[kolev]

The withdrawals will be supposedly enabled after the 20th with limits! They are clearly insolvent and I hope to see Mark Karpeles and Roger Ver in jail sool! "The Bitcoin Satan" (i.e. Roger Ver) is actually soliciting people on Bitcoin Forums to buy their coins and dollars at Mt.Gox at a discounted rate, i.e. they are trying with Mark to steal coins from customers and cover up the loss from theft that's most probably have happened. This clearly proves that Bitcoin and especially exchanges should be heavily regulated. People have lots millions of dollars due to the games Mt.Gox is playing with them - in a normal market, they would be jailed and jailed hard. Similar story with BitSpend, all the Bitcoin gambling sites, honest Ponzi sites like (ponzi.io), and similar - there are horror stories over at Reddit and Bitcoin Forums of people losing their last penny trying to recover from the price drop by gambling. I am sorry, but Bitcoin really is a criminals' sandbox recently! It's a good piece of technology in the wrong hands!

[jnbiche]

You want to ban Bitcoin gambling more that it's already banned? So betting is only OK when it's a state lottery?? I can most decidedly assure you that people where I live routinely spend their last pennies on state lottery tickets.

And the people who lost some of their money by investing in a volatile new market, then tried to gamble their way back to a break-even point and lost? They bear no responsibility for this? Instead, your solution is to outlaw gambling?

Sometimes I despair of my fellow man. By the way, I don't even gamble (in my entire life, I've gambled one single time, not counting two-dollar NCAA basketball pools in HS).

But it really disturbs me how people want to just outlaw what people should be free to do if they wish. Do you have any idea what they're doing to gamblers because of laws like you're advocating? They're sending in SWAT squads in massive raids, where the "target" frequently ends up shot, or at least their dog.

What about alcohol, do you want to outlaw that? It sure causes a lot of problems. Why not just return to Prohibition?

On the other hand, if some powerful Bitcoin player somehow has insider information on Gox's (in)solvency (quite possible) and is still trying to sell Gox coins or Gox bucks that he/she knows to be worthless, that's clearly crossed the line into fraud, and existing fraud regulations are more than adequate for that. Absolutely no additional regulation is needed to prosecute that (see what's happening to pirateat40). However, I have not seen that this is happening, so I'd like to see the thread you're referring to. As it is, your position on gambling makes me extremely skeptical toward your claims.

Edit: OK, edited out "are you fucking kidding me". I apologize to fellow HNers for such an emotional comment -- first time ever (check my history). But I'm so tired of people calling for more laws when we're so close to living in a police state.

[kolev]

People should stop using vulgarism as crutches for their frail thoughts.

State lottery is regulated. It also physically prevents people from putting money into it, which they cannot afford to lose (well, there are services that automate this for you at a price). Gambling is addictive and more often ruins lives than it makes people rich - I know this first-hand as I have relatives who just cannot get out of the vicious circle! I have no doubt that in the future all gambling will be prohibited and will be severely prosecuted.

[jnbiche]

You know, I'll let your ad hominem stand with no comment, but I will point out that I removed my initial "vulgarism" before you responded, leaving only an edit trail for the benefit of other commenters.

And I understand better now, you're emotionally involved in the issue. I'm sorry your relatives have this problem, but they'd have the same issue with the state lottery in every state I've ever lived, since none of them require an ID (so no way to prevent people from spending their last dollar).

And no, gambling doesn't make many people rich. I think most of us know that, at least from a rational perspective.

By the way, alcohol very near ruined my life permanently, before I stopped drinking 10 years ago. Should I call for peoples' enjoyable evening glass of wine to be banned, and for them to be "severely prosecuted"?

And good luck with your "all gambling will be prohibited". More and more states are legalizing gambling, since it's a nice revenue stream.

[kolev]

Be fair - you edited to avoid downvotes. I can't simply by offended by words especially today when even women curse like sailors. It was a suggestion to you. Strong emotions can be expressed better by using proper language as well - it's harder, but it has a stronger effect. A startup covered here had a moto "Do Shit That Matters". I tweeted suggesting them to change it do "Do What Matters", which has the same meaning, but is less ghetto. I like "I fucking love science" Facebook page, but, really, how was that F word really necessary?

Regarding gambling, I am talking about distant future (20+ years from now). In 20 years, alcohol might be irrelevant, but today, two glasses of red wine, for example, have a health benefit. What is the benefit of putting $20 in a slot machine? Maybe some arm exercise.

Gambling tricks the brain differently. If you get a hangover, next time most people will be more careful drinking as much. I got drunk once pretty severely and now I get stick just smelling hard liquor (thank God, red wine is okay). With gambling, after a big loss, people often rush back in the casino as soon as possible to try to recover what they've lost.

[YoukaiCountry]

Please elaborate on the safety mechanisms/services, I'm not aware of them. But if I was poor, there would be nothing to stop me from going to a gas station and spending my last $20 bill on lottery tickets, instead of food.

[kolev]

You can't easily put thousands of dollars in lottery tickets.

[omegaham]

But you can do so with impulse purchases. There's a hilarious radio ad that I hear every now and then; it's an advertisement for a tire rim store. They certainly know their audience; it's loud, boorish, and ghetto, and they are looking for people without any common sense to put down $1500 on new rims for their pimpmobile. They do a roaring trade.

Same thing with bars. I know guys who drink their paychecks; every weekend, they're at the bar / strip club, spending every last cent in their bank accounts.

Same thing with electronics stores, jewelry stores, etc.

Should we legislate financial responsibility to prevent idiocy? I'm a responsible person, and I will gamble a hundred bucks every six months or so. I have a lot of fun; it's a glamorous evening where you're paying for an experience. I shouldn't have to stop doing that because some moron is gambling his grocery money away. I shouldn't have to stop drinking because someone else is giving himself cirrhosis.

I understand the counterargument - "You're having a frivolous evening. You don't need that. What's it to you? Your idea of a good time is also destroying famiies and ruining lives." But where does it end? I know plenty of people who put themselves horribly into debt with credit cards. I know people who spend their student loans on weed. I know people who speed and wreck their cars. Should we ban everything that can possibly be abused by clueless people?

[ChuckMcM]

Well said. This is the really interesting thing about BitCoin for me, making cryptocurrency work without regulation. I appreciate that folks are trying. It touches on the fundamental difference between so called 'legal tender' and markers for barter.

[kolev]

We're not comparing apples to apples to say Bitcoin transactions are free or cheap. Credit cards are a mature piece of technology that has optimized the costs over the years. The credit cards processing fee is something that has so much behind it (consumer protection, interest-free crediting, etc.) - you cannot compare Bitcoin to this at all. There's no consumer protection with Bitcoin - you're on your own, so, compare transaction fees of cash to Bitcoin, not credit card or remittance fees to Bitcoin if you want to be taken seriously! Yeah, it works with the young and inexperienced who don't know all the complexity behind the status quo.

[icebraining]

The reason you need pervasive consumer protection using CCs is because the system is fundamentally flawed, relying on every single merchant not to be a scammer or aciddentally leak the info.

With BTC (and similar systems), you can pay for protection when you need it, while having a cheaper service when you don't.

And this isn't something discovered with BTC, some of us live in countries with sane payment systems that are cheaper than CCs. They just don't work abroad, which nowadays is a major limitation.

[paulhauggis]

where is this protection for bitcoin? every exchange has been hacked or ripped off by the owners.

[icebraining]

Exchanges are only needed to buy and sell Bitcoins¹; after that, you can move them out permanently, whereas with CCs, you can never be sure that the merchant didn't record (maliciously or not) your CC info. You also only need to trust one exchange, not N merchants, so it's much easier to do proper evaluation.

¹ Technically, you never actually need an exchange at all, there are other ways of getting Bitcoins.

[kolev]

Exchanges hold most of the hot bitcoins, so, they are a very lucrative target for both external, and internal theft. They definitely need to be regulated. One thing about the exchanges is how greedy they really are for the crappy service they provide. Most stock trading is a fixed fee and all exchanges charge a percentage.

[paulhauggis]

The average user doesn't understand Bitcoin and will most likely always use an exchange.

[kolev]

The system is not flawed, merchants are flawed. Same with hosted wallets and exchanges. There's no PCI Compliance equivalents for them, so, you can expect much worse. And how can you trust them? They don't get audited and are not certified. How can you know for sure that they are not gonna manipulate the market or run away with your funds? Most of those don't even have a physical address (Bitstamp and BTC-e), no phone number, and info is very limited in general. My point is that everything comes at a price. Bitcoin is cheap as it lacks all that, which is not necessarily a good thing!

[icebraining]

The system is not flawed, merchants are flawed.

A system that forces you to trust (without being able to verify) every single merchant you do business with is flawed.

Same with hosted wallets and exchanges.

Not the same. For one, you only need to trust one exchange to use Bitcoin with N merchants, so the attack surface is much lower. Secondly, you only need to trust them for enough time to move the Bitcoins out - a few hours, whereas with CCs, the merchant can save the info forever, for all you know.

Not to mention that, if Bitcoin becomes successful, and I doubt it will, people will receive Bitcoins from other sources (e.g. some people are already paid in BTC).

There's no PCI Compliance equivalents for them, so, you can expect much worse. And how can you trust them? They don't get audited and are not certified. How can you know for sure that they are not gonna manipulate the market or run away with your funds?

You should read on that PCI compliance. Most merchants do not get audited, they can audit themselves[1]. Many, if not most, are not compliant[2]. Tens of millions of CCs have been leaked since just 2006.

Besides, nothing in Bitcoin prevents the creation of independent certification authorities. Unlike with the CC system, it's not a built-in flaw, it's just a temporary situation.

Most of those don't even have a physical address (Bitstamp and BTC-e), no phone number, and info is very limited in general.

Just like with many CC merchants.

My point is that everything comes at a price. Bitcoin is cheap as it lacks all that, which is not necessarily a good thing!

And my point is that what Bitcoin lacks can be added, without increasing the costs of every single transaction by allowing massive amounts of fraud, like the CC system does.

[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pay-with-plastic-risk-your-perso...

[2] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/24/pci_dss_compliance/

[kolev]

I've lead PCI Compliance and I know how it works, but large companies really try to do it right and implement the best practices and it costs them a lot. For example, you can't hire developers and assume they know OWASP guidelines - they need to pass formal training, get a certificate, etc. The SDLC also needs to accommodate for PCI Compliance, and so on. The self assessment questionnaire is for guidance. At the end of the day, you get audited, and you may have or not have to prove everything you declare you have in place. You also need to do periodic scans from a third party. And, yes, this can be implement with Bitcoin, but it will affect the cost of the service, so, my point is that the costs of credit card processing have a very good justification and are pretty low for that you get!

[jraines]

People have lost every last penny trying to recover from ______ by gambling

[kolev]

Bitcoin gambling has a very low entry point.

[Crito]

Are you kidding? You need to be rather computer literate to gamble with bitcoin, and you have to be aware that gambling with bitcoin exists, and you have to buy bitcoin which is still a high bar just by itself.

The high bar to bitcoin gambling is evidenced by the fact that relatively few people are doing it, for how many people love to gamble. Bitcoin gambling is astronomically dwarfed by other forms of gambling. It's a fucking rounding error.

[kolev]

I am talking about the people who already have bitcoins.

[Crito]

By that logic, racing Italian sports cars at track days is a low barrier to entry hobby.

I mean, it obviously isn't, but if you are willing to ignore the "acquire an Italian sports car and know how to drive it" part...

[kolev]

You can do it from the convenience of your laptop - get bitcoins from Coinbase and send them to the dice site. With Instant Buy, you can get $1,000 instantly.

[pmorici]

I don't see why you need new rules and regulations for what is clearly fraud. Roger Ver, is that the same guy that is associated with that btc mine that makes 80k /day but tried to declare bankruptcy to avoid contract obligations to deliver several thousand coins for under $20 each?

[dustcoin]

You are thinking of Peter Venesses (Coinlab/Alydian), not Roger Ver.