Quote from: BitcoinAuthor on May 20, 2013, 01:55:53 AM

Quote from: Vycid on May 20, 2013, 01:24:17 AM

Quote from: BitcoinAuthor on May 20, 2013, 01:08:16 AM

Quote from: noedaRDH on May 20, 2013, 12:47:56 AM

Quote from: BitcoinAuthor on May 20, 2013, 12:40:07 AM

Quote from: noedaRDH on May 20, 2013, 12:23:01 AM

Quote from: BitcoinAuthor on May 20, 2013, 12:19:34 AM

Quote from: noedaRDH on May 20, 2013, 12:09:56 AM

Quote from: BitcoinAuthor on May 19, 2013, 11:54:04 PM

Quote from: noedaRDH on May 19, 2013, 11:44:30 PM

Quote from: canada on May 19, 2013, 06:13:48 PM

that was at best a below average talk. wow, harvard education and this is what public speaking sounds like? ouch.

Not everyone can give a Steve Job-like presentation. These guys are just VC's, rich kids with money to burn. But at least they speak in a honest and frank manner, from the bottom of their hearts.

They don't give a shit about Bitcoin. They mock bankers, and their father is an actuary -- they got their money from the financial sector.

What have they done or said that indicates they don't give a shit about Bitcoin?

They want it regulated. They're shills for the financial industry.

Maybe they see that regulation is unavoidable if Bitcoin is to gain mainstream adoption. It might not be a bad thing for services for Bitcoin to be regulated. But Bitcoin itself is difficult to regulate.

So bitcoins can be, seized, restricted from crossing boarders, taxed, tracked, limited in the amount individuals can hold, and the exchanges run by the same people who screw everyone over now. They're bad things, IMO.

I wouldn't go as far as equating regulation to all those scenario you've listed. Regulation does not necessarily mean seizing or tracking or restriction. It might be just regulation of exchanges, or maybe of merchants, but nothing too intrusive.

FinCEN want to regulate virtual currency under the Bank Secrecy Act (1970):

"Designed to help identify the source, volume, and movement of currency and other monetary instruments transported or transmitted into or out of the United States or deposited in financial institutions"

"Required banks to (1) report cash transactions over $10,000 using the Currency Transaction Report; (2) properly identify persons conducting transactions; and (3) maintain a paper trail by keeping appropriate records of financial transactions"

http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/aml_history.html

Restriction and tracking!

And the DHS have already seized money in Mt. Gox's Dwolla account.

If we're going to fight back against that kind of regulation, Bitcoin needs connections and influence of exactly the type the Twinkievoss twins can provide. They've already talked about getting a Washington lobbyist. We know they've got powerful buddies - that was the point of Harvard, right?

The regulation is coming one way or another. Whether we are ready is up to us.

The Bitcoin Foundation are going to hire a lobbyist. http://www.itworld.com/357078/bitcoiners-rally-enlighten-washington?page=0,1

The Winklevoss's want Bitcoin to be regulated. They are the current system. And that's why they don't give a shit about Bitcoin. They care about adding 0s to their bankaccount, not about the freedom Bitcoin offers to everyone else.

And when you hear them talk it is clear they are just in it for the money. There is no passion in their speech (if you can even call it that). I would be VERY VERY careful of these guys. They have millions and millions tide up. They are looking out for themselves first.

Not saying to get them out (to early for that), but they need to be kept a close eye on, very close.