3 ms·

On your first point: The world is not as black and white as you tend to see it. jahewson probably does not think that government should control everything relat

On your first point: The world is not as black and white as you tend to see it. jahewson probably does not think that government should control everything related to money. However, society has a legitimate interest to keep a check on large flows of money [0]. Government law enforcement is a part of that. (edited to emphasize quantifiers) On your second point: Money laundering laws and bitcoin are compatible. You just have to make sure you comply with the laws when you run a business using bitcoin. Bitcoin is already only pseudonymous at best, and it practice it will be quite easy to eliminate anonymity; and distributed control features are not necessary to prosecute those who use bitcoin for money laundering, as the article under discussion clearly shows. [0] In case it isn't obvious: money leads to power, and society needs to keep power in check. Therefore, society needs to keep (large flows of) money in check.

smsm42 13y ago
1. This is not an argument, this is refusal to address the argument by repeating a platitude. The fact is that the argument "criminals can use it, therefore it must be tightly controlled" is applicable to anything. Yes, it is not currently applied to anything, because of political constellations and expediency and current needs of various power groups. But if you support this argument, you are supporting it wholesale, or abandoning logic and resorting to "I like this, but I hate that, logic be damned". You'll be in a big company with the latter, but it is nothing to be proud of. Same argument you are using for money can be applied to information, people, etc. What you are saying basically that everything should be controlled by the government as soon as the government feels it wants it. This is a consistent viewpoint, but you should not be refusing to admit it. 2. I never said money laundering laws and bitcoin are incompatible. What I said is the properties of bitcoin which make it attractive now as money (as opposed to speculative commodity, for example) - i.e. independence from government, anonymity, etc. - are incompatible with those laws and with the motivations that lie behind those laws. Just as we discovered that secure communications are incompatible with government's need for surveillance, and the secure communications lost.
- nhaehnle 13y ago
  Actually, my response to your first point gives you a very clear and useful test for deciding whether "criminals can use $FOO, therefore $FOO must be tightly controlled" actually applies to $FOO. That test is: Is owning/dealing in large amounts of $FOO specifically relevant for having power? Three examples that lie on different points of the spectrum: Criminals can eat hamburgers. Should hamburgers be tightly controlled? Ask yourself: Is owning/dealing in large amounts of hamburgers specifically relevant for having power? Criminals drive cars. Should cars be tightly controlled? Ask yourself: Do large amounts of cars lead to power? Criminals use guns. Should guns be tightly controlled? Ask yourself: Do large amounts of guns lead to power? And so on...
  - smsm42 13y ago
    Owning large amount of steel or wool or orange juice could make you a billionaire. Billionaires usually have a lot of power. >>> Is owning/dealing in large amounts of hamburgers specifically relevant for having power? Sure, if you control hamburger market for a large city, you would have lots of power. See also agricultural lobby - they produce a lot of food and have a lot of power because they produce food. >>> Do large amounts of cars lead to power? Definitely. Having large amount of cars, you could cause traffic jams anytime and cause immense economic harm. Or you could deliver stuff really quickly and earn billions of dollars and buy a dozen of congressmen with these billions, gaining a lot of power. Having a real lot of basically anything could give you power. And note that government controls even minute amounts of money which give you no power whatsoever - low boundary for reporting requirements if a puny $10K, which wouldn't even buy you a decent car.
- landryraccoon 13y ago
  Is your argument that "if there is a legitimate use for something, the government has no right to regulate it, even if it might be used criminally?" I think that is equally absurd. There is no rational reason to adopt a dogmatic position such as "Either the government must ALWAYS regulate X or the government must NEVER regulate X". It is entirely consistent (and imo a much better idea) to say "The government should sometimes regulate X, and sometimes not, under the following conditions...". To say that the government can and should regulate cash transfers of over a certain amount (say $10,000) but not smaller transfers, is perfectly reasonable.

smsm42 13y ago

1. This is not an argument, this is refusal to address the argument by repeating a platitude. The fact is that the argument "criminals can use it, therefore it must be tightly controlled" is applicable to anything. Yes, it is not currently applied to anything, because of political constellations and expediency and current needs of various power groups. But if you support this argument, you are supporting it wholesale, or abandoning logic and resorting to "I like this, but I hate that, logic be damned". You'll be in a big company with the latter, but it is nothing to be proud of. Same argument you are using for money can be applied to information, people, etc. What you are saying basically that everything should be controlled by the government as soon as the government feels it wants it. This is a consistent viewpoint, but you should not be refusing to admit it. 2. I never said money laundering laws and bitcoin are incompatible. What I said is the properties of bitcoin which make it attractive now as money (as opposed to speculative commodity, for example) - i.e. independence from government, anonymity, etc. - are incompatible with those laws and with the motivations that lie behind those laws. Just as we discovered that secure communications are incompatible with government's need for surveillance, and the secure communications lost.

nhaehnle 13y ago
Actually, my response to your first point gives you a very clear and useful test for deciding whether "criminals can use $FOO, therefore $FOO must be tightly controlled" actually applies to $FOO. That test is: Is owning/dealing in large amounts of $FOO specifically relevant for having power? Three examples that lie on different points of the spectrum: Criminals can eat hamburgers. Should hamburgers be tightly controlled? Ask yourself: Is owning/dealing in large amounts of hamburgers specifically relevant for having power? Criminals drive cars. Should cars be tightly controlled? Ask yourself: Do large amounts of cars lead to power? Criminals use guns. Should guns be tightly controlled? Ask yourself: Do large amounts of guns lead to power? And so on...
- smsm42 13y ago
  Owning large amount of steel or wool or orange juice could make you a billionaire. Billionaires usually have a lot of power. >>> Is owning/dealing in large amounts of hamburgers specifically relevant for having power? Sure, if you control hamburger market for a large city, you would have lots of power. See also agricultural lobby - they produce a lot of food and have a lot of power because they produce food. >>> Do large amounts of cars lead to power? Definitely. Having large amount of cars, you could cause traffic jams anytime and cause immense economic harm. Or you could deliver stuff really quickly and earn billions of dollars and buy a dozen of congressmen with these billions, gaining a lot of power. Having a real lot of basically anything could give you power. And note that government controls even minute amounts of money which give you no power whatsoever - low boundary for reporting requirements if a puny $10K, which wouldn't even buy you a decent car.
landryraccoon 13y ago
Is your argument that "if there is a legitimate use for something, the government has no right to regulate it, even if it might be used criminally?" I think that is equally absurd. There is no rational reason to adopt a dogmatic position such as "Either the government must ALWAYS regulate X or the government must NEVER regulate X". It is entirely consistent (and imo a much better idea) to say "The government should sometimes regulate X, and sometimes not, under the following conditions...". To say that the government can and should regulate cash transfers of over a certain amount (say $10,000) but not smaller transfers, is perfectly reasonable.