Topic: CFTC Regulating Bitcoin, Totally sell on this news guys. - page 2. (Read 5540 times)

Tell me about it.

Yes.  Liquidity and convertability would not be a problem by the time such a catastrophic event as MtGox shutting down occurs, because the idea of Bitcoin will have already gone viral by then.

I get the sarcasm. But I do believe that in the long run, Bitcoin derivatives and other financial scams will really harm Bitcoin.

Just remember that Bitcoin was MEANT to empower normal people - undermining the power of bankers and the other Wall Street bastards. As soon as bankers and Wall Street bastards start to play with Bitcoin, it may be its end.

Just my 0.02BTC

It unlawful to have child porn on your computer, when will it be illegal to have a bitcoin wallet on your hard drive?  Or at least an unregistered wallet.

Liquidity and convertability are the largest part of Bitcoin's value. It's not a consumption good that people would need. Therefore, making Bitcoins harder to attain decreases their value.

Do you really think that if MtGox went poof, prices would increase in the OTC market?

So what, you advocate communism? That's out of place in a Libertarian community.

+2 

Most people involved with Gox would probably scramble, but then afterward, anyone looking for BTC (even those that previously scrambled) will be happy to pay an exorbitant premium for them, from Shades McBitcoin down on the corner.  People WANT monetary freedom EVEN MORE than they want pot, and they want pot quite a bit...

When I stayed in CA, near San Jose, there was a certain hydroponics store I became friendly with the employees of.  (sue me for ending that sentence with a preposition.)
Anyhoo, the OWNER of the store (who was himself a huge pot head), voted NO on CA's prop 19 (outright legalization of marijuana), BECAUSE he knew if prices did not remain HIGH (LOL PUN), his store would likely go out of business.

Prohibition of a high demand product = huge price markup.

Just buy back in now Your post isn't gonna help you lower the price xD

Alcohol prices skyrocketed during prohibition, and alcohol quality decreased dramatically. The rest of those items got cheaper because of new technologies. As an example, do you think the war on file sharing made files free, or did the invention of file sharing itself make them free? Did porn get cheaper because of the internet or because governments frown upon porn? You are confusing inventions with interventions. The invention of the printing press is not the same as a war on literacy.

Do you really think that if Bitcoin exchanges were closed down, the price per coin would go up? I'm just asking a hypothetical question; I don't actually think that the exchanges will be closed down. Imagine if tomorrow, Mt. Gox announced that they were being shut down. People would be scrambling to sell their coins and get their dollars back in the bank.

Yeah.  That cartel down in Medellín really needs a good marketing guy... 

Unless it's lemon flavored coke 

Wow.  History much?

Prohibition = booze supply increased, price went way down
WWII parachute material = supply of nylon stockings went up, price stayed the same
War on Pot = supply increased massively, price to get high went down (price per weight went up, but quality went through the roof)
War on file sharing = supply dwarfed demand, price went free
War on porn
War on etc., etc., etc.

EDIT:  silk stockings... * sigh *

Oh - and war on literacy (Medieval Era) = printing press

Restricting things that mass numbers of people want

NEVER

EVER

Works.

If production of certain goods/services are restricted, supply will decrease and price will go up. If an artificial incentive is created to boost demand for a good/service, demand will increase and price will go up. If Bitcoin use is restricted, supply will stay the same and demand will decrease. That will cause the price to go down.

Anyway, the CFTC is only regulating financial instruments related to Bitcoin, not Bitcoin itself, so it's not a problem. I just wanted to demonstrate that the OP doesn't understand basic economics.

Ah. America. Land of the free freedom directly proportional to your own level of wealth. 

This is good news imo.

Bitcoin can't fly under the radar forever in the US, and so there were basically two possibilities: It gets regulated, or it gets effectively banned.

Looks like we're getting the better of the two.

Also, this is probably GREAT news to entrepreneurs who were nervous about getting into bitcoin because of its grey legality.

Thank you sir.

Oh, while I remember - as for the strawman accusation on the previous page; I forget who made it - that only applies if I'm addressing an actual person's argument. I have seen plenty of bear arguments that are completely different and unrelated, and I have seen plenty that indicate that regulation would kill bitcoin due to decreased utility. I am responding to the latter and it is a hypothetical argument that I created to respond to and thus there can be no straw man as I constructed the argument myself. It just happens to mirror arguments that I've seen in the past, and in no way do I claim that all bears make this argument or that any specific bearish posters on these forums make that specific argument  
Had an actual bear made an argument that was unrelated, and I mischaracterized it as a "bitcoinz will fail due to regulation" argument and responded that way, the strawman accusation would be legitimate. But, nice try there bucko.

What you described is exactly what happened in the drug market, too. Sure, demand went up because more people used drugs. Supply went down.

"Bitcoin's utility goes down the more difficult it is to obtain and use as a result of gov't intervention" ... The supply of drugs went down as a result of government intervention. You are perhaps arguing that demand for bitcoin will go down because utility has decreased and/because supply has also gone down? How come that didn't happen with drugs? How come supply and utility/ease of use (i.e. you have to be VERY CAREFUL when transporting them, and anytime you buy them you risk imprisonment) went down but demand went UP?

Ahh, I say, but that doesn't matter as much as we think it does, much like the appeal of drugs doesn't count on the ability to bring them places or buy them without fear of imprisonment. What bitcoin does best is also what gold and silver do best. Gold and silver have limited utility (when was the last time you went to a store that accepted gold and silver, except in backwater areas of Utah?) yet they have performed better as a store of value than EVERY SINGLE fiat currency in the entire world.

So my argument is that the following: "Bitcoins will go down in value if you can't buy them anonymously on an online exchange and use a bitcoin debit card to buy gas i.e. reduced utility due to government regulation" is false because there is and will be incredible demand to simply use a quasi-commodity that isn't controlled by Ben Bernanke.

There will always be a demand for monetary freedom. If you have to convert back to dollars via your friend Joe's OTC (parallel: go out on the corner and find a drug dealer to get your marijuana) it's still a lot better than sitting there while your Argentinian Peso loses 25% every year (day-to-day volatility aside, bitcoin has a better track record in terms of long-term trend value retention.) I guess it all comes down to how bad people want it as a place to throw fiat to save it from Bernanke and use as a cash OTC currency vs a place to throw it to buy gas and cigarettes at the corner store and speculate/day trade 24/7 on MtCox. I suspect the former will eventually become most folks' preference, especially as the global financial situation continues to deteriorate...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz_1JlykBf0

Indeed.

Squidface, you have missed the point entirely -- NO AMOUNT OF REGULATION / CONTROL CAN INHIBIT, EVEN IN PRINCIPLE, THE ACTIONS OF A DECENTRALIZED OPERATION.

I would say sorry for yelling but... I'm a metal head.  \m/  RIP, Jeff Hanneman.