Have a question? Want to advertise? Something else? Contact us: [email protected]

Community Directory


Go back

User Activity

Blog Posts

  • Posts Authored: 1
  • Posts Contributed To: 0
  • 43 Comments
    2,296 views
    Categories: General, Breaking News

    Lawsky Aims a BitLicense Missile at Bitcoin

    July 25th, 2014 by thinking
    Why NY’s Lawsky hopes to kill off Bitcoin and how he’s asking the crypto community to give him a hand.

    Backup (editting by dhimmel):


    Enter Benjamin Lawsky, reaching out to the Bitcoin community and showing he is a man of the people.

    I suggest otherwise at best a politician at worst a wolf dressed in sheep’s clothing.

    Bitcoin is Lawsky’s dream ticket to acceptance by the banking elite, as a New Yorker for many years and having witnessed the division between wealth and public office it has been clear to me since the outset that Lawsky would use the promise of reigning in of Bitcoin to further his financial relationships.

    Maybe ask yourselves with whom did he spend more time discussing the importance of Bitcoin, Jamie Dimon or Marc Andreessen, Jim Gorman or Fred Wilson?

    It’s imperative that everyone takes a deep breath and calms down, this is not the end of Bitcoin or the decentralised movement but it will be shaken more than needed if anyone buys that he has any interest in cultivating innovation and change.

    Lawsky’s proposal has made it ‘very clear’ that folks this is war. A David and Goliath war, decentralised logic versus the centralised behemoths from whom he seeks approval.

    Let’s look more closely at his plan, a plan I suggest that has been carefully hatched in accordance with the bankers he seeks to protect. A plan that is designed to attract support from non-thinking states and countries to mimic his lead and to contain the spread and ultimately the dismissal of digital money.

    Firstly his plan depends on NYC’s global influence over financial markets; whilst that seems obvious I suggest he won’t even get domestic buy in.

    Sure he will get some states to agree but what about California, how can he expect Californians to agree to a bill that would make participation in innovation conditional on regulatory inspection of purpose. Such suggestions ‘might’ work in NYC and Omaha but not in States where innovation is valued.

    Then look at the other financial capitals that will supposedly follow suit, London and Singapore have shown leadership in respect to Bitcoin why would they act to stop it in its tracks, are we now going  to see trade leverage used to ensure compliance with US leadership simply to protect the banks that led us to the abyss?

    Don’t get me wrong regulation is good, transaction identification is essential but having to register to pass Bitcoin to your friends or developing software that may never even be used? This wreaks of McCarthyism, it’s not hard to imagine Senate hearings where Crypto not Pinko is bestowed upon the technically gifted, where they are vilified for their association with financial innovation.

    Prohibition has never worked and has always led to enforcement costs that far outweigh the benefits, only a fool thinks he can contain cross boarder development, when they cannot contain shipment of illicit substances from a known point of production.

    This alone points to the obvious futility of the Bitlicense as a deterrent and highlights a more Machiavellian objective. Consider if you will how his ignorance draws you in, in your desire to point out his mistakes and to help craft refinements whilst in return, seeking changes that will never come.

    Ignorance or lack of interest is further displayed when you see mention of identity inclusion but with no thought given to how it should be included and what will be done with it once it is. Again another superficial attempt to address a legitimate issue and one that displays the lack of interest in a subject and rather how it might be used to gain assistance in defining robust incarceration.

    The essence of the argument against Lawsky’s bill is the apparent lack of thought into how these things might work and why they are important, rather it seems he has simply thrown thoughts over the fence in order to appear active when in fact he wants the industry to help him define a bill that is specifically designed to undermine the existence of decentralised technologies.

    Consider carefully any support you offer to guide this bill, as acceptance by Lawsky will be minimal and ultimately he will only use it to refine a casket for digital money, offer him NO assistance and he has nothing, a bill that cannot be enforced because it makes no sense and a challenge to refine it as he simply doesn’t understand the subject.

    Leave him to his own devices as he will make mistake after mistake as the technology and the challenge is beyond him and anyone not devoted to the task.

    By ignoring his cry for input we buy time for Bitcoin and digital money to further embed it’s way into our lives, help him and you accelerate his desire to kill of a nascent industry that is fundamental to future financial efficiencies.

    We should also look carefully at ourselves and what is driving the desire for change, we see everyone rallying around the call for decentralised services to marginalise the banks but tied to that cry is a radical desire to poke the beast.

    This last part is just plain stupid as it undermines the importance of the real message, that being the fundamental need to streamline the financial and commercial markets so citizens and businesses enjoy the savings and convenience of P2P transactions.

    Allowing emotive crusades to corrupt the success of these essential objectives is naive and counterproductive, ask Charlie Shrem deep down he knows he was an idiot to goad ‘the man’ and he’s now paying the price.

    So let’s see what lies ahead, firstly open source projects will officially move offshore yet developers won’t leave their desks, overseas deployment services will emerge to enable anonymous deployment of future initiatives, smart governments will encourage this as they will also offer incentives for developers to relocate so they might enjoy the freedom they deserve, sure the US will try to reach out and restrict development by US citizens overseas but how?

    Back in the US, project developers will be given open-source tasks that will not result directly in currencies but rather be innocuous components that if used a certain way might benefit currencies but then again might not.

    Digital friendly financial centres will spring up all over the world all competing for exchanges, developers and  innovation and in another 5 years, as it won’t take long for the foundations of discontent to be established, Lawsky will realise that he was personally responsible for throwing New York City under the bus having sacrificed potential leadership in the new economy and with it jobs and opportunities and all for no avail.

    Lastly I’d like to address the issue of anonymity, this is the scourge that allows Lawsky and people like him the evidence required to persecute Bitcoin and its derivatives.

    No matter your need for freedom it will never and can never be allowed to justify the financing of terrorism, slavery, extortion, pedophilia and other crimes that undermine society and to that end the crypto-community need to pull their head in and focus their attention to changing the narrative from anonymity to privacy.

    It is fundamental that we pay due respect to the obligation we have to not only protect society from corporate scum bags but also against crimes that destroy families and the innocence of children.

    For Lawsky I’d suggest no matter what you do anonymous transactions are here to stay but if you show a willingness to work with the development community towards a decentralised world you will be able to craft laws and technology that will limit its impact.

    Lastly beware the Silbert, Circle and other big players that have defined their commitment to Bitcoin and see alternatives (alt-coins) as distracting, they love Bitlicense as it allows them to cement an exclusive position.

    ThinkingActive

    Read More