3 ms·

>> But it's clear that the U.S. government has no right to control something like Bitcoin > Its rather clear that the Congress has enumerated Constitutional po

by lutusp 13y ago

>> But it's clear that the U.S. government has no right to control something like Bitcoin > Its rather clear that the Congress has enumerated Constitutional power ... I think yo may have replied to my sentence without reading it fully. Because BitCoin is an internaitonal entity, the U.S. government has no authority/right/power to regulate Bitcoin (note the upper case), only some U.S. transactions that involve bitcoins (not the lower case), using laws unrelated to virtual-currency issues. > The US government certainly has a variety of explicitly granted powers that could be applied to regulate bitcoin ... Do try to avoid confusion in your posts. "Bitcoin" with an uppercase first character refers to the Bitcoin system, but "bitcoin" refers to the elements of exchange. Your sentence is open to misinterpretation -- do you mean the virtual currency system Bitcoin, or do you mean transactions involving bitcoins? > ... and, in fact, some of them have been applied in a way which governs parts of the bitcoin ecosystem False (unless the same meaning ambiguity is present). Legal actions have been based, not on Bitcoin or virtual currencies, but on the specific uses for bitcoins, such as money laundering, drug trafficking and so forth. In other words, to date legal actions have addresses alleged crimes having nothing specifically to do with virtual currencies.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> I think yo may have replied to my sentence without reading it fully. Because BitCoin is an internaitonal entity BitCoin (or Bitcoin -- for someone so caught up on details of capitalization, you fail to be consistent with it) is not an "entity" at all. > the U.S. government has no authority/right/power to regulate Bitcoin (note the upper case), Various international narcotics trafficking organizations are "international entities", and yet the US has both theoretical power (subject only to the extent to which it has expressly agreed with other sovereign entities to limit that power) to regulate them, and has exercised practical power to exert destructive power over them, including in their actions and operations outside of the United States. So even if Bit(C/c)oin was an "international entity", that wouldn't support the conclusion you draw from it. > do you mean the virtual currency system Bitcoin, or do you mean transactions involving bitcoins? The statement is true of both, so, yes. > Legal actions have been based, not on Bitcoin or virtual currencies, but on the specific uses for bitcoins, such as money laundering, drug trafficking and so forth. This is true in the sense that all legal actions are based on actions, but substantively meaningless, and, in any case, I referred to regulation, not legal action enforcing that regulation. Obviously, the former must precede the latter (and, the need for the latter implies less than perfect success in the former.)

by lutusp 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> I think yo may have replied to my sentence without reading it fully. Because BitCoin is an internaitonal entity BitCoin (or Bitcoin -- for someone so caught up on details of capitalization, you fail to be consistent with it) is not an "entity" at all. > the U.S. government has no authority/right/power to regulate Bitcoin (note the upper case), Various international narcotics trafficking organizations are "international entities", and yet the US has both theoretical power (subject only to the extent to which it has expressly agreed with other sovereign entities to limit that power) to regulate them, and has exercised practical power to exert destructive power over them, including in their actions and operations outside of the United States. So even if Bit(C/c)oin was an "international entity", that wouldn't support the conclusion you draw from it. > do you mean the virtual currency system Bitcoin, or do you mean transactions involving bitcoins? The statement is true of both, so, yes. > Legal actions have been based, not on Bitcoin or virtual currencies, but on the specific uses for bitcoins, such as money laundering, drug trafficking and so forth. This is true in the sense that all legal actions are based on actions, but substantively meaningless, and, in any case, I referred to regulation, not legal action enforcing that regulation. Obviously, the former must precede the latter (and, the need for the latter implies less than perfect success in the former.)