Some people I respect a great deal have joined this Blockchain Alliance where Bitcoin companies will partner with agencies like the DHS, FBI and Immigration Service (of all things).
I must be missing something because I don't see how this is beneficial.
A couple years back, many industry leaders gladly cheered and supported the "bold" and "progressive" efforts of Ben Lawsky to proactively regulate Bitcoin.
At the time, I was one of the very earliest minority voices who spoke out against this and the reasons I thought supporting Lawsky was a terrible idea.
Our industry engaged him, we attended his media show hearings, we cheered at his Reddit AMA marketing and gave him fame, notoriety and legitimacy.
The result was a horrible and overbearing Bitlicense which took thousands of industry man hours and millions of dollars to roll back to the current point...which is still quite onerous and harmful to business. Did we learn nothing from this?
Unlike many who thought it was a good idea, I've actually been a regulated investment professional (with a spotless compliance record) for over 20 years...including 18 years as a FINRA General Securities Principal and time as an SEC Registered Investment Advisor. I've seen first hand the massive harm that many of these regulations do to business while doing little to nothing to actually stop actual fraud or bad behavior.
The investment industry spends billions of dollars annually on compliance with vague and ever changing rules directed by unelected bureaucrats who generally seek to increase influence and power with more far reaching regs.
Meanwhile, derivatives scams, penny stock pumping schemes, dishonest bond underwriting, conflicts of interest, corrupt rating services, fraudulent marketing and outright frauds run rampant.
Even one of their own, Bernie Madoff, the Chairman of the largest industry regulator, the NASD, was not caught for years...despite a 17 page detailed tip from a whistleblower to the SEC. The regulators simply are not adept at catching bad actors....they are far more adept at creating hurdles for legitimate business.
As with proactively supporting more regulations, the support of the Department of Homeland Security, FBI, ICE and others in partnership with Bitcoin industry leaders is unlikely to yield any positive results in improving the image of Bitcoin OR reducing bad behavior -- but will most certainly result in a form of reverse regulatory capture where the govt officials our industry are dealing with seek increased influence and control over Bitcoin and related technologies.
In what way is Federal involvement in our technology with peaceful, non criminal actors a legitimate role for government? By what logic does one assume that the government officials and agencies involved will not continually expand and increase influence and control over this technology? Would the cooperation of the Blockchain Alliance with government agencies continue if the agencies asked for blacklisting of coins, elimination of privacy features, removing fungibiliy features and other requests? Does the Blockchain Alliance support current actions by the agencies including the current methods of asset forfeiture without trial by which the government can seize property without even charging someone of s crime? Does the Blockchain Alliance support the Federal government's policy of ignoring the mandates of voters in jurisdictions such as Colorado and prosecuting crimes that the majority of state voters and representatives have already voted against? Is there ANY law, rule or policy by any future agencies or future politicians which the Blockchain Alliance would refuse cooperation on? From the current announcements it does not seem so.
I hope I'm wrong and have misunderstood somehow.
As I said, many I respect a great deal have supported this.s.
Hi Gavin, I'm not totally against engaging either, however, I believe in transparency and I feel as though from what I have read and seen so far from this press release is that this is going to be a closed-forum with little to no transparency to outsiders. I believe that transparency will be one of the most important factors if this is to be successful from an outsider point of view. Otherwise, people will have the feeling of spying, surveillance, and backdoor tactics to undermine the network and users.I still think engaging is the best strategy. Yes, there will be more failures like the BitLicense, but overall I think every positive interaction with law enforcement or regulators helps move opinions from "Bitcoin is Evil and must be eliminated" towards "Bitcoin is an innovative technology that should be allowed to grow."
I suspect you meant to say that you *have* many members of law enforcement in your family.I hate many members of law enforcement in my family.
From what I see it is an advocacy group that also aspires to be like a PR channel for the Bitcoin Startup World? Of course that rebranded with the word Blockchain. OF COURSE!I'm just wondering how the forum folks here feel about this new endeavor?
http://coincenter.org/2015/10/announcin ... n-alliance
http://blockchainalliance.org/
The thing that gets me is, if this is the blockchain, where is the transparency? All I see is an email address to contact this new Alliance group. Why not have an open forum that is at least viewable from the general public to see inquiries. Kind of like Google's Transparency reports. I would expect nothing less.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.It's also important to remember that the biggest danger in this world isn't from evil people.
