Let them ban bitcoin altogether. We'll get a crack out of them when they
try to enforce their stupid laws. Also, if Bitcoin activity becomes
illegal, it'll start benefiting individuals that can disregard stupid laws
more than large corporations that mostly have to abide by them. If anything
let's advocate a ban! We all know what happened when they tried to ban
alcohol in the 1920. The state will just prove how it's becoming
increasingly irrelevant.


On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Amir Taaki <genjix@???> wrote:

>
> http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2aycxs/hi_this_is_ben_lawsky_at_nydfs_here_are_the/
>
> people are like "oh dear, we need better legislation" without realising
> the foot in the door danger. it's like the used car salesman who rips
> you off with an overpriced crappy car which you jump on after "he speaks
> to the boss" (i.e smokes a ciggy), knocking down his initial high offer.
> wow! what a bargain!
>
> G8 magazine, June 2013 "Protecting digital economies": "If the leaders
> of the European Union and United States could be convinced to take a
> lead on these initiatives [banning Bitcoin], that would be a huge
> contribution to making the internet a safe place for financial
> transactions. At the same time, it would also strike a blow against
> those who would try to destroy the fabric of our world’s well-being."
>
> JP Morgan, Feb 2014 "The audacity of Bitcoin": "But followers of
> financial history know the limitation of a system based on a fixed or
> slow-growing money supply: it imposes uncomfortable financial discipline
> on governments, households and corporates. [i.e governments, consumers,
> the corporations" (goes on to talk about how printing dollars was used
> to fund WW1 and the Vietnam war as a good thing)
>
> ECB, Oct 2012 "Virtual currency schemes": "Authorities need to consider
> whether they intend to formalise or acknowledge and regulate these
> schemes. In this regard, a likely suggestion could sooner or later
> involve virtual currency scheme owners registering as financial
> institutions with their local regulating authorities. This is a similar
> trajectory to the one PayPal has undergone, as it was granted a banking
> licence in Luxembourg in 2007 after its service became popular. This is
> not an easy step, but it looks like the only possible way to strike a
> proper balance between money and payment innovations on the one hand,
> and consumer protection and financial stability, on the other."
>
> Mark my words. The problem is not with this regulation needing to be
> fixed. They will probably tone down the proposal and it will be hailed
> as a victory within the community, yet be another step toward
> normalisation of their activities.
>
> http://www.coindesk.com/ben-lawsky-friend-foe/
>
> "The choice for the regulators is: permit money laundering on the one
> hand, or permit innovation on the other, and we’re always going to choose
> squelching the money laundering first. It’s not worth it to society to
> allow money laundering and all of the things it facilitates to persist in
> order to permit 1000 flowers to bloom on the innovation side.”
>
> funny he's affiliated with chuck schumer too who is a populist and someone
> who in the early days was very anti-bitcoin (silk road).
>
> i love the whole tone of this propaganda piece which is like "he's such a
> nice guy". I bet he has good manners too.
>
> maybe you all appreciate this article,
>
>
> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-dark-wallet-developers-plan-for-startup-governments-run-on-bitcoin
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>