No on the regulation. Markets do best when self regulated
Topic: US BITCOIN REGULATION "FOR" or "AGAINST" - page 2. (Read 6257 times)
Country: Poland
Vote: Against
Vote: Against
The fundamental problem with your position is that there is no evidence to support it. It's one thing to have a philosophy about living in utopia but it is something completely different to actually live in the real world.
This one can actually be turned back right at the opposing view. There is as little evidence for the case that stateless society wouldn't work as there is for the case that it would work. The simple fact is that we haven't tried so we don't know. Presuming to know that it would or wouldn't work seems, well...presumptuous.It may work and it has already been tried:
http://mises.org/daily/1121
And about the regulation part the primary problem is that less regulation for banks, businesses, etc. should automatically mean that they are to carry more responsibility for their actions.
Bailing out != teaching about responsibility
The world is not black and white. I generally believe that laws cannot govern morals. But I also recognize that at times in my life the only thing that has prevented me from hurting someone (or killing them) is prison. There are people who should die and if there were no law I would most certainly kill them given the chance. If you want to live near me you and I need rules that govern our actions. Otherwise nothing prevents you from trying to steal my wife/car/bike/gold.
If there were no laws would you pay for bread? Do you think everyone else would?
regarding regulation:
Charles ponzi's scheme (just before the great depression) resulted in "New Deal" regulations (including the 1933 SEC Regulation D) which lasted until the recent repeal of Glass-Steagle. The result of the repeal was great recession. Repealing the regulation resulted in producing the opposite of what the lawmakers said it would. Eliminating the regulation did not improve profitability, it destroyed the country and nearly the world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_financial_crisis_of_2008
There were a few Frontline programs about glass-steagle. The first in 2003 then another after the crash.
http://billmoyers.com/content/glass-steagall-dodd-frank-and-the-volcker-rule-a-primer-and-resources/
The poll is flawed, the answer is not as simple as "yes" or "no".
If there were no laws would you pay for bread? Do you think everyone else would?
regarding regulation:
Charles ponzi's scheme (just before the great depression) resulted in "New Deal" regulations (including the 1933 SEC Regulation D) which lasted until the recent repeal of Glass-Steagle. The result of the repeal was great recession. Repealing the regulation resulted in producing the opposite of what the lawmakers said it would. Eliminating the regulation did not improve profitability, it destroyed the country and nearly the world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_financial_crisis_of_2008
There were a few Frontline programs about glass-steagle. The first in 2003 then another after the crash.
http://billmoyers.com/content/glass-steagall-dodd-frank-and-the-volcker-rule-a-primer-and-resources/
The poll is flawed, the answer is not as simple as "yes" or "no".
Hey Viceroy!
Can't say I haven't heard those very same arguments before. Let me address them:
This one can actually be turned back right at the opposing view. There is as little evidence for the case that stateless society wouldn't work as there is for the case that it would work. The simple fact is that we haven't tried so we don't know. Presuming to know that it would or wouldn't work seems, well...presumptuous.
Here we can see the fundamentally flawed way of either/or thinking. It makes us think in false dichotomies (meaning considering only two predefined options, where there could be many) and creates more problems than it solves. You can see either/or thinking in exclusive ideologies based on defining one group of insiders and a group of outsiders, defining each persons merit based on them being either an insider or an outsider. See racism, sexism, xenophobia etc.
Consider that there might be other options. Yes one option is having an institution with a monopoly on creating and enforcing rules of conduct. Another option is to try and live without any rules whatsoever. But what about the option for several competing/complementary frameworks of rules?
People seem to love making up rules. I don't see anything wrong with that. Is it then foolish to think that if we all got to create our own rules and test their viability, we might end up with superior sets of rules? Compared to the heavy handed approach of creating and enforcing one single set of rules trying to accommodate everyone?
