Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

WV Senator Calls For Ban On All Unregulated Cryptocurrencies

Posted by timothy on from the and-you-can't-trade-with-your-neighbors-either dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a member of the Senate Banking Committee, has called for for heavily regulation of Bitcoin. Reached for comment, his staff confirmed Manchin is seeking a 'ban' that would apply to any cryptocurrency that's both anonymous and unregulated."

34 of 240 comments (clear)

  1. But ... FREEDOM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can't the free market handle this? Do we really need yet more restrictive government regulations? What are they afraid of? Could untraceable cryptocurrencies somehow encourage people who don't have a lot of money to avoid taxes, similar to what our betters do right now with offshore tax havens?

    1. Re:But ... FREEDOM! by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A "D" means that the candidate openly opposes the free market.

      An "R" would indicates that the candidate openly opposes the free market, but pretends not to.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    2. Re:But ... FREEDOM! by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This has nothing to do with freedom, taxes, or even money. It is all about getting his name in the paper, and his constituants seeing hime "doing something!"

    3. Re:But ... FREEDOM! by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      God damned right. (though I feel there are a few rare exceptions on both sides) Moral of the story, don't vote along party lines.

    4. Re:But ... FREEDOM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The "free market" is an idiom that never existed in the "real world" however.

    5. Re:But ... FREEDOM! by SpankiMonki · · Score: 2

      Ask Adam Smith how the free market Handles everything.

      The "Invisible Hand" right? The not so invisible hand that's been giving us the finger?

    6. Re:But ... FREEDOM! by thaylin · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, he would also say that there are flaws, such as monopolies, that would also have to be watched and prevented.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    7. Re:But ... FREEDOM! by dlt074 · · Score: 2

      i think it also has something to do with the fact that they need everyone to keep using US $'s. the ponzi scheme that is our current monetary system, only works if people keep believing their money has value and keep using it. the house of cards quickly collapses once enough people realize their money is only worth the paper it's printed on.

    8. Re:But ... FREEDOM! by Glock27 · · Score: 2

      Bitcoin just suffered a loss of 6% of its total currency

      No, Mt. Gox just lost (most probably) all of its currency. It is similar to a bank with insufficient security getting robbed. That is no reason to ban US dollars. BTW, those BTC are out there and will no doubt be spent over time.

      , if I understand the Mt.Gox math properly (and even if I don't, the loss was significant). One of the reasons governments came into being -- one of the reasons most people tend to agree that they should exist, is to protect property rights. There may be nothing wrong with Bitcoin inherently (mathematically), but if there are holes in the faucets -- the bitcoin banking system in this case -- then it's in everyone's best interest to patch the holes.

      Indeed. However, other exchanges were smart enough to protect against this well known technique. Mt. Gox is the equivalent of a bank with a faulty vault and no security guard. Rumor has it that Mt. Gox hadn't balanced its books for months. Inexcusable.

      If someone steals my money, then the taxes I pay go, in part, to pay for the legal system, rules, and police whose job it is to try and get it back or at least punish those who took it.

      Bitcoin has had four years of freedom, and it has proven that it is as susceptible to abuse as traditional cash currencies, if not more so. While I don't want to see it crushed, and I'm in favor of limited government oversight, it seems to me that those limits should be non-zero.

      The Japanese authorities should be making some effort to track the crime. Unfortunately, it's about the same as if a bunch of gold had been stolen from safety deposit boxes and shipped out of the country. There's likely no recourse, but that's no reason to ban gold ownership. Personally I think it's wiser to keep one's gold in a safe at home - and there is a BTC equivalent for that.

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    9. Re:But ... FREEDOM! by whitroth · · Score: 2

      The free market did handle it. And, in the case of Mt. Gox, was run on a hack version of sshd written in three days in php, and it looks like 750k or so bitcoins are gone, transferred to someone else without Evil Gov't And Company Interference.

      And I suppose, if you have your ultra-free way, then I could hold you up at gunpoint, empty your wallet, force you to empty your bank account from the nearest ATM, and it would be up to you to round up a posse to find me.

      Ideological Sucker.

                            mark

    10. Re:But ... FREEDOM! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      SOMETHING must be done.

      This is SOMETHING.

      Therefore, it must be done!

      Nobody ever stops and asks the question "why must SOMETHING be done" and then try to figure out what that "SOMETHING" ought to be.

      The problem here, is that we have people who no nothing, telling everyone else what to do. This is nothing short of tyranny. I just wonder how many people realize that those that are supposed to represent us, only represent themselves.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  2. Phew! Thank goodness Bitcoin is not anonymous by EmagGeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A ban on cryptocurrencies that are both unregulated AND anonymous would not apply to Bitcoin.

    1. Re:Phew! Thank goodness Bitcoin is not anonymous by StripedCow · · Score: 2

      It _is_ anonymous. Until somebody decides to trace back the transaction chain and actually finds weak/strong evidence of a connection to a person.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    2. Re:Phew! Thank goodness Bitcoin is not anonymous by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It _is_ anonymous. Until somebody decides to trace back the transaction chain and actually finds weak/strong evidence of a connection to a person.

      This is like "A book is a secret until someone reads it." It is trivially easy to trace back an exchange. Unlike, for example, cash.

    3. Re:Phew! Thank goodness Bitcoin is not anonymous by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Informative

      Then using a credit card is anonymous too. Until someone decides to trace back the transaction, and subpoena VISA for evidence of a connection to a person. There is no real technical difference between a VISA card number, and a Bitcoin wallet id - just that generally, VISA requires you to tell them who you are when you create an account. But that's not a technical feature of the payment system, just of the rules VISA happens to place around it.

      Bitcoin is pseudonymous - all transactions are tied to a publicly-visible unique identifier. If it was anonymous (like cash is) then transactions would be tied to nothing identifiable.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    4. Re:Phew! Thank goodness Bitcoin is not anonymous by StripedCow · · Score: 2

      Ok, here is a better analogy: Bitcoin is anonymous like IP addresses are anonymous.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    5. Re:Phew! Thank goodness Bitcoin is not anonymous by fulldecent · · Score: 2

      >> just that generally, VISA requires you to tell them who you are when you create an account

      And of course anyone who has had their credit card copied (they don't even steal them nowadays) you will know that a merchant will process transactions even without having your name.

      http://privacylog.blogspot.com...

      --

      -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    6. Re:Phew! Thank goodness Bitcoin is not anonymous by Kjella · · Score: 2

      This is like "A book is a secret until someone reads it." It is trivially easy to trace back an exchange. Unlike, for example, cash.

      If you go to an exchange like Mt.Gox, possibly. But what if I just offer to do some sort of service for you, anything I could do over an open wifi and have you deposit BTC directly into my wallet? Assuming I use a single purpose deposit address and don't mix it with identifiable BTC there's no name attached to that account. And bitcoin to bitcoin transactions are anonymous. If I just transfer something to a different account, nobody can prove whether I just exchanged bitcoins with goods and services from somebody else (possibly in real life) or if I just transferred it to another shell account of mine. Yes, if you use bitcoin almost like a traditional bank account where you have one that all your money flows in and out of that'll quickly be attached to your name and the anonymity is over. But if you want to keep a truly anonymous supply of money, you can - with some effort - do it.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    7. Re:Phew! Thank goodness Bitcoin is not anonymous by radiumsoup · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you just described the case against allowing people to use cash. (you know, "folding money" as my grandparents called it)

      Cash is anonymous, and is regulated only when it comes to transferring into or out of a bank (or if you try to import/export it overseas). By its very nature of being decentralized, cash cannot be regulated in any practical or meaningful way between two private parties, which is, in practice, effectively no different from the current crop of cryptocurrencies. The key difference is that ALL transactions in the Bitcoin protocol are public, and therefore Bitcoin is actually much less private than cash transactions.

      If the senator truly wanted what he said he wanted, he would push to regulate or abolish the use of cash and demand electronic payments in all circumstances. It's more of a "problem" than bitcoin is. How often do you see huge stacks of millions or tens of millions of dollars in cash when there's some big cartel bust? None of that would be possible if cash was regulated and traceable. But no, it's Bitcoin that's the problem, according to this guy.

  3. Ban the USD by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He should really work on banning the USD. It's used for commission of trillions of dollars worth of crimes every year and there's no real means of enforcement for [bona fide] money laundering operations.

    I wonder if his office knows that bitcoin isn't really anonymous?

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  4. Re:American Money by Narcocide · · Score: 4, Funny

    God, lets hope so. Only then can my long term goal of transitioning the US economy to Disney Dollars come to fruition.

  5. Makes you wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ..how much he lost?

  6. Well, we're at the fighting stage I guess by LF11 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ignore/Laugh/Fight/Win

    Bitcoin isn't anonymous, though, and it is quite regulated. Bitcoin is arguably the least anonymous form of value transaction we have (every transaction is publicly and permanently recorded), and if you think it is unregulated try running an exchange anywhere in the Western world.

    Personally, I think the first significant threat to bitcoin will be a cryptocurrency that really is anonymous.

    Something to keep in mind: they can make Bitcoin flatly illegal, but development and usage will simply go underground and continue to grow outside the U.S./Russia/China. U.S. regulations delay adoption but do not prevent it.

    1. Re:Well, we're at the fighting stage I guess by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 2

      Well, we're at the fighting stage I guess

      Naw, we're still pretty squarely in the "laugh" stage. It's amusing to watch y'all rediscover the joys of bank panics.

      We'll be at the fight stage once the Bitcoin folks start seriously introducing independent regulatory bodies; governments will likely not be on board with that.

      Of course, being as the very soul of the Bitcoin movement is rooted in distrust of and independence from central regulation and oversight, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    2. Re:Well, we're at the fighting stage I guess by meglon · · Score: 2

      You should, perhaps, go look at some history on what happened when we were on the gold standard. Want economic growth? Forget about it. Want a loan to start a new business, buy a house, keep your current business humming along? Not a chance, unless of course you think that loan shark interest rates are just way, way, too low.

      A finite money supply means a finite economy, one that can't grow, and can't handle anything significant happening. It also means the wealthy will get more wealthy, and the poor are basically screwed.... and when i say poor, i mean everyone other than those born into money. Some people have this truly ludicrous idea of how peachy and wonderful it was back on the gold standard.... those people need to learn some real history, and get over their ideology of incredible ignorance. That is a finite economy.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  7. And the rest of the world... by Type44Q · · Score: 2

    WV Senator Calls For Ban On All Unregulated Cryptocurrencies

    And the rest of the world calls for a ban on incest.

    Alright, alright, I jest. But seriously, what do they call a girl in West Virginia who can outrun her brothers?

    A virgin. :p

  8. Gee, color me surprised by carlhaagen · · Score: 4, Funny

    A banking goon wants cryptographic currency - a technological currency the banks cannot gain any control of - to be banned. How about that. What's next? A system for banning competition in business?

    1. Re:Gee, color me surprised by Glock27 · · Score: 2

      You think the banks can't gain control of bitcoin?

      Excuse me while I go laugh my head off.

      I suppose "they" could if they started one hell of a mining operation...that would take quite a bit of effort though, and presumes there wouldn't be a mining arms race. Sounds farfetched to me.

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
  9. Ban it as a first option.. by sqorbit · · Score: 2

    Can someone please explain to me why a ban is the first option for some lawmakers who don't understand a certain advancement, technology or social issue. State governments seem to use the "ban it first, ask questions later" philosophy on anything they don't fully comprehend. If this keeps up we will soon start banning theoretical physics.

    --
    Sent from my TARDIS
    1. Re:Ban it as a first option.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Can someone please explain to me why a ban is the first option for some lawmakers who don't understand a certain advancement, technology or social issue. State governments seem to use the "ban it first, ask questions later" philosophy on anything they don't fully comprehend. If this keeps up we will soon start banning theoretical physics.

      The authoritarian leadership style demands control and compliance. Doesn't matter whether you have an (R) or a (D) behind their name, a badge and a gun, or just a fancy title and a nice office. If you see your job as controlling the unruly masses for their own good, then anything that is beyond your control must be a threat - not only to your own power but to the citizenry itself. Anything beyond your comprehension is, by definition, beyond your control, and by extension, also a threat.

      Also, re: theoretical physics, stop giving them ideas.

    2. Re:Ban it as a first option.. by houstonbofh · · Score: 2

      Better question... why haven't they banned the missunderstood tax code?

  10. Re:pffft by mark-t · · Score: 2

    The argument goes, although I don't necessarily agree with it's validity, that given the frequency with which you seem to regularly hear about any single specific "unregulated currency" being used as a money laundering system by criminals, that said specific currency is problematic by association.... What I take from this is that as long as any single unregulated medium of exchange does not become too ubiquitously used or popular, illegal activity is diluted across all of them, and falls under the radar of public consciousness. This might be perceived as important because the more they hear about it, the more they may also think about ways to have done it without getting caught, which may tempt people to try something similar.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  11. Re:Is he Christian? by erroneus · · Score: 2

    Full disclosure: I am atheist.

    I just think it's often convenient to use their religion against them when possible.

  12. Re:too bothered to regulate by erroneus · · Score: 3, Funny

    BATFECES; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Encrypted Currency and Explosive Stuff