5 ms·

From the article: "...one fundamental building block that BTC needs right now: legitimacy" "Imagine if you were able to provide governments assurance that eve

From the article: "...one fundamental building block that BTC needs right now: legitimacy" "Imagine if you were able to provide governments assurance that every BTC wallet that cashed out into USD had a thorough KYC procedure performed on the transaction" I'm afraid this kind of legitimacy will never be obtained for Bitcoin - not because it's impossible, but because many (most?) of Bitcoin's strongest proponents are pushing for the exact opposite goal. On one hand, we have people wanting to "fix" Bitcoin by providing more transparency - through decreased anonymity. On the other hand, we have people trying to "fix" Bitcoin by providing increased anonymity at all costs. Personally, I believe both goals are admirable, but the conflict may ultimately hurt Bitcoin's chances of long-term success and mass adoption. It comes down to this question: do we want Bitcoin to become "legitimate" and fit in to the current landscape of government regulation, law enforcement, consumer protection, etc., or do we want Bitcoin to fundamentally disrupt all of those ideas and stand as something all of its own? The first option ensures greater chances of (quick) widespread adoption without rocking the boat too much, while the second option flies in the face of systems of power and influence that have been in place for thousands of years.

jafaku 13y ago
I wouldn't bother using Bitcoin if it was more of the same bullshit, just digital. For instance, if it depended on my government, I would never be able to use Bitcoin, just like I'm not able to use gold or any other currency that the government can't use to steal from us through inflation, seizures, etc. People from first world countries have a hard time seeing the real benefits of Bitcoin.
fragsworth 13y ago
But it is not a mutually exclusive dichotomy of either legitimate or subversive. It can be (and already is) both. Some users, especially legitimate merchants, will have to follow the letter of the law. Other users, however, who are willing to break the tax law, can and will - just as people break those laws with cash transactions. I can pay someone in bitcoin for work or services, not report it, and it is just as under-the-table as paying in cash.
- rtpg 13y ago
  A big difference is that bitcoin has the public ledger. With cash, if both parties are complicit to keeping it secret, you can keep your acts secret. Bitcoin is very much not like that, and you have to try a lot harder to hide what you're doing.
rtpg 13y ago
This hits the nail on the head. It's slightly unfortunate that many of the most vocal proponents for bitcoin are anarchists/libertarians who seem to disagree with the fundamental nature of things like law enforcement and taxation. Bitcoin ends up being two things: one is a fiat currency that is made for digital transactions. This point is the one that could actually generate a lot of wealth. The other one is that it's decentralised. A lot of proponents buy into the myth that this means that it's anonymous, but it's not really. If enough of the market decides against anonymity they can force it, and the public ledger can help a lot with that. But this second point is portrayed under the myth of anonymity and policy makers start freaking out, and the rest of us can't get what we really want (an easy way to pay for stuff). Some people think that this can become a sort of general revolt against the dollar or whatever, but so long as taxes exist and the government has guns, we're probably not going to get far down that route.
atmosx 13y ago
> I'm afraid this kind of legitimacy will never be obtained for Bitcoin - not because it's impossible, but because many (most?) of Bitcoin's strongest proponents are pushing for the exact opposite goal. Not sure about this. We have a public ledger which will hold information about any transaction ever made. You get access to my wallets and you have my financial life right there. There are mixers of course, but I'm not 100% if you can't use algorithms to trace back the total amount of bitcoins coming out of a mixer or other approachers. I'd like to read some technical papers how one can track or hide bitcoin transactions... I mean this could be used as a tool for the exact opposite reason: Say every political party should accept money only through known/identified wallet via bitcoin. Only transaction that are ID-id should get accepted. Same with taxes, etc.

jafaku 13y ago

I wouldn't bother using Bitcoin if it was more of the same bullshit, just digital. For instance, if it depended on my government, I would never be able to use Bitcoin, just like I'm not able to use gold or any other currency that the government can't use to steal from us through inflation, seizures, etc. People from first world countries have a hard time seeing the real benefits of Bitcoin.

fragsworth 13y ago

But it is not a mutually exclusive dichotomy of either legitimate or subversive. It can be (and already is) both. Some users, especially legitimate merchants, will have to follow the letter of the law. Other users, however, who are willing to break the tax law, can and will - just as people break those laws with cash transactions. I can pay someone in bitcoin for work or services, not report it, and it is just as under-the-table as paying in cash.

rtpg 13y ago
A big difference is that bitcoin has the public ledger. With cash, if both parties are complicit to keeping it secret, you can keep your acts secret. Bitcoin is very much not like that, and you have to try a lot harder to hide what you're doing.

rtpg 13y ago

This hits the nail on the head. It's slightly unfortunate that many of the most vocal proponents for bitcoin are anarchists/libertarians who seem to disagree with the fundamental nature of things like law enforcement and taxation. Bitcoin ends up being two things: one is a fiat currency that is made for digital transactions. This point is the one that could actually generate a lot of wealth. The other one is that it's decentralised. A lot of proponents buy into the myth that this means that it's anonymous, but it's not really. If enough of the market decides against anonymity they can force it, and the public ledger can help a lot with that. But this second point is portrayed under the myth of anonymity and policy makers start freaking out, and the rest of us can't get what we really want (an easy way to pay for stuff). Some people think that this can become a sort of general revolt against the dollar or whatever, but so long as taxes exist and the government has guns, we're probably not going to get far down that route.

atmosx 13y ago

> I'm afraid this kind of legitimacy will never be obtained for Bitcoin - not because it's impossible, but because many (most?) of Bitcoin's strongest proponents are pushing for the exact opposite goal. Not sure about this. We have a public ledger which will hold information about any transaction ever made. You get access to my wallets and you have my financial life right there. There are mixers of course, but I'm not 100% if you can't use algorithms to trace back the total amount of bitcoins coming out of a mixer or other approachers. I'd like to read some technical papers how one can track or hide bitcoin transactions... I mean this could be used as a tool for the exact opposite reason: Say every political party should accept money only through known/identified wallet via bitcoin. Only transaction that are ID-id should get accepted. Same with taxes, etc.