Topic: Large German lobby organization supports ban on Bitcoins - page 2. (Read 25964 times)

Those aren't actually their members. They are just listing what payment providers there are. Their members are listed on this page:

http://www.bvdw.org/der-bvdw/mitgliedschaft/mitgliedsunternehmen.html

The payment providers that are actually members of BVDW are:

• eBay (owners of Paypal)
• deal united
• Giropay
• Hi-media Deutschland
• Deutsche Telekom
• SafetyPay
• Payback GmbH

Edit: Added eBay/Paypal - Thanks Nick!!

There may be others that are not on the list of payment providers or are on there under a different name.

apparently, the market fully understands and appreciates the concerns expressed by bvdw.org ;
mtgox price soared from $9 to $13.5 in just 2 days ... :-)

"you can't stop the Internet." - Joe Rogan

They also have a History with monetary policy. They're willing to do nearly anything to avoid the sort of hyperinflation that preceded World War II. Including, possibly, banning the use of Bitcoins for commercial transactions if they see it as a threat to price stability.

The subgroup gets prosecuted.

Should there be a distinction between the general German populace and an influential subgroup?

Germany has always been afraid of disruptions to their society, another example of this attitude is their hatred for private schools and homeschooling.  They heavily regulate private schools, and homeschooling parents can actually get sent to prison for disruption of state order!

GPU arms race ... do ya feel lucky, well do ya punk?

I have a hunch that they already dipped their toes in the water ...

http://blockexplorer.com/address/1JYdudjausg1VUzosifETZbuLAevyPgnza

What are they going to do with a big pile of bitcoins when they are finished "attacking" the network?

Ditto on the wall of text.

I have to say though, in response to the original topic, I'm far less concerned with countries banning bitcoin than I am with countries using their very large pocketbooks to purchase enough computing power that could swing the network power greater than 50% in their favor.

As several others have pointed out through various threads, it would only take several million dollars, but that's just a fraction of the annual budget of an organization like the FBI, CIA, or NSA. Our only hope against that threat is to encourage others to load up their nodes and miners and increase the strength of the network.

Wouldn't the outright banning, and not fair value market expropriation (calculated by extrapolating average market value and average past growth rate to the date of expropriation from the date when someone lobbying and very influential starts meddling publicly with the free market by putting question marks with unfounded statements over something of value's viability) of bitcoins at fair market value, constitute the infringement of the property owner's legal right?  Doesn't a lot of effort and capital go into producing the secured block chain and the key holders' ownership rights?  Can't there be value attributed to a key by calculating the all business costs (capital invested, time invested, running costs, etc.) it takes to produce?  These magical keys are not just grabbed out of thin air.  Wouldn't you need a good reason to just ban something produced legitimately and use for legitimate reasons?  People using anything illegitimately should just be prosecuted.  Can you punish/take property away from the general population, because some subset of people are using that kind of property for illegal activities, and you are hessitant to just investigate only the purputrators?  Shouldn't you need to reimburse people for their efforts already made under the status quo legal system, if your changing that legal system by litigation, causing damage to the value of ownership rights currently in existence?  Does a government not have an obligation to protect life and property rights?  Isn't the talk of this lobby group wishful thinking?

neat site ... did anyone else catch julian chatting up the swedish lady in the lobby there?

And then we can all get on our donkeys with our fiat currencies in our bags - carting it there to the market to go get some bitcoins which others have instantly deposited electronically for exchange/barter with us?   

Publishing a static IP is great, but if it gets to that point (which I think it will), then don't exchangers like MtGox require something like this:
http://www.fotograf.nu/360/bahnhof/

I'm confident that they will practice balanced journalism and do an editor's errata.

Any publicity is good publicity.  I wonder how well the average German will take a lobby of payment processors complaining about "tax evasion" and defending "consumers" in the current climate, in which the Merkel government is facing collapse due to taxpayer bailouts of foreign "consumers".  Germans are generally law-abiding, but they aren't stupid.  But I don't believe this is intended for general consumption anyways.  It's a call for the overlords to circle the wagons.

As others have mentioned and explained: Bitcoin isn't really that anonymous unless you personally put quite a bit of effort into making it so.

I think that's the kind of "lobby work" we can do: Spread the truth so people have the opportunity to get the correct information instead of falling for people / institutions trying to create a panic.

See also:

Weaknesses - Tracing a coin's history
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Tracing_a_coin_s_history

Anonymity (directly linked from the first link)
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Anonymity

Quote: "While the Bitcoin technology can support strong anonymity, the current implementation is usually not very anonymous." and "The main problem is that every transaction is publicly logged. Anyone can see the flow of Bitcoins from address to address (see first image)." ... that can either be considered a problem or a benefit - after all, transparency can be a really nice thing when everyone has access to it ;-)

I've just sent a letter to the editor of Spiegel Online which wrote in a (critical) article about the BVDW warning "Die Transaktionen lassen sich prinzipiell nicht nachverfolgen," (the transactions cannot be traced in principle) letting them know that's factually wrong, at the same time letting them know I appreciate that they expose the BVDW warning for what it is: An attempt to create a panic.

Here's a link to the article (it's German):

Wirtschaftsverband erwartet Bitcoin-Verbot
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,766167,00.html

do it .... it's ......  well, liberating

Who are these guys anyway exactly "The Digital WTF Lobby?"

I mean who do they speak for, are they just one guy in an office in Dresden picking his nose wondering if he can scare up some business from his fee payers cause they're all busted-arse from the euro crises ... or something more?

Man, I didn't expect things to get this political this early.

When I read stuff like this I fear that Bitcoin is going to turn me into a raging libertarian.

Wouldn't it be a sad day if the protection of vested interests of status quo lobbying groups stands in the way of progress, and causes the downfall of bitcoin?

Among others, this might have been what humanity would have lost out on:

- Bitcoin being an enabler not an unabler for Law Enforcement Officers to catch criminals by inspection of the publicly available blockchain.
- For Law Enforcement Officers bitcoin will be much easier to trace through the blockchain than numbered national currency cash bills, valuable collectors items, baseball cards, stamps, coins, diamonds, password club memberships, offshore properties, and offshore proxy trusts, etc. etc.
- Instantaneous transfer
- Vast distances or small distances can be covered
- Simple (no client needed when using mybitcoin.com or a facebook plugin, for example)
- Mobile (mybitcoin.com for example, can be accessed from a mobile smart phone / internet enabled phone or device)
- Securely backed by a capital intensive network of distributed computers
- Universally usable through existing communication channels
- Scarcity enabling automatic adjustment to inflation/deflation by fairly fixing supply side and only demand side do adjustments
- Novelty rewarding early adopters to spread the word
- Owned and managed by adopters themselves

Bitcoin is not anonymous.  Only illegal activity envolving bitcoin laundering (similar to cash laundering) can cloak someones identity.  If someone can not explain through the blockchain where he got his bitcoins from - then this will warrant an investigation.

Isn't this lobbying group's attempt not about trying to lable bitcoin as a criminal enabler - but more of a eliminator of competition?  Doesn't potential slanderous talk without factual backing and balanced opinions, in order to eliminate possible competition, warrant an investigation by the competition commissions in free market economies?  Shouldn't innovation to improve thousands of peoples lives, by reducing the costs and time involved in the friction of current available transfer methods not be allowed to be attempted to be stamped out like this, but allowed to flourish?