Quote from: stslimited on October 10, 2013, 12:42:37 AM

So, we've all had our fun scoffing at regulators, but now that we've got that out of our system (and our portfolio's are down 60%) are we ready to make a regulated US exchange?

This would have the perks of inviting more liquidity from larger market participants, as well as more stability and predictability.

Playing around with other experiments such as decentralized exchanges and colored coins just invites unpredictable illiquidity and instability.

The Securities and Exchange Commissions offers plenty of regulatory exemptions for the kinds/sizes of companies that have so far "IPO'd" in bitcoin land, the exchanges might have a more uphill battle but its time to cross the bridge

First you have to lobby the congress and get them to pass a law to define what a Bitcoin exchange is and what the rules should be.

The SEC has no exemption for Bitcoin and it should either create an exemption or customized laws will have to be constructed based on the advice of the Bitcoin community and the lobbying efforts which Bitcoin businesses will have to work for.

I see no easy way of creating a regulated Bitcoin exchange in the next 6 months unless somehow the people in DC who can't even pass a budget can be made to get off their asses and pass a Bitcoin specific bill which you and I know probably wont be happening in 2013. This is why all the talk of a decentralized exchange is gaining steam, there seems to be no way to do a regulated exchange forcing people to figure out a technological solution.

My opinon, push the technological and political solution simultaneously.

Since most of us are programmers and not politicians, which solution do you expect to be popular on Bitcointalk?

Quote from: User705 on October 10, 2013, 01:06:09 AM

Why? What's the point? There's plenty of exchanges now. Heck ASICMiner could be on an exchange in a week by going reverse merger with a shell. Would probably get a higher valuation then now and since they don't mine they aren't even remotely shady or unlicensed in any way.

They could go on the NASDAQ but that isn't a Bitcoin exchange. It probably wouldn't let anyone in the Bitcoin community buy shares so what does that have to do with Bitcoin?

That is like telling someone with Euros to register with a completely different system and currency in order to trade shares in Dollars. Only in this case Bitcoin isn't a national currency and all the regulations on the books don't really apply to Bitcoin as Bitcoin is a type of barter.

So if you set up an unregulated unlicensed exchange to trade baseball cards, then at what point does the SEC regulation apply to that? What if the baseball cards are virtual baseball cards on the Internet? Then what? If you're not trading in dollars, it's just not realistic to regulate in that way. And if Asicminer is made to go to the Nasdaq they would have to sell out the entire Bitcoin community. Why would that be an alternative?

Quote from: Pale Phoenix on October 11, 2013, 12:33:32 AM

Exactly. Options exist for legitimate companies but require trading in USD, which also has the benefit of exposing the security to a much larger market of investors. The BTC denominated securities market is too small, and costs of compliance too high, for there to be a legit BTC denominated exchange in the foreseeable future.

I'm glad you see the situation clearly. It's not possible to start a regulated Bitcoin exchange until after a critical mass builds up from the unregulated Bitcoin exchanges.

It's supply and demand. At this point all the region locks have done is create demand for a decentralized exchange. Demand will build up there and then when there are millions or perhaps billions of dollars to be made a Bitcoin specific exchange will come about, that or lobbying efforts have to be made in the next 6 months to create some rules specifically for decentralized exchanges or for centralized exchanges running decentralized technology.

Law enforcement does not want money laundering and I can understand that.
The community is going to have to propose both a technological and political solution.

The political solution could rely on centralized exchanges with know your customer or whatever but the decentralized technological solution could ID people as well. The real question is why should people have to be ID'd? Dark money flows into political campaigns through PACs which don't have to be identified.

There is a legit need for laws and regulation in this space to protect people, but too much law and regulation hurts people.