Topic: Bitcoin at the US Senate - page 18. (Read 67168 times)

The word software is misleading.
Its not the software, its the combination of encryption, distributed networking and mathematical truths that makes the protocol useful.
The software is just a manifistation of the protocol, which is just a manifistation of those elements.

So, FWIW, I think this guy should say something there.

When they say "Bitcoin", they mean the software, not the people using the software. The main developer of the Bitcoin software is paid by the foundation. I do not think they try to represent all the people which uses the "Bitcoin" software.

How can a software "free us from" the current political system? 


They are willing to inform themselves, otherwise there would be no hearings.


What evidence you have which indicates this will happen?


How do you expect the "dinosaurs" inform the "general public" if there is less and less "advisers" from "Law, politics, education and economics" providing the necessary information?

My issue is that the foundation, in my opinion, is just repeating the same system that I was hoping Bitcoin and other new innovations might eventually free us from. Advising is great, however I don't believe we should conform to a dated political system when the "authority" is not willing to inform themselves. Think about how long human civilization has appointed representatives to speak for the people, even in a supposed democratic system the results are always inevitable. Even if the foundation has Bitcoins best interests at heart today, tomorrow those interests will shift until eventually the core philosophies have been eroded. Sometimes new definitions need to be invented, thats how innovation works. Law, politics, education and economics should adapt to new advances.

Honestly though, I have not yet considered what I "want to do" on these matters, that is something the entire community would need to reflect upon. I do however feel with the advent of social media and so on, there is a far lesser need for advisers. The general public need to be informed, not the dinosaurs who will only care if they can somehow control and manipulate it.


That in my opinion touches at the root of my dislike for the foundation, I don't believe such an extreme set of views can ever be represented by a small group of people. Doing "what it can to be accepted" is not always a good idea, the US a doing what it can do prevent terrorism and look how that is turning out. This is one example of many.


Politics as a system is fine, it is the way we choose to go about conducting politics that I feel needs to change. We cannot keep looking to the same broken system hoping for acceptance and answers. I don't just see Bitcoin as a potential alternative to making transactions, but rather an opportunity to use our intelligence and creativity to reinvent how we live and our roles in society. My views are perhaps Utopian, I just look at the current political/financial systems as extra weight, while we are willing drag the excess behind us we are giving a select few a free ride at our expense.

Finally, I agree to below except one small correction:

So what the *community* need to do is show the potential for Bitcoin to expand the wider economy, to benefit US businesses, that it is a technology. Conversely, that making it difficult to use could push it more towards the black market, other countries may massively benefit to the US' cost, and so on.

I see no correlation in that post content with the subject being discussed here.

That is correct. It doesn't matter if the Bitcoin foundation talks with the gov. or not. The network will remain the same.

Reading stuff like this http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg12325.html,
We can't expect the government to suggest any useful improvements to bitcoin.
Something to be prepared for?

Pathetic.
Isn't that the one thing we're trying to change, here, by letting people have some serious and real voting power through bitcoins?

I don't understand where some of you guys are coming from. If bitcoin can be regulated or controlled, bitcoin is literally a failure.
The combination of encryption, distributed networking and mathematical truths is supposed to make this impossible.

They are functioning as a lobby and/or advisory group. I'm not sure you have much understanding of how governments work. You have to engage in politics to get things done when it comes to the law or regulation, by definition.

So how do you want to do it?

You have an incredibly diverse set of people interesting in Bitcoin and covering pretty much all extremes. So the Foundation is doing what it can to ensure Bitcoin itself is accepted by the world at large and not stopped in its tracks. Yes it can go on without the US, but that's not exactly helpful to Bitcoin or to anyone in the US>

You may not like politics or politicians (few do), or the various lobby groups (few do), but this how things are done.

Independence does not mean you stick you head in the sand and go la-la-la to the real world. That's stupidity and arrogance, not independence. What you want is light touch regulation only where it's required. We may all disagree over what that means but some regulation is unavoidable - not of Bitcoin itself but of areas such as KYC of exchanges.

So what the foundation need to do is show the potential for Bitcoin to expand the wider economy, to benefit US businesses, that it is a technology. Conversely, that making it difficult to use could push it more towards the black market, other countries may massively benefit to the US' cost, and so on.

