Topic: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated? - page 11. (Read 19192 times)
June 18, 2013, 07:07:12 AM
If it becomes regulated many will move onto another coin.
June 17, 2013, 09:15:19 PM
Unregulated. That's what's nice about open source. Regulation --> Fork --> Unregulation
June 17, 2013, 08:59:17 PM
I think people have got the power flow inverted in their minds ... power flows from the people ...
The correct question is "Do the regulators want to work with Bitcoin .... ?"
So far, it seems not.
The correct question is "Do the regulators want to work with Bitcoin .... ?"
So far, it seems not.
June 17, 2013, 03:49:54 PM
got it, yea I see your points, makes sense.
I will do that, getting advice from the tax accountants would be the best way to get this setup. I like that first hour free idea haha
I will do that, getting advice from the tax accountants would be the best way to get this setup. I like that first hour free idea haha
June 17, 2013, 03:45:33 PM
You are totally right about that, thanks for that explanation. Now another question is what happens if you get audited, would they ever ask to see your bitcoin wallet to look for transactions, etc. what do you think about this?
each country is different. in the UK bitcoins are being treated like assets.
EG pieces of artwork, (personal possessions with a store of value), your car.
lets say you won the olympics. you received a gold medal worth $2000 of gold. until you sold that medal, you dont pay tax on holding the medal. same as a painting etc.
check with your tax office. they are not there to whip you at every turn, they are always approachable and can explain things. most tax accountants even give away a free first hour consultation.. so abuse that too.. get a list of 5 local tax accountants. go to each, ask your questions and when the time is up, go to the next accountant.
June 17, 2013, 03:36:19 PM
this is a very touchy subject and in all honestly the US is going to step in somehow whether we like it or not and try to form some type of regulation with it, of course those outside the US don't have to follow the rules but those in the US will have to adhere by them.
my only request is that they are able to work with bitcoin and its innovation and not find a way to regulate it so bad that it will force us to stop using it.
my only request is that they are able to work with bitcoin and its innovation and not find a way to regulate it so bad that it will force us to stop using it.
is smells like you have not read the reports or know what fincen actually is...
try researching them..
they only care about FIAT and can only control the flow of FIAT in BANK ACCOUNTS. the whole 'virtual currency' term is about the digital dollar on computer screens/database tables of liberty exchange, bitstamp etc which represents / is a "convertable virtual currency" of the actual dollar in their bank account. nothing to do with bitcoin balances of those companies or of blockchain.info, bitcoin-qt, armory, etc, etc.
the sooner people get their head out the sand that fincen/FSA etc can only control the FIAT. and not scare monger about bitcoin dying.. the sooner the people can create legitimate fiat exchange platforms.
I would not like to work with regulators because that means verifications, taxes, general disability when using BTC. Bitcoin is decentralised and can't be regulated. The governments can attack the big exchangers but they can't stop every individual using bitcoin.
the government only tax FIAT you have, so it will only affect bitcoins when you put it into fiat. just like the last 100+ years. if you buy a piece of artwork they dont request 20% of the painting to be ripped from its frame as tax.. they wait for you to sell it. and then tax you on the FIAT
You are totally right about that, thanks for that explanation. Now another question is what happens if you get audited, would they ever ask to see your bitcoin wallet to look for transactions, etc. what do you think about this?
June 17, 2013, 03:26:35 PM
this is a very touchy subject and in all honestly the US is going to step in somehow whether we like it or not and try to form some type of regulation with it, of course those outside the US don't have to follow the rules but those in the US will have to adhere by them.
my only request is that they are able to work with bitcoin and its innovation and not find a way to regulate it so bad that it will force us to stop using it.
my only request is that they are able to work with bitcoin and its innovation and not find a way to regulate it so bad that it will force us to stop using it.
is smells like you have not read the reports or know what fincen actually is...
try researching them..
they only care about FIAT and can only control the flow of FIAT in BANK ACCOUNTS. the whole 'virtual currency' term is about the digital dollar on computer screens/database tables of liberty exchange, bitstamp etc which represents / is a "convertable virtual currency" of the actual dollar in their bank account. nothing to do with bitcoin balances of those companies or of blockchain.info, bitcoin-qt, armory, etc, etc.
the sooner people get their head out the sand that fincen/FSA etc can only control the FIAT. and not scare monger about bitcoin dying.. the sooner the people can create legitimate fiat exchange platforms.
