by generalseven on 10/29/13, 12:05 PM with 106 comments
by snitko on 10/29/13, 12:44 PM
Never gonna happen. Bitcoin is the cleaning we need. There's absolutely no incentive for governments or banks (which are in bed with governments) to make things better for those, who are not in the club.
I don't think Bitcoin's gonna wipe out the very idea of government, but it certainly has a potential to give rise to free economic zones, where no government can have its way. And their success can, in turn, convince even more people that they don't really need anyone to govern them.
by innino on 10/29/13, 12:39 PM
1) Bitcoin has the potential to destroy the tools of monetary policy. 2) Bitcoin has the potential to hide taxable income from governments. 3) Governments with dwindling tax bases may react by printing traditional currency, hastening the flight to Bitcoin in a vicious cycle. 4) Traditional currencies may collapse as people rush to convert them into Bitcoin. 5) Unable to tax coercively, traditional governments may collapse.
What might replace them? Toll roads and kickstarter philanthropy in Randian democracies?
(Is this in the ballpark for Bitcoin's potential impact or not?)
by JonSkeptic on 10/29/13, 12:49 PM
"Bitcoin is not electronic money… At present its eventual impact on the real economy seems negligible…Bitcoin is not a financial product as defined by law. (Mediation in) the purchase or sale of Bitcoins is not a financial service either, so the Financial Supervision Act does not apply."
Then the article goes on to say:
>ingredients are in place to make Amsterdam a city with a lot of Bitcoin in its future.
And the article then lists a lot of the benefits of having Bitcoin as an unregulated 'local currency', aka a commodity. This is a dangerous place for Bitcoin. If it grows too much, it will be recognized as a currency and regulated. If it grows only slightly, then it will not see any real use outside of the small group that already uses it. In the latter case, people like the author of the article stand to benefit a fair amount. In the former case, people like the author of the article stand be driven out of business, or have their business model impaired, by regulation.
If the point of the article was to convey that this is a golden age for Bitcoin in Holland, then it has achieved its purpose. If the point of the article was to make it seem that significant adoption of Bitcoin in Holland lay ahead, or that it would be a good thing, then it has not done so. In fact, that would be an entirely different article that would have to include more factual and historical analysis than this article even bats an eye at.
by jdmitch on 10/29/13, 12:24 PM
Can bitcoin's unregulatable nature really provide an example for how establishment financial systems should be better regulated? Bitcoin can be an alternative, it seems, but not a "city on a hill" to fiat currencies, and their financial systems.
by oleganza on 10/29/13, 12:40 PM
> This past June Dutch Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem gave a Bitcoin-friendly report to Parliament. He said: «Bitcoin is not electronic money… At present its eventual I'mpact on the real economy seems negligible…Bitcoin is not a financial product as defined by law. (Mediation in) the purchase or sale of Bitcoins is not a financial service either, so the Financial Supervision Act does not apply.»
This is the same Dijsselbloem who said that deposit confiscation on Cyprus is not a template for similar confiscations in the rest of EU: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-19/cypriot-bank-accoun...
This is the same Dijsselbloem who said that Cyprus is a template for "haircuts" on deposits in the EU: http://www.businessinsider.com/dijsselbloem-cyprus-deal-is-a...
When time comes, all these guys will change their minds 180º without blinking. Fortunately, it will be too late.
by jqueryin on 10/29/13, 1:19 PM
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...