That's my feel too. The chair seems to be really really interested in bitcoin and how bitcoin works. They [the panel] repeatably mentioning Tor Foundation, Bitcoin Foundation partnership on dealing on this issue. I think the government, at least from the Senate's perspective, what is absent in regulating virtual concurrency. I am all for government and business regulating if the regulation benefit the public consumer (not deep web consumers) in the long run. They also praise the pros and cons of the bitcoin protocol, history of bitcoin and etc.

Chair: "You don't think it was Al Gore [created the bitcoin], do you?"

laughers

Chair: "I like this quote from Mrs. Einstein: 'I understand the words but not the sentences.' Thanks the panel."

Side note: I thought I saw Snowden... http://imgur.com/IaAPGjx

And the hearing record is only saved for 15 days...

> Side note: I thought I saw Snowden... http://imgur.com/IaAPGjx

I actually thought he looked a lot more like Tucker Carlson (the bow-tie wearing talking head who was verbally bitch-slapped by John Stewart on Carlson's ex-show, Crossfire).

I think he means the man directly to the left of the man in the foreground of that picture. Blondish, square glasses, no tie.

Haha, that's Ryan Singer https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ryansinger

Yes the guy in the background. It is actually funny but I am afraid getting downvote for saying that haha :)

Perhaps, but I noticed something a little different. It seems that in these hearings, the chair has enormous influence to push the discussion in a certain direction, and even direct those opposing his views to be a lot more "neutral", instead of opposing him, if they truly do disagree with him.

I haven't watched a lot of these hearings, but I know that with SOPA, chaired by the infamous Lamar Smith, the witnesses were 5:1 pro-SOPA, and the NSA hearings, chaired by pro-NSA people, were also NSA circle-jerks.

So it seems the rule of thumb, more than anything, when you want something passed, is to get a chair that strongly supports your view - and then everything else will fall into place.

I think the reason they're overwhelmingly positive is because they don't care about bubble-bursts and market volatility. They're approaching it from an amoral standpoint & just reviewing the tech. Once they get into the details of mining and supply rules set up by some anonymous benevolent individual I think it may get soured.

Don't forget there are uses for a mostly anonymous currency to the governmetn too.

This is true, but if we take on one side a group of consumers as one entity against the government as another, pseudonymity is way more valuable for the former than for the latter, for practical reasons.

Man, that would've made the whole Contra affair a little easier, wouldn't it! ;)

Campaign funding with Bitcoins would be interesting.

I think a possible reason they're overwhelmingly positive is because the FBI has a pretty good cache of bc.

They wouldn't care if those coins were worth $5 billion. The federal budget is silly compared to a few hundred thousand bitcoins. Or maybe that's the other way around.

The FBI and CIA can use Bitcoin to anonymously pay off foreign informants though

We'd see them spend it and ask what they've spent it on.

I'd expect the CIA to know how to launder money competently. It seems like a ridiculously obvious thing for them to learn how to do.

Given bitcoin's current quasi-legal status, I don't think they'd be under any obligation to answer that question until the coins become legal tender

And they would say "none of your business."

Do you think that possibility translates into enthusiasm in the Senate?

Maybe... or "The FBI can’t investigate terrorists and fraudsters due to budget cuts" http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/30/t...

The FBI budget iirc is ~8 billion, if they get everything from silk road it could be over 10% of their budget.

The commissions earned by Silk Road were just shy of $80 million over more than two years. Where did you get $800 million from?

By some reports they were looking at 600,000 bitcoins[1], read some headlines today that bc was at $750[2], make more people comfortable with them...

[1]FBI struggles to seize 600,000 Bitcoins from alleged Silk Road founder by Alex Hern http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/07/fbi-bitcoi...

[2]Bitcoin hits $750, up 107% in a week By: John Phillips http://www.cnbc.com/id/101205416

Some coins selling at $750 doesn't mean someone is willing to pay $750 for 600,000 coins.

That's true now but legitimize it and get some real capital guarantees and that could change.

There's a way to convey that information without the condescending tone.

You are aware that the other definition of billion is even larger right?

All the politicians are thinking "A completely anonymous way to get campaign funds? This sounds incredible!"

I think it's because not getting in on the ecosystem now could be regrettable later if other powers do.

Or they operate most of the BTC washing services.

> only the secret service guy seemed to be very cautious; he never said the word bitcoin and mostly spent his time saying the secret service was awesome.

To make it clearer for anyone who doesn't know: The Secret Service is the primary government agency charged with investigating the counterfeiting of American currency. Protecting the President and other dignitaries is minor compared to that. That's probably why they're testifying in the Senate now to begin with.