Pages:
Author

Topic: Do we want to work with money regulators, or keep Bitcoin unregulated? - page 15. (Read 19192 times)

newbie
Activity: 25
Merit: 0
Money laundering/criminal activity? Please, you get that with every currency. You cannot stop black markets from existing.

It is not the regulators' jobs to protect us from any of this. It is our job.

Also remember: If you give them an inch, they will take a mile.

Yes, and there are (anti-money laundering and other) regulations with other currencies, just as there are now with bitcoin.

The regulators have a different view of their job than you do for them.  ;-)
legendary
Activity: 1120
Merit: 1164
FWIW I think you should just submit a pull request to the foundation bylaws, and add a section on anonymity and decentralization. See how they respond, if at all.

You can submit that pull request too you know.
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1015
We need regulation because that is how you keep others from creating regulations and it makes far more sense to create the regulations in house, than to give it to someone who has an unknown agenda.

I have seen many users post this argument and i don't understand it. HOW can you regulate a currency that was designed impossible to regulate? To me it looks like the people in charge are trying to make either a fork or a central bank-type layer so that it can be regulated. Because let's face it, Bitcoin right now CAN'T be regulated if we don't let them regulate it. They want to close all the exchanges? Fine! We have TOR, we can meet in the streets and people will find other ways to bypass that. That's why 'm not afraid of the government forbidding Bitcoin. But it looks to me like they want to change the whole nature of Bitcoin and that is what's dangerous. And even more because many Bitcoin users have no problem with that.

Think of it this way.
You have a wonderful Apple pie on your kitchen window, which is warm, and smells delicious.
If you give the bully a small slice, he will leave you alone, happy that he got some pie.
If you don't, he might take the whole pie, and give you a small slice.
If you run away with the pie, he might come after you and not only steal your pie, but also smash it into your face.
If you run away, you might out run the bully, but also end up away from the house, not able to watch TV while eating your pie with no plate, cutlery, or lemonade!

The point is, when you have something that someone else might want, the first move is to be reasonable, because it stops them being unreasonable!


Bullies never settle for "a small slice" ... they always come back for more and more and more because they are getting it for free ....

And the "we don't negotitate with terrorists" doctrine applies here also.

Let me put this in a way that will make you anarchists very happy:

Continuing this analogy, almost everyone on the block praises and warships this bully. So much so, that when they see that he's eating some of your pie, they start being willing to do anything to get even a nibble of the pie. The bully thinks nothing of it, because he feels like he's had enough pie for a few hours. Turns out, everyone really loves this pie, and can't get enough of it! But, like you said, the bully might get hungry again. So, he keeps going back for more. However, the neighborhood notices that each time the bully goes back, there are less and less good parts of the pie left for everyone else. They realize that they love this pie more than they love this bully, so they gang up and restrain the bully to ensure that he can never again be a threat.

If you truly believe that Bitcoin is the only true currency and that governments are unable to hold back, some light regulation from the government now would allow you to destroy the government later.

Personally, I just think that the worries about regulation are a terrible slippery slop argument, since there is no way that anyone could get the support needed to change the protocol in the ways retep describes in the later portion of his post. As for the earlier parts, there is nothing that anyone can do to prevent someone from bypassing those regulations, even if most people are only using a government-approved client. A black market within even a heavily-regulated Bitcoin would have significantly more diversity and depth than one that exists in a world where Bitcoin is completely illegal. Paypal is extremely regulated, and yet I can pay for a DDoS attack on someone while also paying to steal their identity, all with Paypal, no problem. I could probably even buy drugs with Paypal. So no, I'm not too worried about our future.
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 1000
www.DonateMedia.org
Regulations from the same monsters that got us into the current financial hell we are all in now? No thanks
legendary
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1047
Your country may be your worst enemy
I'm still quite new here, but count me with the people against all regulations regarding bitcoin.

That doesn't mean I am against all laws and morals. I understand the need of preventing murder and rape, but you can't harm anyone with virtual currency.

legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 2349
Eadem mutata resurgo
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.

Sounds freakin' dandy. Count me out if it goes this direction.

The trouble(*) is that at this time, and possibly for some time to come, for every '1' in the real world who is turned off by such things, there will be '10' who will think they sound great(**).  Their response will be 'Count me in.'

(*) Of course "One man's trash is another man's treasure." so 'trouble' may not be the right word exactly.

(**) I'm not standing by and exact 1/10 ratio.  Just making a point as I see it.

Yeah but the 10 who think it sounds great don't have any money ... and is a large part why they don't.

Bitcoin is getting adopted because capital markets can appreciate what good money looks like ... if bitcoin now turns around and changes itself into bad money capital will move elsewhere.

Govt. money was formerly gold, then paper cash and now traceable digital units ... if govt. money was widely available as untraceable (fungible) gold-backed digital units bitcoin would be worthless.
legendary
Activity: 1133
Merit: 1163
Imposition of ORder = Escalation of Chaos
Thanks for the reply nwbitcoin.

I think I understand your position better now. Let me explain why I still don't like it, though Cheesy

But first...

You ask what stops me from shooting people in the head? This is where it gets difficult because you are asking someone, with a similar moral compass to you.  I wouldn't go and do something like that because its morally wrong.  For 70% of the population, this is the only answer you will get.  However, that last 30% is the problem.  We might like to think they are all the criminals in prisons, but its not actually true.

Do you really think the % is this high? I think we have different degree of trusting people in general, I consider the % of troublemakers (shaped that way by upbringing, society, or simply born that way) to be considerably less. Basically I work with the assumption that people are generally a decent bunch. Put them into a tough spot, though and they can quickly become selfish or downright evil. That's why I feel it's important to help shape society - because the very environment we live in might just be the biggest influence in what sort of people we are. In other words - a society like ours is bound to produce an abundance of sociopaths. For a sociopath is one who fears society and today it's easy to fear society, especially while conflating society with government and the state.

Most of them are the psychopaths who have never been outed.  They run companies, they are your managers, the people who would say anything to get ahead. Without regulations, there are no retributions, and without retributions, there are no reasons not to do what it takes to get what you want.

As you say, sociopaths (I assume when you use the word psychopath you mean something like I mean by sociopath) are rampant in our society. Not surprising at all. And there is nothing a sociopath likes better than a position of power. For when he has power, he has control over that which he fears. I agree this is a problem.

But don't you see that if we are creating regulations, meaning universal sets of rules and coupling them with institutions (backed by force) to enforce them, we are giving the sociopaths exactly what they want and need? Now instead of going around stealing other peoples stuff and randomly shooting pedestrians in the face, like you feared they would do - they run your government, your police force, your money and what have you.

Power corrupts and power also attracts the corrupted. The way to deal with this is not by trying to find the right people to write the right set of regulations - universal sets of rules, but to let everybody find their own rules.

People are afraid of Anarchy as of being a state without rules. This is nonsense, people are so obsessed with rules, they will instantly make up new ones. The crucial difference is whether we accept diversity, or try to force everyone to live by a single universal set of rules. The best ones, written by the brightest and most well-meaning people of all, of course.

My signature sums it up.
legendary
Activity: 4760
Merit: 1283
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.

Sounds freakin' dandy. Count me out if it goes this direction.

The trouble(*) is that at this time, and possibly for some time to come, for every '1' in the real world who is turned off by such things, there will be '10' who will think they sound great(**).  Their response will be 'Count me in.'

(*) Of course "One man's trash is another man's treasure." so 'trouble' may not be the right word exactly.

(**) I'm not standing by and exact 1/10 ratio.  Just making a point as I see it.

member
Activity: 116
Merit: 10
In the last round of grant proposals at one point Gavin suggested someone submit a grant for a trust-free mixer service to help people make the coins in their wallet more anonymous by mixing them with a large pool of other users. I asked Gavin about that later, and he said the foundation lawyers nixed the idea because efforts to make Bitcoin users more anonymous could be seen to be aiding money laundering, especially if the foundation itself was paying for development and to run the servers.

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.

Sounds freakin' dandy. Count me out if it goes this direction.

+1

This basically sums up my feelings on the topic. If they do any sort of thing to work with the government, like taxation, anti-anonymity measures beyond what's in the nature of Bitcoin itself, that's the day that I cash out and stop recommending it to people.
legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 2349
Eadem mutata resurgo
We need regulation because that is how you keep others from creating regulations and it makes far more sense to create the regulations in house, than to give it to someone who has an unknown agenda.

I have seen many users post this argument and i don't understand it. HOW can you regulate a currency that was designed impossible to regulate? To me it looks like the people in charge are trying to make either a fork or a central bank-type layer so that it can be regulated. Because let's face it, Bitcoin right now CAN'T be regulated if we don't let them regulate it. They want to close all the exchanges? Fine! We have TOR, we can meet in the streets and people will find other ways to bypass that. That's why 'm not afraid of the government forbidding Bitcoin. But it looks to me like they want to change the whole nature of Bitcoin and that is what's dangerous. And even more because many Bitcoin users have no problem with that.

Think of it this way.
You have a wonderful Apple pie on your kitchen window, which is warm, and smells delicious.
If you give the bully a small slice, he will leave you alone, happy that he got some pie.
If you don't, he might take the whole pie, and give you a small slice.
If you run away with the pie, he might come after you and not only steal your pie, but also smash it into your face.
If you run away, you might out run the bully, but also end up away from the house, not able to watch TV while eating your pie with no plate, cutlery, or lemonade!

The point is, when you have something that someone else might want, the first move is to be reasonable, because it stops them being unreasonable!


Bullies never settle for "a small slice" ... they always come back for more and more and more because they are getting it for free ....

And the "we don't negotitate with terrorists" doctrine applies here also.
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
You are a geek if you are too early to the party!
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
You are a geek if you are too early to the party!
Quote from: nwbitcoin

Let me ask you a question.

What stops someone from putting a bullet in your head and stealing all your stuff?

The answer is regulations.




This is not right. The answer is The Law.

One depends on an immutable understanding between human beings.

The other is political.

And what is the law?  Just a set of regulations that we all agree to live by as the cost of being a part of society.

If you don't agree, you are kidnapped and held against your will until common opinion says you have learnt your lesson. Sometimes, in some places, they kidnap you and kill you.  I think that may be Texas!
Wink
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
You are a geek if you are too early to the party!
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
A self regulating coin will spring up in the next few years that will eliminate alot of the volatility we are seeing today. As for the government/banks controlling the coin itself, it cant or it would be worthless.

How would a distributed, blockchain currency self regulate to dampen volatility?  In order to do that it would be dependent on some source for its information about what price people were trading it at.  Would it use one source?  Many sources?  Who would maintain these price feeds?  Would not the price feeds be susceptible to hacks where invalid or disruptive data could be delivered to influence the way the currency self-regulates?

It's a nice thought, but it just adds a layer of complexity and potential exploitation to something that in its growing up years can already be manipulated and exploited pretty easily.  It's easy to forget how young this idea is.  If it's to persist into the future at all and become a significant player in global economics its journey there will be volatile, that's just the way it will go.

Read up on some of the alt-coin ideas floating around, some of them are working with the idea of lifting artificial limits like fixed/descending block rewards, demurrage to encourage its use as a currency and not a commodity, and  introducing some level of AI to have the network automatically perform the functions of a central bank.
legendary
Activity: 1330
Merit: 1002
Retep is opposed to improving scalability so transactions can remain on the blockchain. He has some opinions about what the blockchain should be used for, and he wants to cap the network at 7 transactions per second, and blow fees through the roof so that most of the current uses of Bitcoin will have to go somewhere else.

Confirm/deny?
legendary
Activity: 2198
Merit: 1311
A self regulating coin will spring up in the next few years that will eliminate alot of the volatility we are seeing today. As for the government/banks controlling the coin itself, it cant or it would be worthless.

How would a distributed, blockchain currency self regulate to dampen volatility?  In order to do that it would be dependent on some source for its information about what price people were trading it at.  Would it use one source?  Many sources?  Who would maintain these price feeds?  Would not the price feeds be susceptible to hacks where invalid or disruptive data could be delivered to influence the way the currency self-regulates?

It's a nice thought, but it just adds a layer of complexity and potential exploitation to something that in its growing up years can already be manipulated and exploited pretty easily.  It's easy to forget how young this idea is.  If it's to persist into the future at all and become a significant player in global economics its journey there will be volatile, that's just the way it will go.
member
Activity: 83
Merit: 10
Handling bitcoins is already pretty much regulated, at least when it comes to converting to fiat.
 - Exchanges have to abide by AML/KYC.
 - UK Exchanges need to register with HMRC.
 - They have to justify and explain all sources of income so the banks don't close them for suspicious activity.
 - Any transactions that are suspicious must be reported to UK intelligence agencies otherwise exchange owners face prosecution.
 - Any earnings from Bitcoin must be declared to be taxed.

A lot of these things are in place to prevent money laundering, but a lot of this still relies on goodwill, of which not everyone has.

Society is about compromise. In the UK, we have a usable transport infrastructure, a usable energy infrastructure, a usable education system, and for that, morally, we should probably pay something some how.

It sounds kinda cliché and and "what they want you to think" but not at least considering supporting legislation to stop that sort of evasion is just aiding theft.If we say no to legislation & regulation, on some level not agreeing to try hinder tax evasion, we're no better than the huge corporations in the news every week paying 0 tax and holding everything in off shore accounts.

Although I think morally we should at least entertain the idea of regulation and cooperation, I think a lot of consideration does need to be made to get the right balance between enforceability and protection of freedoms and privacy.
newbie
Activity: 20
Merit: 0
Bitcoin will remain unregulated.  It doesnt matter if people in the community want it regulated or if government(s) want it regulated.  Bitcoin, by nature, is unregulated.  They cannot seize your btc unless under duress, etc.  You are your own bank.

Until the devs fork it and say: "Here is the regulated Bitcoin 2.0 which will be worth 10000USD because of big company involvement, if you don't want use it then use the unregulated Bitcoin 1.0 for illegal activities which will be worth about 2USD."

Looking at the majority of people involved in Bitcoin i'd place my money on that everybody would go for 2.0. Of course, the Bitcoin Foundation together with other large companies (paypal, banks etc), will make a plan to slowly manipulate us into believing that a regulated Bitcoin will be much better for everyone. If you ask me, it has already begun.

I see Bitcoin moving in this direction.
This quote needs to be kept bumped to the top of this thread.

+1
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
A self regulating coin will spring up in the next few years that will eliminate alot of the volatility we are seeing today. As for the government/banks controlling the coin itself, it cant or it would be worthless.
Pages:
Jump to: