Topic: Garzik encourages regulation - page 3. (Read 14222 times)

You are very wrong, the genius is out of the bottle, your consent is not needed.

THANK YOU!!!  ^^ This is the most succinct and spot on post in this whole thread.  Again, if you are in favor of regulated currencies, then you are at the wrong spot, fellows.  Stick with your PayPals and your Visas and your USDs.  And pay your hefty transactions fees/taxes as you please.  Just leave bitcoin alone.

You won't have a new paradigm without us, who you call the unworthy.  Reality necessitates compromise.

A regulated Bitcoin, is not Bitcoin anymore. Those who defends regulation, please go with Paypal and the likes.
You do not deserve to be part of this new paradigm.

Well spoken, Jashan.

Governments successfully "regulate" certain herbs. You know, stuff that grows naturally. Stuff that's actually a part of nature (see also posting above). It doesn't get any more "open source" than that ;-)

So when they can do that - what should prevent them from regulating open source projects?

Just like with those herbs, it will be difficult to completely wipe Bitcoin out of existence. But they have their ways of making life difficult for people. They certainly have ways of preventing Bitcoin becoming mainstream. And mainstream is where Bitcoin eventually needs to go.

The less governments (and people believing in governments - which become less but are still many) consider Bitcoin threatening, the better it is. And truthfully, while I consider Bitcoin highly disruptive technology I don't see why it should be threatening to most people unless some few make it so (e.g. by promoting it as great way to sell and buy regulated substances, tax evasion and the like ... all stuff that can already be conveniently be done with cash, completely not something anyone really needs Bitcoin for).

Who cares if he works with US or whatever government to register exchanges. It wont stop "unregistered" exchanges (and other subjects of bitcoin economy for that matter) from existing. They can't "register" or "own" the whole bitcoin network

I recognize that no one likes the idea of further government regulation.  The sad truth is that it's either regulation, or illegality.  They won't let it be anything else.  What are you going to do when Bitcoin possession and exchange is illegal?  We all know that they aren't at all anonymous.  Furthermore, without transactions in broad daylight by the common public, Bitcoin can't sustain the value it's at.  If forced completely underground, who's going to pump USD into the Bitcoin?  No one is going to want to sell their weed for a currency that has no exchangeability for currency that can buy things other than black market goods.

I respect your contempt for the corruption in government.  You're guys are right when you think to yourselves, our government has too much control over what we do and how we live.  Bitcoin is a step in the right direction, but you must understand that is just a foot in the door of meaningful social change.  We can't tear down the walls of the castle quite yet.  We don't have the numbers.  Bitcoin can represent personal freedom from the ruthless banking economies, even with government regulation.  You'll still have to pay cash for your weed, but at least your Bitcoins will have value.  

Hell.  You could always trade in your Bitcoins for USD to buy illegal goods.  That currency works just fine for everybody else who wants a bag to share among friends.

But let me say it again - if the government decides to smash Bitcoin, they will succeed.  They have absurd resources at their disposal for the subjugation of offenders both grand and petty.  Bitcoin raids could become the new child pornography raid.  Door kicked in, hard drives seized at gunpoint.  That's a game over scenario for Bitcoin, and because of that, it needs some form of regulation, like it or not.

The government can regulate the Bitcoin itself, as it would any other currency or commodity, without regulating the software.  But I wouldn't know to what extent the regulation in mind is, being just some guy, y'know?

Can the government regulate an open-source project?

Phenomenal!  They went at Bitcoins with the worst kind of slant possible, given the current circumstances, and Garzik actually pushed them back.  This is exactly the kind of coverage Bitcoin needs.  Well done, Garzik!

I agree wholeheartedly that Bitcoins must become regulated.  It's a compromise that individuals who want to make black market purchases will dislike, but Bitcoin is more important than that.

It's quite evident that the dev team has some spineless individuals, but it doesn't change the fact that his influence is immaterial. I will say that the little that Garzik has said, has made me dislike him; he has the typical puppet mentality. I find it laughable that people would think his interview was some ingenious PR campaign. I find it equally laughable that some members of this community would imply that the current set of developers have some unparalleled knowledge of the protocol and software development, and discourage the development of other clients on such a baseless assertion.

Maybe it's time to throw some financial incentive behind the development of a new client that doesn't have idiots jumping on TV insulting it's userbase. What will Garzik speak about when Silk Road quadruples in popularity? Or when a few other sites show up? Is he going to announce how bitcoin.org is working to help track down their users by implementing changes within the client? Surely that would fall within the confines of what some users are suggesting. How far will you take such an "ingenious" PR campaign?

I haven't updated my client in a while.  I would be very hesitnat from now on when bitcoin.org says "Time for an important security update...please download latest client"  until there is a proper code review of all recent changes.

"BT - CLAWER" you may want to insert a strategically placed hyphen in your domain name...

Yes, we are aware of this type of stuff.  We are just questioning Garzik's rational for using up precious media time to associate bitcoin with drugs and money laundering, when he could have used the opportunity to point out bitcoin's benefits to society.

People also use knives to murder others. Knives aren't outlawed (at least not that I'm aware of it). So, what's the difference between knives and guns?

Guns are primarily used to severely injure or kill people.
Knives are used for all kinds of things, including injury, in some cases murder.

Some people believe that regulating things that can do more harm than good (guns are specifically designed to create severe harm) will reduce harm overall. While that premise may be questionable, it's currently widely accepted as a motivation for decisions affecting large populations (lots of mistakes are being made there, but that's another story).

So ... if it turns out that Bitcoins are primarily used to do things considered "illegal" by the majority of people, they will be outlawed in many countries. Saying that's not possible or wouldn't matter is quite naive because even some herbs have been made illegal. Think about that: Something that grows very well naturally can be effectively be prohibited. If you have one of those in your garden - and you might not even know what you have there in your garden - you might go to jail for it. That's a fact in many countries, even though whether you want to consume that herb or not is just a thing between you and the herb. If that's possible, why shouldn't it be possible to make Bitcoins illegal of which each and every transaction is stored in each and every client? Which are designed to be used to "connect with other people" (talk "social graph"). You can hide - just like you could grow those herbs in the basement. And many people will get through with it. Others will fall victims to the authorities ... or terrocrats (whatever you want to call them and from whichever angle you want to perceive them).

So, if you are interested in Bitcoins - for whatever reason - you should also be interested in Bitcoins being "legal", simply because it makes your life much simpler. You can be open about you using Bitcoins, promote Bitcoins, do any legal kind of business with Bitcoins out in the public, you can reveal your identity - and if you want your transactions to be transparent (which some people want because they believe in transparency as the most effective antidote to corruption), you can even reveal your Bitcoin addresses, so everyone can follow exactly how many Bitcoins go in and out of your wallet.

If you want to be as anonymous as possible ... for whatever reasons (privacy comes to mind immediately) ... that's also fine with me ... but then it would be wise for you to stay as silent as possible: While security by obscurity is weak, it's one first step that's comparatively easy to implement. You need to understand the technology (it seems to me a lot of people don't - even though it's easy to read up), and then you can use the technology in ways that will hopefully give you what you want (anonymity, privacy, a certain amount of security from certain kinds of attacks).

That way, everyone can be happy and Bitcoins can take over the world!

People who use Bitcoins because they feel they have many advantages in all kinds of payment situations can do so in a larger and larger market. And people that want to use Bitcoins for the same reasons criminals are already using cash instead of credit card payments, wire transfer and the like, can do so as well when they put in the major effort of making their actions as hard to trace as possible. There's no point in judging anyone - it's just choices one has to make, with sets of consequences one has to take. And it's up to every individual to decide which level of anonymity/privacy/security they want, and how much convenience they are willing to give up for that. Or: How much convenience they want and how much privacy they are willing to give up for that.

Crying "but we wantz Bitcoins to be intransparent and anonymous" doesn't serve anyone. Seriously.

Because that has nothing to do with Bitcoins but with you putting a lot of effort into it and understanding exactly what you do. That's fully up to you - not up to Bitcoins. If you can't even read the source-code ... well ... you better look for someone you trust that can. And the more silent you are about it - the better for you. Get together with people you fully trust, communicate in ways that are private (I still think there's quite a bit of use for GPG-based mailing-lists and maybe even forums or maybe newsgroups where "subscription" basically means adding your public key).

And do whatever you feel you want to do.

But whatever you do - be aware of the consequences of your actions, including potential consequences! Again: Crying "but I wantz Bitcoin to be useful for my illegal actions" on a public forum ... doesn't help anybody for anything. Well, almost ... it does "help" with one objective: It helps those who want to destroy Bitcoin.

I really liked the Interview, Jeff Garzik's perspective on things and how he answered the questions; and it felt sincere to me. IMHO, that's the way to support Bitcoin in becoming a viable payment method. IMHO, that's the way to support the community that's forming around Bitcoin. So: Thank you!

Garzik did a great job on the interview.

Not one person posting in this thread seems to know what a Money Service Business is, which is what Garzik was talking about in the OP's quote.  MSBs are governed by the BSA.  What about SAR's and CTR's.  Here, I will just post a link so you guys can be educated on some of the legal requirements a US-based exchange has to meet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act

Pity!

I would however view bitcoin as an internet good/commodity (intellectual property right held by the cryptographic key holder) regulated by the information industry and not a money/currency regulated by the financial industry.  A P2P crypto-commodity.  Luckily the legal mine field is less strenuous than fincen.org of the financial industry.  How can they call it a currency anyway on bitcoin.org?  MtGox calls it commodity, the UK tax office will tax it only when its turned into currency, and the Australian tax office will tax it like barter transactions - according to an online news report. ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/08/bitcoin_under_attack/ )

Disclaimer:  This is the views of Cloud9, you should derive your own opinions.

Please elaborate...I don't understand the (positive?) strategic implications of Garzik's statements.


+1.

Yes, that indeed makes sense. Sometimes that isn't how it works though.

People use guns to murder others. Government outlaws guns.  

The tool is often demonized and banned because of how evil people use it. In the process a lot of lawful citizens become outlaws, or abandon the tool (loss for society).

EDIT: This really has nothing to do with the thread, and I think the interview was fine. Again, people are confusing Bitcoin exchanges with the Bitcoin network.

Some more fiction:

Swimmer:  "But its anonymous!"  
Anders:  "No it is not!"  

Swimmer:  "But its untraceable!"  
Anders:  "No it is not!"  

Swimmer:  "But its illegal!"  
Anders:  "No it is not!"  

Swimmer:  "But you can launder it!"  
Anders:  "Yes you can! Like most assets!"  

Swimmer:  "But if you LAUNDER it, THEN it will become maybe untraceable or even anonymous!"  
Anders:  "Yes."  

Swimmer:  "But laundering is illegal!"  
Anders:  "Yes it is."  

Swimmer:  "Oh I get it!, Ghostbusters go after those LAUNDERERS and DRUG PEDDLERS at least we can LITIGATE .... THEM!"  

All legal Bitcoin crypto-commodity users:  Cheer!!