Hi Peter,
You said, Quote <<< The thinking evidenced in much of the Bitcoin discussion
here is pretty much exactly what the financial authorities are doing their best
to encourage - In other words they are shit-scared of the implications of
Bitcoin and its siblings.>>>end of Quote
I don't think that the authorities are "shit scared" at all of Bitcoin.
Encouraging discussion about the uses of Bitcoin I think is a very good idea,
wherever it takes place, and the more people and organisations who become
involved in the discussion, the better, in my opinion.
Bitcoin is a fairly new concept and only put into practice recently. Like
all new inventions, it takes a while for people and organisations to get used
to it, evaluate it, find out how secure and anonymous it is and how and where
it can be used profitably. Depending on where one is coming from and
approaching the problem from, different problems and different solutions will
surface, just like we have thousands of different kinds of light bulbs today,
compared with Edison's time. Several attempts have been made to get some kind
of Bitcoin exchange system off the ground, up and running and making it a
profitable and efficient operation. Using it and providing finance capital to
purchase the hardware, skills and resources is a risky business. Only those
with surplus capital and who have evaluated the risk of losing it, are likely
to invest in it. Like the dotcom business at the beginning of the century it
has had its ups and downs, with crashes and bankruptcies.
For instance, nation states are worried about whether it will be used to avoid
tax laws, or transfer money for illegal or fraudulent purposes, such as
money-laundering or funding child trafficking or arms and munitions
trafficking, the recent case of Silk Road being an example. They therefore
want guarantees on who is using it, for what purpose, how much, who to and why.
They want the same controls over it as they do over the banking system. How,
where and when and whether they use those controls is up to them of course.
With that view in mind, the US Inland Revenue and the UK Inland Revenue, and a
number of government committees have been examining the question and are
willing to recognise it and allow it to be given a go. But whether the
conditions they set, will be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, is
another matter. The quest for perfect accountability of all financial
transactions is the Utopian dream of the nation state... :-). For those
fiddlers, fraudsters, money launderers, inside and outside of the state who
want to make money anonymously and illegally, their Utopian dream is perfect
solidarity amongst criminals and ordinary folks alike, as long as they don't
get twigged, cottoned on to, or caught. That is the nux of the matter, it is
the nux of most matters, when one thinks on it. The balance of the powers of
the state to control the individual against the rights of the individual to do
as he/she likes.
John Doe, the reasonable man on international holiday or business train, wants
to be sure that by using it, his money is going to be safe and secure, whilst
it passes through the hands of Bitcoin, he/she wants to know what guarantees
he/she has that it will be delivered, on time, to the right person or
organisation and if it can be easily exchanged for the correct value, and if
not, how he/she can get their money back again. John Doe might be quite happy
to use his/her present form of banking, whether it be physically going to a
bank to deposit money, or whether the transaction is done online. As long as
it he feels safe and secure, and has guarantees that his money is not going to
disappear, and if it does he will be recompensed by the bank; or if it costs
too much money in charges he will usually be content with his present banking
arrangements. Anonymity of personal transactions is not a high priority for
most people, but it might be for a financial institution which is participating
in a take-over bid, or placing private or confidential deposits for a sensitive
contract...
Criminal organisations want to know how safe and secure and anonymous they are
from the prying and investigatory eyes of the nation state. And they don't
want their fellow criminals and associates walking off with it, disappearing
it. 5 I's Intelligence services may have need of these financial transactions,
to move money secretly to their foreign agents or spies; whilst law enforcement
will look on it with different eyes. Drug dealers, armaments dealers and such
like will have similar views towards anonymity.
If there were no checks and balances on money transfers on any kind on Bitcoin
or any other financial transaction then governments or financial institutions
would not be able to protect their currencies and therefore control their
economies, either on a national scale or a global one, in my view. If using
Bitcoin can supply all of those needs and be cheaper than the present financial
arrangements, then in the nature of things it will become more popular.
Of course, if we could get rid of the nation state, and then get rid of money
altogether...then Bitcoin would be perfect...but it would also be
unnecessary... :-).
ATB
Dougie.
-----Original Message-----
From: cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Peter Presland
Sent: 08 April 2015 12:35
To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [cryptome] Re: 1st British Bitcoin Exchange due to open
On 07/04/2015 21:52, Ryan Carboni wrote:
According to Ars Technica, Bitcoin went bankrupt. ;)That's the 'Bitcoin Foundation' whose relationship with the Bitcoin currency is
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Douglas Rankine
<douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
wrote:
According to /The Times,/ Britain's first *bitcoin* exchange is
poised to open. The chief executive of Coinbase has reportedly been
in talks with UK regulators "for at least six months" about setting
up an exchange.____
