Ask Slashdot: Should Bitcoin Be Regulated?

Nerval's Lobster writes "Federal regulators are starting to make noise about Bitcoin, the digital currency that's gained in recognition and value over the past few years: the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is offering up 'guidance' for digital currency and those who use it as part of commerce. But the Bitcoin Foundation, which is devoted to standardizing and promoting the currency, doesn't like that idea; as Patric Murck, the organization's general counsel, wrote in a March 19 blog posting: 'If FinCEN would like to expand its statutory authority over "money transmitters" to include brand new categories such as "administrators" and "exchangers" of digital currency it must do so through proper rulemaking proceedings and not by fiat.' If Bitcoin continues to gain in value, it could spark a rise in virtual currencies—and force some very interesting discussions over regulation. But here's the question: would regulation actually be good for Bitcoin, if it made organizations and businesses more comfortable with using it as a currency?"

Comments

Re:White paper on EXACTLY what a bitcoin is, pleas

[GrandCow]

I've looked, didn't find it. I just found some vague mumbo about cryptography with a ton of loaded buzzwords.

I want specifics.

1.) What is a bitcoin, EXACTLY?
2.) How divisible is a single bitcoin?
3.) All the specifics of any relevant protocols.

You looked at what? First result of a google for "bitcoin white paper" is http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf, the white paper originally released by the creator of bitcoin.

Re:Bored

[Anonymous Coward]

Dice pays the Slashdot staff in Bitcoins, so it's in their best interest to promote it.

A more pertinent question?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps a more pertinent question would be this - if an international currency is to be regulated, who should be in charge of the regulation? Who has jurisdiction?

In science fiction (at least, in games, not so sure about literature) we often see the term 'credit' used to refer to some vague internationally accepted currency. But if such a thing existed (and bitcoin might be heading that way), who sets the rules on it? if it's 'every country', then the concept breaks down and the currency becomes unworkable as you start having to track too much to use it. If it's the UN? I don't see the US ever accepting that.

So that leaves the only workable answer as the originators or the currency.

Regardless, different nations can tax transactions in the currency with the same rules they use for domestic currencies. If the currency is processed by a domestic bank or financial institution, they'd have to process it in much the same way as they would any other transaction. So it seems the simplest way to handle these things is just to make it clear in the law (if it isn't already) that all transactions, regardless of currency, must adhere to the same rules.

inevitably going to happen

[onyxruby]

Exchanges have been compromised, customers have lost money, basic protections are absent. It is used freely for the silk road drug trade, hiding money from governments and evading taxes. Can anyone seriously make the argument that it won't be regulated?

Wrong Question

[bill_mcgonigle]

Clearly everybody involved with Bitcoin does not want to be regulated - if they did it would have been designed differently.

So the actual question here is, "should an unregulated currency be allowed to exist?" Or, without the euphemisms and passive voice, "should we bust the heads of people who use an unregulated digital currency?"