5056-a032-526d-4a6cc3ac3a72
 

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/committees/b_three_sections_with_teasers/committee_hearings.htm

If only we all lived on small islands where the only people we could plunder by ballot box are the folks we see every day and can stare us in the face.  When you start talking about global decision-making the level of authorities required to enforce democratic decisions seem unconscionable, much less the decisions themselves.
Sometimes it seems we'd be better off if the most powerful political positions were the city mayor and anything decided above that was only advisory and dispute resolution.

Uhg, that's all I need.  To be outvoted by even more people.   People tend to vote away their liberty more often then they realize.

Spanish news articles about this topic in Bitcoin Noticias htttp://bitcoinnoticias.com

Thanks for this, had missed that passport topic, til now.

There are many implications to attaching identity to the block chain.  Wealth based ID, Corporate identities, inheritance, bonded ID, multi-sig ID (partnership IDs / marriage or business), identity repudiation, and many other tangential identity management issues just to name a few.  There are broad ranging implications for this, both for its utility and its social impact.  It is a project that bears some review.

Any links to those projects would be cool for the curious.

That redhead was really annoying. I do think that someone could build a system on top of bitcoin that allowed people to register accounts and link them to there wallets That would open up a lot of possibilities for bitcoin and help with adoption. It needs to be done if we ever want to have a charge back option available for bitcoin transactions. Until it happens I don't see bitcoin gaining much traction with large companies. Paypal would be the perfect entity to do it but I doubt that will happen any time soon.

Yes, maybe a blunt and unqualified "there is no encryption in the Bitcoin protocol" possibly may have shocked him into asking the right questions and learning the legally important aspects, which he never received from his panel of experts.

Well the hearing is not "closed" for a couple weeks, so maybe they will read what you wrote up there and get it in the record yet...

I hadn't see Help's correction, I wouldn't have corrected it except it was a correction of a correction.  Casual use is one thing but definition should be accurate in clarifications.   

I don't consider client side use of encryption in one or more clients to mean Bitcoin (which is a protocol) uses encryption.  The QT client certainly optionally supports encryption but I would be fine with stating on public record that Bitcoin does not use encryption. 

I do agree with you it was a wasted opportunity to correct the senate and get the proper definition on record.  More important than the misuse of word encryption is the longer context.  The senator said "hiding by encryption" which means it was more than just a wrong word.  The blockchain is the exact opposite of hiding.  It is a public record by definition.  It is closed private ledgers (like PayPal for example) that are hidden from public view.   A horrible waste of an opportunity to get a solid good high level view out in the open and on TV as well.

yes, I wrote it properly in one sentence and improperly in another, and accepted Help's correction of this already as well. 
I think we all understand the issue, and the definitions, and I thank you for your second correction.  I only wish our senate had the benefit of such honest critiques.  I like that no one here lets me get away with any sloppy language also.  It is the kind of protection that I most appreciate, the protection from being inadvertently confusing and being wrong (because together we find what is right).
We all understand that the only encryption in bitcoin is wallet side (and optional) and therefore that many folks are fond of saying that there isn't any encryption at all.

Interesting story, that I didn't know. Thank you for sharing.

That is why CC fraud is such a problem for merchants.  They are put in an impossible situation.  There is no consequence for CC users (oh I didn't make that chargeback) and the problem simply can't be solved by merchants.  Merchants can't force users to be more secure with their cards, not fall for phishing sites, and treat a CC number like cash.  At best merchants can hope to reduce the fraud losses below their profit margin and raise prices.  

I am not saying it is a good thing but if there was no fraud liability on CC, users would be a lot more careful.  It is just human nature.


This is one reason why I am long term bullish on the VALUE (not be confused with current price, speculators) of Bitcoin.   CC costs as much as 10% for certain types of businesses.   It isn't just the 3% (or whatever) discount rate, but also the gateway fees, the swipe fee ($0.30 adds up on $5 purchases), the legit CC fraud, the so called friendly fraud (I don't like want to pay for this so let me pretend I didn't purchase it), the chargeback fees from the bank, the capital cost of the reserves they need to maintain (you can't use money being held the CC companies), and the cost of the anti-fraud systems which both have significant cost and sometimes drive away legit business.

If merchants can see that Bitcoin improves their bottom line then they hopefully will offer discounts for Bitcoin.  If they offer discounts for Bitcoin then more users will be attracted to Bitcoin for everyday purchases which means more merchants interested ....

Apathy was part of it, but SL's peak was about where Bitcoin was a year ago. They were just starting up with new stock exchanges, investment services, and tons of new businesses in-game that were making real money. The regulation thing make the currency tank in value by something like 75% in a couple of weeks, and all the business types abandoned it. It's why I was so excited to see what will happen after Pirateat40 scheme last year: Every time something like that happened, be in it the real world with Ponzi, or videogames like SecondLife or others, someone would step in, say, "I'm taking control here!" and change things to the boring regulated stuff we're used to. Bitcoin was the first example of what would happen if no regulators stepped in to take charge and control things. Turns out the answer was, people will learn their lesson and avoid high interest yield accounts and ponzi schemes all on their own. Who knew.

They "could" but LL method of profit is through the issuance of currency.  A new L$ cost them nothing yet they can exchange it with real currency.  I do expect virtual worlds to use Bitcoin eventually although I am not sure if LL will have the vision needed to break from their (until recently) highly profitable make money from nothing and profit business plan.

Hashing isn't encryption.

Hashing, digital signatures, and encryption are all forms of cryptography.

All hashing involves cryptography.  Not all cryptography involves hashing.
All encryption involves cryptography.  Not all cryptography involves encryption.
All digital signatures involve cryptography.  Not all cryptography involves digital signatures.

Your correction of my correct seems to confusing cryptopgraphy with encryption. 

they mentioned a video game? haha!
Pretty sure Bitcoin is being discussed by the senate and how to deal with it because it separates itself and goes far beyond video games and anything known as digital currency up until now.