It is from good people who blindly obey the orders of evil people because they imagine them to have "authority".
I have engaged on and off with the UK regulatory scene on and off throughout the last few years, and I like think that I've had a fair bit of success. As might be attested by the freedom we've had here for a few years (not just down to me, but a combination of factors/people).The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
--Edmund Burke
I think where it becomes relevant are these closed-door meetings that will happen with bitcoin companies in secret, with undoubtedly federal officials asking for access to data that the general public is not privileged to. Will the bitcoin companies comply? Or will this remain simply an "educational" channel for law enforcement to ask about bitcoin? I highly doubt it's the latter. More than likely it's to build relationships with federal partners with an end game of _________ (fill in the blank)? Maybe it's to lobby for the betterment of bitcoin, or maybe it's not, and it's for the interest of some in certain groups to further their cause (whatever that may be). Nobody on the outside knows. That's why transparency is so important. I think if the forum is at least viewable by the general public (and writable by vetted members only), we can at least see what is happening from a high level. Also, I find it a bit ironic they use "blockchain" in their name when they will be the furthest thing from what a transparent system is.From what I see it is an advocacy group that also aspires to be like a PR channel for the Bitcoin Startup World? Of course that rebranded with the word Blockchain. OF COURSE!I'm just wondering how the forum folks here feel about this new endeavor?
http://coincenter.org/2015/10/announcin ... n-alliance
http://blockchainalliance.org/
The thing that gets me is, if this is the blockchain, where is the transparency? All I see is an email address to contact this new Alliance group. Why not have an open forum that is at least viewable from the general public to see inquiries. Kind of like Google's Transparency reports. I would expect nothing less.
If that is what it is and what it stays being. Then it is inconsequential to the Bitcoin Community and only really relevant to Bitcoin Startups and Companies. In my opinion it is mostly a plain "OK" thing. Not really of any actual relevancy. At least until it manages to be so, but if that happens it will a Q2 2016 subject. No point in getting ahead of ourselves is what I would say.
Closed door meetings to undermine or enforce will happen regardless. Any given week or month there must be one of those. That is why it is even more important to choose and promote Bitcoin Startups that have set ups that from the ground up allow for transparency, security and privacy. Be it because that is how they were designed and are principled or because the user can take over the usage of the software or services from his end in case there is breach of trust. Be the case it was unintentional or out of erosion.I think where it becomes relevant are these closed-door meetings that will happen with bitcoin companies in secret, with undoubtedly federal officials asking for access to data that the general public is not privileged to. Will the bitcoin companies comply? Or will this remain simply an "educational" channel for law enforcement to ask about bitcoin? I highly doubt it's the latter. More than likely it's to build relationships with federal partners with an end game of _________ (fill in the blank)? Maybe it's to lobby for the betterment of bitcoin, or maybe it's not, and it's for the interest of some in certain groups to further their cause (whatever that may be). Nobody on the outside knows. That's why transparency is so important. I think if the forum is at least viewable by the general public (and writable by vetted members only), we can at least see what is happening from a high level. Also, I find it a bit ironic they use "blockchain" in their name when they will be the furthest thing from what a transparent system is.
From what I see it is an advocacy group that also aspires to be like a PR channel for the Bitcoin Startup World? Of course that rebranded with the word Blockchain. OF COURSE!
If that is what it is and what it stays being. Then it is inconsequential to the Bitcoin Community and only really relevant to Bitcoin Startups and Companies. In my opinion it is mostly a plain "OK" thing. Not really of any actual relevancy. At least until it manages to be so, but if that happens it will a Q2 2016 subject. No point in getting ahead of ourselves is what I would say.
Hmm, maybe you missed what was said earlier (or clear from Day 1), many of us don't care about "big money" in bitcoin and don't care if bitcoin reaches "moon".Welcome Gavin.
Personally i think that this was inevitable. VC companies will always work with regulators to push their business and bring it to success. We will never reach "moon", when regulated companies have to fear that bitcoin gets "banned". If you want big money in bitcoin, you need regulation.
Return to “Bitcoin Discussion”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests