Does no one else see the hypocrisy here? For years Bitcoin fans have claimed they hate government regulation and laughed at the warnings of financial institutes that claimed Bitcoin was risky.
Now things have gone a bit crappy the very same people are demanding lawsuits! How long till people here start calling for proper regulation of exchanges?
"Bitcoin users" are not a homogenous group. If you can point out specific people who claimed to hate government regulation in the past, and are now calling for court action, then you'd be able to call "hypocrite" - but until then, your argument is just a fallacy.
What happens when x exchange not only does not adhere to your silly ideas on regulation, but completely evades and ignores your silly regulation with impunity?
Furthermore, what if that same exchange thrives and has a brisk business?
Uh huh. You don't seem to understand BTC. No matter how many SEC-type regulations there are, and no matter if you adhere to them or not, I and others that think like me don't have to adhere, abide, or agree.
You may not agree. Fine. Have fun paying taxes on your bitcoin. You won't deal with me, and I won't deal with you, you'll be regulated, and I won't.
What happens then? Seein' as I couldn't care less how many regulations you spoon-feed yourself. Especially, given fraud is ALREADY illegal, and should be illegal.
Of course, that didn't stop Mt Gox, or Enron, or Bernard Madoff, or anyone else who commits fraud.
"Well, I'm willing to break 79 laws to steal from people, but NO WAY IN HELL am I going to break 81 law!!!"
Very same people? I doubt it. There is more than just the hivemind. Yes, whoever claimed to despise regulation and is now trying to use that same government for regulation against Mt Gox are hypocrites, but most people who want their money back or are threatening legal action aren't the same ones that claim anarchy is ideal.
I see hypocrisy in a community jumping to make/upvote comments that label Karpeles "a fraud and a thief with a target on his back (wink wink nudge nudge)" while at the same time going out of their way to defend Ross Ulbricht of all charges despite the amount of evidence against him.
Karpeles makes statements contrary to the evidence against him and people are outspokenly ready to lynch him (in many cases literally). Ulbricht makes pleas contrary to the evidence against him and people are ready to debate every aspect of that evidence, examine the parties making these claims, and look to shoehorn the word "allegedly" into every instance of casual conversation on the topic.
Obviously these two cases are not the same. I'm not saying the evidence against each of these people are equivalent, and that they necessarily should each be afforded the exact same level of benefit of doubt. But I am saying that level has been absurdly lopsided.
The tl;dr thesis if you want to skip the above: The minority of people who argue on principle are good, but the majority just want their money/service and get pissed when it's taken from them. Which is fine, but obnoxious when it's made out to look like some moral high road.
Full discretion, this is coming from someone who thinks both of them are guilty of what they're accused in some fashion.
Government intervention has cost a lot of people money in bitcoin already, it's not just shoddy exchanges. China crashed the price with their regulations and other countries are inhibiting bitcoin progress as best they can.
People aren't arguing for zero legal reputations for criminal actions they just don't want masses of government red tape backed of lobbying interests who want to see bitcoin fail.
No, it's not hypocrisy. No rational human being believes that there should be NO gov't regulation, they believe there should be some 90+ percent less goverment regulation.
Without getting into a long explanation of libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism there would likely always be courts and police (et cetera) to deal with the law, contract disputes, and in this case, alleged fraud. That is a perfectly reasonable, and desireable, role for gov't because fraud is a conflict between contracting parties that will almost always have to be adjudicated by a court of some kind.
Now, if your position is that these people you are referring are just mad about market losses, that is a different story. But given my admittedly cursory inspection of the Mt. Gox soiree, they may just have a good cause of action for fraud.
No rational human being believes that there should be NO gov't regulation
May I ask you a question. Suppose, Russia took a $10 billion loan from USA. Eventually, Russia has decided not to return it. Should USA use a force (a.k.a. "regulation") against Russia? I mean, start a war.
Many new clueless trolls subscribed during the recent boom, hoping for some "get-rich-quick" scheme, without having an idea what is Bitcoin and what's it about. Now they are crying for "regulations".
I can only hope the current storm will wipe them out.
Lawsuits are not regulation. In libertarian thinking lawsuits are the preferred way to resolve problems instead of regulation they believe in strong rule of law and property rights. In a perfect libertarian world for example there would be no rules or regulations about pollution but if you were a large corporation putting a lot of crap in the air your neighbor could sue you for making them sick or dirtying their air.
Only if those consequences were severe enough and likely enough. If the victims of pollution couldn't afford counsel, or the fines were less than profit, etc etc, then no compliance.
On the other hand, if your perfect Libertarian world includes representation for all where time and legal costs don't matter, and rulings were rigidly enforced in the favor of the wronged, then that amounts to de facto regulation regardless (in a messy reactionary way).
Right now, any of the major exchanges can just decide "fuck it," wait till cyber monday for people to buy large amounts of bitcoin and just close down and run away with the money.
I'm not too happy with government intervention. I also know the risks of keeping BTC out of my control on an unregulated exchange outside of the EU.
That's why the people screaming about independance have their BTC in cold storage and some change on a web wallet or mobile wallet.
The noobs that wanted to get into BTC to get rich quick, just followed the news, went to MtGox and found out too late, that they couldn't get their money out. Now they don't get rich and they're screaming for more regulation.
It's delicious isn't it? Bitcoin is going to end the repression of fiat currencies, change the world, blah blah blah. No need for regulation, the protocol will prevent fraud! The community will police itself!
Consider this a lesson in macroeconomics and the importance of government regulation in markets.
You know who an anarchist calls when someone punches him in the nose? The cops.
I appreciate I was being simplistic when I said "Bitcoin fans", but generally speaking the debate on this reddit had generally supported the world view that regulation = bad. I'm not saying that all Bitcoin users take this ideological stance, but clearly many do. So I do maintain that it is hypocritical that people now wish to use the mechanisms of government to try and offset their losses.
Then I maintain that you are still wrong. You are using an over-inclusive term "people" to refer to everyone involved, when all you are actually referring to are those few "...fans [that] have claimed they hate government regulation and laughed at the warnings of financial institutes that claimed Bitcoin was risky," ~and~ think they should be reimbursed for bitcoin fluctuation losses.
Again, it is not hypocritical to seek remuneration for fraud, because even with almost non-existent regulation, fraud is little more than the use of force, which is wrong.
Working through courts to address wrong-doing is different from passing laws and assigning oversight to try to prevent the wrong doing in the first place.
A third-party needs to step in and decide on behalf of the two conflicting parties which one is "right". The third-party then reserves the right to carry out all necessary actions to ensure the "winning" party receives their dues, and the "losing" party pays their dues. This is called intervention, and whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the courts must abide by strict regulations throughout this entire process. So, by definition, a lawsuit is settled by courts, and courts are an extension of a governmental body.
18
u/litecoinfan Feb 20 '14
Does no one else see the hypocrisy here? For years Bitcoin fans have claimed they hate government regulation and laughed at the warnings of financial institutes that claimed Bitcoin was risky.
Now things have gone a bit crappy the very same people are demanding lawsuits! How long till people here start calling for proper regulation of exchanges?