605400+ entries in 0.341s
bounce: don't know until you
try
bounce: might
throw it out as an open letter
to some large paper or other
ThickAsThieves: sure, but i'm playing on
the fact one human will read
this
bounce: the reddit AMA of
the ny financial regulation guy is enlightening in
that respect
bounce: sounds good. not
that
they'll listen;
their motivation isn't
the good of all, it's
their own careers and coming up with regulation for
this newfangled
thing scores brownie points all over --
their own organisation, law enforcement, you name it. citizens? not important. so it only sounds good from
the point of view of
the important.
ThickAsThieves: Please,
take a step back and ask yourself, as a consumer and citizen, what you are really doing, who you are really protecting, and
then consider
the price
that will be paid in privacy, freedom, and consumer value."
ThickAsThieves: The crimes
that may be committed with bitcoin are no different, and lesser,
than
those made with cash dollars, an area which our government has a lose grip on itself.
These crimes are ultimately realized not when
the money is laundered, but when
that money is obtained.
Those are
the crimes
to focus on. You can't hide a kidnapped child in a bitcoin, you can't make a bomb with a bitcoin,
ThickAsThieves: the US in
transition
to
the new paradigm. Odds are
that bitcoin, and
the people in its regard, are a sovereign
that no one nation can control.
ThickAsThieves: "This regulation just won't work other
than
to give big institutions a way
to feel safe getting into bitcoin services.
That's fine, but
the fact is
that
this is global, and money as a concept needs
to change
to be a private concern along with
this. A centralized government should not
try
to impose its ideals on
the world, it just can't work, will be expensive, and will ultimately hinder
ThickAsThieves: note i just sent it quickly off so youre gonna be mor epicky
than i probly was
bounce: got
the
text somewhere?
bounce: what'd you write
to
the nydfs?
chetty: bounce,
that could be pretty if we get
to watch
them get
their
teeth kicked in
bounce: que?
that means
they'll
take all
their pre-existing stupidity with
them, something bitcoiners got into bitcoin for
to avoid.
ThickAsThieves: i
think new regs on btc should amount
to giving pre-existing institutions an avenue for entering
the bitcoin fray
chetty: "In its majestic equality,
the law forbids rich and poor alike
to sleep under bridges, beg in
the streets, and steal loaves of bread."
ThickAsThieves: fwiw i wrote
to nydfs
today sharing some
thoughts about why
they should ease up
Apocalyptic: more generally,
the article as far as I understands it sheds a negative light on "regulation", as reminded by
the Romanian footnote, it mainly results in you being fucked
bounce: from you perhaps not.
the nature of rules is quite deep and subtle,
though.
ThickAsThieves: i
think i was proving
there wasnt so much depth
there in
the first place
chetty: hmm seems
to me it is
trampling in all over, where people do care.
bounce: tat, you've successfully abstracted all meaning out of
the meandering.
that's maybe not entirely useful.
assbot: Regulation for our lord Regulos pe
Trilema - Un blog de Mircea Popescu.
bounce: welcome
to
the united states of whatever
bounce: then disregard it.
the point is more
that rules
that "go with
the flow" are less visible
than rules
that stand in
the way and cause a diversion in
the flow
ThickAsThieves: everything we do is either
totally natural or wholly unnatural
ThickAsThieves: everything we do is either
totally or wholly unnatural
bounce: laws putting a punishment on murder count as "regulation", yet
they're quite useful most of
the
time.
chetty: visible regulation
tends
to be contra nature, ie unworkable
mircea_popescu: the problem is
that
these days "regulation" is
the name for
the visible part of regulation
mircea_popescu: my point is
that regulation is an essential function of life. your homeostasis is
the result of regulation.
Apocalyptic: mircea_popescu, so your point is
that regulation can be suitable on a case by case basis ?
chetty: like all
them navy chiefs
they just forced out ..
bounce: 4k people, so probably all specialists.
they're calling dibs well in advance,
then.
mircea_popescu: chetty do
they get shot if
they don't show up or how does it work ?
bounce: where're
those reserves gonna be deployed?
chetty: ready reserve ...all
them folks
that recnetly got out ..oh yeah
thats gonna work
Apocalyptic: mircea_popescu, I'm not sure I get
this, do you consider
the b-a voice system as such ?
mircea_popescu: who wouldn't want
to go into
the world's arsehole
to deal with a contagious viral disease
that makes you puke blood ?!
assbot: Obama may call on reserves
to deal with Ebola in Africa
ThickAsThieves: i need
two
things, a place
to
trade and a place
to cash out
mircea_popescu: what
they'll do is bundle it with a
ton more dollars and make us another gift down
the road
mircea_popescu: ThickAsThieves nah,
that's
the least bad part in all
this
mircea_popescu: Apocalyptic well but i mean,
then obama doesn't regard executive orders as regulation mechanisms.
mircea_popescu: ThickAsThieves and
they have been warned
that if
they do do it,
they're fucked.
Apocalyptic: mircea_popescu, I don't regard
the b-a voice system as a regulation mecanism
bounce: consider
the situation. stamp is being forced
to "KYC", but
they're
taking it
to eleven of
their own volition.
the problem
then is
twofold:
they should know better
than
that and
the forcing needs
to go.
mircea_popescu: Apocalyptic is
this
true of regulation say, b-a voice ?
Apocalyptic: the only one benefitting of
the regulation is
that narrow class of people who impose/enforce it
kakobrekla: <ThickAsThieves> same for nonregulation ;) <
thats for different reasons
bounce: that's a bit of a non-argument, you ought
to know
this
mircea_popescu: ThickAsThieves i agree
the art of dancing with goats is necessary if you agree it doesn't include fucking
them.
nanotube: (also
thanks for
the link :) )
bounce: sure. hence
the need for people understanding regulation running
the exchange in a jurisdiction
that doesn't force
them
to fuck over
the customers
mircea_popescu: they made
their choice. between bitcoin and fiat
they chose fiat
nanotube: mircea_popescu: i see. i'd venture
to guess
they are not doing
that voluntarily, so 'scam' is not quite
the right word.
kakobrekla: bounce
the majority of people
think regulation is cool until
they get fucked.
BigBitz: buyer vs seller,
ThickAsThieves.
bounce: likely. peruse
the order book?
BigBitz: The Banking platform is
the issue.
bounce: well, sure. but you'd first need a jurisdiction
that does away with
the AML/KYC CYA BS and
then you need a bunch with clue running
the exchange
Apocalyptic: the regulation burden is driving away
those with
the potential
to do it right
mircea_popescu: <bounce>
the chinese aren't more reliable, are
they? <<< we don't fucking know.
BigBitz: It's not an Exchange
then.
assbot: BitStamp: Unverified Accounts
to be Closed, Balances
to Regulators | Qntra.net
Apocalyptic: <kakobrekla>
there is no place for an honest exchange // i'm beginning
to
think
that way as well
bounce: the chinese aren't more reliable, are
they?
BigBitz: shouldn't an indiciator of price ie; a
ticker show an Exchange.
nanotube: mircea_popescu: got link
to
that former bit?
BigBitz: coinbase isn't an exchange,
though,
ThickAsThieves.