Re: Bitcoin Development

Cheers Melvin,

As mentioned in

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/blog/?p=152

clarity is good and I guess the 'guidance' is indicative that there is
certainly policy level interest in addition to the technical.

Methinks  that in other economies where there may be less operation
experience  they may be the temptation for policy overreach/overreaction.
Ban it first ... if that doesn't work then tax it.

So to avoid an adhoc policy firefighting response to web payments, it might
be  better to proactively raise policy issues, to help shape the debate,
and encourage policy interoperability  given we're interested in
Internet-wide functionality.

For policy wonks,  I note that today's deadline for IGF submissions has
been extended till March 25, see here:-

http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/121-preparatory-process/1288-2013-preliminary-call-for-workshops-proposals

Cheers,

p.


On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Melvin Carvalho
<melvincarvalho@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On 20 March 2013 11:19, pindar wong <pindar.wong@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Some may have seen this:-
>>
>>
>> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/us-regulator-bitcoin-exchanges-must-comply-with-money-laundering-laws/
>>
>>
> Quite a nice analysis of this :
>
>
> http://www.bitcoinmoney.com/post/45771686409/news-roundup-fincens-guidance-re-virtual-currencies
>