[dhfhduk]

I don't agree with the idea that the value of bitcoin was always to evade taxes and launder money. Maybe that's a primary motive for many, but I don't think that constitutes the value of bitcoin in toto.

I have no skin in the bitcoin game--I've never possessed any bitcoin and don't feel any burning desire to in the near future.

As monetary transactions have moved to the electronic sphere, there's been an important shift from how value is verified. With paper currency, the physical form of the coin or bill acts as verification of its value (thus the focus on counterfeiting, etc.). The trust in the value comes from the physical object possessing certain characteristics. Electronically, though, in the current system, everything is based on verification by trusted institutions. So there's no way of Alice paying Bob without it being verified by Ted, who then makes a lot of money and has lots of control over the financial system.

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency tries to get back to the idea of peer-to-peer financial exchange without needing that third party, which I think is really valuable in society.

I agree with the concerns being raised in the article that there's a danger of criminalizing peer-to-peer financial transactions, because it basically starts granting new power to institutions that were previously held indirectly by the currency issuing bank.

Also, if everyone in my city wanted to start trading in tulips, why should the government criminalize the tulip trade (as opposed to criminalizing not reporting the value of the tulips you own)?

[dragonwriter]

> Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency tries to get back to the idea of peer-to-peer financial exchange without needing that third party

No, it doesn't. Because it relies on validation by a number of third-parties (whose identities and degrees of influence are opaque), who must (collectively, if not individually) be trusted and who (again, collectively, though this can end up fairly narrowly concentrated) control the financial system in the same way as “Ted” in your hypothetical.

[darawk]

That's a silly argument. Bitcoin does not rely on validation by 3rd parties. It relies on validation by a large number of independent third parties who can only act in a way inconsistent with the rules of the system if a majority of them collude. And even then what they can do is very narrowly prescribed (a double spend attack, specifically). That is vastly different from trusting a single independent third party like a bank who has literally no restrictions whatsoever on what they can do unilaterally.

[b1daly]

Well, banks have tremendous restrictions on what they can do, in collusion, or unilaterally.

One very good reason for this high level of regulation is that banks are a primary component of the money supply system. Having a functional monetary system is a great thing, for the society as a whole.

It has aspects of being a public good. (Some people argue that banking should be made a government supplied service, for this reason.)

Almost every aspect of modern life is subject to laws and regulations, by a sovereign entity of some sort.

Such an entity has very valid reasons for regulating the use of bitcoin.

Even people using bartering systems have gotten in trouble with the IRS.

[Kiro]

> Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency tries to get back to the idea of peer-to-peer financial exchange without needing that third party

What's the benefit? I suppose it becomes faster but seeing that Bitcoin transfers takes hours to verify currently I don't know if that's an argument.