3 ms·

The banking and financial industry is the most heavily regulated (and thus corrupt) industry that we have, surpassing even the health industry. Basically it's j

The banking and financial industry is the most heavily regulated (and thus corrupt) industry that we have, surpassing even the health industry. Basically it's just a cartel. Saying that Bitcoin "may need government regulation" is like saying that Bittorrent "may need government regulation." The question is, how on earth can you regulate such things, when they are designed to be resistant to such threats? Let's not forget also, that policy consists of political decisions regarding the use and threat of force. Therefore we can never actually regulate Bitcoin. At best, we can only regulate how we plan to use violence against people who use Bitcoin.

wdewind 13y ago
> The banking and financial industry is the most heavily regulated (and thus corrupt) industry that we have, surpassing even the health industry. Basically it's just a cartel. I heavily disagree with your assessment that regulation is to blame. If anything the removal of regulation, specifically the repeal of the parts of Glass-Steagall that separated commercial and investment banks, is what caused the banking catastrophe. > Saying that Bitcoin "may need government regulation" is like saying that Bittorrent "may need government regulation." The question is, how on earth can you regulate such things, when they are designed to be resistant to such threats? No, despite using (sort of) similar protocols and having (sort of) similar names, these are not similar at all. Bitcoin will be regulated in these two, and probably more, ways: 1) It will be categorized as an instrument of value, in which case it can be taxed in USD, require licenses to transact with it etc. 2) It will be regulated at the point of currency exchange. > Let's not forget also, that policy consists of political decisions regarding the use and threat of force. Therefore we can never actually regulate Bitcoin. At best, we can only regulate how we plan to use violence against people who use Bitcoin. I'm not even sure I understand fully what you mean here. What do we regulate that can't be swapped for "bitcoin" in that sentence? IE: we can't regulate drugs, at best we can only regulate how we plan to use violence against people who use drugs.
- FellowTraveler 13y ago
  > the repeal of the parts of Glass-Steagall that separated commercial and investment banks, is what caused the banking catastrophe. This is like saying that pulling a card from a house of cards is what "caused" its collapse. When in fact, the imposition of the unsustainable system onto us in the first place was the true problem. Everything else is just consequences. > despite using (sort of) similar protocols and having (sort of) similar names, these are not similar at all. Both are p2p protocols designed to enable censorship-resistance by eliminating centralized points of failure. Just as Napster was replaced by Bittorrent, so also E-Gold is replaced by Bitcoin. The persecution is actually what is driving the development of these liberating protocols. > What do we regulate that can't be swapped for "bitcoin" in that sentence? IE: we can't regulate drugs, at best we can only regulate how we plan to use violence against people who use drugs. This is exactly true! We can never "regulate" drugs (or Bitcoin) -- we can only regulate how we use _violence_ against people who use drugs (or Bitcoin.) But the question is, do we have a _right_ to use violence against people who are not thieves and murderers? And is it even possible to delegate such powers? For example, I have a right to defend myself using force. Therefore I have a right to hire a _bodyguard_ to defend me. Therefore we have the right to elect a _sheriff_ to defend us. (In fact it is the same right -- delegated.) But I do NOT have a right to beat and rob people. Therefore, neither do I have any right to hire a _bodyguard_ to beat and rob people. ...Therefore, neither does our _sheriff_ have any right to beat and rob people -- even if we voted for him to do so! Because you cannot delegate powers you never had. Perhaps you should be asking what makes us believe, as a society, that we have any right to use violence at all, except in defense from violence. Because if the authorities use violence for any other purpose, then aren't they the true criminals? Careful not to throw out the precedent from the Nuremberg Trials -- that just because someone is in authority, doesn't give them the right to victimize people. (Even if they were voted into power.)
  - wdewind 13y ago
    > This is like saying that pulling a card from a house of cards is what "caused" its collapse. No it's more like saying removing one pylon from a bridge is what caused it to collapse. > Both are p2p protocols designed to enable censorship-resistance by eliminating centralized points of failure. This is simply not true about Bitcoin, nor Bittorrent. Especially with Bitcoin the people who seem to be taken seriously in that community do not seem to feel that the transgressive aspect of it is either true or valuable.
pessimizer 13y ago
The banking and financial industry is barely regulated at all unless our measurement of the degree of regulation is measured by LoR (Lines of Rules). Most of those rules are to keep actors in the industry from screwing over other actors in the industry - and the rest are unenforced.
- FellowTraveler 13y ago
  Perhaps you should Google the stories of Douglas Jackson and Bernard von Nothaus. There is no free market in money. Therefore the problems we see in banking are not problems of a free market. The entire market is sewn up vertically. The Federal Reserve, at the bottom, consists of the member banks. At the top, it consists of those who regulate those banks. Therefore The System represents the ultimate "public/private partnership" where the entity that regulates, is the same entity being regulated. The true purpose of their actions? To protect their cartel.

wdewind 13y ago

> The banking and financial industry is the most heavily regulated (and thus corrupt) industry that we have, surpassing even the health industry. Basically it's just a cartel. I heavily disagree with your assessment that regulation is to blame. If anything the removal of regulation, specifically the repeal of the parts of Glass-Steagall that separated commercial and investment banks, is what caused the banking catastrophe. > Saying that Bitcoin "may need government regulation" is like saying that Bittorrent "may need government regulation." The question is, how on earth can you regulate such things, when they are designed to be resistant to such threats? No, despite using (sort of) similar protocols and having (sort of) similar names, these are not similar at all. Bitcoin will be regulated in these two, and probably more, ways: 1) It will be categorized as an instrument of value, in which case it can be taxed in USD, require licenses to transact with it etc. 2) It will be regulated at the point of currency exchange. > Let's not forget also, that policy consists of political decisions regarding the use and threat of force. Therefore we can never actually regulate Bitcoin. At best, we can only regulate how we plan to use violence against people who use Bitcoin. I'm not even sure I understand fully what you mean here. What do we regulate that can't be swapped for "bitcoin" in that sentence? IE: we can't regulate drugs, at best we can only regulate how we plan to use violence against people who use drugs.

FellowTraveler 13y ago
> the repeal of the parts of Glass-Steagall that separated commercial and investment banks, is what caused the banking catastrophe. This is like saying that pulling a card from a house of cards is what "caused" its collapse. When in fact, the imposition of the unsustainable system onto us in the first place was the true problem. Everything else is just consequences. > despite using (sort of) similar protocols and having (sort of) similar names, these are not similar at all. Both are p2p protocols designed to enable censorship-resistance by eliminating centralized points of failure. Just as Napster was replaced by Bittorrent, so also E-Gold is replaced by Bitcoin. The persecution is actually what is driving the development of these liberating protocols. > What do we regulate that can't be swapped for "bitcoin" in that sentence? IE: we can't regulate drugs, at best we can only regulate how we plan to use violence against people who use drugs. This is exactly true! We can never "regulate" drugs (or Bitcoin) -- we can only regulate how we use _violence_ against people who use drugs (or Bitcoin.) But the question is, do we have a _right_ to use violence against people who are not thieves and murderers? And is it even possible to delegate such powers? For example, I have a right to defend myself using force. Therefore I have a right to hire a _bodyguard_ to defend me. Therefore we have the right to elect a _sheriff_ to defend us. (In fact it is the same right -- delegated.) But I do NOT have a right to beat and rob people. Therefore, neither do I have any right to hire a _bodyguard_ to beat and rob people. ...Therefore, neither does our _sheriff_ have any right to beat and rob people -- even if we voted for him to do so! Because you cannot delegate powers you never had. Perhaps you should be asking what makes us believe, as a society, that we have any right to use violence at all, except in defense from violence. Because if the authorities use violence for any other purpose, then aren't they the true criminals? Careful not to throw out the precedent from the Nuremberg Trials -- that just because someone is in authority, doesn't give them the right to victimize people. (Even if they were voted into power.)
- wdewind 13y ago
  > This is like saying that pulling a card from a house of cards is what "caused" its collapse. No it's more like saying removing one pylon from a bridge is what caused it to collapse. > Both are p2p protocols designed to enable censorship-resistance by eliminating centralized points of failure. This is simply not true about Bitcoin, nor Bittorrent. Especially with Bitcoin the people who seem to be taken seriously in that community do not seem to feel that the transgressive aspect of it is either true or valuable.

pessimizer 13y ago

The banking and financial industry is barely regulated at all unless our measurement of the degree of regulation is measured by LoR (Lines of Rules). Most of those rules are to keep actors in the industry from screwing over other actors in the industry - and the rest are unenforced.

FellowTraveler 13y ago
Perhaps you should Google the stories of Douglas Jackson and Bernard von Nothaus. There is no free market in money. Therefore the problems we see in banking are not problems of a free market. The entire market is sewn up vertically. The Federal Reserve, at the bottom, consists of the member banks. At the top, it consists of those who regulate those banks. Therefore The System represents the ultimate "public/private partnership" where the entity that regulates, is the same entity being regulated. The true purpose of their actions? To protect their cartel.