Slashdot Mirror
Will Legitimacy Spoil Bitcoin?
New submitter F9rDT3ZE writes "Salon writer Andrew Leonard examines the U.S. Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network's (FinCEN) first 'guidance' regarding 'de-centralized virtual currencies,' noting that Bitcoin's supporters call it a 'currency of resistance,' while others suggest that 'the more popular Bitcoin gets, whether as a symbol of resistance or a perceived safe haven in financially troubled times, the more government attention it will inevitably draw, and the more inexorably it will be sucked into existing regulatory structures.'"
In what sense has U.S. currency been devalued? Its real purchasing power has remained quite strong over the past few decades; there hasn't been a significant erosion of real purchasing power (i.e. high inflation) since the late-70s/early-80s period of inflation.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The idea of Bitcoin, I think, is to give up on the idea of asking the state nicely not to control something, and make something that the state, whether it wants to or not, can't control.
That actually addresses the question in TFS: Will legitimacy spoil bitcoin?
First, you have to achieve legitimacy. In the USA, the power of currency, essentially, belongs to the federal government. If they perceive a threat (or simply a challenge) to that power, what do you think they will do? Hint: It's going to be directly related to the term "legitimate."
The thing about the assumption that the state "cannot" control something, is that it is almost always entirely wrong. This discovery is almost always accompanied by wailing and gnashing of teeth.
There is only one condition under which the state cannot control: When the state itself has been dismantled. And there is absolutely no sign of such a thing, even well out on the horizon.
Consequently, the answer to the question in TFS is: No. What's going to "spoil" bitcoin are actions of the state. Guaranteed. It won't be legitimacy, because that's permanently and irrevocably out of reach.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
No matter what you trade, if it has value, the state will look to control it's function.
So far, the main entanglements seem to occur because people what their bitcoins to be exchangeable with other currencies, particularly USD. Whether or not you think they are a terrible idea, the (copious) regulations that (sometimes, if you aren't big and important enough) cover bank-like institutions that deal in transactions large enough to be of money laundering concern aren't exactly new or surprising.
It would be a bit more novel if they were to go after bitcoin-only transactions floating around in the aether; but if the bitcoin system is going to link to conventional currencies, it isn't a huge surprise that regulations from conventional currencies will start to apply at those links. Not wholly unlike connecting a VOIP system to the local POTS. There are some ghastly hellholes where the VOIP simply isn't legal at all(though fewer of those can back it up); but a lot more where you can do whatever you damn well please so long as it's VOIP only; but once you start interconnecting with the POTS system, you get all the exciting legacy regulations associated with the incumbent copper for the last 50 years.
Dollars *are* backed by debt. And that debt seemed to be ever increasing, at least up until 2007-ish when the housing market finally imploded.
The Fed doesn't really control or constrain the supply of money, though many economists still believe that they do. It's the double entry book-keeping rules of the banking industry that predominantly create and control the supply of money. A new loan creates both a future obligation and current spending power that didn't exist before. Sure the bank has to find a small amount of money to meet their deposit insurance, liquidity and capital requirements, but that's tiny in comparison to the value of new loans.
Since the level of debt is now such a huge factor in the economy, small accelerations and decelerations in the growth of debt have an enormous impact on the economy. And when everyone recently slammed on the debt brakes the economy practically died.
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
There is nothing more real about the faith that you'll be able to exchange gold for things you need than that you will be able to exchange dollars. Every currency is based, at some point, on the belief that it will be able to be exchanged for something. It doesn't matter if that faith is direct, as with fiat currency, or indirect, as with metal backed currency. The dollar has been more stable since we got off gold. Yes, inflationary, but stable. That's a good thing. Our currency is worth what people think it is worth, instead of being pegged to the whims of the gold market.