I'm not sure what exactly you are talking about when referring to a time without financial regulation ending in Ponzi schemes. You seem to be sure of your case that it was precisely the lack of regulation which brought about our current financial crisis. A compelling case can be made stating that it was precisely the existence of regulation which caused this. I won't go in depth on this, if you are truly interested in learning about these arguments, you can easily find them in the writings of various anarchist and libertarian writers. Let me just say that having the single institution in charge of creating regulation (the government) being subject to massive influence by banks and giants of industry (whom they're supposed to regulate) creates perverse incentives for those companies and destroys any semblance of a level playing field - big players can effectively buy regulation protecting their business and market share from newcomers without the capital and political connections to challenge them.
Oh yes and the "without laws we'd all just be killing each other argument". Do you really believe that the only thing stopping me and others to kill you, rape your woman and take your stuff are written laws? Do you have such a dim view of humanity? On the other side of the coin, is the current system the only one you can think of, which might protect you from those bad people who want to kill you? What about the problem inherent in the solution of entrusting the protection from bad people to stewards of an institution with the legal monopoly on the initiation of force? Where are those people going to come from? From the pool of bad people...and now you want to give them even more power and the possibility to kill you and take your stuff in a systematic, highly organized way?
As for the bolded part, it seems that you claim knowledge of what the real world really is. I find that amusing
Thanks for the link. I'm always glad to look at things from another perspective in order to understand it better.
Can't say I haven't heard those very same arguments before. Let me address them:
ErisDiscordia,
The fundamental problem with your position is that there is no evidence to support it. It's one thing to have a philosophy about living in utopia but it is something completely different to actually live in the real world.
The fundamental problem with your position is that there is no evidence to support it. It's one thing to have a philosophy about living in utopia but it is something completely different to actually live in the real world.
This one can actually be turned back right at the opposing view. There is as little evidence for the case that stateless society wouldn't work as there is for the case that it would work. The simple fact is that we haven't tried so we don't know. Presuming to know that it would or wouldn't work seems, well...presumptuous.
Either:
You accept that we need law to protect us from each other (< 30% of the readers)
or:
You think we are capable of living without any laws (or regulations).
You accept that we need law to protect us from each other (< 30% of the readers)
or:
You think we are capable of living without any laws (or regulations).
Here we can see the fundamentally flawed way of either/or thinking. It makes us think in false dichotomies (meaning considering only two predefined options, where there could be many) and creates more problems than it solves. You can see either/or thinking in exclusive ideologies based on defining one group of insiders and a group of outsiders, defining each persons merit based on them being either an insider or an outsider. See racism, sexism, xenophobia etc.
Consider that there might be other options. Yes one option is having an institution with a monopoly on creating and enforcing rules of conduct. Another option is to try and live without any rules whatsoever. But what about the option for several competing/complementary frameworks of rules?
People seem to love making up rules. I don't see anything wrong with that. Is it then foolish to think that if we all got to create our own rules and test their viability, we might end up with superior sets of rules? Compared to the heavy handed approach of creating and enforcing one single set of rules trying to accommodate everyone?
I'd love to live in utopia but I realize that I live on Earth. On Earth there are other people who need to be protected from me. If I start killing people society MUST deal with me. We MUST have laws. Otherwise we are just animals in the woods.
In the real world there was a time when we had no financial regulations. That time ended with the Ponzi Scheme. Lack of regulation = daily ponzi schemes. Then in modern times when the regulators didn't do anything to regulate credit default swaps what happened? The end of the economy as we know it. And what will happen if the banks are allowed to continue without regulation? More crashes. More concentration of wealth.
The republicans (along with Dem Charles Schumer) in America have been trying to end all financial regulation for decades. Why? Because they work for the 1%.... the only group who benefits from no regulation. But you are not in the 1% so wouldn't you rather be protected than naked in the forest?
In the real world there was a time when we had no financial regulations. That time ended with the Ponzi Scheme. Lack of regulation = daily ponzi schemes. Then in modern times when the regulators didn't do anything to regulate credit default swaps what happened? The end of the economy as we know it. And what will happen if the banks are allowed to continue without regulation? More crashes. More concentration of wealth.
The republicans (along with Dem Charles Schumer) in America have been trying to end all financial regulation for decades. Why? Because they work for the 1%.... the only group who benefits from no regulation. But you are not in the 1% so wouldn't you rather be protected than naked in the forest?
I'm not sure what exactly you are talking about when referring to a time without financial regulation ending in Ponzi schemes. You seem to be sure of your case that it was precisely the lack of regulation which brought about our current financial crisis. A compelling case can be made stating that it was precisely the existence of regulation which caused this. I won't go in depth on this, if you are truly interested in learning about these arguments, you can easily find them in the writings of various anarchist and libertarian writers. Let me just say that having the single institution in charge of creating regulation (the government) being subject to massive influence by banks and giants of industry (whom they're supposed to regulate) creates perverse incentives for those companies and destroys any semblance of a level playing field - big players can effectively buy regulation protecting their business and market share from newcomers without the capital and political connections to challenge them.
Oh yes and the "without laws we'd all just be killing each other argument". Do you really believe that the only thing stopping me and others to kill you, rape your woman and take your stuff are written laws? Do you have such a dim view of humanity? On the other side of the coin, is the current system the only one you can think of, which might protect you from those bad people who want to kill you? What about the problem inherent in the solution of entrusting the protection from bad people to stewards of an institution with the legal monopoly on the initiation of force? Where are those people going to come from? From the pool of bad people...and now you want to give them even more power and the possibility to kill you and take your stuff in a systematic, highly organized way?
As for the bolded part, it seems that you claim knowledge of what the real world really is. I find that amusing
If you have 2 hours to watch an enlightening movie about the reality of our cruel world watch this:
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/park-avenue/film.html
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/park-avenue/film.html
Thanks for the link. I'm always glad to look at things from another perspective in order to understand it better.
Yes the 1% benefit greatly from locking up all the poor people across the river, it's true. Of course the 1% do whatever they want while extracting all the wealth of the 99%. Did you know (from the movie) that 400 people control more wealth in the USA than 150,000,000 people? That's not 1% it's 2.6667 x 10 ^ -6.
So let's write a law that redistributes worldwide wealth.... either that or lets stop worshiping gold. The first option seems easier.
>lemonade stand
I'd bet you probably cannot start a meaningful business with less than $250,000 these days but the SBA guarantees loans up to $750,000 for start ups.
So let's write a law that redistributes worldwide wealth.... either that or lets stop worshiping gold. The first option seems easier.
>lemonade stand
I'd bet you probably cannot start a meaningful business with less than $250,000 these days but the SBA guarantees loans up to $750,000 for start ups.
This 1% is what benefits most from regulation that keeps out the little guy, preventing him from competing by using onerous licensing, regulation, and massive fees. A tiny example of this mess is government shutting down lemonade stands and food trucks because they compete with established businesses. Regulators pick winners and losers, and the winners are oftentimes their friends with cash, not the neighborhood kid or the average person who decided to get a loan on a truck to make a living.
ErisDiscordia,
The fundamental problem with your position is that there is no evidence to support it. It's one thing to have a philosophy about living in utopia but it is something completely different to actually live in the real world.
Either:
You accept that we need law to protect us from each other (< 30% of the readers)
or:
You think we are capable of living without any laws (or regulations).
I'd love to live in utopia but I realize that I live on Earth. On Earth there are other people who need to be protected from me. If I start killing people society MUST deal with me. We MUST have laws. Otherwise we are just animals in the woods.
In the real world there was a time when we had no financial regulations. That time ended with the Ponzi Scheme. Lack of regulation = daily ponzi schemes. Then in modern times when the regulators didn't do anything to regulate credit default swaps what happened? The end of the economy as we know it. And what will happen if the banks are allowed to continue without regulation? More crashes. More concentration of wealth.
The republicans (along with Dem Charles Schumer) in America have been trying to end all financial regulation for decades. Why? Because they work for the 1%.... the only group who benefits from no regulation. But you are not in the 1% so wouldn't you rather be protected than naked in the forest?
If you have 2 hours to watch an enlightening movie about the reality of our cruel world watch this:
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/park-avenue/film.html
The fundamental problem with your position is that there is no evidence to support it. It's one thing to have a philosophy about living in utopia but it is something completely different to actually live in the real world.
Either:
You accept that we need law to protect us from each other (< 30% of the readers)
or:
You think we are capable of living without any laws (or regulations).
I'd love to live in utopia but I realize that I live on Earth. On Earth there are other people who need to be protected from me. If I start killing people society MUST deal with me. We MUST have laws. Otherwise we are just animals in the woods.
In the real world there was a time when we had no financial regulations. That time ended with the Ponzi Scheme. Lack of regulation = daily ponzi schemes. Then in modern times when the regulators didn't do anything to regulate credit default swaps what happened? The end of the economy as we know it. And what will happen if the banks are allowed to continue without regulation? More crashes. More concentration of wealth.
The republicans (along with Dem Charles Schumer) in America have been trying to end all financial regulation for decades. Why? Because they work for the 1%.... the only group who benefits from no regulation. But you are not in the 1% so wouldn't you rather be protected than naked in the forest?
If you have 2 hours to watch an enlightening movie about the reality of our cruel world watch this:
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/park-avenue/film.html
Hey I feel I understand you much better now!
The only thing, which I don't (yet) understand is the following:
I don't see how the bolded part follows from what you've said before.
The only thing, which I don't (yet) understand is the following:
some people are just not capable of comprehending a thing like bitcoin, some don't have the time, and some don't have the interest, and some have better things to do.
these people are what i call stupid, even though its not deserved, its true. They lack knowledge about bitcoin. They will or can never understand bitcoin, and therefor need thrust in authority(or simple empirical evidence, but some people are even incapable of understanding that).
these people are what i call stupid, even though its not deserved, its true. They lack knowledge about bitcoin. They will or can never understand bitcoin, and therefor need thrust in authority(or simple empirical evidence, but some people are even incapable of understanding that).
I don't see how the bolded part follows from what you've said before.
Maybe I haven't made my point clear enough. I'm not trying to troll you.
Yes, people are known to say stupid shit about computers, politics, cars and whatever. Also their level of conviction seems to be inversely correlated to the amount of actual knowledge they have on a given subject. If you happen to be knowledgeable in a given subject (say, computers) you can spot this easily. Yet thinking about those people that they are stupid seems a dangerous delusion to me. It ascribes an essence of stupidity to those people and implies it can not be changed. Yet there is no essence of stupidity. There are only people who do stupid things and say stupid things at certain times. And everyone is guilty of this at certain times. Denying this about yourself will only be viewed as a stupid act by me (and I suspect by some others) and you will end up in that same category of "stupid masses" in their view. This way it seems that everybody believes in this entity consisting entirely of stupid people, but nobody puts themselves in it. See the problem with that?
people are stupid on a given subject, and i am too. and that cannot be changed, everyone cannot know everything.Yes, people are known to say stupid shit about computers, politics, cars and whatever. Also their level of conviction seems to be inversely correlated to the amount of actual knowledge they have on a given subject. If you happen to be knowledgeable in a given subject (say, computers) you can spot this easily. Yet thinking about those people that they are stupid seems a dangerous delusion to me. It ascribes an essence of stupidity to those people and implies it can not be changed. Yet there is no essence of stupidity. There are only people who do stupid things and say stupid things at certain times. And everyone is guilty of this at certain times. Denying this about yourself will only be viewed as a stupid act by me (and I suspect by some others) and you will end up in that same category of "stupid masses" in their view. This way it seems that everybody believes in this entity consisting entirely of stupid people, but nobody puts themselves in it. See the problem with that?
