Topic: Why was USA Senate so friendly to Bitcoin? - page 2. (Read 3720 times)
It is very simple: A government could benefit hugely from bitcoin and erase their national debt by investing in bitcoins first and sell the coins to peoples in other countries later
We must understand that almost anyone born before 1964 can not possibly understand the tremendous potential of virtual currencies. (My apologies to those that do).
As the younger generation to comes into power in business and government we will see this type of technology fully adopted.
Who was born before 1964, has two thumbs, and is an all-in hodlor? This Guy! d[ o_0 ]b As the younger generation to comes into power in business and government we will see this type of technology fully adopted.
We must understand that almost anyone born before 1964 can not possibly understand the tremendous potential of virtual currencies. (My apologies to those that do).
As the younger generation to comes into power in business and government we will see this type of technology fully adopted.
As the younger generation to comes into power in business and government we will see this type of technology fully adopted.
I wasn't born before 1964, however, I don't agree. I have not seen any difference at all whatsoever in explaining bitcoin to a gray hair as opposed to a SnapChatter. If anything, Gray Hairs are far more likely to have an interest and the light go on, from what i have gathered. I do think Gray hairs are more likely to have a red light go off as well and avoid it all together.
That is encouraging. But is has not been my experience.
Regarding legality FinCEN included the term "or other value that substitutes for currency" to include virtual currency so even if you are trading on Cryptsy that is money transmission according to US law.
.... the senate was quiet and smiley because they know that their regulators are out there stabbing it in the back to death on a daily basis ....
watch what they do, not what they say.
watch what they do, not what they say.
ok what are regulators doing in the usa regarding bitcoin?
... so far we've had pre-emptive seizure of Gox funds (main exchange), cease and desist orders, industry-wide subpoenas in State of NY, warning letters from FinCEN (makes me wonder if any of the mega banks ever got warning letters, cease 'n desist or subpoenas for sub-prime CDO mark-to-model accounting?), banks severing business without warning or reasons offered may also be due to regulator pressure ... and probably more ... but most of the original entrepreneurs in bitcoin space have given up on US, the only ones playing now seem to be able to 'know' how to grease the palm of the regulators to keep their doors open
I always understood any actions so far from the USA government have been warranted issues about laundering, crime, et cetera. I am relatively new and haven't researched all of these events, but keeping USD/BTC exchanges in line with standard banking laws would make sense to me. Just because it is BTC doesn't mean you can ignore existing law with regard USD.
I haven't seen anything yet from the USA that suggests they are truly fearful of this as a currency, yet those in the know most certainly would be.
We must understand that almost anyone born before 1964 can not possibly understand the tremendous potential of virtual currencies. (My apologies to those that do).
As the younger generation to comes into power in business and government we will see this type of technology fully adopted.
As the younger generation to comes into power in business and government we will see this type of technology fully adopted.
I wasn't born before 1964, however, I don't agree. I have not seen any difference at all whatsoever in explaining bitcoin to a gray hair as opposed to a SnapChatter. If anything, Gray Hairs are far more likely to have an interest and the light go on, from what i have gathered. I do think Gray hairs are more likely to have a red light go off as well and avoid it all together.
Quote
3. Those that consult the Senate are completely corrupt with their insider trading, financial instrument inventions, and back door dealings. So those consulting the Senate are poised to profit from Bitcoin success in some way. Coupled with Senate elect stupidity and they are easily lured into positive statements and a laissez-faire attitude.
I'm going with this option, they're that greedy it's actually working in our favour, think about it as well, because of Bitcoin being very difficult to trace by government authorities they're going to be able to take all kinds of political donations and bribes without anybody knowing about it, it's simply too good for them to outlaw. The only person who actually wants to have free market currency competition in the whole government I suspect is Ron Paul, the rest of them are looking at it because it's a new way of making money.
^(what are you still doing here BCB, talking like a paedophile?)
Slightly.... I think that the government organisations must realise that if only one country refuses to play ball on treating bitcoin harshly, then they're trying to hold back the tide. I think the Japanese have proved this with allowing Mt Gox to run for so long. Bitcoin would have been seriously weakened if Mt Gox had been taken out of business in the early days. Instead, they expanded into offering 16 different major currencies. That's a serious middle finger to any other government or political figures who might want to slow down bitcoin take-up.
So, bearing in mind you can't beat this thing, the best option is just to embrace it. Reluctantly. And so you shut down all the homegrown startups who aren't in with the in-crowd, and allow existing corporations to take over running bitcoin service companies. Which is broadly what's happened. I expect someone like Bitpay or Coinbase have had good political connections from the start, or now have some new lawyers and board members.
Am I naive to think that the Senate believes that expanded jobs and business based around cryptocurrency technology could be good for the U.S. (lower unemployment, more tax revenue)? And that politicians don't want to see all the business, talent, and capital associated with Bitcoin go to countries with more favorable attitudes? And perhaps they are able to recognize the parallels to the early days of the internet, and the see how well that worked out (for commerce and spying)?
Slightly.... I think that the government organisations must realise that if only one country refuses to play ball on treating bitcoin harshly, then they're trying to hold back the tide. I think the Japanese have proved this with allowing Mt Gox to run for so long. Bitcoin would have been seriously weakened if Mt Gox had been taken out of business in the early days. Instead, they expanded into offering 16 different major currencies. That's a serious middle finger to any other government or political figures who might want to slow down bitcoin take-up.
So, bearing in mind you can't beat this thing, the best option is just to embrace it. Reluctantly. And so you shut down all the homegrown startups who aren't in with the in-crowd, and allow existing corporations to take over running bitcoin service companies. Which is broadly what's happened. I expect someone like Bitpay or Coinbase have had good political connections from the start, or now have some new lawyers and board members.
I'll just leave this here.
The next Steve Jobs may be reading:
“Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.”
The next Steve Jobs may be reading:
“Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.”
We must understand that almost anyone born before 1964 can not possibly understand the tremendous potential of virtual currencies. (My apologies to those that do).
As the younger generation to comes into power in business and government we will see this type of technology fully adopted.
As the younger generation to comes into power in business and government we will see this type of technology fully adopted.
#7. Most people in government are still normal, thoughtful and open-minded. The hearing wasn't a "love fest" but was instead a balanced discussion about a powerful and exciting new technology.
Am I naive to think that the Senate believes that expanded jobs and business based around cryptocurrency technology could be good for the U.S. (lower unemployment, more tax revenue)? And that politicians don't want to see all the business, talent, and capital associated with Bitcoin go to countries with more favorable attitudes? And perhaps they are able to recognize the parallels to the early days of the internet, and the see how well that worked out (for commerce and spying)?
That is a complicated question. As a political issue of course Legislators are considered about tax revenue, unemployment and consumer protection.
Unfortunately the regulators do not care about this. Read the senate testimony. Then are on the record as saying that any benefit gained from moving a business off shore will be short lived as other countries will catch up the the level of US regulation. And we have already seen this most recently in China and India.
.... the senate was quiet and smiley because they know that their regulators are out there stabbing it in the back to death on a daily basis ....
watch what they do, not what they say.
watch what they do, not what they say.
ok what are regulators doing in the usa regarding bitcoin?
... so far we've had pre-emptive seizure of Gox funds (main exchange), cease and desist orders, industry-wide subpoenas in State of NY, warning letters from FinCEN (makes me wonder if any of the mega banks ever got warning letters, cease 'n desist or subpoenas for sub-prime CDO mark-to-model accounting?), banks severing business without warning or reasons offered may also be due to regulator pressure ... and probably more ... but most of the original entrepreneurs in bitcoin space have given up on US, the only ones playing now seem to be able to 'know' how to grease the palm of the regulators to keep their doors open
Am I naive to think that the Senate believes that expanded jobs and business based around cryptocurrency technology could be good for the U.S. (lower unemployment, more tax revenue)? And that politicians don't want to see all the business, talent, and capital associated with Bitcoin go to countries with more favorable attitudes? And perhaps they are able to recognize the parallels to the early days of the internet, and the see how well that worked out (for commerce and spying)?
Wanna know why the DC reception was so "receptive"?
read this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/11/21/heres-how-bitcoin-charmed-washington/
It chronicles Patrick Murck and the Bitcoin Foundations maneuvering in Washington leading up to the hearings.
And know that "BITCOIN A Primer for Policymakers" by BY JERRY BRITO AND ANDREA CASTILLO of the Mercatus Center was distributed to every legislator and government regulator prior to the hearings.
http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Brito_BitcoinPrimer_embargoed.pdf
read this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/11/21/heres-how-bitcoin-charmed-washington/
It chronicles Patrick Murck and the Bitcoin Foundations maneuvering in Washington leading up to the hearings.
And know that "BITCOIN A Primer for Policymakers" by BY JERRY BRITO AND ANDREA CASTILLO of the Mercatus Center was distributed to every legislator and government regulator prior to the hearings.
http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Brito_BitcoinPrimer_embargoed.pdf
.... the senate was quiet and smiley because they know that their regulators are out there stabbing it in the back to death on a daily basis ....
watch what they do, not what they say.
watch what they do, not what they say.
ok what are regulators doing in the usa regarding bitcoin?
.... the senate was quiet and smiley because they know that their regulators are out there stabbing it in the back to death on a daily basis ....
watch what they do, not what they say.
watch what they do, not what they say.
Maybe they know that NSA spying is coming to an end and those supercomputers will have to be re-purposed. SUPERMINERS!
If the government wanted to destroy bitcoin, they would. Stuxnet is the best example of nefarious government intervention (USA or otherwise). The mayhem they could unleash would be underestimated by anyone in this community by an order of 100.
This isn't a new topic. Bitcoin is worldwide. There is so far no plausible way to get rid of it short of politicians worldwide agreeing to make it illegal, and even that would only drive it underground.Being an underground currency would reduce the upside of Bitcoin by 100 fold.
If being a black market currency is the Bitcoin end game then I would jump out now as we are in for slower growth and in my opinion limited up side.
I am not sure how everyone seems to be so comfortable that Bitcoin is now past some magical point where it is now and will forever be a legitimate asset in the eyes of government. China should have had a bigger impact on the market than it has in my opinion, unless I am missing something. How would any world power simply step aside and let Bitcoin become the base currency of the world?
If the government wanted to destroy bitcoin, they would. Stuxnet is the best example of nefarious government intervention (USA or otherwise). The mayhem they could unleash would be underestimated by anyone in this community by an order of 100.
This isn't a new topic. Bitcoin is worldwide. There is so far no plausible way to get rid of it short of politicians worldwide agreeing to make it illegal, and even that would only drive it underground.Being an underground currency would reduce the upside of Bitcoin by 100 fold.
If the government wanted to destroy bitcoin, they would. Stuxnet is the best example of nefarious government intervention (USA or otherwise). The mayhem they could unleash would be underestimated by anyone in this community by an order of 100.
This isn't a new topic. Bitcoin is worldwide. There is so far no plausible way to get rid of it short of politicians worldwide agreeing to make it illegal, and even that would only drive it underground.Being an underground currency would reduce the upside of Bitcoin by 100 fold.
Jump to: