I'm talking about the stuff in bold after that sentence:


...which comes from the OP. (Sorry, it would have been clearer if I'd just quoted the stuff I was talking about...)

Actually, you are right, OP seems to have pulled this out of his arse. I thought (and others probably thought too) he was quoting someone from Bitcoin Foundation.

I made a moron of myself.

Not at all, you were supposed to think that. It's a classic rhetorical tactic from the political bullshitting textbook. Politicians use it all the time, because it works so reliably - people will naturally assume that the things you say are connected.

So you start with something an opponent actually said ("Maybe we should do what the Tor guys are doing and explain to regulators why they shouldn't try to regulate us"), set up a false opposition ("work with" vs "be unregulated"), then plonk a bunch of strawmen on the opponent's side of the divide (AML! Tax! Censorship!) and people will assume that your opponent is advocating the strawman stuff too, without you needing to specifically say so. Then having scared people about their enemy's dastardly plot you throw in the stuff you want to do (Throttle the network at 7 transactions per second!) and make it look like it's an essential part of defeating your opponent's evil agenda.

EE. That's a very impressive deconstruction!

Didnt read this whole thread so not sure if this has been said already. But the idea of taking both routes could be vary beneficial depending how regulated the gov't wants it. There is no reason why the foundation cant make a "regulated" bitcoin client and secretly in the back room on a Tor server work on a 2nd shadow client, one which ignores those rules. End result would be, The foundation does what the gov't wants but at the same time we do what we want. if at any point the clients become incompatible, they only need to say "well, we did our best gov't, everyone is ignoring our official client now". they can all publicly quit but keep working on the shadow client (the real client) same as always. Legally they wouldnt be responsible, though we would have legal battles for bitcoins future at that point.

I guess the question becomes, can you legally ban a technology that isnt illegal, simply because its users choose to use it for that? Think Torrents, they are perfectly legal, but some people upload illegal/copyrighted content.

I hope everyone realizes that regulation WILL happen, and it is NOT your choice. It will be regulated by countries all over the world and subject to international laws on trade.
This is not a "choice". It is and will remain law, whether one works with regulators or not. 
I suppose if you think tax evasion is a way to avoid cooperating then you could do that, of course you may go to jail.

We will see what shakes out, but most of what I have heard is about regulating US Dollars, not bitcoin. It is regulating the sale of bitcoins for dollars. I don't understand the position of speculators who want to trade BTC back and forth for dollars and not pay tax or be subject to regulation. If you want to use dollars you are choosing to use their money and must play by their rules. Just stick to bitcoins and free yourself from that nonsense. Cut the cord.

It is just like BitTorrent. The governments can do absolutely nothing to stop the system or the idea, they can only go after users at entities at the fringe.

is smells like you have not read the reports or know what fincen actually is...

try researching them..

they only care about FIAT and can only control the flow of FIAT in BANK ACCOUNTS. the whole 'virtual currency' term is about the digital dollar on computer screens/database tables of liberty exchange, bitstamp etc which represents is a "convertable virtual currency" of the actual dollar in their bank account. nothing to do with bitcoin balances of those companies or of blockchain.info, bitcoin-qt, armory, etc, etc.

the sooner people get their head out the sand that fincen/FSA etc can only control the FIAT. and not scare monger about bitcoin dying.. the sooner the people can create legitimate fiat exchange platforms.


the government only tax FIAT you have, so it will only affect bitcoins when you put it into fiat. just like the last 100+ years. if you buy a piece of artwork they dont request 20% of the painting to be ripped from its frame as tax.. they wait for you to sell it. and then tax you on the FIAT

each country is different. in the UK bitcoins are being treated like assets.
EG pieces of artwork, (personal possessions with a store of value), your car.

lets say you won the olympics. you received a gold medal worth $2000 of gold. until you sold that medal, you dont pay tax on holding the medal. same as a painting etc.

check with your tax office. they are not there to whip you at every turn, they are always approachable and can explain things. most tax accountants even give away a free first hour consultation.. so abuse that too.. get a list of 5 local tax accountants. go to each, ask your questions and when the time is up, go to the next accountant.