3 ms·

It's kind of funny, but on one hand, that statement is probably the best thing a libertarian reader could imagine hearing from Yellen. That's how I read it at f

It's kind of funny, but on one hand, that statement is probably the best thing a libertarian reader could imagine hearing from Yellen. That's how I read it at first, and was thinking, "wow, that's pretty radical for the government to intentionally take itself out". Yet, upon second reading, I think the intention was probably more to cast Bitcoin as a wild-west, do-at-your-own-risk, good-luck-to-ya type of asset to work with. I think the message was meant more for banks and investors. The real subtext being, "if you lose your shirt, get defrauded, or there's large scale tampering, don't come crying to the Fed".

mey 13y ago
Regulation cuts both ways.
redthrowaway 13y ago
>the intention was probably more to cast Bitcoin as a wild-west, do-at-your-own-risk, good-luck-to-ya type of asset to work with. That's exactly what it is, and exactly what it should remain.
jljljl 13y ago
Proponents of Bitcoin tend to view the lack of regulation as a feature, not a bug. With that lack of regulation comes higher risk of losing everything in the event of a catastrophe. It's hard to have it both ways.
- tsotha 13y ago
  But there's no lack of regulatory power here. What Yellen was saying is the Fed can't regulate bitcoin. But the Treasury Department can do anything from nothing to an outright ban.
- zecho 13y ago
  Governments don't regulate technologies, they regulate people. There are a million ways governments (who are also made up of people) can and will regulate bitcoin and the like. The persistent belief among some cryptocurrency proponents that they're invincible to the powers of government is really naive. Just because there isn't regulation now means jack squat. It's not a feature, it's a side effect of newness and reactionary politics.
jmcqk6 13y ago
Yet, upon second reading, I think the intention was probably more to cast Bitcoin as a wild-west, do-at-your-own-risk, good-luck-to-ya type of asset to work with. I think the message was meant more for banks and investors. Isn't that also the thing the libertarian reader is looking for?
- acjohnson55 13y ago
  Yes, definitely, but I think the success of Bitcoin depends on mainstream adoption, not just libertarian adoption.

mey 13y ago

Regulation cuts both ways.

redthrowaway 13y ago

>the intention was probably more to cast Bitcoin as a wild-west, do-at-your-own-risk, good-luck-to-ya type of asset to work with. That's exactly what it is, and exactly what it should remain.

jljljl 13y ago

Proponents of Bitcoin tend to view the lack of regulation as a feature, not a bug. With that lack of regulation comes higher risk of losing everything in the event of a catastrophe. It's hard to have it both ways.

tsotha 13y ago
But there's no lack of regulatory power here. What Yellen was saying is the Fed can't regulate bitcoin. But the Treasury Department can do anything from nothing to an outright ban.
zecho 13y ago
Governments don't regulate technologies, they regulate people. There are a million ways governments (who are also made up of people) can and will regulate bitcoin and the like. The persistent belief among some cryptocurrency proponents that they're invincible to the powers of government is really naive. Just because there isn't regulation now means jack squat. It's not a feature, it's a side effect of newness and reactionary politics.

jmcqk6 13y ago

Yet, upon second reading, I think the intention was probably more to cast Bitcoin as a wild-west, do-at-your-own-risk, good-luck-to-ya type of asset to work with. I think the message was meant more for banks and investors. Isn't that also the thing the libertarian reader is looking for?

acjohnson55 13y ago
Yes, definitely, but I think the success of Bitcoin depends on mainstream adoption, not just libertarian adoption.