Pages:
Author

Topic: ECB paper on Bitcoin and virtual currencies - page 9. (Read 16899 times)

legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1019
I thought  that paper was neutral, until i read this:

Quote
From the analysis of the existing information it is already possible to draw an initial conclusion:
it is very complicated to obtain a clear overview of the situation regarding virtual currency schemes
at this stage. Almost all of the information that can be found is on the internet, written in blogs
or on web pages where personal bias cannot be excluded (see, for instance, the references listed
in the Annex). With the exception of a few articles from respectable media sources or economics
journals, it is almost impossible to find any comprehensive papers on this issue, since no
international organisations have published statements. A similar problem exists with regard to the
quantitative information and statistics that would be needed in order to assess the speed at which
these virtual currency schemes are growing and the point at which they could become a real threat.

In an extreme case, virtual currencies could have a substitution effect on central bank money if they become widely accepted. The increase in the use of virtual money might lead to a decrease in the use of “real” money, thereby also reducing the cash needed to conduct the transactions generated by nominal income. In this regard, a widespread substitution of central bank money by privately issued virtual currency could significantly reduce the size of central banks’ balance sheets, and thus also their ability to influence the short-term interest rates. Central banks would need to look at their existing tools to deal with this risk (for instance, trying to impose minimum reserve requirements on virtual currency schemes).
[/quote]

Well yeah, the whole point of the ECB is to inform the banks on upcoming market trends, including possible disruptors. From the tone the author is taking, it seems like it's just something they'll have to plan for compete against for their own survival. I interpreted the bolded line as the banks will have to have reserve requirements on holding virtual currencies as that'll be the only way they'll be able to hedge against virtual currencies taking over as a matter of survival. The only avenue they have against bitcoin is through manipulation of legislation to regulate Bitcoin-fiat exchanges, but if Bitcoin plays out how the creators envisioned this protocol faster than the slow process shutting something P2P like Bitcoin down, then that won't matter as we move into a Bitcoin-denominated marketplace.
BCB
vip
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1002
BCJ
 Technomage

This paper has really got the community talking and thinking.

Are you following the debate over here:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1307004

I think this a great opportunity for us as a community to more clearly define our term for the general public, refine our position and make clear how we see bitcoin fitting into the fiat financial system.

I think the more clarity we bring to the discussion as a community NOW the less regulation we'll have imposed upon us when regulators catch up to figuring out what this bitcoin thing is all about.
legendary
Activity: 2184
Merit: 1056
Affordable Physical Bitcoins - Denarium.com
I'd venture to guess 125,000 - 175,000 active active users at any given time.

That is a good guess. I would guess something along those lines as well.
full member
Activity: 238
Merit: 100
I thought  that paper was neutral, until i read this:

Quote
From the analysis of the existing information it is already possible to draw an initial conclusion:
it is very complicated to obtain a clear overview of the situation regarding virtual currency schemes
at this stage. Almost all of the information that can be found is on the internet, written in blogs
or on web pages where personal bias cannot be excluded (see, for instance, the references listed
in the Annex). With the exception of a few articles from respectable media sources or economics
journals, it is almost impossible to find any comprehensive papers on this issue, since no
international organisations have published statements. A similar problem exists with regard to the
quantitative information and statistics that would be needed in order to assess the speed at which
these virtual currency schemes are growing and the point at which they could become a real threat.
BCB
vip
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1002
BCJ
Good point kjj.  I did not know that.  May have to check out that book.

There is an interesting debate about both bitcoin and fiat being "virtual currency" on this thread.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1307004

have you seen it?

kjj
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1025
Just FYI, the phrase "legal tender" means that if you attempt to settle a debt with it, regardless of the denomination of the debt, no court will hear a lawsuit for default if the lender doesn't accept.  It doesn't mean that it is "backed" by any one or any thing, and it doesn't mean that everything else is illegal.  I'd have to dig through my copy of Pieces of Eight to be sure, but if I recall correctly in the US, the Spanish Real was established as legal tender prior to the minting of the first local coins.  At any rate, once the US started minting new gold and silver coins, those coins certainly became legal tender (otherwise no one would trust the new unknown coins).

If I lend you 3 BTC, and you offer repayment with $30 cash (or whatever the spot price is that day), I can't sue you for breach of the note.  Exactly the same situation if the loan had been for an ounce of silver.

It doesn't mean that BTC or silver are not-money, it just means that dollars occupy a special place in the legal system as "money that must be accepted for repayment of debts".
hero member
Activity: 775
Merit: 1000
2/
Quote
Virtual currency schemes could have a negative impact on the reputation of central banks, assuming the use of such systems grows considerably and in the event that an incident attracts press coverage, since the public may perceive the incident as being caused, in part, by a central bank not doing its job properly;

LOL
As if the nomination of Mario Draghi, ex Goldman Sachs executive involved (directly or indirectly) in the fradulent scheme set up by Goldman Sachs that led Greece into quasi bankruptcy and earned Goldman Sachs 600 million €, was not enough to ruin the BCE reputation FOR EVER...
I am not even talking about the nomination of Jean-Claude Trichet (first president of the BCE) who was involved (as Head of treasury in France) in the cover up of the fraudulent destruction of bank archives (Credit Lyonnais now owned by Credit Agricole) in an arson fire.

Doesn't matter. To me it seems like a chess move. See how old the paper is? At least a few months. Why release it now, just days before the US elections? Something is going on.
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1019
Boussac and hazak

I think your effort to argue that "legal tender" fiat is also "virtual currency" is confusing the issue.

If bitcoin and fiat are both virtual currencies then the only distinction is: one is government backed 'legal tender' and the other is not.



Bitcoin's cool because as long as people want bitcoins (in the hopes they can exchange them for something else later) then you can trade bitcoins for something else now. With minimal transactional friction other than having standard unit value until the market decides on a set price as to what that is.
BCB
vip
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1002
BCJ
Boussac and hazak

I think your effort to argue that "legal tender" fiat is also "virtual currency" is confusing the issue.

If bitcoin and fiat are both virtual currencies then the only distinction is: one is government backed 'legal tender' and the other is not.

legendary
Activity: 1221
Merit: 1025
e-ducat.fr
1/ The wording "virtual currency" applied to systems competing against the central bank monopoly is deceiving: all currencies are virtual since 1973 when the convertibility of all central bank currencies was ended. The EURO and the Dollar are virtual currencies. (even if they can be printed on paper like bitcoins).

The "legal tender" qualification to set "traditionnal" currency apart from "virtual" currencies is irrelevant since, in a democratic system, the people could vote the "virtual" currency as legal tender (not an option today because there is NO monetary democracy).

A currency is backed solely by the people using it. For central bank currencies, the people using them are people forced to use them as legal tender.


2/
Quote
Virtual currency schemes could have a negative impact on the reputation of central banks, assuming the use of such systems grows considerably and in the event that an incident attracts press coverage, since the public may perceive the incident as being caused, in part, by a central bank not doing its job properly;

LOL
As if the nomination of Mario Draghi, ex Goldman Sachs executive involved (directly or indirectly) in the fradulent scheme set up by Goldman Sachs that led Greece into quasi bankruptcy and earned Goldman Sachs 600 million €, was not enough to ruin the BCE reputation FOR EVER...
I am not even talking about the nomination of Jean-Claude Trichet (first president of the BCE) who was involved (as Head of treasury in France) in the cover up of the fraudulent destruction of bank archives (Credit Lyonnais now owned by Credit Agricole) in an arson fire.
BCB
vip
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1002
BCJ
residential and cloud hosted ip's change with each connection/restart
users down updated versions of the reference client multiple times on multiple machines in any given year
A large percentage 25/30% or more of Mt. Gox and BCT user account are likely inactive

I'd venture to guess 125,000 - 175,000 active active users at any given time.
hero member
Activity: 775
Merit: 1000
This:
http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemes201210en.pdf


Means that the central bankers are paying attention now. This sort of academic paper normally precedes attempts to regulate. It also include the potential excuses that they will use to do so.

We have been warned.

Skipping over most of the 'working', some of the concluding remarks are the most poignant for me:

Quote
Although in practical terms virtual currency schemes are only an evolution, from a conceptual
point of view they do present substantial changes when compared to real currencies and payment
systems. Firstly, conventional actors like financial institutions, clearing houses and central banks
are absent from these schemes.
A warning to the bloated banking sector? The banking lobby getting told where they can stick it?

Quote
virtual currency schemes:
...
could have a negative impact on the reputation of central banks, assuming the use of such systems
grows considerably and in the event that an incident attracts press coverage, since the public may
perceive the incident as being caused, in part, by a central bank not doing its job properly;
So, if Bitcoin appears to be working better than the rest of the financial system, it might "accidentally" go viral? What kind of incident?

Quote
do indeed fall within central banks’ responsibility as a result of characteristics shared with
payment systems, which give rise to the need for at least an examination of developments and
the provision of an initial assessment.
A pretty clear claim that Bitcoin falls within the ECB's realm of responsibilities.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1082
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
Sounds good Technomage... i wonder if the underestimation of bitcoinusers is good or bad for bitcoins.
legendary
Activity: 2184
Merit: 1056
Affordable Physical Bitcoins - Denarium.com
I wondered the most about them saying that all currently available bitcoins are hold by only 10,000 persons... i really thought the community is bigger.

That number is flawed. Very flawed. Let me run up some real numbers for you.

Unique (by IP) Bitcoin nodes in late 2011 (3 month period) = 800 000
Bitcoin Reference Client downloads in 2012 = Over 600 000
Mt. Gox userbase = Over 200 000
Bitcointalk.org userbase = 70 000
Blockchain.info My Wallet userbase = Over 30 000
Reddit Bitcoin subscribers = Over 11 000

Heck, our Finnish Bitcoin portal (Bittiraha.fi) has had over 1000 people buying and selling coins through our site within the last 6 months. And our site is only for the Finns (a country of 5,5 million people).

The conclusion is that the larger Bitcoin userbase has to be a 6 figure number. I can provide the sources for all that data btw if you guys are interested.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
Annuit cœptis humanae libertas
Tremblings about the enforcement agencies "enforcing" regulation are not warranted. Any regulation requires the co-operation of the Bitcoin-ing party, or a major overhaul to the system, or an even more major overhaul of the TCP/IP protocol.

These criminal "enforcement" agencies that can't even enforce laws against their own corrupt financial traders will not be gaining any co-operation from me, and I sincerely hope that the rest of you will feel similarly.

+1

Very tough even to try to regulate Bitcoin...

Not so tough to regulate Bitcoin-fiat gateways. They already regulate the living daylight out of fiat.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1082
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
Tremblings about the enforcement agencies "enforcing" regulation are not warranted. Any regulation requires the co-operation of the Bitcoin-ing party, or a major overhaul to the system, or an even more major overhaul of the TCP/IP protocol.

These criminal "enforcement" agencies that can't even enforce laws against their own corrupt financial traders will not be gaining any co-operation from me, and I sincerely hope that the rest of you will feel similarly.

But isnt there the bitcoin-foundation yet? That means they have a clear contactpoint where the developers sit. Which means they could go there and force them by threat of jail or something to rewrite the software. Automatically the community will update to the newest version and ready. And i think the most users will be catched in this even though there would be a fork created with hidden traffic and whatsoever.

If that wont work the most exchangesites are .com. They can close it.

Then they could go after shopowners that allow btc. At the end you have bitcoins but cant do much with them which would be the dead for them.

I only mean they could do a lot harm.
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3074
Tremblings about the enforcement agencies "enforcing" regulation are not warranted. Any regulation requires the co-operation of the Bitcoin-ing party, or a major overhaul to the system, or an even more major overhaul of the TCP/IP protocol.

These criminal "enforcement" agencies that can't even enforce laws against their own corrupt financial traders will not be gaining any co-operation from me, and I sincerely hope that the rest of you will feel similarly.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1082
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
I wondered the most about them saying that all currently available bitcoins are hold by only 10,000 persons... i really thought the community is bigger.
legendary
Activity: 2184
Merit: 1056
Affordable Physical Bitcoins - Denarium.com
I think this report is a massive boost to the legitimacy of Bitcoin. It is creating a lot of buzz everywhere today. Even made it to some mainstream Finnish news sites which is rare for a Bitcoin related piece.
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1003


Devils-advocate here... a reserve could in fact be setup, it's just more difficult and more costly in Bitcoin, essentially if european central banks were to buy up say 30%+ of all bitcoins that were ever to be made and establish a fixed buy/sell rate between the Euro and bitcoin you would have a fully functioning reserve, but the act of acquiring said amount of bitcoin would be particularly costly, however on the flipside the systems, people and property needed to administer it would likely be considerably cheaper than the current reserve system infrastructure.  The optimal approach to this would be to quietly over a longer period of time establish this system and be the first to do it.  With all that said the costly part at current impact is nowhere near being much of a blink of an eye for this level of financial entity.

I think you are slightly misunderstanding what they mean.

The ECB views issuers of virtual currency as debtors. In particular, they see bitcoin itself as debt. Bitcoin is perceived like a letter of credit issued by some 'bitcoin bank.' In the event of a panic, bitcoin value could collapse just like any other illiquid debt [honestly, this collapse is quite likely to happen at some point]. They worry that a panic could have broader ramifications for the economy (not now, but perhaps later if bitcoin became widely used). Debtors who held bitcoin assets in their portfolio would go bankrupt and their creditors would suffer (potentially leading to a credit crunch in conventional bank land).

To deal with this, they feel that the 'bitcoin bank' should perhaps have a reserve requirement, say 10% of bitcoin value in Euros. The reserve would be used as a buffer to buy bitcoin in the event of a panic. It would also constrain the 'bitcoin bank' from issuing too much bitcoin. Essentially this reserve would put a floor on the exchange rate. If the reserve ran out because of a bank run, then the ECB could step in as a lender of last resort. They would lend to the 'bitcoin bank' to prop up bitcoin value. The 'bitcoin bank would pay them back later... Bitcoin users would anticipate ECB backing and would therefore be unlikely to panic.

This idea make sense for Linden Dollars (if the currency was widely used). There is a real bank like entity there, "a nonfinancial coroporation". For bitcoin, there is no such concept as the 'bitcoin bank'. There is no corporation to regulate. Sure, the ECB could assume the role of 'bitcoin bank', but I don't think this is what they had in mind. They imagine that there must be some entity that can unilaterally print more bitcoin or take bitcoin out of circulation. They think it might need regulation. As a defender of central banks, even I have to admit this is funny.

For both bitcoin and Lindens, they don't want to do anything now. They are just thinking about what to do if the currencies became widely used in the future. Their attitude towards bitcoin is positive, but their plans for how one might regulate bitcoin are quite confused.
Pages:
Jump to: