Topic: What if receiving payments in bitcoins is made illegal? - page 2. (Read 8858 times)

Hard rules are compatible with anarchy when they are voluntarily accepted (because they are useful) instead of being enforced by violence. That's why Bitcoin can work.

thanks. i'll look into this.

Sorry but your prejudice has clouded your own vision here.

In my group we spend most of our time advising people how NOT to get ripped off by Wall St. That is when we're not criticising Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve and most governments.

Our aim to it help people to hold on to what they have. Hard money is a big theme in that. Gold is the usual reference point. Therefore bitcoin is something new in this direction, and of interest.

Hard money needs hard rules for it to work. So it's incompatible with anarchy.

The alternative is that we all go back to a barter economy and living in mud huts. But given the mass famines that would be required first, I think even I would prefer a hyperinflation as the alternative.

And of course, in that system, we wouldn't be able to engage in this light hearted internet banter that you enjoy so much.

... a finance writer huh? So you probably spend a lot of time apologising to the public punters for the monumental feck ups on Wall St. and The City and then spend the rest of the time schmoozing and kissing ass with them.

... big fat zero for vision I'm afraid.

Wait....what? Facebook is a viable business model?!?

Actually, contract law is a perfect area for Bitcoin to expand into.  Read up on Smart Contracts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_contract).  Because Bitcoins, which are subjectively valuable, can be so easily manipulated at the program level, it's only matter of time before we have easily accessible contract enforcement outside of the traditional state court system (advanced escrows, specialized arbiters, self-enforcing contracts, penal bonds....). 

These implementations may occur both at the Bitcoin scripting level or through third-party providers (e.g. ClearCoin).  Indeed, the simple act of sending/receiving Bitcoins already represents a simple, self-enforcing smart contract (a transfer of property rights in Bitcoins).  Think of how many middlemen (banks, payment processors, government regulators) and costs are cut out just through a bit of Satoshi's code.

I anticipate many businesses (large and small) will start giving strong consideration to adopting the Bitcoin ecosystem when they realize that they can conduct business more predictably and cheaply without inefficient state courts and lawyer overhead.

Yes you're probably right. There might be some new business models that spring up. I just think its likely to stay in a small niche. And as for other p2p cryptocurrency, that might happen too. But people will only be able to deal with so many of these things at one time. Most people need simplicity in their lives, not dealing in 10 or 20 currencies.

Put another way, good money will drive out bad money. But  to be good, money has to be usable when exchanging goods.

As to the dot com bubble, the value added came much later in most cases. A lot of money was squandered early on. (Not to mention the rank fraud of a lot of it.)

It's not much different to physical infrastructure. Someone invests in building a bridge, they often lose money. But the people living each side of the valley benefit from being able to visit each other. For most innovation and investment to happen, the people putting the money up need to have a decent likelihood of reasonable profit. There will always be exceptions of course.

And for every Facebook there are probably thousands of failures. Buying bitcoins is like buying stock in one of those thousands of startups. You might get a Facebook, but chances are you'll get a fat zero.

Did you mean you can not name your child whatever you want except from the government approved list, walk in cities without being watched all the time and travel without being ass raped  at every airport?

I too often wonder..

Excellent idea!  I can no longer kill natives, own slaves, or beat my women.  Why is this last bastion of abusive behavior (government) still tolerated? 

Bitcoin has applications for which it is uniquely suitable. There lies its potential IMO, not in competing with existing currencies and payment systems.  It will enable new business models that could not have existed without Bitcoin and that will depend on Bitcoin.  I agree that it may remain a niche currency, but I don't think it will ever disappear completely. Or a least it will be replaced by another p2p cryptocurrency.

It is very hard for us to imagine today what those business models might be, just like people could not have imagined in 1990 that Facebook is a viable business model.  Perhaps Bitcoin will even evolve into something whos prime use isn't a currency at all.  

As for the dot com bubble, the "new paradigm" did create real added value, this just took a longer time than most people expected, and the added value was grossly overestimated.

If you had invested in the right companies you would have made money.

Because you were attacking his character by referencing a Nazi propagandist.  Disrespect for his viewpoints are fine, disrespect for the person is unacceptable behavior.
Notice, if you will, that it was just a warning; and you have not been censored so far.  You have a less than a dozen posts on this forum and you are already sideways with part of the existing membership.  That is not a good sign.

bye bye moabbels.

bye, bye troll ... c u in another nym?

I've thought about this some more.

There's another linked problem. Every day companies are striking contracts with employees, customers and suppliers. They promise to pay or receive an amount of money in return or with a promise to deliver a good or service.

These are documented contracts enforced in a court of law, and often very complex and in place for many years. Government has nothing to do with it. It's just a system for active agents in the economy to know where they stand, and know they have recourse if the other side breaks the agreement. Both sides benefit in other words.

Of course in very small companies (say family owned stores) more can be done for cash and on a word of mouth and trust basis. But for large and complex businesses this would never work.

So if governments move to ban the receipt of payments in bitcoins, chances are it will work. Bitcoins would become significantly less valuable, maybe  worthless. Relegated to a small niche of small transactions. The bulk of the economy would move on and ignore it in future.

Even in a hyperinflation, a return to gold backed currency is more likely than adoption of bit coins. Gold has a long history and is deeply ingrained in many cultures of the world (such as Asia and Middle East). If this was a horse race, I'd back a return to gold over bitcoins at this point.

Maybe I don't get it. But then I didn't get the "new paradigm" of the dot com bubble either. And I didn't lose money as a result.

I wish bitcoin luck because the idea is genuinely innovative and thought provoking, and will watch with interest. But I doubt it will be more than a short term fad in the real world.

One thing that has not been mentioned in this thread is the first amendment defense.  To spend bitcoins, you basically announce to the world that you have done so.  To restrict bitcoin is to limit free speech.

Not sure why. It was a response to a request for censorship and a series of posts showing complete disrespect for anyone elses opinion.

It's interesting how freedom of speech so rarely gets a look in these days.

haha! I was just going to post this.

Unless all governments ban/regulate bitcoin, it will be seen as a success in the nations where it is allowed and it's value will be backed by their economies. Also, such nations will thrive on a sound money standard.

The rest of the world will see this and soon governments will be force to come inline and legitimize bitcoin.

Also, to be honest, I think Bitcoin is just the beginning of a paradigm shift. Technology, ideas and social structures are evolving so fast that governments will not be able to keep pace. The rules of the game are changing.

I'm saying that the adoption rate of Bitcoin in some locales does not limit it's future success in those same locales.  If Bitcoin is going to succeed, it will do so eventually regardless of how long particular governments might be able to hold back the tide.  The only way that I can forsee such intervention actually preventing Bitcoin from anything, rather than simply delaying it, is if all the world's governments were to agree to use force against Bitcoin users collectively.  I don't consider such international cooperation likely.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. All else being equal, less hampering of Bitcoin adoption means it reaches more of its potential. Even if it can survive laws, matters would be better if there were no laws against it anywhere. Resistance, local or not, limits Bitcoin's potential.

Are you saying Bitcoin has no potential at all in countries "where the powers that be can threaten real violence"? In that case I disagree. I think Bitcoin has great potential even in e.g. the western world.

The premise in the first sentence above does not lead to the conclusion in the second sentence.  Certainly Bitcoin adoption will be hampered in nations wherein the powers that be can threaten users with real violence for doing so, but this will do little to prevent adoption in locales where this is not so.