Based on your writing style you seem to be a smart fellow. And it seems to be easy for smart people to become cynical and go "I'm smart, people are stupid". Now I'm not hating on you for this. I'm trying to point out that if the situation of "people are stupid" bothers you, you might consider that your attitude does exactly nothing to help the situation. Actually it seems that people will often behave in stupid ways, because they have been imprinted by their parents, peers, culture and teachers that they are stupid. Reinforcing this imprint doesn't seem very helpful to me, do you see what I mean?
i am smart on somethings, and there are alot of shit that im shit at doing. i don't see a problem in that, you do.I'm more interested in creating circumstances in which people can thrive and expand their intelligence. I suppose you can find lots of example from your personal life and the lives of famous people, where some people have acquired excellent levels of intelligence and skill and usually you will find they have been in circumstances supportive of this achievement. Creating positive circumstances can start with something as simple as some words of encouragement and some belief in the potential of people in general.
No, i do not want to have knowlegde about pre-renaissance german poets. I want to keep my stupidity about that subject intact, and let someone interested learn about that.To sort of tie this back to the original debate: This is one potential I see in Bitcoin. It has the potential to be a platform through which people can more effectively increase their skill and intelligence. Just think of an example of a blogger who can now receive small payments from people who find his blogs fun to read. Or a reviewer who can get some income thanks to the usefulness of their reviews. Or a musician uploading her songs on youtube and receiving some mBTC from people who enjoyed her songs. This might provide those people with incentive to further hone their skills. Also it provides more financial possibilities and probably more time to develop their skills, as well. Who knows, maybe the blogger will get so skillful and intelligent by blogging all the time, that he can live entirely from the income this generates?
some people are just not capable of comprehending a thing like bitcoin, some don't have the time, and some don't have the interest, and some have better things to do.these people are what i call stupid, even though its not deserved, its true. They lack knowledge about bitcoin. They will or can never understand bitcoin, and therefor need thrust in authority(or simple empirical evidence, but some people are even incapable of understanding that).
Maybe I haven't made my point clear enough. I'm not trying to troll you.
Yes, people are known to say stupid shit about computers, politics, cars and whatever. Also their level of conviction seems to be inversely correlated to the amount of actual knowledge they have on a given subject. If you happen to be knowledgeable in a given subject (say, computers) you can spot this easily. Yet thinking about those people that they are stupid seems a dangerous delusion to me. It ascribes an essence of stupidity to those people and implies it can not be changed. Yet there is no essence of stupidity. There are only people who do stupid things and say stupid things at certain times. And everyone is guilty of this at certain times. Denying this about yourself will only be viewed as a stupid act by me (and I suspect by some others) and you will end up in that same category of "stupid masses" in their view. This way it seems that everybody believes in this entity consisting entirely of stupid people, but nobody puts themselves in it. See the problem with that?
Based on your writing style you seem to be a smart fellow. And it seems to be easy for smart people to become cynical and go "I'm smart, people are stupid". Now I'm not hating on you for this. I'm trying to point out that if the situation of "people are stupid" bothers you, you might consider that your attitude does exactly nothing to help the situation. Actually it seems that people will often behave in stupid ways, because they have been imprinted by their parents, peers, culture and teachers that they are stupid. Reinforcing this imprint doesn't seem very helpful to me, do you see what I mean?
I'm more interested in creating circumstances in which people can thrive and expand their intelligence. I suppose you can find lots of example from your personal life and the lives of famous people, where some people have acquired excellent levels of intelligence and skill and usually you will find they have been in circumstances supportive of this achievement. Creating positive circumstances can start with something as simple as some words of encouragement and some belief in the potential of people in general.
To sort of tie this back to the original debate: This is one potential I see in Bitcoin. It has the potential to be a platform through which people can more effectively increase their skill and intelligence. Just think of an example of a blogger who can now receive small payments from people who find his blogs fun to read. Or a reviewer who can get some income thanks to the usefulness of their reviews. Or a musician uploading her songs on youtube and receiving some mBTC from people who enjoyed her songs. This might provide those people with incentive to further hone their skills. Also it provides more financial possibilities and probably more time to develop their skills, as well. Who knows, maybe the blogger will get so skillful and intelligent by blogging all the time, that he can live entirely from the income this generates?
Yes, people are known to say stupid shit about computers, politics, cars and whatever. Also their level of conviction seems to be inversely correlated to the amount of actual knowledge they have on a given subject. If you happen to be knowledgeable in a given subject (say, computers) you can spot this easily. Yet thinking about those people that they are stupid seems a dangerous delusion to me. It ascribes an essence of stupidity to those people and implies it can not be changed. Yet there is no essence of stupidity. There are only people who do stupid things and say stupid things at certain times. And everyone is guilty of this at certain times. Denying this about yourself will only be viewed as a stupid act by me (and I suspect by some others) and you will end up in that same category of "stupid masses" in their view. This way it seems that everybody believes in this entity consisting entirely of stupid people, but nobody puts themselves in it. See the problem with that?
Based on your writing style you seem to be a smart fellow. And it seems to be easy for smart people to become cynical and go "I'm smart, people are stupid". Now I'm not hating on you for this. I'm trying to point out that if the situation of "people are stupid" bothers you, you might consider that your attitude does exactly nothing to help the situation. Actually it seems that people will often behave in stupid ways, because they have been imprinted by their parents, peers, culture and teachers that they are stupid. Reinforcing this imprint doesn't seem very helpful to me, do you see what I mean?
I'm more interested in creating circumstances in which people can thrive and expand their intelligence. I suppose you can find lots of example from your personal life and the lives of famous people, where some people have acquired excellent levels of intelligence and skill and usually you will find they have been in circumstances supportive of this achievement. Creating positive circumstances can start with something as simple as some words of encouragement and some belief in the potential of people in general.
To sort of tie this back to the original debate: This is one potential I see in Bitcoin. It has the potential to be a platform through which people can more effectively increase their skill and intelligence. Just think of an example of a blogger who can now receive small payments from people who find his blogs fun to read. Or a reviewer who can get some income thanks to the usefulness of their reviews. Or a musician uploading her songs on youtube and receiving some mBTC from people who enjoyed her songs. This might provide those people with incentive to further hone their skills. Also it provides more financial possibilities and probably more time to develop their skills, as well. Who knows, maybe the blogger will get so skillful and intelligent by blogging all the time, that he can live entirely from the income this generates?
no, i understand why bitcoin works, and therefor i thrust in it. PEOPLE are stupid and are currently not studying CS, and therefor have limits abilities to understand and thrust bitcoin based on knowledge, they therefor need an authority they thrust to vouch for bitcoin(ie. government/regulations).
so it's I AM SMART and PEOPLE ARE STUPID? Sort of makes me think of this:
"I'm not like most girls"
- most girls
on other topics, i am just like most girls(or worse): I don't know shit about it.
Please realize that this faceless entity you seem to think of as the "uneducated stupid masses" includes YOU from the viewpoint of almost anyone else thinking the same way.
There is no such thing as "the public" or "the masses". There are just people. Individual people, stupid, smart and in between but every single one of them capable of improvement. By saying that they need authority and regulation you are denying their ability to improve and learn from their mistakes. Not only that, you're actively promoting taking this ability away from them. Pfui! Bad Kokjo!
edit: maybe you actually want to be able to think of other people as "stupid uneducated masses" in order to prop up your ego and feel better about yourself? Certainly understandable, though not worthy of praise in my eyes
But if you actually care about those people, please reconsider if what they really need is more authority and regulation and not freedom to choose and learn from the consequences of their actions. How do you expect anyone to get less stupid/to learn if you deny him the option to do so?many/most people do not understand the technically side of bitcoin. if you don't trust me, go ask the cashier in your local supermarket, if they can explain bitcoin to you or if they even know what it is.