Foundation mission...

I dislike the concept of the foundation as ulimiately they are promoting their own views and not that of the entire community. In my view they are essentially functioning as politicians and when was the last time you heard of a politician who actually looked out for those they supposedly represent. So much for the principles of "non-political economy, openness and independence".

They are not speaking for the rest of us, they are speaking for themselves, which includes the main developer of the Bitcoin software. They are, however, offering the opportunity to anyone provide suggestions to improve the debate they will have with USA federal government. By the way, they can and they will represent the Bitcoin software, whatever you like or not.

Nope. When a currency is converted to another, the previous currency is eliminated. What you describe is not defined as conversion, but as exchange. A conversion of BTC to any currency would imply the BTC had to be eliminated. This, of course, is not what happens.


Nope. No one holds any BTC. The encrypted digits which are the BTC never leave the block chain. The private key only allows a person to transfer the BTC from a certain address to another. There is no way to any person hold any BTC outside the block chain.

Nope. Physical coins only carry a private key which is not BTC, it is just a password which allows someone to transfer BTC from one address to another.


I am not arguing that a currency is not a medium of exchange, I am arguing that BTC is ONLY a medium of exchange.


Nope. That is not my argument. As I already said, BTC is not a currency because it cannot be converted into another currency.


Nope. The sentence do not describe that the Bitcoin software was developed to replace any business like Western Union. If you think that is what the sentence means, you are certainly projecting a delusional expectation over the meaning of words which are very easy to understand.


(1) Money laundering is not a crime. (2) Money laundering is a crime.

You are contradicting yourself with confusing statements.

So, money laundering is a crime or not?


Nope. I already explained why is not a currency. I could provide more examples if necessary.


Nope. There is no such thing as "Bitcoin economy" and the Bitcoin software was not designed to replace business like Western Union.


I do not think so. However, it is useless explain to you why do not facilitate crime since you cannot even understand why money laundering is considerate a criminal activity by many legislations.

You should present a chart with a giant middle finger and say nothing.

Why is a foundation representing something that cannot be represented? Seriously, what makes you guys speak for the rest of us?

You define a currency as something that can be converted into another currency, and claim that a medium of exchange cannot be converted into a currency. Well, Bitcoin clearly can be converted into various currencies and are being converted every second.
The idea that Bitcoin "cannot be held" is nonsensical. Of course it can be held, either by taking control of a private key, or it can also be held in the form of a physical coin if you have some fetish for physical representation.
Let's ignore the fact that, say, Wikipedia defines currency as a medium of exchange, because I was interested in the functional difference you were trying to make (endless arguments about definitions being uninteresting).
If you're arguing that Bitcoin cannot be a currency because it's not physical, that's not going to convince anybody.


You stated that Bitcoin was not meant to replace businesses like Western Union. That sentence describes precisely that. Have you really failed so completely to understand the most elementary point of Bitcoin?

I don't blame you for not completely understanding my point here (I also take it that you are not a native speaker of English, and these are very dense arguments, so my hat off to you for keeping up at all). My point, summarised: (1) money laundering is not a real crime, it's a made-up crime invented by governments to keep control over people. (2) You claimed that Bitcoin does not facilitate crime, but if we are talking about money laundering, Bitcoin obviously does facilitate it, so you are flat out wrong in this point as you were in all the other points.

Sorry but I have to call you out on it, what you wrote was basically nonsense from start to finish.

Here is a recap of a few things you said:

Bitcoin is not a currency. - not so much nonsense, just meaningless sophistry.

Bitcoin will not replace companies like Western Union. - nonsense. Once a bitcoin economy exists in sending and receiving country's economy, WU becomes obsolete.

Bitcoin does not facilitate crime. - Nonsense, of course it facilitates crime just as it facilitates productive enterprise. Just as cash does both of those things.

This is why there should be no damn foundation.

It doesn't really matter.
We already have government controlled digital currencies. Allowing government control of bitcoin would be unacceptable and lead to several forks.
There is no point going down that road. There is no need for it.

Guys, do u remember the native Americans? They did have agreements with US govt. How many of them really worked? None.

U r going to repeat the history mistake.