I would not like to work with regulators because that means verifications, taxes, general disability when using BTC. Bitcoin is decentralised and can't be regulated. The governments can attack the big exchangers but they can't stop every individual using bitcoin.
the government only tax FIAT you have, so it will only affect bitcoins when you put it into fiat. just like the last 100+ years. if you buy a piece of artwork they dont request 20% of the painting to be ripped from its frame as tax.. they wait for you to sell it. and then tax you on the FIAT
June 17, 2013, 03:03:20 PM
this is a very touchy subject and in all honestly the US is going to step in somehow whether we like it or not and try to form some type of regulation with it, of course those outside the US don't have to follow the rules but those in the US will have to adhere by them.
my only request is that they are able to work with bitcoin and its innovation and not find a way to regulate it so bad that it will force us to stop using it.
my only request is that they are able to work with bitcoin and its innovation and not find a way to regulate it so bad that it will force us to stop using it.
June 17, 2013, 01:08:36 PM
I would not like to work with regulators because that means verifications, taxes, general disability when using BTC. Bitcoin is decentralised and can't be regulated. The governments can attack the big exchangers but they can't stop every individual using bitcoin.
It is just like BitTorrent. The governments can do absolutely nothing to stop the system or the idea, they can only go after users at entities at the fringe.
June 17, 2013, 11:19:29 AM
I would not like to work with regulators because that means verifications, taxes, general disability when using BTC. Bitcoin is decentralised and can't be regulated. The governments can attack the big exchangers but they can't stop every individual using bitcoin.
June 17, 2013, 10:43:21 AM
We will see what shakes out, but most of what I have heard is about regulating US Dollars, not bitcoin. It is regulating the sale of bitcoins for dollars. I don't understand the position of speculators who want to trade BTC back and forth for dollars and not pay tax or be subject to regulation. If you want to use dollars you are choosing to use their money and must play by their rules. Just stick to bitcoins and free yourself from that nonsense. Cut the cord.
June 17, 2013, 09:55:04 AM
guys, let's stop talking, you won't affect the foundation by posting on the forums - just start an online petition and spread the word through mailing lists, forums and social media - and I can assure you that the btc foundation will get very clear feedback.
http://www.ipetitions.com/start-petition
http://www.ipetitions.com/start-petition
June 17, 2013, 09:12:04 AM
I hope everyone realizes that regulation WILL happen, and it is NOT your choice. It will be regulated by countries all over the world and subject to international laws on trade.
This is not a "choice". It is and will remain law, whether one works with regulators or not.
I suppose if you think tax evasion is a way to avoid cooperating then you could do that, of course you may go to jail.
This is not a "choice". It is and will remain law, whether one works with regulators or not.
I suppose if you think tax evasion is a way to avoid cooperating then you could do that, of course you may go to jail.
June 16, 2013, 06:20:03 AM
the simple path.. allow the banks /governements to regulate the bank account holders of FIAT. which includes liberty reserve and other FIAT handling exchanges that are within bitcoin community(as the FIAT has to sit in an account somewhere)
but to leave pure bitcoin users alone.
fincen only control US dollar. they do not control EURO, australian, japanese, UK FIAT.. so dont even give them the opportunity to control bitcoin
but to leave pure bitcoin users alone.
fincen only control US dollar. they do not control EURO, australian, japanese, UK FIAT.. so dont even give them the opportunity to control bitcoin
June 16, 2013, 06:12:17 AM
We can work with regulators to make sure Bitcoin is acceptable to them. For instance we can ensure that it remains possible to track the flow of money through Bitcoin. We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data. We can work with them to find ways to apply AML rules to Bitcoin transactions and to the exchanges. There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made. Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation. A lot of these changes are technical, such as improving scalability so transactions can remain on the blockchain, developing P2P blacklist technologies, and preventing deflation.
If Bitcoin heads in this direction, surely there will be a hard fork. The whole point of Bitcoin for a lot of users is to have a currency that functions independently of the world's most heinous criminals--the bankers and politicians--and makes their destructive, self-serving policies/regulations/legislation irrelevant. Each of us should be free to transact in whatever currency has the features and characteristics that we want and individually choose. Similar to religion (in the USA at least), a currency should not be imposed on us. It's obvious there isn't going to be a one-size-fits-all cryptocurrency as we move forward.