I acknowledge my strengths and limitations. please fuck off troll.
no, i understand why bitcoin works, and therefor i thrust in it. PEOPLE are stupid and are currently not studying CS, and therefor have limits abilities to understand and thrust bitcoin based on knowledge, they therefor need an authority they thrust to vouch for bitcoin(ie. government/regulations).
so it's I AM SMART and PEOPLE ARE STUPID? Sort of makes me think of this:
"I'm not like most girls"
- most girls
Please realize that this faceless entity you seem to think of as the "uneducated stupid masses" includes YOU from the viewpoint of almost anyone else thinking the same way.
There is no such thing as "the public" or "the masses". There are just people. Individual people, stupid, smart and in between but every single one of them capable of improvement. By saying that they need authority and regulation you are denying their ability to improve and learn from their mistakes. Not only that, you're actively promoting taking this ability away from them. Pfui! Bad Kokjo!
edit: maybe you actually want to be able to think of other people as "stupid uneducated masses" in order to prop up your ego and feel better about yourself? Certainly understandable, though not worthy of praise in my eyes
But if you actually care about those people, please reconsider if what they really need is more authority and regulation and not freedom to choose and learn from the consequences of their actions. How do you expect anyone to get less stupid/to learn if you deny him the option to do so? i don't need regulations directly, PEOPLE need regulations to thrust bitcoin. and if i want bitcoin to succeed i indirectly need regulation too because people need them.
Oh yes, YOU wise sir are above the need for regulation, you can take care of yourself, thank you very much. On the other hand, those OTHER stupid people, they need regulation, otherwise they would just die from exhaustion while trying to exit their own flat because they are that stupid. Of course.
no, i understand why bitcoin works, and therefor i thrust in it. PEOPLE are stupid and are currently not studying CS, and therefor have limits abilities to understand and thrust bitcoin based on knowledge, they therefor need an authority they thrust to vouch for bitcoin(ie. government/regulations).
also i want regulation to have clarity about the legal aspects of bitcoin
i don't need regulations directly, PEOPLE need regulations to thrust bitcoin. and if i want bitcoin to succeed i indirectly need regulation too because people need them.
Oh yes, YOU wise sir are above the need for regulation, you can take care of yourself, thank you very much. On the other hand, those OTHER stupid people, they need regulation, otherwise they would just die from exhaustion while trying to exit their own flat because they are that stupid. Of course.
Gay. I smoke big fat doobies regardless of the local "laws". Unlike Viceroy, I'm no slave begging for freedom's from my master. I do what I want.
+1. Also you should ignore the statist cheerleader. He says "oh I'm not in the 1% why do you hate me?". Well maybe because you're actively advertising and supporting the system of the 1%. When your masters have successfully convinced you that you really NEED them, then it's game over for your soul.
edit: AGAINST regulation. Obviously.
Everything else under the sun is already regulated. They'd regulate the sun if they could figure out how. And it's been working out oh so well. I'm in favor of trying it without regulation. Those who are sure it can't work can just fork their own gumbentcoin and continue business as usual. Those of us who have the modesty of admitting that we don't know if it can work and the adventurous spirit to find out...carry on with an unregulated Bitcoin.
Regulation... LOL
BTW, look at how screwed up is that chart, big crash ongoing
BTW, look at how screwed up is that chart, big crash ongoing
Regulations! Read about what happened when banks got centralized.
im not saying that bitcoin should get centralized.
im just saying that it would help bitcoin, if governments came out and said that bitcoin legal. and you should pay tax of them, just like any other traditional currency.
God damn. Looking at this thread I feel like in some insane alternate dimension. Wait...
here is the english version:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/first-name-in-the-first-fund-for-bitcoins-winklevoss/
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/first-name-in-the-first-fund-for-bitcoins-winklevoss/
Erik Voorhees: "For" ====>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2YllvbJo6g
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1579346/000119312513279830/d562329ds1.htm
>>>WTF!!!!
Jump to: