4 ms·

"It's until one-two major governments decides to make it illegal to deal in bit-coins..." I don't know about other governments, but I doubt the US will ever de

by mrb 14y ago

"It's until one-two major governments decides to make it illegal to deal in bit-coins..." I don't know about other governments, but I doubt the US will ever declare Bitcoin illegal (though I am told to never say never). Supporting my viewpoint, the US Treasury Department, through FinCEN, has recently tacitly approved Bitcoin: http://www.businessinsider.com/is-bitcoin-legal-2013-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/is-bitcoin-legal-2013-4 I think the US government would prefer to take the benefits of Bitcoin (startups springing up everywhere, taxable Bitcoin economic activity, etc), rather than banning it because the technology is used by a minority of users for illegal activity. "For one, because they don't like money systems they can not control" This is a broken argument. The US does not control the Euro, or Yen, etc, yet they do not make it illegal to trade in Euros/Yens within the borders.

rayiner 14y ago
You're fighting an uphill battle. On a deeply, delusionally paranoid hill.
- mrb 14y ago
  What a pessimist you are. I would not want to live in your world. In mine, in the hypothetical case we will need to fight for Bitcoin, we will, like we did against the SOPA bill. The government is made for the people. Don't you forget that.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    You misunderstand me. I meant it was an uphill battle to argue to all the paranoid people that the U.S. government has yet to outlaw trading in Yen, Euro, etc, even though it doesn't control those currencies either.
    - mrb 14y ago
      Ah, ok.
  - coldtea 14y ago
    >You misunderstand me. I meant it was an uphill battle to argue to all the paranoid people that the U.S. government has yet to outlaw trading in Yen, Euro, etc, even though it doesn't control those currencies either. What exactly gave you the right to call me "paranoid"? The fact that I said the US might ban the Bitcoin? For one, the Bitcoin is NOT like the Euro or the Yen at all. It doesn't have any government to back it, and it has properties that make it not very likable to any large government. Banning bitcoin wont be like banning Euro or the Yen, which are legitimate, sovereign national currencies. It would be like banning or freezing assets in off-shore accounts (which governments have been known to do). Or like banning the private buying of gold (which the US had done, from 1933 to mid-seventies: "Executive Order 6102 is an Executive Order signed on April 5, 1933, by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt "forbidding the Hoarding of Gold Coin, Gold Bullion, and Gold Certificates within the continental United States". The order criminalized the possession of monetary gold by any individual, partnership, association or corporation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 Private / alternative currencies have been banned in several cases all over the world. One example from Wikipedia: In Australia, the Bank Notes Tax Act of 1910 practically shut down the circulation of private currencies by imposing a prohibitive tax on the practice. It was later repealed and a fine imposed for private currencies (Commonwealth Bank Act 1945). Many other nations have similar such policies to eliminate private sector competition. Or: The co-operative society Jord Arbejde Kapital was founded in Denmark during the Great Depression in 1931. The society issued a popular local currency which was subsequently outlawed by the Danish government in 1933. Not to mention that the whole idea that the US doesn't care at all about Yen and Euros is flawed BS. The US would very much like to keep the dollar unthreatened as the "golden world standard". But those currencies belong to very large economies and countries for the US to be able to do anything about it. Not to mention that the Yen is tied to the dollar in intricate ways nowadays (Chinese own trillions of it). Still, when any third world or developing country expresses a desire to do business in Euros (something that happened oftentimes before the Euro crisis), the US exerts as much political and diplomatic pressure as it can to have them revert course. So, using the fact that the US does not ban the Yen and the Euro as an "argument" why it cannot ban bitcoin? Really, not the very best in informed thinking. To call one "paranoid" about arguing the possibility of the bitcoin ban? Even worse (and rude to top). You might as well say that since the US hasn't entered a war with China or EU, it will never enter a war with a terrorist group operating outside any government. Seeing that China and EU are huge countries/unions, whereas the Bitcoin community is just an ad-hoc random assembly of people investing on an alternative monetary system.
coldtea 14y ago
>This is a broken argument. The US does not control the Euro, or Yen, etc, yet they do not make it illegal to trade in Euros/Yens within the borders. They don't, but that's because Euros/Yens are backed by foreign governments that would mind this on a diplomatic level. Bitcoin is a much easier target. And most governments would agree to work together on banning it. Also: the US might not "make it illegal to trade in Euros/Yens" but it does whatever it can to keep the Euro/Yen down. Especially before Euro got itself in trouble anyway. If any small country attempts to do mass business in Euros for example (e.g selling petrol in the currency), the US puts all of their diplomatic (and sometimes military) pressure on them to revert back to using the dollar. >I think the US government would prefer to take the benefits of Bitcoin (startups springing up everywhere, taxable Bitcoin economic activity, etc) Not very appealing advantages. For one, the government doesn't care for "startups springing up everywhere", it mostly caters to established big corporate interests that can afford lobbying. Second, the bitcoin economic activity will not be any more taxable than conventional economic activity. Actually, it would be even less. Plus, if bitcoin is banned, its economic activity will just migrate to conventional money again, it wont be lost. Third, the US government needs to be able to print (inflated) money at will -- something which bitcoin doesn't allow.
- knowaveragejoe 14y ago
  I'd love to see these startups springing up everywhere solely because of bitcoin :)
  - MacsHeadroom 14y ago
    Coinbase, BitPay, BitSpend, BitcoinStore, CoinLab, etc. etc.
- mrb 14y ago
  "They don't, but that's because Euros/Yens are backed by foreign governments". No, that is not the reason. Replace "Euros/Yens" with "gold" in my sentence, and my point stands with gold being backed by nothing. Basically the US government is totally fine with side markets that they cannot control directly and that exist in parallel with the USD (whether it is EUR, gold, Bitcoin, whatever). Your other argument also fails to convince me that the government would want to declare Bitcoin illegal. You say it can be used for money laundering, but gold and cash can already be used for money laundering (and even more discreetly since trading gold or cash does not leave a trail like in the Bitcoin blockchain). The US govt does not make gold and cash illegal because they realize it is silly/unenforcable/pointless and would hurt the economy more than it would manage reducing illegal activity. Case in point: the US did attempt to criminalize possession of gold in 1933, but they eventually realized how silly and stupid this was, so they decriminalized it! When the Internet was being developed throughout the world, were you the kind of person who looked at it and envisioned that its censorship-resistant decentralized aspect could be used to facilitate the transmission of potentially illegal information (software, data, child porn, ideas, etc, especially in countries with no freedom of speech) and said "geesh I bet governments are going to make Internet illegal"? "For one, the government doesn't care for 'startups springing up everywhere'" I think my point was clear that these startups are potentially the start of a big new economy complementing the current one that could financially benefit the government with revenues from taxes. So, yes, the government would love to see a big economy pop up. "Plus, if bitcoin is banned, its economic activity will just migrate to conventional money again, it wont be lost." No. The world economy is not a zero-sum game. It is possible to create wealth (wealth is stuff we want, not money, see http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html ) and Bitcoin and its economy would certainly create extra wealth. Another example showing how silly your assumption that the economy is a zero-sum game is: since the start of e-commerce, do you think that it has stolen commerce from or mostly added to the brick-and-mortar industry? Obviously, sometimes stolen (journals, etc) but e-commerce has mostly added wealth and economic activity on top of the brick-and-mortar one. In other word the size and richness and wealth of the current economy far surpases the one of the economy pre-Internet.
brc 14y ago
Marijuana and heroin were both legal in the USA at one point. Heroin itself is (was?) a trademarked brandname. My point being that governments will allow somethign up until the point that a group of politicians either see a threat or some votes in banning it.

by mrb 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago

You're fighting an uphill battle. On a deeply, delusionally paranoid hill.

mrb 14y ago
What a pessimist you are. I would not want to live in your world. In mine, in the hypothetical case we will need to fight for Bitcoin, we will, like we did against the SOPA bill. The government is made for the people. Don't you forget that.
- rayiner 14y ago
  You misunderstand me. I meant it was an uphill battle to argue to all the paranoid people that the U.S. government has yet to outlaw trading in Yen, Euro, etc, even though it doesn't control those currencies either.
  - mrb 14y ago
    Ah, ok.
- coldtea 14y ago
  >You misunderstand me. I meant it was an uphill battle to argue to all the paranoid people that the U.S. government has yet to outlaw trading in Yen, Euro, etc, even though it doesn't control those currencies either. What exactly gave you the right to call me "paranoid"? The fact that I said the US might ban the Bitcoin? For one, the Bitcoin is NOT like the Euro or the Yen at all. It doesn't have any government to back it, and it has properties that make it not very likable to any large government. Banning bitcoin wont be like banning Euro or the Yen, which are legitimate, sovereign national currencies. It would be like banning or freezing assets in off-shore accounts (which governments have been known to do). Or like banning the private buying of gold (which the US had done, from 1933 to mid-seventies: "Executive Order 6102 is an Executive Order signed on April 5, 1933, by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt "forbidding the Hoarding of Gold Coin, Gold Bullion, and Gold Certificates within the continental United States". The order criminalized the possession of monetary gold by any individual, partnership, association or corporation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 Private / alternative currencies have been banned in several cases all over the world. One example from Wikipedia: In Australia, the Bank Notes Tax Act of 1910 practically shut down the circulation of private currencies by imposing a prohibitive tax on the practice. It was later repealed and a fine imposed for private currencies (Commonwealth Bank Act 1945). Many other nations have similar such policies to eliminate private sector competition. Or: The co-operative society Jord Arbejde Kapital was founded in Denmark during the Great Depression in 1931. The society issued a popular local currency which was subsequently outlawed by the Danish government in 1933. Not to mention that the whole idea that the US doesn't care at all about Yen and Euros is flawed BS. The US would very much like to keep the dollar unthreatened as the "golden world standard". But those currencies belong to very large economies and countries for the US to be able to do anything about it. Not to mention that the Yen is tied to the dollar in intricate ways nowadays (Chinese own trillions of it). Still, when any third world or developing country expresses a desire to do business in Euros (something that happened oftentimes before the Euro crisis), the US exerts as much political and diplomatic pressure as it can to have them revert course. So, using the fact that the US does not ban the Yen and the Euro as an "argument" why it cannot ban bitcoin? Really, not the very best in informed thinking. To call one "paranoid" about arguing the possibility of the bitcoin ban? Even worse (and rude to top). You might as well say that since the US hasn't entered a war with China or EU, it will never enter a war with a terrorist group operating outside any government. Seeing that China and EU are huge countries/unions, whereas the Bitcoin community is just an ad-hoc random assembly of people investing on an alternative monetary system.

coldtea 14y ago

>This is a broken argument. The US does not control the Euro, or Yen, etc, yet they do not make it illegal to trade in Euros/Yens within the borders. They don't, but that's because Euros/Yens are backed by foreign governments that would mind this on a diplomatic level. Bitcoin is a much easier target. And most governments would agree to work together on banning it. Also: the US might not "make it illegal to trade in Euros/Yens" but it does whatever it can to keep the Euro/Yen down. Especially before Euro got itself in trouble anyway. If any small country attempts to do mass business in Euros for example (e.g selling petrol in the currency), the US puts all of their diplomatic (and sometimes military) pressure on them to revert back to using the dollar. >I think the US government would prefer to take the benefits of Bitcoin (startups springing up everywhere, taxable Bitcoin economic activity, etc) Not very appealing advantages. For one, the government doesn't care for "startups springing up everywhere", it mostly caters to established big corporate interests that can afford lobbying. Second, the bitcoin economic activity will not be any more taxable than conventional economic activity. Actually, it would be even less. Plus, if bitcoin is banned, its economic activity will just migrate to conventional money again, it wont be lost. Third, the US government needs to be able to print (inflated) money at will -- something which bitcoin doesn't allow.

knowaveragejoe 14y ago
I'd love to see these startups springing up everywhere solely because of bitcoin :)
- MacsHeadroom 14y ago
  Coinbase, BitPay, BitSpend, BitcoinStore, CoinLab, etc. etc.
mrb 14y ago
"They don't, but that's because Euros/Yens are backed by foreign governments". No, that is not the reason. Replace "Euros/Yens" with "gold" in my sentence, and my point stands with gold being backed by nothing. Basically the US government is totally fine with side markets that they cannot control directly and that exist in parallel with the USD (whether it is EUR, gold, Bitcoin, whatever). Your other argument also fails to convince me that the government would want to declare Bitcoin illegal. You say it can be used for money laundering, but gold and cash can already be used for money laundering (and even more discreetly since trading gold or cash does not leave a trail like in the Bitcoin blockchain). The US govt does not make gold and cash illegal because they realize it is silly/unenforcable/pointless and would hurt the economy more than it would manage reducing illegal activity. Case in point: the US did attempt to criminalize possession of gold in 1933, but they eventually realized how silly and stupid this was, so they decriminalized it! When the Internet was being developed throughout the world, were you the kind of person who looked at it and envisioned that its censorship-resistant decentralized aspect could be used to facilitate the transmission of potentially illegal information (software, data, child porn, ideas, etc, especially in countries with no freedom of speech) and said "geesh I bet governments are going to make Internet illegal"? "For one, the government doesn't care for 'startups springing up everywhere'" I think my point was clear that these startups are potentially the start of a big new economy complementing the current one that could financially benefit the government with revenues from taxes. So, yes, the government would love to see a big economy pop up. "Plus, if bitcoin is banned, its economic activity will just migrate to conventional money again, it wont be lost." No. The world economy is not a zero-sum game. It is possible to create wealth (wealth is stuff we want, not money, see http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html ) and Bitcoin and its economy would certainly create extra wealth. Another example showing how silly your assumption that the economy is a zero-sum game is: since the start of e-commerce, do you think that it has stolen commerce from or mostly added to the brick-and-mortar industry? Obviously, sometimes stolen (journals, etc) but e-commerce has mostly added wealth and economic activity on top of the brick-and-mortar one. In other word the size and richness and wealth of the current economy far surpases the one of the economy pre-Internet.

brc 14y ago

Marijuana and heroin were both legal in the USA at one point. Heroin itself is (was?) a trademarked brandname. My point being that governments will allow somethign up until the point that a group of politicians either see a threat or some votes in banning it.