The title is super misleading and needs to be changed.

It implies that this is a referendum, which is supposed to be voted on by the public. However:

  Politicians in Switzerland are set to vote on proposals submitted by 45 members of the Swiss Parliament for bitcoins to be legally recognised as a legitimate foreign currency, like the euro or dollar. 

It is a proposal by a group of 45 MPs towards the two houses of parliament.

my personal take is that chances are slim that this goes anywhere. Let alone towards a popular referendum.

It's actually not even a proposal, It's only one of two parliamentary motions for a report on regulation etc. of Bitcoin and other e-currencies. The story pops up again and again although there haven't been any news – the report hasn't been published yet. It's just another classic of the Bitcoin hype …

You're right that the title overstates the situation, but I wouldn't rule our a referendum.

The Swiss have a lot and they're easy(ish) to trigger - it's an intrinsic part of their voting system. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_referendums,_2013

While this is true (a referendum is relatively easy to trigger) it's still rarely used indiscriminately.

Even though only 50'000 signatures are required to call for a referendum and potentially kill a law, significant resources are required during the referendum phase.

Referendums are usually carried by political parties (at least partially) and there's only so much money and man power they can pour into it.

There is a positive side effect in referendums in that it usually prevents extreme laws from being made by parliament. It also forces the parliament to compromise on a lot of issues, before a law is enacted.

You can argue that compromising is a bad thing. But don't forget that it's a big part of how Swiss politics happen. It's not a winner-takes-all system.

You can absolutely rule out a referendum:

In the Swiss political system, a referendum is a mean against a new law. However, a new law on or against e-currencies is not even on the horizon in Switzerland.

In a nutshell: No new law, no possibility for a referendum.

Not true, the mechanism allows for constitutional change. This includes:

- Same-sex marriage - A ban on building new minarets - Phasing out Nuclear Power (defeated) - Limitations on Executive pay and payouts - Abolishing compulsory military service

Frankly. I have limited insight into what the average Swiss person thinks of crypto-currencies.

However, I did find the average citizen has (relatively) strong views on finance, cash and the integrity of their financial system.

He's right.

A referendum is always called against a law enacted by parliament.

What you are referring to is called an initiative. Those are popular requests to change the constitution to (for example) allow same sex marriage.

even though the outcome may be the same (a popular vote) the mechanisms are quite different. (In German: Referendum vs Verfassungsinitiative).

A referendum on federal level requires 50'000 valid signatures, an initiative double as much.

I was just using the term you used in your first post - which seemed representative enough for me.

If your point was to argue that mechanism can't be used (but another can) then that seems unusually specific/technical.

I think it is actually a bad idea for bitcoin to be treated like a currency. People should not push for it to be treated like a currency because then that only leads to regulation. It should be treated like a financial vehicle or commodity because that is what it is. Just like people openly trade Treasury bills or other bonds on the open market, people now openly trade bitcoins. I can take T-bill certificates anywhere in the world and they will most likely be able to find someone to trade with for real currency just like I could take bitcoins and trade them for other currency. The difference is that T-bills can be freely traded without being controlled banking regulations. There are already problems brewing in china from the government rulings about banks rejecting bitcoins as a currency

Not only that, why should bitcoin be enshrined as the only special crypto-currency worthy of recognition?

Not until we know who Satoshi Nakamoto is. Until then, bitcoin is just another internet clusterfuck.

Don't tell me it's not relevant who he/she is. It is relevant. It's a clear demonstration of our own incompetence. Without that information in hand, we're nothing more than rats following a pied piper.

> why should bitcoin be enshrined as the only special crypto-currency worthy of recognition?

I agree, but the reason you state has nothing to do with it. Who the fuck cares who Satoshi is? Why does it matter, given that the protocol operates independently from its original author and research can be done on it without his/her permission? Finally, who is this we you keep talking about?

The point here is that Satoshi is believed to have access to wallets with a great number of early-mined bitcoins. The wallets were unused since a few years and can be used to suddenly increase the amount of bitcoin in circulation, which'd devalue it significantly.

You're right, all crypto-currencies should be treated equally.

But your flawed reasoning regarding the significance of Satoshi Nakamoto's identity is the reason they chose to be anonymous.

Just for the sake of argument, assume that it is Hal Finney. What now?

If it was Hal Finney, then we'd actually know who it was. There would be a degree of closure.

Without that closure, there's a mysterious gaping black hole that only adds to all the other uncertainties that come naturally with a new frontier like crypto-currency.

If we can't answer fundamental questions about the bandwagon we're expected to jump on, worse yet, when we're told that we shouldn't even ask, then it is correct to be suspicious about the motivations of those who might herd us, and toward what ends they might march us into.

> There would be a degree of closure.

There would be relentless questioning of him, his views and his motivations.

This seems like a good time to point out that the Swiss government really likes to vote on things, and they vote on all kinds of crazy things. Simply coming to a vote in the swiss parliament doesn't mean a whole lot. If it passes, then it becomes something interesting.

You got that quite backwards.

The Swiss government does usually not put things to a vote. Like any other government the parliament legislates and the executive proposes laws and executes.

If parliament enacts a law that parts of the population doesn't like they can call for a referendum. If they gather 50k signatures within a specific timeframe then there will be a popular vote about th law.

The other way issues can come to a vote is by an initiative. This is usually how the "crazy" issues come to a vote.

Note, however, that most issues are not crazy at all. The crazy ones are the ones that you hear about in the international press.

An initiative on federal level requires 100k valid signatures.

Not only the parliament, but also the people.

Why are countries in such a hurry to decide one way or the other, when Bitcoin's market cap is still very small in many of these countries? Can't they wait a year or two longer, and see where it goes and pass more appropriate laws after they've had a while to think about it? I imagine most people in Parliaments didn't even hear about Bitcoin until last month. So why rush to a decision now then?