Topic: Bitcoin at the US Senate - page 19. (Read 67168 times)

From https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/request-for-transparency-tbf-114911:


They were unable to prove they paid for the membership.

This thread revealed one thing Silly Bitcoin dislikes more than bitcointalk.org - the Bitcoin Foundation.

Maybe in manner to which the Senate is accustomed you could obfuscate, stall and at eleventh hour produce a fait accomplit.

Produce an impenetrable 3000 page document on the night before the discussion, thump it on the desk when you arrive and say "What didn't you know, all the rules are in the book? So sorry, that's just the way it is now. Get back to us when you understand Bitcoin Law. (bring coders)."

Surely a currency IS a medium of exchange, thats its very definition.  Given that one can exchange Bitcoins for an increasingly wide range of items from electronics to holidays to ordering a pizza, or simply exchanging to other currencies of course via the many exchanges all over the world, it would be hard to convince the Senate that Bitcoin wasn't becoming a currency.

Might makes right.

::le sigh:: Categorically false. The USA federal government has only the authority granted to it by the Constitution. Sadly, very few Americans understand this any longer. Even so, you will find very few elected officials that actually claim that they are not bound by the limits of the Constitution - no matter how tyrannical they act in fact.

Just make sure the Senators understand that possibilities for untraceable bribes and kickbacks exist with Bitcoin, and we'll never have any more problems from Washington again.

1. Bitcoin is a unique asset class that allows Americans to diversify investments and therefore may allow America to better weather financial storms.  The 2008 financial crisis showed how the banking industry companies are tightly coupled and have a poorly understood interactive complexity.  These are the exact attributes identified by Charles Perrow in his seminal work "Normal Accidents" as creating a system that is prone to significant negative events.  Bitcoin's worldwide scope and weak connections to the traditional financial industry make it an independent system that is likely to remain unaffected by systemic financial industry crises.

1a. Banks today make most of their money in fees.  They are profiting from the financial difficulties or careless mistakes make by working Americans.  Bitcoin does not levy these fees.


2. Bitcoin is a worldwide phenomenon and so government intervention is limited in its possible scope.  Excessive regulation will simply drive companies elsewhere.  Excessive paperwork and registration fees (for MSB certification) is ALREADY driving legitimate bitcoin companies out of the USA (Tangible Cryptography, etc).  Regulation is difficult and possibly unconstitutional due to the unique digital nature of the system -- given that a Bitcoin has no intrinsic value is transferring one simply "speech"? (etc)  I'm sure Patrick knows these details much better than I, but the point is to throw out some FUD about the efficacy and value of any bill passed -- because nobody wants to author a stupid bill -- not to make an authoritative determination.

2a.  The MSB framework may make sense for a billion dollar company handling a trust-and-debt-based currency, but does not make sense for a cryptographically secure asset based system capable of micro-payment transfers.  To remain competitive in this critical emerging industry, a bill should be passed in the same philosophy as the one legalizing "kickstarter" projects.  This bill should create a single federal MSB registration system covering companies that wish to handle digital currencies below a certain value threshold.


3. The silk road headlines giving a USD value on the bust tremendously exaggerate the quantity of drugs because many of the coins were earned when Bitcoin was 1/50 or less of its current value ($300 vs $5).

3a. Arm yourself with lots of statistics about USD drug trade.

Every time an inch of liberty is ceded, the totalitarians take googolplex light years. It will take illegal acts such as perjury and bribery to determine whether the exercises of economic liberty using bitcoin are eventually made multiple felonies (despite having no victims but we the future defendants), or not.

The Foundation vs The Establishment (which could very easily turn bitcoin against itself by paying untraceable BTC bribes and kickbacks to lawmakers to make BTC entirely "black market" i.e. eliminate their legal competition): which do you think has deeper pockets?

Three points:

• Governments can change in the manner that businesses threatened by the open source software development model adapted. The long-term benefits far outweigh immediate negative reactions.
• Dollar supremacy is waning. Should other nations (Europe, China, Russia, etc.) mark their assets (esp. gold) to unleveraged markets, US debt would implode virtually overnight. Bitcoin stands to be a beneficiary of that event, as it has no debt foundation and does not recognize borders; likewise, it allows access to an international market simply by holding.
  
  Having XBT on the books would offset declining assets, particularly those held by the Federal Reserve and numerous other governmental agencies. While Bitcoin may be a risky asset, there is a certain catastrophe looming - any option to mediate that should be pursued.
• The nascent Bitcoin economy has the potential to create hundreds of thousands of full-time jobs and independent contractors that do not require relocation outside of the US. This could also attract and renew international interest in American investment.

The fact that Bitcoin will thrive with or without the USG may be too confrontational, but it is a relevant item as well.

Sure, I'll have it. Address in my sig. Cheers.

Man, if simply meeting with the government regulators is going to totally kill bitcoin, I'm out. Anyone want my 10BTC? It obviously has no chance to stand up to any government, and will be worthless in... What, one or two weeks?

Will this be broadcast anywhere such as CSPAN? 

I knew some of the bitcoin crowd were rather extreme in their views but the niavity shown by posts in this thread defies belief. Bitcoin wasn't created to take down fiat currencies or visa or paypal. They are all different things with different pros and cons. Bitcoin has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights and wrongs of the current financial system other than giving power back to individuals over their own money. Which is an awesome thing to do.

It's a financial instrument, an awesome technology, that's completely new and hence existing regulations don't cover it.

These kinds of meetings are required to ensure that when regulations and laws are updated, they are updated with an understanding of bitcoin and not without.

So do you want a bitcoin where it's entirely black market, (more) rife with scammers, and usable only by the technical elite and criminals, or do you want it to give power to real people, people who want to send money to their friends or relatives, who want to accept payment without hassles and political interference, who can't access bank accounts or credit cards, and so on?

If you want it to be black market and exclusive, tell the 'Feds' where to go, but that makes no sense at all. They aren't all against you and they aren't all out to kill bitcoin. It's the attitudes like some of you have demonstrated here that do give bitcoin a bad name, that do make people want to throw it back at you. You sound like petulant teenagers telling mum and dad you hate them before running up to your room.

Bitcoin isn't yours. It doesn't belong to you. It belongs to everyone. So don't spoil it for the rest of us. Whoever is speaking on behalf of bitcoin needs your support, not your petulant rants.

TL;DR - grow up, man up, look around and smell the coffee. Bitcoin needs to fit into the regulatory climate so it can become mainstream. Only then can it truly throw the financial shackles off much of the world. And lord help us it bloody needs it.

Maybe it's nice to point out that bitcoin is independent from any sovereign states that the governments do clearly understand that they should not attempt any take over.

Take over means, influence the code and the institutions bridging fiat and bitcoin.

That said it is wise to lay open the issue of privacy and also the surveillance.

I don't know how these Senate hearings go down, but I would be very conservative about what I would be willing to talk about.
If a discussion starts to stray into issues like crime, money laundering, hacking and the like, I would constantly refuse to have an opinion about it as I can not not talk on behalf of others.
This is not something bitcoin can or should answer for.

That might be something worth preparing for.

A currency can be literally converted to another currency, while a medium of exchange cannot be converted to a currency. This happened many times during periods of fast inflation in the Brazilian economy. The Brazilian central bank had to convert the currency in circulation for another, otherwise there would not be enough currency in circulation to keep the Brazilian economy stable. Thus, BTC cannot be converted to another currency because it supply and circulation are not under the control of a central authority.

Moreover, BTC cannot be literally hold by an individual, while a currency can be hold in form of banknotes and coins. No person hold any BTC, but only a private password which allows them transfer some digits from one imaginary point to another. Without a computer with access to the Internet, that process is impossible to be reproduced.


The first sentence is describing the Bitcoin software allows payments being made using the Internet without the need of a financial institution to validate the transactions.

Which part you did not comprehend?


If you think that conceal or disguise money obtained from illicit trade is not a crime, then I am sure you are not properly informed about the current legislation of many countries.

Call your congressman's office and ask. The congress reps are really approachable.

Edit: Rassah -- glad to see you are on the right track.

The USA federal government have the authority to make whatever rules is necessary to regulate whatever happens inside their political borders. Whatever a person accept or not, the USA federal government can and will rule over a software being used by USA citizens, mainly when this software use an algorithm which was developed by themselves.

And I have already stated that I do not think that is a logical assumption.  

Let me put it in a different context:  How will doing nothing i.e. not communicating with them help Bitcoin in any way?  Don't you think communication will at least give us a chance to "argue" our POV?  If they listen/agree or not what difference does it make?

All in all, they will do whatever they want, because they can.  Attempting to educate them is a step towards steering them in the right direction.