- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bitstamp Halts Withdrawls
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:59 am to JayDeerTay84
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:59 am to JayDeerTay84
quote:
Yes, regulation and security will very much be needed.
Unless you concede that Bitcoins will never be anything more than a nerds project.
The problem is that most of y'all don't understand how bitcoin works and thus you believe that regulation will be effective. I have even said that I welcome bitcoin regulation because it will make it easier for people to get bitcoin and make it seem more legitimate in their eyes. But if you understand bitcoin (or crypto-currencies in general) then you'll understand that the regulation can only exist on the edges and is therefore pretty ineffective.
I laughed out loud pretty hard when I was reading an article the other day that quoted Lawsky on bitcoin regulation where he said something like, "he suggested the NYDFS could move to mandate that all virtual currencies maintain a public block chain due to its potential to help track criminal wrongdoing"
And it reminded me of the people that post here who make all kinds of comments without understanding what they are even discussing. And if that makes me sound arrogant then so be it. Because anyone with an understanding of the technology would read what Lawsky was suggesting and say, "Hahah keep dreaming." Non-public blockchain crypto-currencies will surface, and they will be unable to be stopped.
We're talking deep rabbit holes here.
This post was edited on 2/13/14 at 12:00 pm
3
Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:02 pm to LNCHBOX
Look at Wiki's signature line. It seems kind of appropriate given the direction of this thread. I'm not sure he is filling the role he expected though.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:11 pm to WikiTiger
It doesn't seem to me that this:
addresses this:
quote:
most of y'all don't understand how bitcoin works and thus you believe that regulation will be effective.
addresses this:
quote:
Yes, regulation and security will very much be needed.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:33 pm to joshnorris14
quote:I'm having deja vu from your "I'm part of something revolutionary by getting Ron Paul elected President of the United States!" meme which you kept repeating for about a year on the Poli Board leading up to the 2012 election.
We're a part of something revolutionary,
Viva revolucion, Che!!!!!
Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:35 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
It's funny to see y'all squirm so much.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:41 pm to WikiTiger
So you're saying that bitcoin will go down as one of the greatest advances in human history? Mighty high praise for something that could just as easily fizzle.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:17 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
It doesn't seem to me that this:
quote:
most of y'all don't understand how bitcoin works and thus you believe that regulation will be effective.
addresses this:
quote:
Yes, regulation and security will very much be needed.
This seems to be where a lot of people get confused so I'll do my best to explain this but please ask questions if you need clarification.
The bitcoin economy will be regulated at the edges. That means that services like exchanges and "bitcoin banks" will be subject to various types of regulation to, in the eyes of the government, make sure they aren't defrauding people or facilitating crimes.
And as far as I'm concerned that's all fine and dandy. I mean, philosophically I don't agree with it but in my opinion the regulation will only have a positive effect on the bitcoin economy.
The reason bitcoin regulation doesn't really bother me is because all of the services that will be able to be regulated are optional services. A bitcoin user doesn't necessarily need to use an exchange, and he definitely doesn't need to use a "bitcoin bank." That's the beauty of bitcoin...it makes a lot of financial services unnecessary. Some people may find that it's easier to trust their bitcoins to a bitcoin bank. They may feel that the services the bitcoin banks provides do provide value. But they are not necessary. People can store their bitcoins themselves, in a million different addresses if they so choose, and they can directly transfer those bitcoins anywhere, anytime, and with anyone that has internet access. Capital controls will not stop it. Censorship efforts will not stop it. If the government says to a regulated bitcoin bank: "Don't allow people to send bitcoins to China" well the bank will have to follow those rules (although that in and of itself would be difficult, perhaps impossible, even if the bank wanted to follow the rule), but governments will not be able to stop individuals from doing that.
In summary:
The bitcoin network is unable to be regulated. The entry points to the network can and will be. Regulation at the entry points will make people feel more confident and comfortable with bitcoin. That will help bitcoin grow quickly. Once people are in bitcoin, however, regulation is ineffective.
One footnote: A lot of people like to just argue that bitcoin will be straight up banned. That would be an extremely unprecedented political maneuver at least in the USA. We have long had the right to barter transactions (which is what bitcoin would qualify as). I don't think it's realistic to think that the USA would ban bitcoin outright.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:25 pm to WikiTiger
quote:I have not read a single post on this board that has said bitcoin will be "straight up banned" in the U.S.
A lot of people like to just argue that bitcoin will be straight up banned. That would be an extremely unprecedented political maneuver at least in the USA. We have long had the right to barter transactions (which is what bitcoin would qualify as). I don't think it's realistic to think that the USA would ban bitcoin outright.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:46 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
The problem is that most of y'all don't understand how bitcoin works and thus you believe that regulation will be effective.
