
Sen. Manchin demands complete US ban on Bitcoin - declan
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57619592-38/democratic-senator-demands-complete-u.s-ban-on-bitcoin/
======
minimax
This is a quote from the Manchin letter:

 _The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee issued a
report just this month stating, “There is widespread concern about the Bitcoin
system’s possible impact on national currencies, its potential for criminal
misuse, and the implications of its use for taxation.”_

This is the (slightly expanded) quote from that report† (which is actually
kind of interesting -- it's a survey of bitcoin regulation (or lack thereof)
in a bunch of different countries).

 _There is widespread concern about the Bitcoin system’s possible impact on
national currencies, its potential for criminal misuse, and the implications
of its use for taxation. Overall, the findings of this report reveal that the
debate over how to deal with this new virtual currency is still in its
infancy._

So, by omitting that sentence he totally misrepresents the position of the
report authors. I generally think bitcoin is overhyped by most of its
proponents, but this is a really silly response.

†[http://www.loc.gov/law/help/bitcoin-
survey/2014-010233%20Com...](http://www.loc.gov/law/help/bitcoin-
survey/2014-010233%20Compiled%20Report_.pdf)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
The lack of regulation is worrying. That exchange that just flamed out is an
example of what the entire financial system would be with no oversight.

~~~
jamoes
Yes exactly. The exchange that just flamed out was incredibly poorly run, and
deserved to go out of business. Now there is space in the market for more
competent companies to take over the market share. I'd love to see the entire
financial system operate under a meritocracy such as this.

~~~
loumf
Banks used to fail all of the time with depositors losing assets. This caused
a lot of problems, so we enacted some regulation.

Now banks still fail (several weekly, without much notice), but depositors
have mandated insurance.

Are you against that?

~~~
drcode
If depositors didn't have mandated insurance, they would pay more attention to
the credit-worthiness of the bank they work with, and we might have avoided
the 2008 debacle.

~~~
gknoy
It seems that the health of the bank is something which is actively
obfuscated. Saying "buyer beware" is like telling people that they should be
responsible to make sure that the cars they buy are safe enough, or to make
sure that the restaurants they eat at have clean enough standards in the
kitchens. That's the entire point of regulatory inspections: No one can afford
to be attentive to that level of detail or be an expert in everything.

~~~
drcode
I agree people cannot be attentive to everything.

HOWEVER, people can be a lot more attentive now then they could ten years ago
(for example, online reviews of cars/restaurants/etc) and in ten years they
will be able to be even more attentive.

If we do things that foster attentiveness, everyone will be better off.

~~~
dragonwriter
> HOWEVER, people can be a lot more attentive now then they could ten years
> ago (for example, online reviews of cars/restaurants/etc)

Its a good thing online reviews are reliable sources of information with
transparent provenance that neither the company itself nor its competitors
spend substantial efforts loading with false-flag propaganda.

Or, at least, that's a good thing in whatever alternate universe it is true
in.

------
panarky
The very fact that powerful people and corporations want to kill Bitcoin in
the cradle is reason enough for me to support it.

Thank you, Senator Manchin, for reminding the world that this is a political
struggle, not a get-rich-quick scheme.

~~~
higherpurpose
I agree. It was already pretty obvious that Bitcoin and other such crypto-
currencies are disruptive to central banks. But now the world's 3 largest
powers wanting to ban it, is very similar to how the largest incumbents react
to disruption - they try to fight against it as long as possible instead of
adopting it. And they lose everytime.

~~~
coldtea
> _But now the world 's 3 largest powers wanting to ban it, is very similar to
> how the largest incumbents react to disruption - they try to fight against
> it as long as possible instead of adopting it. And they lose everytime._

Actually they've managed to suppress tons of things.

In fact, there are tons of disruptions that never made it. Except if, in
hindsight, one calls disruption only the things that actually won in the end
(in which case it's a tautology -- of course all disruption wins in the end,
if disruption is only what wins in the end).

So the "they lose everytime" is a little too optimistic.

------
pfraze
Democratic senator seeks to boost his visibility by taking an exaggerated
stance on new and uncertain technologies.

~~~
MrZongle2
He's desperately trying to pander to his constituents and stay in the news.
This is merely his latest stunt.

Edit: not up for re-election.

~~~
declan
No, Sen. Manchin is not up for re-election in this election cycle. His term
expires in January 2017, with an election in November 2016:
[http://www.periodicalpress.senate.gov/reelection-2016/](http://www.periodicalpress.senate.gov/reelection-2016/)

Of course he's up for re-election in the sense that all congresscritters are
up for re-election unless they declare otherwise. And I don't think anyone on
HN would dispute "pandering" and "staying in the news!"

~~~
rat87
To whom is he pandering to?

~~~
torbjorn
The "silent majority".

------
IanDrake
>Indeed, it has been banned in two different countries--Thailand and China

I'm so glad our representatives are looking at China for a model of how things
should be. Hey, China is doing it, it must be OK.

You can make all sorts of arguments about banning BC, but don't use the fact
that it's banned in oppressive countries as one of them and then expect me to
respect your opinion.

~~~
VMG
He's later referring to them as "allies".

I hoped this is satire for a moment.

~~~
steffenfrost
Good point!

You are not allowed to use twitter, facebook, and youtube in China either. So,
just as our "allies", lets ban twitter, facebook, and youtube.

[http://www.greatfirewallofchina.org/](http://www.greatfirewallofchina.org/)

------
acd
The Federal reserve was created by senator Aldrich who's daughter was married
to the banker Rockefeller. The Federal reserve is privately owned by the
member banks themselves among others JP Morgan, City bank. 97% percent of the
money in circulation is debt. 1971 Nixon decoupled the Dollar from the Gold
standard, essentially creating a FIAT currency. During the 1990s Allan
Greenspan chairman of the Federal reserve set the capital requirements for new
loans to near zero in an effort to let the market regulate itself. With no
Gold standard to limit the amount of debt it grows exponentially.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Federal_Reserve...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Federal_Reserve_System)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abby_Aldrich_Rockefeller](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abby_Aldrich_Rockefeller)

You can see the decoupling here GDP vs median income
[http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/09/03/slow-income-growth-
for-m...](http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/09/03/slow-income-growth-for-middle-
america/)

Graph showing the middle classes loosing to the debt system
[http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/03/09/the-best-inequality-
grap...](http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/03/09/the-best-inequality-graph/)

An Investment Manager's View on the Top 1%
[http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manage...](http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html)

Hitting peak debt 2008 [http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/wp-
content/uploads/2014/0...](http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/wp-
content/uploads/2014/01/010814_0559_Secularstag4.png)

~~~
kaonashi
Pretty much everything here is wrong. The Fed is every bit a government agency
as NASA.

~~~
mcdougle
Actually, I'm pretty sure the Fed is a privately-owned company, with preferred
shareholders and everything. That's not to say the government isn't hugely
influential on what it does, but that it's a completely separate entity.

Of course, I could be completely wrong. I'd actually be interested if someone
had proof for either argument.

~~~
maxerickson
[http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_12593.htm](http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_12593.htm)

[http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_12799.htm](http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_12799.htm)

[http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm](http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm)

Seriously, if it involves the U.S. federal government, information about it
will be easy to find. You don't need to guess or assume, just do a few simple
searches.

edit: Well, not all of it, but the structure of the Fed isn't exactly a
national secret.

------
philrapo
I love his conflicting concerns: "I am most concerned that as Bitcoin is
inevitably banned in other countries, Americans will be left holding the bag
on a valueless currency"

Then later in the letter: "[Deflation] makes Bitcoin's value to the US economy
suspect, if not outright detrimental".

So.. he's concerned that bitcoin is either extremely inflationary (going to
zero) or extremely deflationary. But he's not sure which.

------
waterlesscloud
His letter requesting the ban.

[http://www.manchin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-
release...](http://www.manchin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-
releases?ID=237cbd66-6a26-4870-9bcb-20177ae902b0)

