Quote from: acoindr on July 18, 2013, 12:18:13 AM

Quote from: ruletheworld on July 17, 2013, 11:38:11 PM

I agree, but I am pretty sure the anonymity part isn't going to sit well with her.

Why not? Cash is anonymous.

Quote from: ruletheworld on July 17, 2013, 11:38:11 PM

It is also definitely harder to regulate, especially through her own agency. I see no good reason why she should be enthusiastic about Bitcoin given her agency wouldn't be able to regulate it on a practical level.

As I said above my instinct about her is she is in favor of the little guy, not the privileged/elite.

Well...the fallacy of her thinking is that by implicitly being in favor of big-gov/deficit-spending, she's actually helping the privileged/elite at the expense of the little guy.

Quote from: acoindr on July 18, 2013, 12:18:13 AM

Bitcoin gives people options and it's a voluntary currrency. Regulations on Bitcoin for that reason are far less necessary, if they are at all.

That is NOT how a pro-regulation uber-dem is going to see it. She'll see bitcoin as "hoarders'" and scammers' electronic-gold delight, rife with theft and loss concerns, money laundering, scams, etc. The inability to do chargebacks will make her want to put incredible scaffolding in place around everything bitcoin in order "protect" the poor little helpless souls that we Americans are in her myopic mind.

Quote from: acoindr on July 18, 2013, 12:18:13 AM

Bitcoin is not very different than people deciding to trade gold nuggets. That's anonymous and irreversible too, and wouldn't be very easy for the CFPB to regulate, but would she say Americans shouldn't be able to trade gold? I doubt that.

As noted above, the fact that bitcoin trades electronically with no chargebacks is going to be the dealbreaker for someone like her with regard to being pro-bitcoin.