Topic: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated? - page 12. (Read 19192 times)

I'm leaning towards anti, I think this is just a rumour which has occurred.
Maybe, the government tried to scare bitcoin users, thinking only the rich can get involved in the currency.
I'm not sure, I just don't know how they would control bitcoin, they are only interested in FIAT currencies.

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.

unregulated please... defeats the purpose of the market if it is regulated, just make them keep an eye on it, learn from it, and if they got something to say they better have a damn good argument.

and no taxation for sure, if they want taxes they better start taxing businesses directly, if the businesses in their territory are well supported by the state, they have nothing to worry about, they'll get their taxes.

and if people are putting kiddy porn on the blockchain... I'm sure the developers or the community here can come up with a solution to save the blockchain... it's already at 8.5 gigs!

I'm talking about the stuff in bold after that sentence:


...which comes from the OP. (Sorry, it would have been clearer if I'd just quoted the stuff I was talking about...)

I hate regulation,so I love bitcoin.
If bitcoin will be regualted,I don't know what rest I can love.

So how could OP pull a sentence out of his arse, if the sentence wasn't his?

That's what I mean, the stuff in bold that comes after that sentence.

The sentence "E. The scared developer makes concessions to requests that haven't been even made by the so called regulators..." was produced by me - it is a subtitle I gave to the conversation reported by OP. OP had nothing to do with it. Please reread my post.

Indeed.

Friday night beer googles are the only reason I'm even looking at this thread.

Such a thing is vastly to nuanced for a fair fraction of this board.  Trust me.

Yeah, you lot are hilarious. The only thing that's an actual conversation is what's quoted in my original post. You might want to re-read it to remind yourself.

I'm surprised you people haven't figured out that I 100% think the right approach is to do everything we can to ensure that at a technical level Bitcoin can't be regulated.

Don't they teach rhetoric in highschool anymore? Arguing your opponents position to show how wrong they are is a pretty basic technique.

Retep will correct me if I'm reading him wrong, but if I'm understanding the original post correctly the stuff that cypherdoc has phrased from "E. The scared developer makes concessions to requests that haven't been even made by the so called regulators..." wasn't a report of an actual conversation, it was something that the OP pulled out of his arse.

One of the various slights of hand in the original post was the way it plays with "work with", which starts out with an alleged actual conversation where it means "talk to them like the Tor people do to try to persuade them not to regulate us" and then, after various twists and turns of the OP's imagination, ends up meaning, "voluntarily break our software if somebody powerful thinks it might help them".

OP should do this. He has more information I think.

We already have that in spades I believe.

Deregulation! We need bitcoin derivatives traded on secret dark markets by major institutions who are simultaneously manipulating variables to really set this volatility swing in full motion!

I'm in no way against regulating exchanges if Bitcoin benefits from it. But i really hope that if the Bitcoin Foundation ever makes a suggestion of changing the protocol to make Bitcoin easier regulated that we protest so loudly that they would never dare to make a suggestion like that again. And if they do make a suggestion like that then it's clear that they have sold out to the same people that Bitcoin was designed to fight.

And you know what? - regulators didn't want to work with us (whoever ''us'' is) either. Look at the OP quotes (in bold in my post) to see what happened - this is very funny:

----------------------------------------------------------

A. One guy (from Australia) from Bitcoin Foundation says:
Hi! I would like the board to discuss opening up lines of communication with money regulators - particularly FinCEN and AUSTRAC (I'm from Australia).
Note it is not the so called regulators who seek contact with Bitcoin Foundation guys. It is the guy within Bitcoin Foundation who wants other Bitcoin Foundation guys to co-operate with the so called regulators. Funny, isn't it?

B. The Australian guy continues:
I think it would be better if some organisation like the Bitcoin Foundation could offer guidance draft rules and work with the regulators.
He just makes a pretty neutral suggestion, but pointing his finger at guys (geeks) who have no clue how to defend against bureaucrats.

C. And here comes the FUD out of the blue:
Otherwise we'll have a situation pretty soon where they try to implement something unworkable, the criminals flood into the Bitcoin system then the argument for 'shutting down bitcoin' grows in popularity.
I wonder where he gets this ''pretty soon'' idea from?

-------------------------------------------------------

D. The other guy (a developer) replies:
The Bitcoin Foundation itself is in a difficult position: we all know who it's funded by, and everyone involved is publicly known.
Clearly he caught the bait (FUD) and is sincerely afraid of decent persons involved in Bitcoin Foundation.

E. The scared developer makes concessions to requests that haven't been even made by the so called regulators, i.e.:
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
...
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.
...
developing P2P blacklist technologies

In my opinion the so called regulators, even if any meeting were to be held in the future, wouldn't even put forward such request - they have no clue what the Bitcoin system is all about.

-------------------------------------------------------

The problem is: now that this thread is open to public, the so called regulators were given numerous concessions (luckily of one man on behalf of this man only) on a silver plate + were given the info on what's possible to regulate. Bitcoin Foundation guys shoot themselves in the foot.

EDIT: Apologies to Bitcoin Foundations guys. I thought OP / retep / Peter Todd was a member of Bitcoin Foundation and spoke on your behalf while proposing going to bed with regulators. I was misleaded (my bad) by his quoting BF' private forum.

Seriously now, WTF is this thread is all about. I thought Bitcoin was created to avoid regulation and centralization in the first place.

So, NO! Of course we don't want to work with regulators. Bitcoin is unregulated by nature, let's keep it that way. For people who love regulation, stick with your euros and dollars please. Everybody happy.

I dont think it makes too much sense to build govt regulation into bitcoin 0.8+ ... that would be a hard fork or a new coin (maybe the same thing).  Because each regulation would be different in each country.  I do think that having a conversation with regulators to explain the system is healthy and looking at the recommendations.

Arbitrary freezing of funds would make bitcoin sterile.  

I would LOVE to see cypto currency used for public good (my idea was to give 10% of mining rewards to charity) but again this should be a new coin.

Deflation / Inflation cannot be controlled centrally.  It's trivial to print new bitcoins and settle in fractions or cash, as gold does.

The illegal link in the BC argument is pretty absurd ... you can encode information by using any image gallery, or by timestamps on facebook and twitter ... to prevent the sharing of links you have to shut down the internet, and maybe even paper!

Anyone can fork btc and introduce arbitrary measures, whether anyone will use that fork is a different question.

Each country will be different.