We can also go the other route, and give Bitcoin users even more tools to remain anonymous and transact on their own terms. Technologies like mixing and off-chain transactions to let you make transactions without revealing where the coins came from, technologies like P2Pool to ensure mining stays decentralized, and colored coins to let us trade our assets without involving third party exchanges.
We can go both routes. It's as simple as a hard fork.
Didnt read this whole thread so not sure if this has been said already. But the idea of taking both routes could be vary beneficial depending how regulated the gov't wants it. There is no reason why the foundation cant make a "regulated" bitcoin client and secretly in the back room on a Tor server work on a 2nd shadow client, one which ignores those rules. End result would be, The foundation does what the gov't wants but at the same time we do what we want. if at any point the clients become incompatible, they only need to say "well, we did our best gov't, everyone is ignoring our official client now". they can all publicly quit but keep working on the shadow client (the real client) same as always. Legally they wouldnt be responsible, though we would have legal battles for bitcoins future at that point.
I guess the question becomes, can you legally ban a technology that isnt illegal, simply because its users choose to use it for that? Think Torrents, they are perfectly legal, but some people upload illegal/copyrighted content.
June 16, 2013, 12:51:37 AM
I am for zero regulation in the Bitcoin space, let the free market reign. Of course, there is nothing we can do about regulating the conversion of Bitcoin to Fiat (you have now exited the Bitcoin space once you convert to cash), and nobody should be surprised by that.
So I would like to see some reasonable regulation in the exchange space. Right now, it's not well defined and it seems to be a bit heavy handed with all the reporting requirements, surety bonding in all states, etc.
So I would like to see some reasonable regulation in the exchange space. Right now, it's not well defined and it seems to be a bit heavy handed with all the reporting requirements, surety bonding in all states, etc.
May 11, 2013, 06:31:07 AM
...which comes from the OP. (Sorry, it would have been clearer if I'd just quoted the stuff I was talking about...)
Actually, you are right, OP seems to have pulled this out of his arse. I thought (and others probably thought too) he was quoting someone from Bitcoin Foundation.
I made a moron of myself.
Not at all, you were supposed to think that. It's a classic rhetorical tactic from the political bullshitting textbook. Politicians use it all the time, because it works so reliably - people will naturally assume that the things you say are connected.
So you start with something an opponent actually said ("Maybe we should do what the Tor guys are doing and explain to regulators why they shouldn't try to regulate us"), set up a false opposition ("work with" vs "be unregulated"), then plonk a bunch of strawmen on the opponent's side of the divide (AML! Tax! Censorship!) and people will assume that your opponent is advocating the strawman stuff too, without you needing to specifically say so. Then having scared people about their enemy's dastardly plot you throw in the stuff you want to do (Throttle the network at 7 transactions per second!) and make it look like it's an essential part of defeating your opponent's evil agenda.
EE. That's a very impressive deconstruction!
May 11, 2013, 06:17:39 AM
It's a classic rhetorical tactic from the political bullshitting textbook.
Yes, OP should consider career in politics.
May 11, 2013, 05:58:33 AM
...which comes from the OP. (Sorry, it would have been clearer if I'd just quoted the stuff I was talking about...)
Actually, you are right, OP seems to have pulled this out of his arse. I thought (and others probably thought too) he was quoting someone from Bitcoin Foundation.
I made a moron of myself.
Not at all, you were supposed to think that. It's a classic rhetorical tactic from the political bullshitting textbook. Politicians use it all the time, because it works so reliably - people will naturally assume that the things you say are connected.
So you start with something an opponent actually said ("Maybe we should do what the Tor guys are doing and explain to regulators why they shouldn't try to regulate us"), set up a false opposition ("work with" vs "be unregulated"), then plonk a bunch of strawmen on the opponent's side of the divide (AML! Tax! Censorship!) and people will assume that your opponent is advocating the strawman stuff too, without you needing to specifically say so. Then having scared people about their enemy's dastardly plot you throw in the stuff you want to do (Throttle the network at 7 transactions per second!) and make it look like it's an essential part of defeating your opponent's evil agenda.
Jump to: