13 ms·

Every important person in BitCoin just got subpoenaed by NY financial regulators

324 points by martin_ 13y ago

aspensmonster 13y ago
Well, my own submission just got [dead]ed --no indication as to why-- but I'll paste my comment here as well: I know very little about Bitcoin or money transmission laws. Unlike other currencies it does not seem to have fundamental dependence on any centralized arbiter, though the practicalities of large exchanges like Mt. Gox seem apparent to me. That lack of dependence on a Fed-like body appears to me like its biggest advantage, above any other potential for anonymous payment and laundering. I'd like to know what exactly is entailed in becoming compliant with money transmitting and laundering regulations and whether Bitcoin in its current form could become effectively compliant. Is that even a meaningful concept, or does the structure of Bitcoin fundamentally preclude coming into effective compliance? [dead]ed submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6201643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6201643
- pyre 13y ago
  > whether Bitcoin in its current form could become effectively compliant Why couldn't it be? The entire transaction history of a wallet is preserved into the future. As soon as you correlate a BitCoin wallet with a person, you have their entire history with that wallet. It seems more like a government's wet dream than anything else.
  - lubos 13y ago
    ehm, no. you can create brand new wallet for each transaction and wallet on its own is not connected to your real identity in any way. it's more like government's worst nightmare.
    - pkinsky 13y ago
      As I understand it, if you want to receive bitcoins with wallet A and send those same bitcoins with wallet B, you would need to transfer said bitcoins from wallet A to B. And each transfer is recorded in the blockchain.
      - A1kmm 13y ago
        This is correct. However, it is difficult to prove that A and B (or perhaps every wallet in some long chain) are owned by the same person, especially if everyone has a large number of wallets and doesn't reuse them when they are empty. Let's say the blockcoin shows a transfer of 1 BTC to a new wallet A, and then to a new wallet B, and then from B to a wallet owned by a registered BTC-USD exchange C; to comply with government regulations and protect themselves against fraud, C checks the ID of the owner of the wallet B. A government can now determine the identity of B (and might even force C to provide the information on all transactions in real time, so they know who B is even without an investigation), but they cannot automatically infer the identity of A. There are two possibilities: Perhaps A is owned by a different person, who earned BitCoin for doing some work, and then purchased another service from B. Or perhaps A and B are owned by the same person. In reality, this might not be the only piece of information available, and governments will probably want to use statistical techniques to estimate the probability that a particular address is owned by a particular person, combining all evidence. They will likely take into account all points where money comes into or leaves a wallet with known identity (e.g. in USD -> BTC transactions or BTC -> USD transactions), and the structure of the network between those transactions. For example, suppose wallet A, B, and C are known to be owned by the same person, and someone moves money from all those wallets into wallet D. Then governments will probably infer that D is owned, with high probability, by the same person as wallet D (because multiple low probability pieces of evidence can combine to give a higher probability). Of course, the transactions are not independent, because the owner of A, B, and C might just be a regular customer of D - timing evidence might be taken into account, along with other evidence about the identity of D (for example, does D only receive money from the owner of A, B, and C, or from other sources? Where does the money go after that)?
        jonknee 13y ago
    - rayiner 13y ago
      It's more traceable than cash, less than bank accounts.
- hyperplane 13y ago
  "I'd like to know what exactly is entailed in becoming compliant with money transmitting and laundering regulations." This. Someone with more understanding of financial regulation, please step in and explain what it is the government would actually want from the currency. This sounds scary to some extent but there's no real reason that it needs to be. I assume it is to enforce real-world identities at the USD/BTC exchange point.
  - thinkcomp 13y ago
    http://www.thinkcomputer.com/corporate/whitepapers/heldhostage.pdf http://www.thinkcomputer.com/corporate/whitepapers/heldhosta... is a good place to start.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Financial regulations have little do to with the Fed. They apply to transactions in money, not money itself. It doesn't matter whether the transactions are denominated in USD or Euros, and now apparently Bitcoin. It's not meaningful to ask whether Bitcoin could become compliant. Bitcoin exchanges and processors could become compliant. This means having in place systems to detect money laundering, etc. it might be even easier in Bitcoin, given how much transaction state is stored in a distributed fashion forever.
- gamblor956 13y ago
  The government doesn't want anything with the currency. It couldn't care less. The government is concerned with the businesses that transmit or transact the currency. Money transmittal laws vary from state to state and country to country. The exact requirements thus depend on the very specific circumstances of the business at issue.
runarb 13y ago
Looks like the price of Bitcoins just made a good jump at https://www.mtgox.com/ https://www.mtgox.com/ . Are speculants thinking that if the us government are geting involved it validates Bitcoin further? Edit: Screenshot of the jump: http://i.imgur.com/G5Dk7Nh.png http://i.imgur.com/G5Dk7Nh.png
- phreeza 13y ago
  possibly also something more along the lines of 'anything that keeps bitcoin in the news is good news', keeping up the influx of new people wanting to try bitcoin.
- drcode 13y ago
  All publicity is good publicity.
- pmorici 13y ago
  mtgox isn't an accurate measure of the real price of BitCoin right now. Since all USD withdrawals are effectively shut down the USD price on Mt. Gox is artificially high right now.
pnathan 13y ago
Unpopular opinion of the day: bitcoin is real money, and the government will regulate it and control it as such. In my opinion, the end-game is this: bitcoin addresses are taxable, with occasional tax agents spot-checking large accumulations of bitcoin to determine if said addresses fall within their jurisdiction. Bitcoin has the unusual ability to have a very tight trace on where a given virtual coin goes: that just makes the ability to watch the money easier.
- rayiner 13y ago
  I don't know why this should be unpopular, except among people who see the Internet as a new Wild West. The basic advantage of Bitcoin, that its controlled by an algorithm rather than a central bank, exists whether or not financial regulations apply to Bitcoin. Does it destroy the utility of a crypto currency for exchanges and processors to be required to detect e.g. money laundering?
  - antitrust 13y ago
    > the Internet as a new Wild West I thought that idea died, was buried, exhumed, and reburied back in 1996.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      I don't think it's dead. I think a lot of people romanticize things like Bitcoin as being part of a world that's lawless relative to the real one. And as hackers, it's one where the lack of order favors them, just as the lack of order in the Wild West favored those with the most horses and guns.
      - _delirium 13y ago
        I'm not sure that analogy plays out well for hackers in the long term. Ultimately, the wild west was not won by cowboys with some horses and guns, but large-scale ranchers with title to hundreds of thousands of acres. The cowboys may still have movies made about them, but the likes of King Ranch came out on top economically.
JasonTodd 13y ago
they better not fuck up the drug trade. I need my fucking drugs
cperciva 13y ago
Based on the title, I was hoping Satoshi Nakamoto had been subpoenaed.
- wmf 13y ago
  Maybe he's just dodging the process server.
marshallford 13y ago
The issue of bitcoins vs IRS combined with the recent news about the NSA actually scares me. Why does the Gov feel the need to control us?
stfu 13y ago
Finally - New York is going after financial criminals! Oh wait a minute... In related news last Friday the Justice Department had to admit that the success numbers Eric Holder trumpeted on mortgage fraud were massive overstated - by 80 percent. The government restated the statistics because it got caught red-handed by a couple of nosy reporters. Priorities... [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-11/eric-holder-owes-the-american-people-an-apology.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-11/eric-holder-owes-th...
mintplant 13y ago
This worries me more about other virtual currencies (eg. "game" money) than it does about Bitcoin. The last time something like this happened because of Bitcoin (FinCEN), Linden Lab forced the closure of all third-party Linden$ exchanges [1] to cover itself legally. Those were very scary times for everyone involved in Second Life. As someone who does business in Linden$ et al, I (selfishly) wish the media hype around Bitcoin would simmer down, lest my own life become a lot more complicated. The way these government announcements always refer to cracking down on "virtual currencies" in general is very disconcerting, especially when the term is so hazily defined. [1] http://blog.nalates.net/2013/05/08/end-of-linden-exchanges/ http://blog.nalates.net/2013/05/08/end-of-linden-exchanges/
pmorici 13y ago
"the department says it wants to make sure Bitcoin company customers’ funds are “safe and sound,” expressing concern about consumer complaints “about how quickly virtual currency transactions are processed.”" So, are they saying there are complaints that the transactions are processed too quickly? Because I've never had a BitCoin transaction take more than an hour or so to complete where as my regular bank routinely takes about 3 business days. Makes you wonder what their motivations are.
- josho 13y ago
  It's doublespeak for we are taking an interest in this burgeoning opportunity and will likely be adding requirements to exchanges that will help to limit fraud, and ensure that the government gets whatever tax revenue they are obligated. Frankly, I see it as the powerful interests (banks/gov) taking their first step to assert their control of the new market. Someone less pessimistic may feel this is a good measure to ensure that something good will stay good by helping to keep fraud out of this new system.
- rsynnott 13y ago
  I suspect they're talking more about conversion (see MtGox's perennial problems with withdrawing real money, and recently even bitcoins).
bpd1069 13y ago
Was interested to see how many posts were going to discuss the possibility of ban following Thailand. Not One. Is this not a real and probably outcome?
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  It wasn't banned in Thailand.
ganeumann 13y ago
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course the government cares about money, and of course it wants to control the money supply. And, as a consequence, the USA will never allow any major currency inside its borders other than the US dollar. The history of the United States is littered with the fights over who gets to determine what is money and how much of it there is: Hamilton's fight with Jefferson and Madison over the need for a central bank, Jackson during his run for the Presidency denouncing the central bank--and this becoming the main issue in the campaign, the popularity of Williams Jenning Bryan (cf. the famous "Cross of Gold" speech), etc. etc. all the way up to the horrible stagflation of the 1970s ("Whip Inflation Now!") and the recession caused by the ultimately successful efforts by Fed Chairman Paul Volcker's to end it. It is reasonable to believe--and certainly most people in the US government believe--that control of The Money is control of the economy. Why would any successful government ever voluntarily give up that control?
- kaonashi 13y ago
  > Why would any successful government ever voluntarily give up that control? They really can't give it up. It's the foundation of government: the ability to issue debt and place an obligation on citizens to offer their goods and services to acquire that debt to fulfill that obligation. Unless the U.S. decides to adopt debt note convertibility to bitcoins, there's really no way for bitcoins to supplant the dollar.
- cinquemb 13y ago
  I pretty much agree with what you are saying : Governments (and central banks) would never voluntarily give up the control they have now, especially when a currency is being exchanged for one they have control over. It is also interesting because bitcoin may be influenced by governments, but not issued by them nor central banks, which is already a fundamental difference in the battles that have come before. The amount of time/resources that will be spent to try to control something that was never in their control (like kind of along the same lines as government measures in Argentina), nor under the control of any single entity for that matter, will be extremely telling. As far as I'm concerned the writing is on the wall… what is going on now is just the ongoing manifestation of what is to come next. Not to mention that as more bitcoins are used/accepted by people in exchange for goods/services between individuals, governments will be and are increasingly being side stepped. It will be interesting to see this dynamic unfold more in places where (local) governments are becoming insolvent. Bitcoin is in no position to supplant the USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, RNB etc, because bitcoin operates in between them now. And as more people loose faith in their respective currencies but still want ways to exchange between other individuals for goods/services, bitcoin will increasingly operate as well in a realm of its own.
saltyknuckles 13y ago
Other unpopular opinion of the day: Ron Paul was right about competing currencies being infringed on.
pmorici 13y ago
Looks like this might be the least of BitCoin's government problems. Check out this appropriations bill currently before congress; http://beta.congress.gov/congressional-report/113th-congress/house-report/171/1 http://beta.congress.gov/congressional-report/113th-congress... Search for BitCoin in the text and you get the following gem... "Money laundering.--The Committee understands that Bitcoins and other forms of peer-to-peer digital currency are a potential means for criminal, terrorist or other illegal organizations and individuals to illegally launder and transfer money. News reports indicate that Bitcoins may have been used to help finance the flight and activity of fugitives. The Committee directs the FBI, in consultation with the Department and other Federal partners, to provide a briefing no later 120 days after the enactment of this Act on the nature and scale of the risk posed by such ersatz currency, both in financing illegal enterprises and in undermining financial institutions. The briefing should describe the FBI efforts in the context of a coordinated Federal response to this challenge, and identify staffing and other resources devoted to this effort." Talk about a prejudiced statement. Time to call your congress person.
- cLeEOGPw 13y ago
  This is not prejudiced at all. All it states, is that the committee UNDERSTANDS that cryptocurencies have the POTENTIAL to be used for money laundering, etc. It is true, it can be used, and is used for those means.
  - pmorici 13y ago
    Did you read the whole thing? They call it an 'ersatz' currency. Look up the word ersatz it has pretty negative connotations it's hardly a neutral statement.
samstave 13y ago
Explain why not a single banker has gone to prison from both the fraudulent foreclosure crisis and the 2008 wider banking crisis yet these fools all of a sudden want to regulate BTC? They can't even regulate the US dollar.
ducklamp 13y ago
In the end the Federal reserve will protect their monopoly on money. The more legitimate Bitcoin becomes, the more likely a target of Fed action.
nullc 13y ago
Good to know that _none_ of the technical people or authors of the software are important as far as NY is concerned! :P
e3pi 13y ago
Coincidentally today: Crypto-currency for NSA leaker: Snowden fund accepts Bitcoin Published time: August 12, 2013 14:51 US fugitive Edward Snowden’s defense fund, launched recently by WikiLeaks to raise money for the legal protection of the NSA leaker, has announced it now accepts donations in virtual currency Bitcoin. http://rt.com/news/bitcoin-snowden-fund-wikileaks-384/ http://rt.com/news/bitcoin-snowden-fund-wikileaks-384/
eddywebs 13y ago
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

324 points by martin_ 13y ago

Well, my own submission just got [dead]ed --no indication as to why-- but I'll paste my comment here as well: I know very little about Bitcoin or money transmission laws. Unlike other currencies it does not seem to have fundamental dependence on any centralized arbiter, though the practicalities of large exchanges like Mt. Gox seem apparent to me. That lack of dependence on a Fed-like body appears to me like its biggest advantage, above any other potential for anonymous payment and laundering. I'd like to know what exactly is entailed in becoming compliant with money transmitting and laundering regulations and whether Bitcoin in its current form could become effectively compliant. Is that even a meaningful concept, or does the structure of Bitcoin fundamentally preclude coming into effective compliance? [dead]ed submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6201643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6201643

pyre 13y ago
> whether Bitcoin in its current form could become effectively compliant Why couldn't it be? The entire transaction history of a wallet is preserved into the future. As soon as you correlate a BitCoin wallet with a person, you have their entire history with that wallet. It seems more like a government's wet dream than anything else.
- lubos 13y ago
  ehm, no. you can create brand new wallet for each transaction and wallet on its own is not connected to your real identity in any way. it's more like government's worst nightmare.
  - pkinsky 13y ago
    As I understand it, if you want to receive bitcoins with wallet A and send those same bitcoins with wallet B, you would need to transfer said bitcoins from wallet A to B. And each transfer is recorded in the blockchain.
    - A1kmm 13y ago
      This is correct. However, it is difficult to prove that A and B (or perhaps every wallet in some long chain) are owned by the same person, especially if everyone has a large number of wallets and doesn't reuse them when they are empty. Let's say the blockcoin shows a transfer of 1 BTC to a new wallet A, and then to a new wallet B, and then from B to a wallet owned by a registered BTC-USD exchange C; to comply with government regulations and protect themselves against fraud, C checks the ID of the owner of the wallet B. A government can now determine the identity of B (and might even force C to provide the information on all transactions in real time, so they know who B is even without an investigation), but they cannot automatically infer the identity of A. There are two possibilities: Perhaps A is owned by a different person, who earned BitCoin for doing some work, and then purchased another service from B. Or perhaps A and B are owned by the same person. In reality, this might not be the only piece of information available, and governments will probably want to use statistical techniques to estimate the probability that a particular address is owned by a particular person, combining all evidence. They will likely take into account all points where money comes into or leaves a wallet with known identity (e.g. in USD -> BTC transactions or BTC -> USD transactions), and the structure of the network between those transactions. For example, suppose wallet A, B, and C are known to be owned by the same person, and someone moves money from all those wallets into wallet D. Then governments will probably infer that D is owned, with high probability, by the same person as wallet D (because multiple low probability pieces of evidence can combine to give a higher probability). Of course, the transactions are not independent, because the owner of A, B, and C might just be a regular customer of D - timing evidence might be taken into account, along with other evidence about the identity of D (for example, does D only receive money from the owner of A, B, and C, or from other sources? Where does the money go after that)?
      - jonknee 13y ago
  - rayiner 13y ago
    It's more traceable than cash, less than bank accounts.
hyperplane 13y ago
"I'd like to know what exactly is entailed in becoming compliant with money transmitting and laundering regulations." This. Someone with more understanding of financial regulation, please step in and explain what it is the government would actually want from the currency. This sounds scary to some extent but there's no real reason that it needs to be. I assume it is to enforce real-world identities at the USD/BTC exchange point.
- thinkcomp 13y ago
  http://www.thinkcomputer.com/corporate/whitepapers/heldhostage.pdf http://www.thinkcomputer.com/corporate/whitepapers/heldhosta... is a good place to start.
rayiner 13y ago
Financial regulations have little do to with the Fed. They apply to transactions in money, not money itself. It doesn't matter whether the transactions are denominated in USD or Euros, and now apparently Bitcoin. It's not meaningful to ask whether Bitcoin could become compliant. Bitcoin exchanges and processors could become compliant. This means having in place systems to detect money laundering, etc. it might be even easier in Bitcoin, given how much transaction state is stored in a distributed fashion forever.
gamblor956 13y ago
The government doesn't want anything with the currency. It couldn't care less. The government is concerned with the businesses that transmit or transact the currency. Money transmittal laws vary from state to state and country to country. The exact requirements thus depend on the very specific circumstances of the business at issue.

runarb 13y ago

Looks like the price of Bitcoins just made a good jump at https://www.mtgox.com/ https://www.mtgox.com/ . Are speculants thinking that if the us government are geting involved it validates Bitcoin further? Edit: Screenshot of the jump: http://i.imgur.com/G5Dk7Nh.png http://i.imgur.com/G5Dk7Nh.png

phreeza 13y ago
possibly also something more along the lines of 'anything that keeps bitcoin in the news is good news', keeping up the influx of new people wanting to try bitcoin.
drcode 13y ago
All publicity is good publicity.
pmorici 13y ago
mtgox isn't an accurate measure of the real price of BitCoin right now. Since all USD withdrawals are effectively shut down the USD price on Mt. Gox is artificially high right now.

pnathan 13y ago

Unpopular opinion of the day: bitcoin is real money, and the government will regulate it and control it as such. In my opinion, the end-game is this: bitcoin addresses are taxable, with occasional tax agents spot-checking large accumulations of bitcoin to determine if said addresses fall within their jurisdiction. Bitcoin has the unusual ability to have a very tight trace on where a given virtual coin goes: that just makes the ability to watch the money easier.

rayiner 13y ago
I don't know why this should be unpopular, except among people who see the Internet as a new Wild West. The basic advantage of Bitcoin, that its controlled by an algorithm rather than a central bank, exists whether or not financial regulations apply to Bitcoin. Does it destroy the utility of a crypto currency for exchanges and processors to be required to detect e.g. money laundering?
- antitrust 13y ago
  > the Internet as a new Wild West I thought that idea died, was buried, exhumed, and reburied back in 1996.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    I don't think it's dead. I think a lot of people romanticize things like Bitcoin as being part of a world that's lawless relative to the real one. And as hackers, it's one where the lack of order favors them, just as the lack of order in the Wild West favored those with the most horses and guns.
    - _delirium 13y ago
      I'm not sure that analogy plays out well for hackers in the long term. Ultimately, the wild west was not won by cowboys with some horses and guns, but large-scale ranchers with title to hundreds of thousands of acres. The cowboys may still have movies made about them, but the likes of King Ranch came out on top economically.

JasonTodd 13y ago

they better not fuck up the drug trade. I need my fucking drugs

cperciva 13y ago

Based on the title, I was hoping Satoshi Nakamoto had been subpoenaed.

wmf 13y ago
Maybe he's just dodging the process server.

marshallford 13y ago

The issue of bitcoins vs IRS combined with the recent news about the NSA actually scares me. Why does the Gov feel the need to control us?

stfu 13y ago

Finally - New York is going after financial criminals! Oh wait a minute... In related news last Friday the Justice Department had to admit that the success numbers Eric Holder trumpeted on mortgage fraud were massive overstated - by 80 percent. The government restated the statistics because it got caught red-handed by a couple of nosy reporters. Priorities... [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-11/eric-holder-owes-the-american-people-an-apology.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-11/eric-holder-owes-th...

mintplant 13y ago

This worries me more about other virtual currencies (eg. "game" money) than it does about Bitcoin. The last time something like this happened because of Bitcoin (FinCEN), Linden Lab forced the closure of all third-party Linden$ exchanges [1] to cover itself legally. Those were very scary times for everyone involved in Second Life. As someone who does business in Linden$ et al, I (selfishly) wish the media hype around Bitcoin would simmer down, lest my own life become a lot more complicated. The way these government announcements always refer to cracking down on "virtual currencies" in general is very disconcerting, especially when the term is so hazily defined. [1] http://blog.nalates.net/2013/05/08/end-of-linden-exchanges/ http://blog.nalates.net/2013/05/08/end-of-linden-exchanges/

pmorici 13y ago

"the department says it wants to make sure Bitcoin company customers’ funds are “safe and sound,” expressing concern about consumer complaints “about how quickly virtual currency transactions are processed.”" So, are they saying there are complaints that the transactions are processed too quickly? Because I've never had a BitCoin transaction take more than an hour or so to complete where as my regular bank routinely takes about 3 business days. Makes you wonder what their motivations are.

josho 13y ago
It's doublespeak for we are taking an interest in this burgeoning opportunity and will likely be adding requirements to exchanges that will help to limit fraud, and ensure that the government gets whatever tax revenue they are obligated. Frankly, I see it as the powerful interests (banks/gov) taking their first step to assert their control of the new market. Someone less pessimistic may feel this is a good measure to ensure that something good will stay good by helping to keep fraud out of this new system.
rsynnott 13y ago
I suspect they're talking more about conversion (see MtGox's perennial problems with withdrawing real money, and recently even bitcoins).

bpd1069 13y ago

Was interested to see how many posts were going to discuss the possibility of ban following Thailand. Not One. Is this not a real and probably outcome?

waterlesscloud 13y ago
It wasn't banned in Thailand.

ganeumann 13y ago

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course the government cares about money, and of course it wants to control the money supply. And, as a consequence, the USA will never allow any major currency inside its borders other than the US dollar. The history of the United States is littered with the fights over who gets to determine what is money and how much of it there is: Hamilton's fight with Jefferson and Madison over the need for a central bank, Jackson during his run for the Presidency denouncing the central bank--and this becoming the main issue in the campaign, the popularity of Williams Jenning Bryan (cf. the famous "Cross of Gold" speech), etc. etc. all the way up to the horrible stagflation of the 1970s ("Whip Inflation Now!") and the recession caused by the ultimately successful efforts by Fed Chairman Paul Volcker's to end it. It is reasonable to believe--and certainly most people in the US government believe--that control of The Money is control of the economy. Why would any successful government ever voluntarily give up that control?

kaonashi 13y ago
> Why would any successful government ever voluntarily give up that control? They really can't give it up. It's the foundation of government: the ability to issue debt and place an obligation on citizens to offer their goods and services to acquire that debt to fulfill that obligation. Unless the U.S. decides to adopt debt note convertibility to bitcoins, there's really no way for bitcoins to supplant the dollar.
cinquemb 13y ago
I pretty much agree with what you are saying : Governments (and central banks) would never voluntarily give up the control they have now, especially when a currency is being exchanged for one they have control over. It is also interesting because bitcoin may be influenced by governments, but not issued by them nor central banks, which is already a fundamental difference in the battles that have come before. The amount of time/resources that will be spent to try to control something that was never in their control (like kind of along the same lines as government measures in Argentina), nor under the control of any single entity for that matter, will be extremely telling. As far as I'm concerned the writing is on the wall… what is going on now is just the ongoing manifestation of what is to come next. Not to mention that as more bitcoins are used/accepted by people in exchange for goods/services between individuals, governments will be and are increasingly being side stepped. It will be interesting to see this dynamic unfold more in places where (local) governments are becoming insolvent. Bitcoin is in no position to supplant the USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, RNB etc, because bitcoin operates in between them now. And as more people loose faith in their respective currencies but still want ways to exchange between other individuals for goods/services, bitcoin will increasingly operate as well in a realm of its own.

saltyknuckles 13y ago

Other unpopular opinion of the day: Ron Paul was right about competing currencies being infringed on.

pmorici 13y ago

Looks like this might be the least of BitCoin's government problems. Check out this appropriations bill currently before congress; http://beta.congress.gov/congressional-report/113th-congress/house-report/171/1 http://beta.congress.gov/congressional-report/113th-congress... Search for BitCoin in the text and you get the following gem... "Money laundering.--The Committee understands that Bitcoins and other forms of peer-to-peer digital currency are a potential means for criminal, terrorist or other illegal organizations and individuals to illegally launder and transfer money. News reports indicate that Bitcoins may have been used to help finance the flight and activity of fugitives. The Committee directs the FBI, in consultation with the Department and other Federal partners, to provide a briefing no later 120 days after the enactment of this Act on the nature and scale of the risk posed by such ersatz currency, both in financing illegal enterprises and in undermining financial institutions. The briefing should describe the FBI efforts in the context of a coordinated Federal response to this challenge, and identify staffing and other resources devoted to this effort." Talk about a prejudiced statement. Time to call your congress person.

cLeEOGPw 13y ago
This is not prejudiced at all. All it states, is that the committee UNDERSTANDS that cryptocurencies have the POTENTIAL to be used for money laundering, etc. It is true, it can be used, and is used for those means.
- pmorici 13y ago
  Did you read the whole thing? They call it an 'ersatz' currency. Look up the word ersatz it has pretty negative connotations it's hardly a neutral statement.

samstave 13y ago

Explain why not a single banker has gone to prison from both the fraudulent foreclosure crisis and the 2008 wider banking crisis yet these fools all of a sudden want to regulate BTC? They can't even regulate the US dollar.

ducklamp 13y ago

In the end the Federal reserve will protect their monopoly on money. The more legitimate Bitcoin becomes, the more likely a target of Fed action.

nullc 13y ago

Good to know that _none_ of the technical people or authors of the software are important as far as NY is concerned! :P

e3pi 13y ago

Coincidentally today: Crypto-currency for NSA leaker: Snowden fund accepts Bitcoin Published time: August 12, 2013 14:51 US fugitive Edward Snowden’s defense fund, launched recently by WikiLeaks to raise money for the legal protection of the NSA leaker, has announced it now accepts donations in virtual currency Bitcoin. http://rt.com/news/bitcoin-snowden-fund-wikileaks-384/ http://rt.com/news/bitcoin-snowden-fund-wikileaks-384/

eddywebs 13y ago

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.