Comment: Of course it can be done

(See in situ)

Of course it can be done

Bitcoin isnt' a force of nature, it's software. And a lot of bitcoin proponents who think of bitcoins as a way of making more FRNs *want* the regulation. Winklevoss for example:

"The Wild West attracts cowboys," he said. "A sheriff is a good thing."

Or here:
There's quite a bit of pro-regulation sentiment in there, including from the bitcoin side.

Also see the whole CoinValidation controversy, and note who among the bitcoin proponents is lining up on the side that favors it. You've got the Winkles and Matt Mellon (of the banking family) and a bunch of others getting behind the idea. Some big names within the Bitcoin Foundation have been behind it too. I don't know what's going on with that particular effort at the moment, but the point is to see that there are people who are promoting bitcoin in a big way who eagerly want this kind of control.

For people who want to use bitcoins to maximize the number of FRNs they have, this makes perfect sense. It also means that the people who want the regulation tend to be the ones with a lot of FRNs, and those tend to be people with powerful connections. If in addition those with big money investments in ASIC mining hardware are motivated by maximizing the FRNs per bitcoin, rather than by libertarian goals, then there are no barriers to the kind of regulations the Winkles and others are pushing for.

It would be nice to see those who value cryptocurrencies for things other than making lots of FRNs realize that putting all your eggs in the bitcoin basket isn't good for libertarian goals. Having lots of cryptocurrencies using lots of technologies, and de-centralized exchanges (that would allow exchanging *independent* cryptos via a common API), would make it easy to stay ahead of the regulators as well as letting the free market decide what features and what technologies are best among the competing cryptocurencies.