In which /r/bitcoin discovers the downsides of having an unregulated currency after insider trading. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
714 ups - 210 downs = 504 votes
545 comments submitted at 10:47:19 on Feb 21, 2014 by Froghurt
In which /r/bitcoin discovers the downsides of having an unregulated currency after insider trading. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
714 ups - 210 downs = 504 votes
545 comments submitted at 10:47:19 on Feb 21, 2014 by Froghurt
The people who are telling others to stay away from gox obviously do care about past victims, why else would they do that?
Aren't you the guy that threatened to cut my head off for not liking Ron paul?
really?!
violence is always the replacement for intelligence with these types
Death and doxxing threats were pretty common from the Paul cultists in 2012.
plz respond, /u/Patrick5555
They are desperate to prove that libertarianism does not inevitably lead to a Mad-Max-style anything-goes shithole. If they really cared about other people getting screwed, they wouldn't be so fundamentally opposed to laws and regulations specifically designed to prevent that.
Fun fact: MtGox is located in Japan because US regulation makes it impossible to run an exchange in the US.
Very curious to see how even more regulation will fix that.
That wasn't very fun at all, and in classic libertarian fashion it is oversimplified to the point of not being useful at all. Do you think it might also have something to do with it being significantly more difficult to pierce the corporate veil under Japanese law?
You're bandying the phrase "even more regulation" as if it were impossible to change existing regulations. The point of regulation of economic markets isn't to piss all over people; it's to protect people from being swindled like so many people are right now.
This is bullshit - you're oversimplifying a complex situation to the point of no longer adding anything useful to the discussion
[deleted]
seriously? people still think this is funny?
Been a while since I've seen that card pulled. Must mean that today will be a good day.
I don't think people recognized your copypasta
I think they think I'm criticizing Bugs, but really I just posted it because it's so similar to his first sentence :/
I didn't know that was copypasta, and I was pretty puzzled when I saw your response because it was almost identical to what I said, haha.
> You're bandying the phrase "more regulation" as if it were impossible to change existing regulations.
So there are existing regulations? I thought we lived in a Mad-Max-style anything goes shithole.
The capital required to start an exchange in the US is about $25 million dollars.
I fail to see the lesson here about how the unregulated market is bad for everybody if there never was an unregulated market to begin with.
> The point of regulation of economic markets isn't to piss all over people; it's to protect people from being swindled like so many people are right now.
As with so many things, there are unintended side-effects. Making it impossible for ethical businesses to grow in the US and thereby forcing customers to overseas is just one example.
> I fail to see the lesson here about how the unregulated market is bad for everybody if there never was an unregulated market to begin with.
I dare say there was.
I mean, markets didn't appear magically with regulations overnight. People must have traded stuff before the idea of regulating the trades came about. We aren't the N'tuitif.
> The point of regulation of economic markets isn't to piss all over people; it's to protect people from being swindled like so many people are right now.
Maybe, but it's naive to think you can just turn up some sort of regulation dial to protect people better. You can't just regulate your way to every outcome you want.
So you are saying that if we can't cover all the bases, we shouldn't even attempt to cover the ones we can?
How do we know which ones we can? This sort of transaction is not the kind of thing that current securities regulations cover. Passing rules in response to the outrage du jour is a pretty bad regulatory strategy.
> How do we know which ones we can?
Trial and error, I suppose.
>Passing rules in response to the outrage du jour is a pretty bad regulatory strategy.
Maybe, but I still would put it above not regulating at all, especially if outrages are happening.
>Trial and error
Just like bitcoin
>Maybe, but I still would put it above not regulating at all, especially if outrages are happening.
Unless the outrages are shitty. And this is a shitty outrage. What is the harm here that motivates regulation? Some people lost money. But if this was a price correction, then people were going to lose money no matter what. Most people have no idea why insider trading is actually considered problematic for markets, they just say "it's unfair" as if we'd have a better finance system if the ignorant and the savvy were guaranteed equal returns.
>Unless the outrages are shitty.
Oh.
you're trying to fix something that isn't a problem
Wait - I thought this thread was about being upset about a shitty exchange that would exist if the US didn't protect them from competition?
You know mad max was fiction right?
So is the market bitcoin users want.
>They are desperate to prove that libertarianism does not inevitably lead to a Mad-Max-style anything-goes shithole.
Mt. Gox does not represent the Bitcoin model overall by any stretch. There have been indicators for several months that that place was a horrible exchange, and anyone who even kind of did their homework would have realized this... ie- if you were following r/bitcoin at all, you would have been pretty clear on this.
>If they really cared about other people getting screwed, they wouldn't be so fundamentally opposed to laws and regulations specifically designed to prevent that.
It sounds like you're implying that large, monolithic central banking-style system that benefits the 1% and up are the answer - kind of exactly what we're seeing today w/ the US banking model.
The ultimate goal of Bitcoin was never about looking after other people. It was designed for people to be totally independent and responsible for their own money, to sell/trade goods and service w/o any interference from any other party. In short, it was always about total decentralization.
People are getting screwed because they left their funds in an exchange. As much as I feel sorry for them, it's an issue between them an Mt. Gox.
I don't doubt people who didn't lose anything in that mess wish that this who did lose something wouldn't have lost it.
I also think the point of regulation is to help make sure they wouldn't have lost it in the first place.
I do kinda like this bitcoin experience because I bet some people out there are learning that regulations aren't all evil on their face. I hope.
I dont think anyone has a problem with regulation, what people have a problem with is funding the regulations with taxes. Underwriters Laboratory could probably regulate all of our electronics and set safe standards without taxes, because they practically already do. It isn't that much of a stretch to apply that other things.
Regulating a currency isn't free, even when it's a burgeoning online currency instead of a national one. You have to hire many people full time, own or rent (and maintain) property and the buildings thereon...
We'll see if that is true the longer this goes on I guess
everybody but you already knows that it is
we already did. it's established economic reality
the only problem is that certain people like you are ignorant of economic history and want to learn the hard way
Shhh. Logistics don't real.
how the fuck are you paying for regulations, regulators, courts, and all that cool stuff without taxes?
>how the fuck are you paying for regulations blah blah blah
>Underwriters Laboratories
Reading comprehension really isn't some people's strong suit.
Donations yo.
charity
the magic fudge factor from people who spend all their time arguing how they don't see a reason to contribute
And how are you enforcing the regulations without laws? If any private regulatory agency got to the point where it were necessary in practice to pay them the ratings fee and adhere to their rules, how is that functionally different than a government run agency?
How is the government going to enforce regulations without taxes? You can't leave the regulation up to the private sector, that defeats the purpose of regulation.
Look I'll agree there's some dumbass regulations out there, but there's plenty of good ones too.
Also why are taxes so horrible? Excessive tax for nothing sure, but taxes in general are just our entrance fee for the civilized society.
I don't think taxes are the worst thing in the history of mankind, but when the government is allowed to do something that it simultaneously disallows citizens to do, you have some ethical fuckery going on. A citizen cannot demand part of someone else's salary because that is called extortion and it is obviously morally wrong. Those of us who aren't fans of taxes have a hard time understanding why the line is drawn between commoner and politician. We believe that rights and rules must be universal or there's no point in having them in the first place.
>I don't think taxes are the worst thing in the history of mankind, but when the government is allowed to do something that it simultaneously disallows citizens to do, you have some ethical fuckery going on.
Like raise an army, enter treaties with foreign powers, declare war, write regulations and laws and punish people for violations of those laws?
Nothing unethical about any of that. The whole point of government is the citizens turning some authority over to a central authority so that society can function. How much authority is important, but we'd be screwed if all Those things above plus most things funded with taxes were left up to private citizens.
>Those of us who aren't fans of taxes have a hard time understanding why the line is drawn between commoner and politician.
For Americans it's in the constitution? That's the line? Every society determines that line on it's own.
>We believe that rights and rules must be universal or there's no point in having them in the first place.
What about taxes isn't universal? Everyone pays at a rate determined by the rules. No one is singled out. You're free to move between brackets to change your rate as you desire.
Never mind that society has determined that taxes are the preferred method to provide for things for the public good. You are welcome to run for office on things like "all roads should be private" and see how it goes. However most people see at least some role for government in the world and since it isn't free, most people see taxes as a necessity. Even if they would prefer not to pay.
Sooo, let me get this strait: yo ... you want the regulating agencies to be run on unicorn dreams and to have all their employees compensated with puppy smiles?
No the companies themselves will make the regulations. Because we can trust them!
Ahh, see the alternative I was thinking was that the government makes regulations and then we just trust all the companies to investigate, enforce, AND prosecute offenders all on their own.
Hmmm. An intriguing possibility, there's no way that couldn't work out for the best!
I'm imagining the lowest basement floor of the headquarters of all financial companies as dungeons with all the people who "broke regulations" shackled to the wall. There's no chance that those people being punished were just rivals that this company was able to snatch up. All big companies' building would have sweet security perimeters with heavily armed guards to prevent their highly valued employees from being snatched up by a rival company's "security" team for "violations."
Exxon's Book of Laws 18.67265c
"Looking funny at Exxon headquarters"
The crime of not smiling while walking by Exxon headquarters shall be punishable by no less than 6 years in jail and a $150,000 fine, to be served in Exxon Happy Island Jail and Resort (R).
In lieu of the fine and jail time work may be done on deep water oil platforms for a term of no less than 10 years at a pay of $1.75 annually plus two bowls of oatmeal a day. Or by providing insider information on BP's corporate practices in the most recent fiscal year.
Well now that's just silly. They would have to find a way to tie that to industry regulations to enforce it, but I don't doubt that they'd find some way to tie it in there somehow.
Like, somehow looking funny at Exxon headquarters increases the likelihood of workers dying on oil platforms, or something like that.
More Comments - Click Here
That's exactly how UL works, didn't you know?