Regulation will be very effective. They don't have to regulate bitcoin itself, though they could do that as well.
All they need to do is essentially regulate the users at the point of contact. It'll become Wal-Mart's problem to account for their bitcoin. It'll become the fertilizer company's problem to make sure they're not anonymously selling hundreds of pounds of their product to some terrorist.
Far from being the difficult part, regulation (of anything) is the easy part. Sure, lots of users will float below the radar, just as people that use hard cash for the majority of their purchases tend. That doesn't change the fact that, at some point, the "bitcoin economy" will be, in effect, regulated.
Good news for you: bitcoin survives. Bad news for you: it doesn't displace fiat currency; it basically gets co-opted by it.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:55 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
I have even said that I welcome bitcoin regulation because it will make it easier for people to get bitcoin and make it seem more legitimate in their eyes.
But you also said it will destroy governments and revolutionize money.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:56 pm to Broke
quote:
But you also said it will destroy governments and revolutionize money.
I did say that. Did you think I meant it would happen tomorrow?
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:58 pm to Walking the Earth
quote:
All they need to do is essentially regulate the users at the point of contact.
Wiki, say hello to Western Sky Financial. They operate under a Sovereign Native American pact so they just regulated the shite out of those people who do business with them. It shut them down.
LINK
Posted on 2/13/14 at 2:10 pm to WikiTiger
Wiki and Josh, I appreciate your attempts to keep us updated about bitcoin.
Russian, Poodle, and Broke, I appreciate your attempts to discredit Wiki and Josh at every point.
I somewhat enjoy the back and forth and I believe you all keep each other in check quite well.
IMO, BTC is trying to come too far, too fast, and I believe it has little to no future. However, "crypto currencies" based on some of the attractive aspects of BTC have a strong future. BTC has a rather dark history and I tend to agree that it attracts the morally bankrupt, but I can appreciate the foundation that it is laying.
In summary, I'd love to short BTC, but that does not mean I'm dismissing crypto currencies going forward.
Russian, Poodle, and Broke, I appreciate your attempts to discredit Wiki and Josh at every point.
I somewhat enjoy the back and forth and I believe you all keep each other in check quite well.
IMO, BTC is trying to come too far, too fast, and I believe it has little to no future. However, "crypto currencies" based on some of the attractive aspects of BTC have a strong future. BTC has a rather dark history and I tend to agree that it attracts the morally bankrupt, but I can appreciate the foundation that it is laying.
In summary, I'd love to short BTC, but that does not mean I'm dismissing crypto currencies going forward.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 2:16 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
I have even said that I welcome bitcoin regulation because it will make it easier for people to get bitcoin and make it seem more legitimate in their eyes.
But you also said it will destroy governments and revolutionize money.
quote:Let me get something straight, you're saying you welcome regulation because it will make bitcoin legitimate at the same time by regulating bitcoin the government will be legitimizing something that will destroy it?
I did say that. Did you think I meant it would happen tomorrow?
Okay, I guess in your world that makes for sound logic.....
Posted on 2/13/14 at 2:17 pm to slackster
Well wiki, no one "has" to use banks and other services but they do.
So, neat trick. I guess.
So, neat trick. I guess.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 2:28 pm to JayDeerTay84
This is why people use a trusted bank....
LINK /
Or read this: Step by step on stealing bitcoins.
LINK
quote:
The site was compromised on Oct 23, and again on Oct. 26, and hackers made off with 4,100 bitcoins ($1.2 million) stolen in two separate attacks. The company waited until this week to notify customers of the incident, which only affects certain users. A small number of Bitcoins belonging to TradeFortress’s other business, CoinLenders, were also taken, TradeFortress said in an email interview (He didn’t provide his real name).
Inputs.io doesn’t have the funds to pay back everything that was stolen, but TradeFortress says he’s going to issue partial refunds. “I’m repaying with all of my personal Bitcoins, as well as remaining cold storage coins on Inputs, which adds up to 1540 BTC,” he told WIRED.
LINK /
Or read this: Step by step on stealing bitcoins.
LINK
This post was edited on 2/13/14 at 2:34 pm
Posted on 2/13/14 at 2:36 pm to JayDeerTay84
quote:
Inputs.io doesn’t have the funds to pay back everything that was stolen, but TradeFortress says he’s going to issue partial refunds. “I’m repaying with all of my personal Bitcoins, as well as remaining cold storage coins on Inputs, which adds up to 1540 BTC,” he told WIRED.
How would one be able to verify that they got bitcoins stolen and in what specific amount? Who's keeping the ledger?
Posted on 2/13/14 at 2:38 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Who's keeping the ledger?
Bitcoin, of course.
Page 9 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News