~~~
josu
Pure gold

> As of December 2013, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) shows 1.3% inflation,
> while a recent media report indicated Bitcoin CPI has 98% deflation. In
> other words, spending Bitcoin now will cost you many orders of wealth in the
> future. This flaw makes Bitcoin’s value to the U.S. economy suspect, if not
> outright detrimental.

~~~
wyager
"If we don't ban deflationary assets, people won't be forced to use our shitty
inflationary assets!"

------
andrewfong
In other news, Hollywood would still like for the Internet to be banned
because it facilitates piracy.

------
lelandbatey
Sounds a like any other prohibition. Bitcoin seems like the tech equivalent of
alcohol: easy to get involved with, really hard to keep track of/stop.

~~~
Crito
Even worse than an alcohol ban, as alcohol has a conspicuous 'meat space'
presence and people who have recently participated in alcohol related
activities are often rather easy to pick out.

His demands that regulators prevent Americans from being left 'holding the
ball' if/when bitcoin collapses could reasonably be interpreted as a call for
a ban on merely possessing bitcoins (not just transfering/selling/mining). If
that were to happen _(which is unlikely, but seems to be what this asshat
wants)_ , having a brainwallet could be considered a "thoughcrime" in the
_literal, non-hyperbolic_ sense.

~~~
haakon
It gets absurd. "Owning bitcoin" is just linguistic sugar for having knowledge
of a private key that corresponds to a public key that hashes to a bitcoin
address that holds bitcoin. It's just a 256-bit number. In essense, every
single private key represented on the blockchain becomes an illegal number
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number)),
and not just illegal to publish, but illegal to store and even illegal to
think about (aka know about).

------
panarky
Do you suppose the good Senator from West Virginia and member of the Senate
banking committee got some help drafting that letter?

~~~
zvanness
Spot on, I wonder if he's acting as a proxy on behalf of some bankers or his
good friend Jay Rockefeller

------
hughdbrown
I find it incredible that the justification for action should be "a complete
prohibition was appropriate because Thailand, China, and South Korea have
already enacted severe restrictions or bans of their own." The American
government has a document that outlines when it should take action and on what
grounds. And that document makes no mention of consulting other countries or
deferring to their sensibilities. It is outrageous that a senator thinks that
that would be a valid starting point.

------
coldtea
> _A US senator is asking the federal government to take this remarkable step:
> completely ban Bitcoin._

Well, not that remarkable. Tons of countries (including the US) have banned
alternative currencies in the past (and present).

Essentially, a government can ban whatever it likes, even essential freedoms
enjoyed by everybdy for millenia (like drinking alcohol during the
prohibition).

~~~
dragonwriter
> Tons of countries (including the US) have banned alternative currencies in
> the past (and present).

In the US, its worth noting, this is an express (in Article I of the
Constitution) power of the Federal government.

------
Cless
Probably worth mentioning that Manchin is one of the most conservative
Democratic senators before people start flaming him as a liberal bent on
destroying freedom.

~~~
Udo
Asking as a non-American, why would someone characterized as "liberal" do
this? It seems to me like this is a very thoroughly conservative move and well
in line with conservative and reactionary thinking.

Or have the definitions of the words _liberal_ and _conservative_ been swapped
recently? A lot of the comments in this thread indicate that this may indeed
be the case.

~~~
jerf
Indeed, US "liberal" and "conservative" have little to do with their other
meanings. If you trace the history back on the terms you can find where they
diverged, and there's some traces of connection, but for the most part you're
better off taking them as "just variables" that happen to have leading names.
I've also observed that the connection to their usage in other
countries/polities are unreliable guides as well.

~~~
Udo
But the basis is still in there somewhere, right?

I mean, here in the EU being conservative means wanting to literally conserve
established power structures, with a big emphasis on religious and social
rigidity or even regression. It means having the desire to pass laws that
benefit powerful centralized interests and marginalize minorities such as poor
people or those deemed ethnically inferior. This is absolutely the direction
where draconian and arcane laws come from.

Along those lines, I always took "liberal" to mean literally being of a
laissez-faire attitude, being secular or at least open to science and
advancement, big on personal freedoms and individuality but also often paired
with an egalitarian desire for social justice.

I can't shake off the feeling that these words have been redefined in recent
discourse in an attempt to prevent people from having a meaningful discussion
about issues.

~~~
jerf
"But the basis is still in there somewhere, right?"

Only historically. US Liberalism, being the dominant political ideology in the
US (despite its occasional protests to the contrary) is actually often quite
conservative today, trying to preserve its changes from being undone (be that
by literally being rolled back, or by being modified into something a liberal
doesn't want). However noble or terrible that desire may be, it slots into the
"conservative" side of the original meanings. US Conservatism is often about
tearing those down and replacing it with something else, and while some of
that may be modeled with a "return" to an older status quo (be it fictional or
based in reality), a lot of it isn't; what's the historically "conservative"
answer about internet issues, for instance? _Both_ ideologies are rather
strong on the control and quick to reach for the stick of regulation when in
power, albeit for different things, but at the moment it's Liberalism that I'd
associate with a huge, huge belief in regulations, and while conservatism is
not "laissez-faire", the laissez-faire amongst us generally end up on the
conservative side when forced to choose sides on the grounds that conservatism
in the US at least _tolerates_ the ideas of laissez-faire, whereas liberalism
at this point openly mocks it.

~~~
Udo
Thanks for elaborating by the way, this explains a lot of the dissonance I
(subjectively) see daily on HN.

However, this is not totally in sync with how those sides are presented to the
public, or the international public in any case. When I turn on Fox News, for
example, the ideas there are _absolutely_ what I would identify as
conservative. Supporting legislative and social measures that disadvantage gay
and poor people, for example. Espousing religion over science. How could such
an agenda be considered liberal, especially since they themselves use the word
"liberal" as a swear word? This looks perfectly conservative to me, and I'm
still really confused because you described these people as functionally
liberal.

> _what 's the historically "conservative" answer about internet issues, for
> instance?_

I'm trying not to refer to American conservatism, but to the concept in its
original meaning when I say this:

The internet is new and potentially dangerous to traditional values, so one
would expect the attitude towards it to be very negative. That's the default
conservative stance, right, to keep the social status quo or regress it where
possible.

The internet is a relatively new phenomenon that threatens to change society,
it's a level playing field where ordinary people get access to untold
quantities of information practically without oversight. If I had to speculate
on a default conservative stance to it, without any prior knowledge, I'd wager
they'd be trying to outlaw the free aspects of the internet, ridicule its
potential, and generally try to convert it so it can serve traditional power
structures. And, now looking at what's happening in real life, that somewhat
naive expectation turns out to be a pretty good description of what's actually
going on.

> _the laissez-faire amongst us generally end up on the conservative side when
> forced to choose sides on the grounds that conservatism in the US at least
> tolerates the ideas of laissez-faire, whereas liberalism at this point
> openly mocks it_

Can you give an example where that's happening? Looking in from the outside it
seems that US conservatives are the driving force behind a lot of legislation
with the explicit goal of limiting freedoms and social stability. Granted,
both sides seem to agree on much of the more egregious stuff like mass
surveillance and terrorism theater - but from where I stand at least I don't
see liberals trying to legislate against gay people. It also looks to me like
it's the American conservatives who are more in favor of expanding already
sweeping police powers.

I mean, sure, in the end it doesn't matter that much to foreigners like me.
But it's still puzzling.

~~~
jerf
"However, this is not totally in sync with how those sides are presented to
the public, or the international public in any case."

The difference is that I look to actions, not words. There's no evidence based
on _actions_ that US liberals have a problem with strong police powers; they
_talk_ about how bad it is, but monotonically increase the powers, then use
them. Conservatives in the US may occasionally grumble about gay people, but
they take no action whatsoever to do anything about it, except in very small
jurisdictions. The press plays these issues up because it helps the narrative,
but they are not a significant force. There is absolutely 0 chance of any sort
of "anti-gay" legislation passing through any element of our government right
now, and this will most certainly include whoever is elected in a few years.

Since US liberalism controls the US media, and broadly speaking fairly leftist
elements control the international media as well, you do not tend to get a
straight view of what conservatives are and are up to. Mind you, I'm not
saying you're going to _like_ them if you really knew, but it's a very
distorted view that you get. In particular, the media carefully seals away
anything like a reasonable argument for their positions, and makes sure to
play up only dumb ones. For that matter, it is true that it is also a
distorted view of US liberalism that you get; you get a lot of the high
rhetoric reported, but good luck hearing about their actual actions.
(Seriously; watch the news. How much of it is dedicated to politicians just
spewing their lines, and how much of it is dedicated to an in-depth report of
what's actually happening in the field where the policies are being
implemented? You may be shocked.)

Anyhow, yes, I am reporter on the field with my own slant, but one advantage
of not really fitting onto the left/right Republican/Democrat axis is that I
get a bit of a clearer view from not having a strong allegiance to either side
and psychologically needing to defend "my team". US "Liberalism" and
"Conservatism" have shifted a lot from the core meaning of the term. (Indeed,
there's a thing called a "Classical Liberal", if you look it up, and that puts
you _firmly_ on the US Conservative side. Should have used that example
earlier.)

------
rayiner
I think the idea of banning it is stupid, but its interesting to read his
letter. He doesn't seem to really be confused about what Bitcoin is or how it
works, contrary to the common trope that the government only wants to ban
things because it doesn't understand them.

------
ck2
I going to assume anyone in power who wants to outright ban or heavily
regulate crypto-currency is in the pocket of big banks.

Doesn't really fit for west virginia but they also have their share of turmoil
with massively unsafe mining yet peak corporate profits.

~~~
mdemare
Isn't it obvious? West-Virginia's well-funded coal mining lobby doesn't like
the competition from Bitcoin mining and moves one of their pawns to block it.

------
Duhveed
You really can't blame him for trying. If crypto-currencies supplant state-
based currencies, especially if one were to crop up that would be less
traceable than bitcoin, whole swaths of governments around the world find
themselves increasingly irrelevant and, quite probably, powerless to make
themselves more relevant.

And if government can't figure out how much a person makes or what he's worth,
I'm pretty sure that leads to something way less dreamy and awesome than it
sounds...because, if not, I think they would've covered such a thing in my
public school education.

------
iterationx
Online gambling is banned in the US. Would a Bitcoin ban really be out of
character?

~~~
declan
Actually, no. More like an attempt is inevitable.

------
natural219
Good.

Honestly, in the eyes of the USFG, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are like
a ticking time bomb. The longer it takes them to act, the value of BTC
increases, and it becomes increasingly hard to do anything about it from a
federal level since more and more people have real assets invested in these
currencies.

The interesting bit is that the most cited complaint against BTC in the
popular media is its use as a facilitator of illicit goods, which, due to
bitcoin's design, is actually impossible to enforce. If you're already buying
drugs and what else online, another law saying you can't use bitcoins aren't
going to stop you (other than making it harder by shutting down popular
services like Coinbase). The superficial reason for banning bitcoin (reducing
illicit transactions) will likely fail completely.

Furthermore, even if all governments ban bitcoins, as long as people have
access to encrypted storage / networking, it's unlikely that the value of BTC
would drop to zero. It's still a pretty efficient way to handle illegal
transactions.

~~~
superuser2
You can't stop existing Bitcoin users from trading amongst themselves, but it
can be made _very_ impractical to acquire Bitcoin with money.

The government can easily isolate Bitcoin exchanges (and any other entity it
chooses) from the USD banking infrastructure. Put them on the OFAC list (or
similar) and they won't be able to get bank accounts, accept wire/ACH
transfers, work with credit cards, or use any other money transmitting
service.

Transfers of paper cash in person would be the only option, and a campaign of
well-publicized Bitcoin-for-cash sting operations could easily make this too
risky for most people.

ASICs are, well, application-specific. It's not exactly easy to fabricate
hardware in secret, and there are no excuses to hide behind when you've got a
warehouse full of Bitcoin mining rigs.

------
mercurialshark
It might be a stunt, but sophisticated investors that aren't tech savvy are
scared to death of this pandering. Furthermore, it justifies so many people's
public position on bitcoin. After all, if you say it enough it must be true.

How do I start a petition for his resignation - at least from the Senate
banking committee? As far as stunts go, this one at least serves a meaningful
cause.

~~~
mercurialshark
Here we are, please sign and fight back!

[http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/we-demand-sen-manchins-
im...](http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/we-demand-sen-manchins-immediate-
resignation)

~~~
declan
Tweeted!

[https://twitter.com/declanm/status/438796925844717568](https://twitter.com/declanm/status/438796925844717568)

~~~
mercurialshark
Sweet, thanks.

------
protomyth
Strange, he's on the banking committee but not much banking money:
[https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N000...](https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00032838)

------
adamnemecek
The gov't: one of the few places where 'disruptive' implies 'bad'.

~~~
mindrag
Hmm. I think it's far from the only place. You might want to check a
dictionary.

------
fexl
He wants to ban the use of a public ledger with private and public keys.

------
ricardonunez
This is the type of people that keep countries from innovation. I don't have
bitcoins, but for what I know the Bitcoin value isn't high enough to cause
problems to the U.S. economy.

------
becauseInternet
Serious problems with the following sentence:

    
    
      It also means that Bitcoin provides a unique digital 
      fingerprint, which allows for anonymous and irreversible 
      transactions.
    
      ...
    
      unique digital fingerprint >> anonymous and irreversible transactions
    

So, Mr. Senator, what your telling me is that unique, readily identifiable,
globally visible objects represent the very apparatus that prevents
identification? How, precisely does that work?

~~~
0din
Because fingerprints have neve been used to identify anybody, and are also
totally anonymous!

That's why the police never use them to solve crimes, of course.

------
jmtame
Just as a thought experiment: how would the US gov actually go about making it
illegal to use Bitcoin, or "ban" it? You obviously can't shut down the
protocol itself. Maybe you go after the exchanges and treat them as if they're
the drug dealers, if you were to "treat Bitcoin as a crime" (and by that I
mean making exchanges or possessing a wallet).

Any other ways hypothetically speaking?

~~~
kybernetikos
My 'suggestion' \- the prostitution route: make the purchasing of bitcoin
illegal, and make soliciting for such a sale illegal too.

~~~
VMG
People will use dogecoin then, so the law will probably refer to
"cryptocurrency". Which will not be easy to define and will probably get other
centralized currency schemes in trouble as well.

------
pyalot2
Best of luck with that stunt.

------
smtddr
This just tells me that some very importand and/or well-connected people lost
significantly because of MtGox.

At this rate, maybe this prediction[1] will actually come to pass.

1\. [http://www.businessinsider.com/williams-bitcoin-
meltdown-10-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/williams-bitcoin-
meltdown-10-2013-12)

------
Aqueous
I suspect a few in the BitCoin/tech community will lobby Manchin or other
members of Congress the other way. There is enough financial interest in
BitCoin now that it won't be easily outlawed.

Either way, Congress can't ban BitCoin but they can ban BitCoin exchanges and
BitCoin payment processors. Good luck with that.

------
dbbolton
As a native West Virginian, I can tell you what will happen if you call his
office. In about 4-6 months, you'll get this letter:

[https://gist.github.com/dbb/5810717](https://gist.github.com/dbb/5810717)

------
dbbolton
Some rather humorous responses on Twitter:
[https://twitter.com/Sen_JoeManchin/status/438762073527705600](https://twitter.com/Sen_JoeManchin/status/438762073527705600)

------
Canada
Ridiculous. The total value of all bitcoins at their peak price is not enough
to harm the US economy. And if the non - inflationary constraints of the
system are really so fatal then why bother calling for a ban?

------
pmorici
Dumb move on his part, he better hope the price tanks before he is up for
reelection again or he is going to be sorry he alienated so many wealthy
potential contributors.

------
michaelwww
Sen. Manchin's main constituent is the coal industry. Crypto-currency mining
uses a fair amount of electricity. I'd guess most cryto-currency enthusiasts
are also "green" enthusiasts. Manchin may want to stop this: _" SolarCoin
debuted last month and builds on the same technology as Bitcoin"_

[http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/21/3282131/solar-
co...](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/21/3282131/solar-coin-global-
currency/#)

------
bendoernberg
For anyone who is wondering, I have heard from ABC and Forbes reporters that
at least as of now, this ban would not apply to Dogecoin.

~~~
declan
But what's their source? Do they have that on-the-record from the good Sen.
Manchin himself, or just an unnamed source speculating? Or their own
speculation?

~~~
declan
Update: [http://www.dailydot.com/politics/senator-joe-manchin-
bitcoin...](http://www.dailydot.com/politics/senator-joe-manchin-bitcoin-
litecoin-dogecoin-ban/)

Manchin would have similar complaints about any such anonymous form of online
payment. "It's the anonymous, unregulated nature of it," that Manchin finds a
problem, the staffer said.

------
srl
The important thing here is to remember that anybody who disagrees with you is
a fascist, out to destroy America and freedom. There's no possibility that
this is a well-intentioned effort, rather than bank-funded malice.
Furthermore, it's all the other party's fault. This guy's actually a closet
republican / a perfect example of how extreme liberal democrats have become.

waterlesscloud posted a link to the letter. Read it, then (if you have a real
opinion past "government = evil" or some equally inane platitude) contact your
senator.

Some thoughts on the content (from someone not particularly optimistic about
bitcoin, but somewhat more optimistic about cryptocurrencies in general):
Manchin does not actually explain how the use of bitcoin harms anyone who does
not deliberately buy-in. The theory that it harms the economy in general
simply by being volatile strikes me as silly, given that it represents a
vanishingly small fraction of our economy (which, as I understand it, is part
of the reason it's so volatile, meaning that as its share increases,
volatility goes down).

~~~
weixiyen
Rather than conjuring up this strawman, maybe you should just reply to the one
single comment that even comes close to the stance you are describing.

~~~
Crito
Can't rake in the karma without toplevel posts making broad and vague
complaints about unspecified comments.

It's a common pattern both here and on reddit (because top-level meta-
commments _really are_ effective for farming karma), and it should really be
against the guidelines. Best case scenario: the complaint is 100% valid and on
target, but because it is a top level comment and correct it will rise to the
top of the discussion while the offending comments will be downvoted and
buried at the bottom. Refutations for shitposts should be buried with the
shitposts^, visible to those who decide to read the shitposts but out of the
way for everyone else. We don't need all discussions "bookended" by shitposts
and comments refuting shitposts.

 _^ Not buried by being downvoted of course (accurate refutations of shitposts
should generally be upvoted), but rather buried by merely being the child
comment of a downvoted post._

~~~
jrockway
If users vote these up, doesn't it meant that they want to read comments like
that? Rules are nice, but you can't beat democracy.

~~~
Yen
I think part of the problem is an upvoted reply post doesn't filter to the top
of the page, it's tied to the rank of its parent. A +10 reply post, replying
to a -3 top-level post, will be seen by no one, despite being highly valued by
the 10 people who did see it. A -5 reply post to a +6 top-level post will
still be in reasonable scrolling range.

Top-level posts have a major visibility advantage over reply posts, and thus
have a karma advantage.

I wonder if weighting a top-level post's score by the score of its children
would help alleviate this. On one hand, there could be more rewards for
trolling, since a troll that attracts popular refutations will be visible. On
the other hand, a civil post that is both upvoted itself, and invites
interesting upvoted discussion, will outrank the troll post.

~~~
Crito
Maybe we should negatively weight "awarded karma" by the height a comment is
on the page.

A 100 point comment that is two or three screens down and buried in a nest of
mediocre comments is almost certainly better than a 100 point top level
comment at the top of a discussion. The later is a much more difficult and
impressive feat.

Comments would have the same point values, but the value that is added to the
user's karma score would be weighted. Getting lots of points would still make
you feel good about your comment, but it would neutralize more ...strategic
karma farming.

~~~
krapp
Few people will agree with me and they're never going to implement it, but I
think comments shouldn't carry karma. It just encourages too much pettiness.

------
scottcanoni
Oh no, a letter has been sent!

------
joewrong
Dear Secretary Lew, Chairwoman Yellen, Commissioner Curry, Acting Chairman
Wetjen, Chairman Gruenberg, Chairwoman White:

I write today to express my concerns about the US Dollar. This cash currency
is currently unregulated and has allowed users to participate in illicit
activity, while also being highly unstable and disruptive to our economy. For
the reasons outlined below, I urge regulators to take appropriate action to
limit the abilities of this highly unstable currency.

By way of background, the US Dollar is a crypto-currency that has gained
notoriety in recent months due to its rising exchange value and relation to
illegal transactions. Each the US Dollar is defined by a public address and a
private key, thus the US Dollar is not only a token of value but also a method
for transferring that value. It also means that the US Dollar provides a
unique digital fingerprint, which allows for anonymous and irreversible
transactions.

The very features that make the US Dollar attractive to some also attract
criminals who are able to disguise their actions from law enforcement. Due to
the US Dollar's anonymity, the cash market has been extremely susceptible to
hackers and scam artists stealing millions from the US Dollars users.
Anonymity combined with the US Dollar's ability to finalize transactions
quickly, makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to reverse fraudulent
transactions.

The US Dollar has also become a haven for individuals to buy black market
items. Individuals are able to anonymously purchase items such as drugs and
weapons illegally. I have already written to regulators once on the now-closed
Silkroad, which operated for years in supplying drugs and other black market
items to criminals, thanks in large part to the creation of the US Dollar.

That is why more than a handful of countries, and their banking systems, have
cautioned against the use of the US Dollar. Indeed, it has been banned in two
different countries--Thailand and China--and South Korea stated that it will
not recognize the US Dollar as a legitimate currency. Several other countries,
including the European Union, have issued warnings to the US Dollar users as
their respective governments consider options for regulating or banning its
use entirely. While it is disappointing that the world leader and epicenter of
the banking industry will only follow suit instead of making policy, it is
high time that the United States heed our allies' warnings. I am most
concerned that as the US Dollar is inevitably banned in other countries,
Americans will be left holding the bag on a valueless currency.

Our foreign counterparts have already understood the wide range of problems
even with the US Dollar's legitimate uses - from its significant price
fluctuations to its deflationary nature. Just last week, the US Dollar prices
plunged after the currency's major exchange, Mt. Gox, experienced technical
issues. Two days ago, this exchange took its website down and is no longer
even accessible. This was not a unique event; news of plummeting or
skyrocketing the US Dollar prices is almost a weekly occurrence. In addition,
its deflationary trends ensure that only speculators, such as so-called "the
US Dollar miners," will benefit from possessing the cash currency. There is no
doubt average American consumers stand to lose by transacting in the US
Dollar. As of December 2013, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) shows 1. %
inflation, while a recent media report indicated the US Dollar CPI has 98%
deflation. In other words, spending the US Dollar now will cost you many
orders of wealth in the future. This flaw makes the US Dollar's value to the
U.S. economy suspect, if not outright detrimental.

The clear ends of the US Dollar for either transacting in illegal goods and
services or speculative gambling make me weary of its use. The Senate Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee issued a report just this month
stating, "There is widespread concern about the the US Dollar system's
possible impact on national currencies, its potential for criminal misuse, and
the implications of its use for taxation. Before the U.S. gets too far behind
the curve on this important topic, I urge the regulators to work together, act
quickly, and prohibit this dangerous currency from harming hard-working
Americans.

Sincerely,

U.S. Joe Manchin III

United States Senator

------
rrrx3
o lawd

