Topic: btc authority - page 2. (Read 1733 times)

i think in the future government will try to to make regulation to control and supervise bitcoin, some of the country already prepare the regulation for bitcoin, and if the government feel that the users can't be controlled then the government will banned the coin
I think it is reasonable that the government want to regulate because the government can see the potential of what bitcoin capable to do for the economic, but as the bitcoin user i strongly against the government interfering

Even if Bitcoin is beyond national jurisdiction, it can still be controlled on an international level through relevant international organizations such as the UN or IMF, which are established to address global scale issues. As I see it, international treaties are meant to specifically regulate issues regarding the global commons. Anyways, there shouldn't be any real difficulty to control Bitcoin worldwide if it were worth the effort and such a need arose.

we all hope this will not come .  but the problem will be when bitcoin will get to dangerous for every goverment and then  they will try shut it down like they did with lr , finding a excuse that money is ``DARK ``

authority:
the network and coin has no jurisdiction so cannot be controlled... only businesses with a registered address are restricted by laws of that jurisdiction
a government tried to regulate bitcoin (NewYork bitlicence) and bitcoiners just avoided starting businesses in new york, because regulation only affects businesses. not the network or coin itself.

government:
if governments want to make bitcoin usage healthy. they should learn the difference between the terms: regulation vs consumer protection. and instead of being currently 95% regulation 5% consumer protection, to be "compliant".. it should be 100% consumer protection rules a BUSINESS should follow to be "compliant".

advocacy:
word of mouth is a good form of advocacy for adoption, yet 99% still fear telling their friends, family, colleagues or public about it due to the media shaming of bitcoin as 'dirty' currency.
this may change but that is still making people sit on thier hands waiting for media to change their story..

no one should be stopped if they want organise themselves at meetups or social media to do their own PR advocacy campaigns. but this should be about making promotional and layman explanations more easy to talk about and more efficiently spread the word by having a 'thinktank' to speed up promotional ideas..
again advocacy and promoting bitcoin is not about controlling the network or grabbing all the coins.. its about promoting bitcoin.

but relying on one group of 'knowledge' can lead to governments restricting what that group can advertise because of where the 'office' is.. so its best to have several distributed groups of knowledge to do their own promotions.. which has started to happen now. local meetups that then try getting their own town/area more bitcoin aware.

There are many argues about this topic. Some think this is possible and that governments are interested to make this step. I'm not so sure about it and think if something like this happens it might have negative influence on Bitcoin.

You will struggle to operate in a country, if you not working with the government on issues like this. Yes, I agree with you that it is not a good

thing to get them involved, but it's even worst.. if they are not involved. You have to remember... these governments control your internet

access and your communication networks. If they decide to block it, like they are doing in China with the firewalls... you would lose the

freedom to use it. I hate to work with them... but I would rather work with them, than being against them. In most democratic governments,

these people are voted into power by the voters... and the only way to get rid of them are to vote against them. {If they block Bitcoin use}

If government steps in to regulate,they would most likely adopt a similar crypto with their rules in place.
They would also start a campaign explaining how bad bitcoin is and what sleazy perverts use it for and why its better to use Sheepcoin instead.
If people want to regulate and get down with government they are not bitcoin fans at all.

I hope the regulators are understands that this is a useless way, otherwise they will spend the time and a lot of money of their taxpayers.

banks as far as i know now are considering to create their own blockchain so they may not have to control bitcoin if this is indeed real.
and its better if they just create as well. fiat is much worse because those are money that can't be tagged for which there will be no records like online ledgers.

This will not happen, not direct control of bitcoin anyway.  The best they can do is to put regulations and restrictions on exchanges and business.

No, you've both got it wrong. If Bitcoin is really better than using fiat currency or payment networks, then it doesn't need any promotion besides word-of-mouth. And everyone knows that word-of-mouth is the most trustworthy form of advocacy; you don't hear word-of-mouth recommendations from people that aren't your friends.

I think Slark has the right term here. Advocacy not authority. No entity has any authority over BTC. No one can change the supply, distribution, usage rights. These things are coded into the protocol and could only change with overwhelming community consensus. 

No it isn't. Good products sell themselves. Bitcoin is an excellent product, and it's built up it's userbase in spite of a bad reception from the mainstream.

I would rather say, the Foundation was established to fill some individuals pockets with donations received from the community. We saw

admin secretaries paying huge amounts of money and everything went to shit after the money bags were emptied. OP, these kinds of

"Authority" figures are not good for a decentralized system like Bitcoin. Central figure heads, gets targeted and/or corrupted and then

everything goes to shit again. 

Bitcoin foundation was an attempt to provide advocacy to the cryptocurrency. Something that is still needed today.
But they had too many internal problems (they focused on development more instead or promoting BTC and achieving social acceptance) and sullied their own name with the scandals of board members.

Ethereum has its own Foundation and it is working just fine.

Someone will try. They will fail. (a soft authority, "The Bitcoin Foundation" was an early attempt. It failed)

It seems to me that Bitcoin is not flying that high for authorities to be concerned about creating a special body or agency to supervise or control it, at least, so far. Its market cap is tiny, a lot of public companies have capitalization by far greater than Bitcoin. On the other hand, if Bitcoin has in fact been created by the NSA or CIA, they must have been covertly controlling it from the very beginning.

Even if someone wanted to do it or I don't know, that would be impossible, or we wouldn't call that Bitcoin.

Actually even if government tries to control bitcoin they can't do it as bitcoin can't be centralized for sure.

What they may start to build after seeing the potential of bitcoin/blockchain is blockchain based financial system with centralized system replacing decentralization like bitcoin have and forcing their citizens to start using their centralized system rather than bitcoin. Many banks have already started to promote their centrally controlled blockchain based payment system (visa blockchain based b2b system) as similar to bitcoin network and providing similar features.

Government and banks are only interested in blockchain technology behind bitcoin not to bitcoin.

Some people here are confusing having an overseer or some centralized committee - which makes decision in the name of Bitcoin with laws and legislation which are NEEDED to push global adoption further.
Bitcoin doesn't need authority or some guardian for blockchain, it needs serious laws to push it out of gray area, prevent scams and to make use of BTC easier for everyone.