Topic: DATA - Authority or Association? (Read 5548 times)

Would it surprise you to learn that the same people behind pcisecuritystandards.org are about to open Bank of Guido Bitcoin in Switzerland and store YOUR bitcoins in some Swiss Alp mountain [cave]? Or, would you rather just have me back away from the keyboard since you know exactly what you're gettin' into?


"Give me sec, please. First, I need to find out who this Gleb dude is."

1. If someone dislikes the word ''authority'' used by people doing business as DATA, they can simply stop using Bitstamp as their exchange or they can stop using BitPay as their processor.

2. To my knowledge people doing business as DATA declared they only want to self-regulate (they may be anticipating a bureaucratic attack). No problem here. If however their future actions contradict their declarations (e.g. they will try to earn money by striking deals with the govs like guaranteeing monopolies or will co-operate with the govs in devising and / or enforcing regulations on other non-DATA businesses), anybody is free to apply ostracism to DATA businesses and boycott them, and anybody is welcome to create business with ''no talking to government'' sign imprinted in his business logo.

3. Assuming the very negative scenario in which people doing business as DATA lied about their intentions and will manage to fuck with the Bitcoin system (it's not their declared intention and I believe their declarations), simply a better currency with a government-proof protocol will be devised and Bitcoin will bite the dust.

4. Really there is nothing to get excited about.

If you think quoting Ayn Rand makes someone inhuman, then try this Orwell quote:
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever."

Our "compromise" on the make and model of the boot does not remove the boot from our faces. Orwell's future is now, as long as we allow it.


"Compromises" was the watch word in the post above mine. The modern problem, that if you give evil tyrants a fraction of an inch, they take googolplex light years away from every single liberty, has been proven ad nauseam et infinitum, beyond any reasonable doubt; in this case, it's economic liberty. Wasn't fucking the system back (with good) that constantly fucks all of us to death (with evil), the very reason bitcoin was created? Compromise is not an option unless you plan to say "stick a fork in it, bitcoin's done", well before all 21 million exist. I certainly hope appeasers will not make this an inevitability.

But hey, pretend that Argentina, et al, don't exist, and drinking the poison-pilled kool-aid will make bitcoin immortal.

+1  I think many of us here have a lot in common ideologically. It's the functional 'getting-shit-done' level that I'm trying to attain.

“The basic difference between an ordinary man and a warrior is
that a warrior takes everything as a challenge, while an ordinary
man takes everything as a blessing or as a curse.” -Don Juan Matus

  . Oh good...a sense of humor.  I can dig it.   

That is correct. And that means, that everyone who wants to use a paymnent system that offers reversability of transactions already has a list of options to choose from. Why then introduce something like that to a crypto currency (which, by the way, would make me as a retailer subject to the same chargeback frauds that I suffer from credit cards, which is why I don't accept them)?

Please clarify this for me: are you actually suggesting to implement reversability of transactions to the Bitcoin protocol in order to protect consumers from fraud?

Joe

---

Oh please don't be so picky and allow me some metaphorical and rhetorical fun, will you please!?

Just imagine they are actually suits hiding in Bitcoin-t-shirts, like a wolf in a sheepskin, get me?

Joe

---

Thanks for clarifying this.

In a discussion I would only tell the other party to 'try to relax' if I wanted to implicate that he / she is to stressed out to make a valuable point. And 'everything is going to be allright' is something I only say to little children or to someone who just suffered heavy injury or if I had no other way to marginalise the other point of view with an argument.

But then that's only me .

Joe


PS: I am indeed perfectly relaxed, it is far too hot for any kind of stress around here this summer ...

Joe,

FYI,

I've have met most of the people on that list at conferences or I've seen them giving talks on line and I've never seen any one of those people on that list wear a suit.

Agreed.

And it is my opinion that we currently find ourselves in the US in this onerous regulatory position for exactly this reason.  Groups like DATA and the Bitcoin Foundation are trying to do something about that.  It doesn't mean that others have to agree or join this effort.

Download your own client.

Fork the code.

The choices belong to you.

Yes, in the beginning, which was a waste of a great new technology just as a regulated Bitcoin would be waste of a great new technology.


Well, since I have already been called a dreamer in this thread I would now like to hear what one can call someone who believes he is going to tell the government what to do!?



