Topic: Report on the Bitcoin Foundation's Trip to Washington D.C. - page 3. (Read 13034 times)
Good job, guys. I just joined the Bitcoin Foundation.
The "government" may be a faceless institution, but it is also made up of individual people, and those in the room were those who have some modest decision making power. Creating person to person relationships, being sane and reasonable (and on the side of right) as well as pointing out how by exercising government power without knowledge hurts their own goals is the best way to knock them back on their heels. It has a chance, greater than zero, of changing minds.
In international negotiations, reasonable people may disagree whether having an embassy in "enemy" territory is good or not.
You are completely right that it is optimistic hubris to imagine that we can make a change in the way people think, but to not try is just to assure that it won't happen.
And your other point, about the risks of these ambassadors getting corrupted and seduced by their position and the process of diplomacy is a valid one. Its up to the rest of us to check in on them and keep them on the right track. Since they are asking for that input too, lets not abandon them.
In international negotiations, reasonable people may disagree whether having an embassy in "enemy" territory is good or not.
You are completely right that it is optimistic hubris to imagine that we can make a change in the way people think, but to not try is just to assure that it won't happen.
And your other point, about the risks of these ambassadors getting corrupted and seduced by their position and the process of diplomacy is a valid one. Its up to the rest of us to check in on them and keep them on the right track. Since they are asking for that input too, lets not abandon them.
I appreciate this response and I think your metaphor was well placed and apt.
I suppose my stance is one where I don't see the business folk needing to comply with regulation at all. I think we have the tools and ability available to us to say "This is our sandbox you need to lobby us."
I think it's a better strategy. Let them come to us and beat on the door. We should respond to their regulation by out-innovating them. "Oh now it's illegal to transfer money to an exchange. OK, it's a set back. Let's create our own way to do this without them." I think bitcoin ATMs and localbitcoins and onion sites are great ways to achieve this, for example.
I always see regulation as an excuse for a lack of innovation. It's a slipper slope. I would rather push the mindset of "We're better than them" than "We need to work with them"
We, the bitcoin users, don't need the bitcoin foundation to represent us. We have no faces. If any user, US government included, has any problem using Bitcoin, we can help him in the bitcointalk forum. But nearly all the questions a government could have about Bitcoin are very well explained in satoshi's paper and the source code. The only words the foundation had to say in that meeting: read the paper and the code as all of we did, it's all explained there.
Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska described the internet as "a series of tubes"... in 2006! What makes you think any government is going to read source code to understand a technology?
It's time to pull our collective heads out of the ground and recognize that doing nothing is the worst possible approach. If we (as a community) don't communicate with US government officials, Bitcoin will remain over-regulated, preventing legitimate businesses from springing up.
You can want "no regulation" as much as you want, but it's not going to happen with Bitcoin any time soon. Accept it.
-there is no bitcoin regulation now... yeah it wont happen soon, it is already the reality...
-he didnt say doing nothing... what he is saying is that we should ALL be doing something, not a few rich corrupt bitcoin business owners behind closed doors
-yeah, because the government agencies funded with BILLIONS cannot understand bitcoin, yet a bunch of young adults on an internet forum can, i cant even believe your serious with that one
We, the bitcoin users, don't need the bitcoin foundation to represent us. We have no faces. If any user, US government included, has any problem using Bitcoin, we can help him in the bitcointalk forum. But nearly all the questions a government could have about Bitcoin are very well explained in satoshi's paper and the source code. The only words the foundation had to say in that meeting: read the paper and the code as all of we did, it's all explained there.
agreed, even though they said they did not represent bitcoin, just the name 'the bitcoin foundation' itself kind of sounds like they do.
if you want a foundation representing bitcoin, why pay to get in? and why require name and address?
and great, make bitcoin business owners the ones in charge... because we know 70% of them are corrupt
this is basically a centralized political lobby controlled by big bitcoin business from what i see. until anyone can vote from their bitcoin client, this is a marketing technique by the owners to get bitcoin more accepted so they make more money. not that there is inherently something wrong with this. but i do not think they represent anyone except themselves, even just with the damn name, to represent bitcoin at least somewhat
Sorry to insist: the report is appreciated but it seems so incomplete and vague... I think everybody would appreciate to know:
- who attended? Complete name list and agencies/organizations they represented
- what was the content of your presentations? Please share the powerpoint slides, etc.
- who asked what?
- what answers did you give them?
In other words, a complete report of the meeting. You represent all the members of the Bitcoin foundation and you just met with the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, FinCen and so on, so we should definitely know what are you telling them on our behalf.
We need full transparency, we don't need more lobbyist doing their shit "behind closed doors". We already have had plenty of that.
- who attended? Complete name list and agencies/organizations they represented
- what was the content of your presentations? Please share the powerpoint slides, etc.
- who asked what?
- what answers did you give them?
In other words, a complete report of the meeting. You represent all the members of the Bitcoin foundation and you just met with the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, FinCen and so on, so we should definitely know what are you telling them on our behalf.
We need full transparency, we don't need more lobbyist doing their shit "behind closed doors". We already have had plenty of that.
I still don't like what you are doing and do not understand why this is needed.
While you may be experiencing these "successes" in the meetings all you're doing is helping bring the enemy up to speed. Government is going to government. It's hubris to think that anything any of us do is going to change how they approach/regulate bitcoin. The only thing you are doing is bringing that regulation about faster. Additionally you are making it possible for them add a level of precision to their legislation that would not have been there had you not educated them, or you cut down on the time it would take them to get to that level of precision.
In all, I cannot justify or support what you are doing. In fact I would say that it is harmful, regardless of where your intentions are. In the end, I believe that all the foundation will have accomplished is solidifying it's members as lobbyist/shills for regulators.
No Thank You.
While you may be experiencing these "successes" in the meetings all you're doing is helping bring the enemy up to speed. Government is going to government. It's hubris to think that anything any of us do is going to change how they approach/regulate bitcoin. The only thing you are doing is bringing that regulation about faster. Additionally you are making it possible for them add a level of precision to their legislation that would not have been there had you not educated them, or you cut down on the time it would take them to get to that level of precision.
In all, I cannot justify or support what you are doing. In fact I would say that it is harmful, regardless of where your intentions are. In the end, I believe that all the foundation will have accomplished is solidifying it's members as lobbyist/shills for regulators.
No Thank You.
The "government" may be a faceless institution, but it is also made up of individual people, and those in the room were those who have some modest decision making power. Creating person to person relationships, being sane and reasonable (and on the side of right) as well as pointing out how by exercising government power without knowledge hurts their own goals is the best way to knock them back on their heels. It has a chance, greater than zero, of changing minds.
In international negotiations, reasonable people may disagree whether having an embassy in "enemy" territory is good or not.
You are completely right that it is optimistic hubris to imagine that we can make a change in the way people think, but to not try is just to assure that it won't happen.
And your other point, about the risks of these ambassadors getting corrupted and seduced by their position and the process of diplomacy is a valid one. Its up to the rest of us to check in on them and keep them on the right track. Since they are asking for that input too, lets not abandon them.
This is a load of bullshit. The regulators dont respond to anything but powerful people. And the established financial industry is way more powerful than some measly bitcoiners. All you are doing is giving credibility to an institution that has done nothing but stifle innovation, and rack up costs when it comes to the financial market. They couldnt predict the housing bubble, they couldnt stop bernie madoff, they gave trillions of dollars to institutions doing shady buisnesses. Credit Default Swaps. Very shady stuff. Now some people apparantly want to mingle with these guys. What the fuck, they are nothing but bad news. It might not seem like it, but they will work tirelessly to restrict bitcoins ability to compete with the dollar regardless of a little q & a with some bitcoiners
This "incompetence" is the intended condition. The monetary system promotes and rewards such behavior because it creates profits. And obscene profits are created by obscene behavior. If you want significant change, then I suggest investigating a resource based economy.
I still don't like what you are doing and do not understand why this is needed.
While you may be experiencing these "successes" in the meetings all you're doing is helping bring the enemy up to speed. Government is going to government. It's hubris to think that anything any of us do is going to change how they approach/regulate bitcoin. The only thing you are doing is bringing that regulation about faster. Additionally you are making it possible for them add a level of precision to their legislation that would not have been there had you not educated them, or you cut down on the time it would take them to get to that level of precision.
In all, I cannot justify or support what you are doing. In fact I would say that it is harmful, regardless of where your intentions are. In the end, I believe that all the foundation will have accomplished is solidifying it's members as lobbyist/shills for regulators.
No Thank You.
While you may be experiencing these "successes" in the meetings all you're doing is helping bring the enemy up to speed. Government is going to government. It's hubris to think that anything any of us do is going to change how they approach/regulate bitcoin. The only thing you are doing is bringing that regulation about faster. Additionally you are making it possible for them add a level of precision to their legislation that would not have been there had you not educated them, or you cut down on the time it would take them to get to that level of precision.
In all, I cannot justify or support what you are doing. In fact I would say that it is harmful, regardless of where your intentions are. In the end, I believe that all the foundation will have accomplished is solidifying it's members as lobbyist/shills for regulators.
No Thank You.
This is a load of bullshit. The regulators dont respond to anything but powerful people. And the established financial industry is way more powerful than some measly bitcoiners. All you are doing is giving credibility to an institution that has done nothing but stifle innovation, and rack up costs when it comes to the financial market. They couldnt predict the housing bubble, they couldnt stop bernie madoff, they gave trillions of dollars to institutions doing shady buisnesses. Credit Default Swaps. Very shady stuff. Now some people apparantly want to mingle with these guys. What the fuck, they are nothing but bad news. It might not seem like it, but they will work tirelessly to restrict bitcoins ability to compete with the dollar regardless of a little q & a with some bitcoiners
We, the bitcoin users, don't need the bitcoin foundation to represent us. We have no faces. If any user, US government included, has any problem using Bitcoin, we can help him in the bitcointalk forum. But nearly all the questions a government could have about Bitcoin are very well explained in satoshi's paper and the source code. The only words the foundation had to say in that meeting: read the paper and the code as all of we did, it's all explained there.
Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska described the internet as "a series of tubes"... in 2006! What makes you think any government is going to read source code to understand a technology?
It's time to pull our collective heads out of the ground and recognize that doing nothing is the worst possible approach. If we (as a community) don't communicate with US government officials, Bitcoin will remain over-regulated, preventing legitimate businesses from springing up.
You can want "no regulation" as much as you want, but it's not going to happen with Bitcoin any time soon. Accept it.
The US is a warrior state. It leads by force and is willing to take extreme measures to win. Ask anyone living in Hiroshima or Nagasaki during WW2 about the willingness if US politicians to do anything to win. Regardless of what you would all like to think, Bitcoin is at war with the US and it only has one chance at survival. Politicians and regulators only think what their constituents tell them to think. Their first instinct is survival and they will lie, cheat and steal to survive (very few will do all three at once like Richard Nixon - but it does happen). Change the opinion of the public and make the public want it and the governments survival will depend on favorable regulations. The giant warrior drew first blood. If these Bitcoin businesses want to sit across a table and negotiate a peace treaty that's fine but always remember you are struggling for survival against a self serving beast that will do anything to survive.
Abraham Lincoln was the quintessential politician and reveals their nature the best: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
Did the Foundation convey to the agencies of Bitcoin's existential threat to fiat currencies?
Do they understand what the implications to governments would be if a significant portion of all commerce was done using bitcoins as opposed to the USD?
Do they understand what the implications to governments would be if a significant portion of all commerce was done using bitcoins as opposed to the USD?
It is disinformation that governments would suffer in a Bitcoin economy.
Governments will still raise tax revenue but the emphasis would move from income tax to asset and sales taxes. They would have to live within their means, but this will actually benefit them in the long run. Governments that live perpetually beyond their means eventually undergo systemic failure. There are countless examples. In Western countries it is a bloated welfare/entitlement state and participation in non-defense wars of choice which wreck government finances. Without printable fiat the electorate would fully understand that governments could only offer welfare which is affordable and participate in wars which are truly matters of defense.
Although I did not explicitly say that governments would suffer in a Bitcoin economy I don't believe that it is misinformation to say that Bitcoin challenges the current form of government. Bitcoin represents a threat to their fiat currencies, which as you highlighted, would mean a less active role for governments. I believe that this is the real issue at hand. It is not $ laundering, drugs, porn etc. We live in a world dominated by Keynesians and central planners. To believe that these agencies don't understand the threat that Bitcoin poses to the current system, and that they will passively endorse it as long as all AML/KYC regulations are followed is naive. Fortunately, the worldwide free market forces will determine Bitcoin's adoption and success in the long run with or without the US government's blessing.
To address a few questions:
FinCEN hosted the meeting, not the Foundation.
It did not subpoena the foundation. We went willingly
As far as I know, it was not recorded. It wasn't open to press either.
The Foundation did not endorse any particular investigative or regulatory methods, nor did we lobby for any particular policy position. The meeting was the beginning of a conversation, not a debate. Moreover, the Foundation has not developed any particular policy position as of yet. It is in the midst of determining its policy positions by democratic, community-driven process. If you'd like your voice heard in this process, or would like to know more about how it works, you should consider joining the Foundation.
I should say that we made one particular point very strongly, that the Foundation does not represent "Bitcoin". We represent our constituent members. We tried to be as transparent as possible about that.
FinCEN hosted the meeting, not the Foundation.
It did not subpoena the foundation. We went willingly
As far as I know, it was not recorded. It wasn't open to press either.
The Foundation did not endorse any particular investigative or regulatory methods, nor did we lobby for any particular policy position. The meeting was the beginning of a conversation, not a debate. Moreover, the Foundation has not developed any particular policy position as of yet. It is in the midst of determining its policy positions by democratic, community-driven process. If you'd like your voice heard in this process, or would like to know more about how it works, you should consider joining the Foundation.
I should say that we made one particular point very strongly, that the Foundation does not represent "Bitcoin". We represent our constituent members. We tried to be as transparent as possible about that.
MSantori, I'd be interested in knowing what direction the agencies are leaning towards in their regulatory brains. Is the concept of virtual currency something that will be regulated into the mainstream much the way the USD operates today or will it be relegated to the outskirts of our FIAT based economy?
It would be in the best interest of the Bitcoin community and economy for the Foundation to have a general idea of what direction regulations should take. I am a compliance officer at a broker/dealer with experience at a fortune 100 company and the big players in the finance game hire lobbyists to make their point. They have an agenda and a goal in mind in terms of how regulations should be developed and how it will impact the industry. I'm not suggesting that the Foundation hire Lobbyists, just emphasizing the importance of that democratic, community-driven process.
I will say you've convinced me about the Foundation. My colleague and I will be joining.
Thanks for the information and representation.
We, the bitcoin users, don't need the bitcoin foundation to represent us. We have no faces. If any user, US government included, has any problem using Bitcoin, we can help him in the bitcointalk forum. But nearly all the questions a government could have about Bitcoin are very well explained in satoshi's paper and the source code. The only words the foundation had to say in that meeting: read the paper and the code as all of we did, it's all explained there.
Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska described the internet as "a series of tubes"... in 2006! What makes you think any government is going to read source code to understand a technology?
It's time to pull our collective heads out of the ground and recognize that doing nothing is the worst possible approach. If we (as a community) don't communicate with US government officials, Bitcoin will remain over-regulated, preventing legitimate businesses from springing up.
You can want "no regulation" as much as you want, but it's not going to happen with Bitcoin any time soon. Accept it.
toughest questions and response? if you are allowed to disclose
Why wouldn't he be allowed to disclose a meeting with public officials?
BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You must be new to US government--where everything happens behind closed doors. "Democracy" we are not.
Thanks for the update on the DC trip - glad that the important work is being done, congratulations to Marco and company. Proud to be a Foundation member.
We could use some additional transparency. What were the "tough questions" and the "tough answers"?
Agreed, some more info for the community would be best. Can you guys provide your slide decks for viewing? This does involve everyone, Bitcoin Foundation member or not.
To me joining the foundation was a no brainer in terms of support for the ecosystem, but I suppose it depends on whether you have an ideological axe to grind.
Quote
In attendance were high-level representatives from FinCEN, IRS, FDIC, Federal Reserve, OCC, FBI, DEA, Secret Service, Department of Homeland Security and more.
What about the SEC? They're the regulatory agency for brokers and exchanges.If Bitcoin were a commodity or currency you could trade on major exchanges, we could get rid of all those clowns trying to run Bitcoin exchanges.
Bitcoin is both, but calling it by those names isn't going to get it listed on Forex. That usually takes some major banks with an interest in trading in it.
We could use some additional transparency. What were the "tough questions" and the "tough answers"?
Them: Okay, which one of you guys is Satoshi Nakamoto?
Representing Us: As I said to one of your colleagues in the hall, Satoshi Nakamoto is clearly one of you guys. That said, here's a list of demands to keep our mouths shut.
Patrick Murck:
Representing Us: Who said we were playing cards?
We could use some additional transparency. What were the "tough questions" and the "tough answers"?
Jump to: