Topic: Why is it so hard to regulate Bitcoin? - page 4. (Read 2953 times)

because regulators dont have idea what it is really
computer scientist (most of them) have problems to understand bitcoin, so normal people are screw.....

I changed my mind Beliathon.

If you don't even believe in the concept of property or ownership to begin with then you're right:  there is zero room for debate.

Also, if your bitcoins ever got stolen (God forbid),
don't worry, its ok because you never really owned them. 

I think that the option 3) is also possible. The bitcoin will stay as a "parallel" currency "as it is" but with the certain regulation/limitation of its use. Like it is already in some countries, where bitcoin payments are acceptabile in parallel with other currencies and is used by the companies with a solid reputation.

reading the first page. all i can say is that beliathon and arnold chippy.

if you ever take hours making a song, you should only in your whole live be paid $0.008 (spotify's revenue from one listener) and then the song should be made free because that listener copied it?

code a program/website.. and maybe get $8-$50, just once..

your own opinions means that you wont make more then minimum wage for the hours you initially put into it. and then thats it.. no more income, ever

do you honestly think that activision should only get 1 payment of $50 for call of duty... and then the rest of the 7billion people dont have to pay because that single person that bought it, then copied it 7 billion times

do you really think that teams of hundreds of people working for over a year on the game should get a split of only $50 (meaning each employee is only paid a couple cents for a years work)....

seriously, is that your mindset?

It's an important debate: where do ideas come from?  Can they really be owned?  Or are we all just building upon the work of the minds that came before us.  Seeing further by standing on the shoulders of giants.

Can you imagine having a government agency trying to figure out how they are going to track every bitcoin transaction if another agency has issue(s) with just sending out e-mail(s) that don't expose everybody's address?

Well where does all this stop?
 
If I give you the recipe for a meal which you find enjoyable, will you pay me a royalty every time you make it?

Do these artists pay a royalty for the very use of words and language - of which they are not the originators - but is the tool they use as the basis of their work?

I'm afraid those days have now gone for the average artist, that where a short period of effort guaranteed a lifetimes comfort with optional idleness.

This is why so many musicians have had to go back to live performance to bolster their lifestyle.

I won't be a wage slave so these people can live charmed lives and nor should you.

Well first of all, you're using the very commonly mistaken definition of that phrase. Here is what begging the question actually means.

Property is theft!

Only if I was providing power for the electricity of the computers involved by riding a stationary-bicycle which generated electricity. Only then would I ask for some payment.

Why does it need to be OWNED by anyone? Why can it not simply "be"?

The often invisible architecture of your language comes with all sorts of nasty assumptions about the world and your place in it...  Do you see the damage capitalism has done to your mind? Language wires our brains to think a certain way.

You have been taught obedience to capitalism and property since you could speak - your formative years as a human being. Think about that. Think about how difficult it is to unlearn something that you've been learning your entire life - without even knowing you've been programmed!

Once again, songs, thoughts, art - these things do not need to be owned. When nature paints for you a breathtaking sunset or stunning rainbow, does a forest fairy pop from the ground and demand a payment for the pleasure you derived from viewing these things? When you swim naked in a lake, does a mermaid come and ask for payment? No, only humans do this insane thing, and only for the past few thousands years. We lived for half a million years before some asshole looked up at the sun and said, "hey, the sky-god says you should give me your share. If you don't you will be punished by the gods".

Such was the birth of capitalism.

Even though this is off topic and I shouldn't take the bait - here is my 2 satoshi on copying intellectual property.

People are free to choose how they want to share their work. If they want to give it away free, then so be it. I will probably donate to them if I like the work and they accept bitcoin. If they want to charge for their work - more power to them. I probably won't buy it (I do occasionally by music from my favorite artists that have been around a long time), but they should be able to distribute it in whatever way they like. There is plenty of great IP out there that is truly free that I can enjoy without the need to "steal" from people.

The reason I put "steal" in quotes is because it isn't a black and white issue to me. It's like personal space. You may not like me standing just a few inches away from you. I'm not breaking any laws by standing close to you, but it may make you uncomfortable. Some people feel more comfortable being protected by laws that govern how they deal with each other. When the laws make sense, like don't kill people, I have no problem with them. And we could pass a law that says you can't stand closer than 2 feet from a person without their permission.

Now, if a law like that were passed there would be people that would say "that's a stupid law i'm going to violate it because it's stupid." And that's a perfectly understandable attitude. But my point is: why would I want to stand next to anyone who believes in a stupid law like that, and would want to enforce it? Why would you want to even listen to music made by someone that believes in that system that you don't? It seems rather hypocritical to me.

Good.

I can't tell whether you are agreeing with me or mocking me.

Exactly.

Also, if we don't cut the hearts out of human sacrifices at the top of a pyramid, then the sun will stop rising and spring will never come.

That's not any world I'd want to live in.

Why is that immoral?  You believe people must necessarily trade their time for money?
If that were true, no one would move up in the world, we would all be "wage slaves"

If you create something that stands the test of time, and are able to successfully
market it on an ongoing basis, why shouldn't you be allowed to keep doing so?

The idea of doing something once and then being paid multiple time over for decades after - and with no further effort on the part of the originator - is immoral in my opinion.

The article failed the "Can they talk about Bitcoin without a photo of Casascius coins?" test.  Didn't read.  Already know the answer..

No room for debate, GTFOH.

Who is going to pay people to create music, books, and software
If anyone can copy it for free?  

There will be no professional authors, musicians, or programmers
under your model.  That's not any world I'd want to live in.

This kind of begs a question. Do we own what we make? If you wrote a song would you have the right to ask for payment for someone else to downlad it? Or is intellectual property owned by society? To assume it is owned by society kind of makes the original author an intellectual slave does it not?

This is a very simple concept, even a child could understand it. Let me help you deprogram your brainwashing: Copying is not theft.

I'm so sorry. I realize this must be painful for you (unlearning lies always is), but there is really zero room for debate here. You're wrong. Accept it and move on.

Because the world will, and if you won't, you will be mercilessly left behind in the information age. Just like theists were in the scientific age. Yes, theists are still around today. And capitalists will still be around tomorrow.

But you'll be a laughing stock. Mocked and derided at every turn by enlightened, free-thinking people who will know that intellectual slavery is as much an ethical abomination as the physical sort.

Have you prepared your mind for this outcome ?

Agree, long term would not work, just like marijuana prohibition is now crumbling.
But it would be a major setback.

Disagree on the stance of digital files.  What you call "sharing" I call "theft".
Artists have a right to get a fair price for their work.  I don't see how you
can call for universal rights for basic living necessities while undermining
the means to earn money... unless you just flat out admit being a communist,
in which case your view would at least be internally consistent.

Making bitcoin illegal may work in some parts of the world for a short period of time, but long term this draconian strategy will prove to be both politically unviable and technically impossible to enforce.

Ditto banning digital culture sharing ("piracy" being the ignorant capitalist slander term).