I believe it is actually the other way around. The financial system of the entire world will change due to the appearence of crypto currency (be it Bitcoin or whatever comes after it). What really takes hard work is to try to manage the transition to a new economic system so society has the least amount of collateral damage, of victims who will loose everything, like retired people who may loose everything they have because they will intellectually never be capable of understanding what is going on and will only realise that they cannot buy anything anymore with the fiat they are getting into their old fashioned bank accounts.



Thanks for the image I actually like it .

But I believe your guess is wrong. As someone who does not believe in laws and coercion I actually have learned to compromise with my fellow human beings very well. I believe in cooperation based on the free choice of everybody involved.

The only party involved here who will never compromise is precisely the government and that is my whole point. Government will never say 'OK, we grant you some anonymity here and lift some regulations there and in exchange you do some KYC and AML on certain platforms'. Government will allways want to be in control completely, 100%.

I have stated here before what government needs to put cryptocurrency into their regulatory cages (reversability of transactions, whitelisting, ...) and no government will ever be satisfied before total control is achieved. They never did in recorded history and they never will for obvious reasons.

So going down this road will never take you to any sort of compromise but always to total surrender.

Then the suits listed above can continue making their profits in a safe and government approved way but the whole idea of a crypto economy based on free market currencies will be thrown back a few years or a decade. It cannot be stopped but it can be delayed. And the only way to moderate the above mentioned transition for government would be to give up some of it'S power, which will never happen.

Thinks Joe

I think in a thread like this, it was expected to get some traditional "throw the baby out with the bath water" talk.  You know, government isn't perfect so let's get rid if all governments.  But for those of us that actually live in the real world and operate business', confronting the difficulties of regulations head on, is a good thing. 

Whether Bitcoin can be regulated is not worth arguing about.  The transmission of Bitcoin's is already under regulation.  Nobody likes it but it is what it is.  So moving forward, it would be helpful to have knowledgeable voices helping to guide regulatory policy in a sound and fair way.  Whether DATA is that group, remains to be seen but doing nothing but letting the fringe voices of "ignore the law" and "destroy the government" lead the charge, is certain disaster.

Is it just me, or is this quote meaningless rubbish providing no benefit because it cannot be applied to the conversation in any functional way.

Good and evil? Come on, what is this, the 15th century? We're talking about solutions to modern problems, not witches.

Unfortunately the world is not so black and white my friend.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/3044794/How-we-all-break-the-law-every-day.html

One day you will notice that you can choose between following all laws and survival. Which choice do you make?
Something being legal does not automatically make it legitimate. Any dictatorship issues laws.


Bitcoin exchange businesses should be expected to be sufficiently intelligent to operate in countries with more liberal financial regulation.


ya.ya.yo!

yayayo,

If you call following laws and regulations "ass-licking"  then I'm am an A1 ass-ass-licker.  I have to follow law and regulations in my daily life.  I have to follow law and regulations in my businesses.  And now the governments has said there are laws and regulations that certain bitcoin activity must follow.

While we may not like that it seems pretty simple to me.

I'm not ignoring them - I'm just stating they do ass-licking in fear of US government which will not help them, because government is drowning in debt. Look at Argentina now than you will know where the US and many western economies are heading. Only enforcement will be more efficient and harsh in the US.

Um... no. What's awesome about a closed-source centralized Paypal-clone?

Yes!


Contradiction within the very same sentence.


ya.ya.yo!

Hey joe. Did you have a credit card 15 years ago? You are right to point out the trivial: they don't "eat it" they distribute it (again, a presumption...but it's not worth the time to discuss). The non-trivial point is that the individual card holder used to be on the hook for fraud.

I'm reading this thinking, "This is the dumbest ish ever."  Then I see Ayn Rand at the bottom and say, "Oh, well that figures."   Please join humanity.  

Somehow it reminds me of the Peace Authority - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Peace_War

Also of Eric Cartmen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIVHNylH1Mk 

Just heard this quoted on the latest Penn's Sunday School:


Galt’s Speech,
For the New Intellectual, 216
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html

Gutenberg mostly printed bibles.

The point of DATA is to be the 'lets-tell-the-government-what-to-do'-folks. It's not a super-easy thing to change the financial system of the entire world, actually. It takes a hard work, and yeah, you have to make some compromises.

Here's Joe: