From https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/114911.0:


They were unable to prove they paid for the membership.

It doesn't really matter.
We already have government controlled digital currencies. Allowing government control of bitcoin would be unacceptable and lead to several forks.
There is no point going down that road. There is no need for it.

You define a currency as something that can be converted into another currency, and claim that a medium of exchange cannot be converted into a currency. Well, Bitcoin clearly can be converted into various currencies and are being converted every second.
The idea that Bitcoin "cannot be held" is nonsensical. Of course it can be held, either by taking control of a private key, or it can also be held in the form of a physical coin if you have some fetish for physical representation.
Let's ignore the fact that, say, Wikipedia defines currency as a medium of exchange, because I was interested in the functional difference you were trying to make (endless arguments about definitions being uninteresting).
If you're arguing that Bitcoin cannot be a currency because it's not physical, that's not going to convince anybody.


You stated that Bitcoin was not meant to replace businesses like Western Union. That sentence describes precisely that. Have you really failed so completely to understand the most elementary point of Bitcoin?

I don't blame you for not completely understanding my point here (I also take it that you are not a native speaker of English, and these are very dense arguments, so my hat off to you for keeping up at all). My point, summarised: (1) money laundering is not a real crime, it's a made-up crime invented by governments to keep control over people. (2) You claimed that Bitcoin does not facilitate crime, but if we are talking about money laundering, Bitcoin obviously does facilitate it, so you are flat out wrong in this point as you were in all the other points.

Sorry but I have to call you out on it, what you wrote was basically nonsense from start to finish.

Here is a recap of a few things you said:

Bitcoin is not a currency. - not so much nonsense, just meaningless sophistry.

Bitcoin will not replace companies like Western Union. - nonsense. Once a bitcoin economy exists in sending and receiving country's economy, WU becomes obsolete.

Bitcoin does not facilitate crime. - Nonsense, of course it facilitates crime just as it facilitates productive enterprise. Just as cash does both of those things.

You should present a chart with a giant middle finger and say nothing.

They are not speaking for the rest of us, they are speaking for themselves, which includes the main developer of the Bitcoin software. They are, however, offering the opportunity to anyone provide suggestions to improve the debate they will have with USA federal government. By the way, they can and they will represent the Bitcoin software, whatever you like or not.

They are functioning as a lobby and/or advisory group. I'm not sure you have much understanding of how governments work. You have to engage in politics to get things done when it comes to the law or regulation, by definition.

So how do you want to do it?

You have an incredibly diverse set of people interesting in Bitcoin and covering pretty much all extremes. So the Foundation is doing what it can to ensure Bitcoin itself is accepted by the world at large and not stopped in its tracks. Yes it can go on without the US, but that's not exactly helpful to Bitcoin or to anyone in the US>

You may not like politics or politicians (few do), or the various lobby groups (few do), but this how things are done.

Independence does not mean you stick you head in the sand and go la-la-la to the real world. That's stupidity and arrogance, not independence. What you want is light touch regulation only where it's required. We may all disagree over what that means but some regulation is unavoidable - not of Bitcoin itself but of areas such as KYC of exchanges.

So what the foundation need to do is show the potential for Bitcoin to expand the wider economy, to benefit US businesses, that it is a technology. Conversely, that making it difficult to use could push it more towards the black market, other countries may massively benefit to the US' cost, and so on.

Pathetic.
Isn't that the one thing we're trying to change, here, by letting people have some serious and real voting power through bitcoins?

That is correct. It doesn't matter if the Bitcoin foundation talks with the gov. or not. The network will remain the same.

My issue is that the foundation, in my opinion, is just repeating the same system that I was hoping Bitcoin and other new innovations might eventually free us from. Advising is great, however I don't believe we should conform to a dated political system when the "authority" is not willing to inform themselves. Think about how long human civilization has appointed representatives to speak for the people, even in a supposed democratic system the results are always inevitable. Even if the foundation has Bitcoins best interests at heart today, tomorrow those interests will shift until eventually the core philosophies have been eroded. Sometimes new definitions need to be invented, thats how innovation works. Law, politics, education and economics should adapt to new advances.

Honestly though, I have not yet considered what I "want to do" on these matters, that is something the entire community would need to reflect upon. I do however feel with the advent of social media and so on, there is a far lesser need for advisers. The general public need to be informed, not the dinosaurs who will only care if they can somehow control and manipulate it.


That in my opinion touches at the root of my dislike for the foundation, I don't believe such an extreme set of views can ever be represented by a small group of people. Doing "what it can to be accepted" is not always a good idea, the US a doing what it can do prevent terrorism and look how that is turning out. This is one example of many.


Politics as a system is fine, it is the way we choose to go about conducting politics that I feel needs to change. We cannot keep looking to the same broken system hoping for acceptance and answers. I don't just see Bitcoin as a potential alternative to making transactions, but rather an opportunity to use our intelligence and creativity to reinvent how we live and our roles in society. My views are perhaps Utopian, I just look at the current political/financial systems as extra weight, while we are willing drag the excess behind us we are giving a select few a free ride at our expense.

Finally, I agree to below except one small correction:

So what the *community* need to do is show the potential for Bitcoin to expand the wider economy, to benefit US businesses, that it is a technology. Conversely, that making it difficult to use could push it more towards the black market, other countries may massively benefit to the US' cost, and so on.