Wrong question: Is regulation the end of crypto?
Right question: Is crypto the end of regulation?
Correct answer: Yes
Topic: [2018-02-13] Is regulation the end of crypto? (Read 217 times)
exchanges couldn't just run away (exit scam)
Why not?
Theft is illegal already. No legal system is going to work efficiently if laws are written in a way that every new invention needs every old legal concept re-written completely from scratch.
This is the same fear-mongering nonsense you were talking about in another News thread
If what you're saying was true, all exchanges and businesses using BTC transactions are operating illegally. They're not. You seem to believe that anything not explicitly legalised is illegal by definition, but this is only true in the small number of extreme authoritarian governments around the world. The majority of more liberal governments are not that tyrannical, as bad as they are otherwise.
If what you're saying was true, all exchanges and businesses using BTC transactions are operating illegally. They're not. You seem to believe that anything not explicitly legalised is illegal by definition, but this is only true in the small number of extreme authoritarian governments around the world. The majority of more liberal governments are not that tyrannical, as bad as they are otherwise.
I actually agree with you, and although I already saw news of business being closed and it's owners arrested because they were accepting crypto (can search for the article if you want), you are right when you say that this only occurs in very "strict" and tyrannical governments. But although I do believe that in the US and Europe, crytpo could survive without regulation, I'm not sure if we really want that.
I do believe that if regulation is done properly, then this will help adoption. Right now the major dips bitcoin faced were because of regulation such as bans, and sometimes just based on fear of bans. These are examples of bad regulation, but if countries manage to show their support for crypto, like Japan is doing (and they are doing that with regulation), then investors will have no reasons to be afraid of strict measures, and will be more likely to invest.
Also, I do think that even more liberal countries would become more strict about crypto, if they get into a situation where they see they are losing a lot of money from taxes. So if regulation gets done in a good manner, I think we will all win as a society.
Legal entities, that is, enterprises, institutions and organizations will not be able to make settlements in the crypto currency, unless there is an appropriate permit from the state authorities. These are individuals, that is, citizens do not really need such permission. However, for legal entities such permission is mandatory. Therefore, in order for retail outlets to accept bitcoin and other crypto currency as a means of payment, we need state regulation.
This is the same fear-mongering nonsense you were talking about in another News thread
If what you're saying was true, all exchanges and businesses using BTC transactions are operating illegally. They're not. You seem to believe that anything not explicitly legalised is illegal by definition, but this is only true in the small number of extreme authoritarian governments around the world. The majority of more liberal governments are not that tyrannical, as bad as they are otherwise.
Regulation means good to me and it is still beneficial for the image of crypto and I only hate the tax rules that comes with it.
Regulation of the crypto currency is a regular stage in the development of the crypto currency. Without regulation, that is, recognizing the country's crypto currency, establishing rules for its circulation and imposing taxation on it, its further development is impossible. Legal entities, that is, enterprises, institutions and organizations will not be able to make settlements in the crypto currency, unless there is an appropriate permit from the state authorities. These are individuals, that is, citizens do not really need such permission. However, for legal entities such permission is mandatory. Therefore, in order for retail outlets to accept bitcoin and other crypto currency as a means of payment, we need state regulation.
Regulation if done the right way be enhancing cryptocurrency most especially the trading part and the issuance of ICO. Understanding human nature, there will always be abuses in form of scams and exploitation when an industry is just new. It happened to the franchising industry before and with the MLM sector and it is happening right now with cryptocurrency. Scam artists are everywhere and they are always looking for any good medium to exploit.
This is the reason why there is a need for a regulation...to protect the innocent buyers or investors from being sucked into their vortex. However, the best regulation is always self-regulation and the government will only be allowed to intervene once things are really out of hands. I heard of a good proposal from Mr. Vitalik which he called as DAICO...I think we need more discussions on that idea.
This is the reason why there is a need for a regulation...to protect the innocent buyers or investors from being sucked into their vortex. However, the best regulation is always self-regulation and the government will only be allowed to intervene once things are really out of hands. I heard of a good proposal from Mr. Vitalik which he called as DAICO...I think we need more discussions on that idea.
It's impossible to give a straight answer to this question.
On one hand, part of the reason crypto exists is to minimize the power giant institutions (banks, Congress, Federal Reserve) employee over the general population and consumers. Governments will not just let crypto grow without getting a piece of the pie at some point.
On the other hand, this great innovation also comes with people who take advantage of the general population. There are so many ICOs that are scams. Another one came out today, a company stole $4.5 million. It's pretty disgusting and it would be great for consumers to have some sort of protection or at least the people running the ICOs have accountability for the money that they steal from investors.
It really depends on the extent of the regulation.
On one hand, part of the reason crypto exists is to minimize the power giant institutions (banks, Congress, Federal Reserve) employee over the general population and consumers. Governments will not just let crypto grow without getting a piece of the pie at some point.
On the other hand, this great innovation also comes with people who take advantage of the general population. There are so many ICOs that are scams. Another one came out today, a company stole $4.5 million. It's pretty disgusting and it would be great for consumers to have some sort of protection or at least the people running the ICOs have accountability for the money that they steal from investors.
It really depends on the extent of the regulation.
exchanges couldn't just run away (exit scam)
Why not?
Theft is illegal already. No legal system is going to work efficiently if laws are written in a way that every new invention needs every old legal concept re-written completely from scratch.
The point of all this is that politicians are floundering. In the late 20th century, electronic banking (and the demonetisation of gold) made it far simpler to track taxable money flows. Bitcoin suddenly makes that task almost as difficult as it was before, and it's only going to get more difficult for them as cryptocurrencies continue to evolve.
There was a golden age for music and movie industries in the 20th century too: the tech was only good enough that the only way to manufacture copies of the recordings was either too difficult or too expensive for regular people to do themselves.
In 100 short years that all changed, very few people respect so-called "copyright", and musicians and movie studios are gradually beginning to accept that their golden age is over (I'm surprised movie makers are still releasing movies on home media so quick after the theater runs).
Politicians are going to be way more less likely to let go, but the facts are undeniable: before, taxable incomes could always be found. Before, taxable incomes could always be taken by force. Not any more. I don't know what kind of regulations anyone realistically expects to change things back how they were.
I'm cool with paying for stuff I use, or subsidising things that are for the greater good. But the power Bitcoin gives the people over politicians is a change for democratic good, and should be presented as such. If I didn't want to pay for war, corruption, or propaganda, I previously had no choice. Now, we all do.
Bitcoin is the regulation. And that's what the politicians don't like.
Regulations are great for crypto, but on the other hand allow governments to maintain at least some level of control, especially when it comes to centralized services.
That's what I am afraid of honestly. I like to trade from time to time, where the centralized exchanges offer the best possible environment for that, but the day that exchanges will start to tether personal information to authorities is something we'll see become reality within a few years. I don't know if decentralized exchanges till that time have managed to improve significantly when it comes to allowing at least some form of active trading. I am not a very active day trader at all, so I don't expect it to offer such abilities, but some trading capabilities would be a welcome addition. Or maybe I am going through a wishful thinking moment right now....
Has anyone here even experimented with a more active form of trading on decentralized exchanges? Would be appreciated if you could share your experience.
I believe regulation is another stage of a booming cryptocurrency. Imagine a country where we can freely trade cryptocurrency away from those FUD of crypto being banned. Aside from that huge audience of merchant will definitely flocks in because cryptocurrency is now considered legal trade. So from my point of view, regulation is another level of acceptance and support of the government.
Agree. But regulations are not gonna be as good as we like them to be. But that is still better than being in dark water.
It will definitely help the crypt in the adoption by more people.
I think not regulating crypto is more likely going to be an obstacle for crypto, than having it be regulated properly and fair. I strongly believe that if we didn't had current regulations in place all over the word, we likely wouldn't be able to reach this far, and especially when it comes to attracting institutional capital. Institutions have never really been able to enter this market legally, and with how this market is more and more being regulated, it's just a matter of time before they allocate a certain percentage of their portfolio to Bitcoin. Japan is a great example of how fair regulations can turn out to work well when it comes to stimulating further adoption. Great thing is that more and more governments start to understand that it's pointless to ban something that can't be banned at all. Regulations are great for crypto, but on the other hand allow governments to maintain at least some level of control, especially when it comes to centralized services.
I see it as, it's either the governments will ban the use of cryptocurrency or accept but regulate it. There are people who don't like it to be regulated at all (esp. because taxation will be implemented) but if the time comes I'd rather choose that some sort of regulation than being unable to use cryptocurrency (legally) at all. It would be better to just focus on the positive effect, like we could see more legitimate ICO's, exchanges couldn't just run away (exit scam), more establishments/businesses and individuals might use cryptocurrency as well, etc.
I believe regulation is another stage of a booming cryptocurrency. Imagine a country where we can freely trade cryptocurrency away from those FUD of crypto being banned. Aside from that huge audience of merchant will definitely flocks in because cryptocurrency is now considered legal trade. So from my point of view, regulation is another level of acceptance and support of the government.
I definitely agree we may have different opinions about that matter but this is what we need to accept for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to grow. We created a new market outside from the stock market which made other people interested in doing an investment of their own. The government is simply asking us to help each other as we will both benefit from it. Quote
The opposing argument suggests that since computers always require some form of energy to operate, crypto mines shouldn’t be taxed at all.
I don't think this is an argument at all. Of course everything requires cost in order for us to earn. Cryptocurrency Mining should be considered as income tax nonetheless as this is what they are earning from. Just think of it as a real mining company where they dig gold, nickel, or other precious earth metals as they are still paying their taxes.
I believe regulation is another stage of a booming cryptocurrency. Imagine a country where we can freely trade cryptocurrency away from those FUD of crypto being banned. Aside from that huge audience of merchant will definitely flocks in because cryptocurrency is now considered legal trade. So from my point of view, regulation is another level of acceptance and support of the government.
(CRYPTO: MZX) The crypto community has a problem: there’s no reputable location where research on blockchain, ICOs, and crypto exist. Mosaic hopes to bring transparency, reliable research, and accountability through their decentralized market intelligence network. By having users read, discuss, and rate content, Mosaic can provide a way to assess the history/reliability of researchers, news sources, and writers based on accuracy, quality of content, and other factors. In what could be seen as a sort of Reddit-for-crypto, we hope that Mosaic can combat the fake news, FUD, and intense market speculation that may be hindering crypto’s development.
It’s gettin’ hot in here. Well, in Iceland, to be more specific. There’s currently a mining boom, which begs the question, how will countries deal with this rising industry?
The big headlines yesterday concerned Iceland’s complicated (but potentially awesome) relationship with mining. In case you didn’t know, Iceland is pretty freakin’ rich in hydropower and geothermic energy – so much so that 70% of their electricity is created from hydro, and the rest from geothermic. A lawmaker from Iceland’s Pirate Party wants to tax Bitcoin mines because these companies are generating value in the form of crypto. The issue? If one thing is for sure, it’s that mining is far from dead.
The opposing argument suggests that since computers always require some form of energy to operate, crypto mines shouldn’t be taxed at all. Believe it or not, Iceland is still reeling from the 2008 recession (and is understandably conservative about new money systems), but the hard facts don’t lie: cryptocurrency mining in Iceland is probably going to consume twice as much energy as the country’s households in 2018. And that’s a scary increase of energy for the small country. At least they didn’t catch their nuclear scientists illegally mining crypto on their government work-related supercomputers, like Russia. Major bummer.
Is ‘regulation’ like saying ‘Voldemort’ in the crypto world? More importantly, can regulation be a factor of success for blockchain and tokens? Probably. So calm down, guys.
Regulation is the name of the game right now: IMF’s chief Christine Lagarde thinks that internationally regulating cryptocurrency isn’t just inevitable…it’s very necessary. Citing ‘dark activity’ (ie, dark web), Lagarde clarified that she thinks regulators should focus more on the activity tokens are used for, rather than the business entities who are incorporating them. Surprisingly, the market didn’t react negatively to the news. Could people be accepting that some form of regulation may be inevitable?
Singapore just wants blockchain to be successful (and they’ve got some goals for the technology, didn’t you hear?) but thinks that crypto speculators are actually hindering crypto’s experimental nature and the success of the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s (MAS) blockchain project. Apparently, the MAS’ goals are “fabulous.” And no, we wouldn’t recommend listening to mainland China’s media about blockchain, which has been ramping up its negative press about the technology after cryptocurrency activity has continued to practically flourish – even after it was declared illegal. Blockchain is one of the most popular new technologies and has been receiving international praise for several years. Even T-Mobile’s open-source software has been chugging along quite nicely.
One of Russia’s ministries proposed a law that would have a capital requirement for ICO organizers: projects must have $1.73 million in authorized capital, and register as a legal entity in Russia.
At the U.S.’s Technology Tools for Today (T3) conference, financial advisors were practically screaming praise for blockchain. (We’ll patiently wait for the crypto bug to bite.)
Some comic relief: the BBC does its best to explain Bitcoin. Try and hold back the eye rolls. A+ for effort, though.
It’s gettin’ hot in here. Well, in Iceland, to be more specific. There’s currently a mining boom, which begs the question, how will countries deal with this rising industry?
The big headlines yesterday concerned Iceland’s complicated (but potentially awesome) relationship with mining. In case you didn’t know, Iceland is pretty freakin’ rich in hydropower and geothermic energy – so much so that 70% of their electricity is created from hydro, and the rest from geothermic. A lawmaker from Iceland’s Pirate Party wants to tax Bitcoin mines because these companies are generating value in the form of crypto. The issue? If one thing is for sure, it’s that mining is far from dead.
The opposing argument suggests that since computers always require some form of energy to operate, crypto mines shouldn’t be taxed at all. Believe it or not, Iceland is still reeling from the 2008 recession (and is understandably conservative about new money systems), but the hard facts don’t lie: cryptocurrency mining in Iceland is probably going to consume twice as much energy as the country’s households in 2018. And that’s a scary increase of energy for the small country. At least they didn’t catch their nuclear scientists illegally mining crypto on their government work-related supercomputers, like Russia. Major bummer.
Is ‘regulation’ like saying ‘Voldemort’ in the crypto world? More importantly, can regulation be a factor of success for blockchain and tokens? Probably. So calm down, guys.
Regulation is the name of the game right now: IMF’s chief Christine Lagarde thinks that internationally regulating cryptocurrency isn’t just inevitable…it’s very necessary. Citing ‘dark activity’ (ie, dark web), Lagarde clarified that she thinks regulators should focus more on the activity tokens are used for, rather than the business entities who are incorporating them. Surprisingly, the market didn’t react negatively to the news. Could people be accepting that some form of regulation may be inevitable?
Singapore just wants blockchain to be successful (and they’ve got some goals for the technology, didn’t you hear?) but thinks that crypto speculators are actually hindering crypto’s experimental nature and the success of the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s (MAS) blockchain project. Apparently, the MAS’ goals are “fabulous.” And no, we wouldn’t recommend listening to mainland China’s media about blockchain, which has been ramping up its negative press about the technology after cryptocurrency activity has continued to practically flourish – even after it was declared illegal. Blockchain is one of the most popular new technologies and has been receiving international praise for several years. Even T-Mobile’s open-source software has been chugging along quite nicely.
One of Russia’s ministries proposed a law that would have a capital requirement for ICO organizers: projects must have $1.73 million in authorized capital, and register as a legal entity in Russia.
At the U.S.’s Technology Tools for Today (T3) conference, financial advisors were practically screaming praise for blockchain. (We’ll patiently wait for the crypto bug to bite.)
Some comic relief: the BBC does its best to explain Bitcoin. Try and hold back the eye rolls. A+ for effort, though.
It definitely isn't; it is just the beginning. You know, we do not have to be quite frantic about the left and right rumors concerning ICOs having the likes of being regulated because I know time will come the direction is leading to nowhere else but there. Why? Of course, for development. We all cannot move forward if there is no order on how we do things with legal backgrounds and constitutional basis. The world works that way from the onset. Although yes, I see it to be a threat in terms of managing our own accounts, controlling our own monies, and whatnot, but this is just how it goes. We cannot move further if we have no standards to live up to, follow and develop. It just goes to show how the blockchain technology influenced today's generation, and how the world is adjusting to new developments that cannot be put to naught.
(CRYPTO: MZX) The crypto community has a problem: there’s no reputable location where research on blockchain, ICOs, and crypto exist. Mosaic hopes to bring transparency, reliable research, and accountability through their decentralized market intelligence network. By having users read, discuss, and rate content, Mosaic can provide a way to assess the history/reliability of researchers, news sources, and writers based on accuracy, quality of content, and other factors. In what could be seen as a sort of Reddit-for-crypto, we hope that Mosaic can combat the fake news, FUD, and intense market speculation that may be hindering crypto’s development.
It’s gettin’ hot in here. Well, in Iceland, to be more specific. There’s currently a mining boom, which begs the question, how will countries deal with this rising industry?
The big headlines yesterday concerned Iceland’s complicated (but potentially awesome) relationship with mining. In case you didn’t know, Iceland is pretty freakin’ rich in hydropower and geothermic energy – so much so that 70% of their electricity is created from hydro, and the rest from geothermic. A lawmaker from Iceland’s Pirate Party wants to tax Bitcoin mines because these companies are generating value in the form of crypto. The issue? If one thing is for sure, it’s that mining is far from dead.
The opposing argument suggests that since computers always require some form of energy to operate, crypto mines shouldn’t be taxed at all. Believe it or not, Iceland is still reeling from the 2008 recession (and is understandably conservative about new money systems), but the hard facts don’t lie: cryptocurrency mining in Iceland is probably going to consume twice as much energy as the country’s households in 2018. And that’s a scary increase of energy for the small country. At least they didn’t catch their nuclear scientists illegally mining crypto on their government work-related supercomputers, like Russia. Major bummer.
Is ‘regulation’ like saying ‘Voldemort’ in the crypto world? More importantly, can regulation be a factor of success for blockchain and tokens? Probably. So calm down, guys.
Regulation is the name of the game right now: IMF’s chief Christine Lagarde thinks that internationally regulating cryptocurrency isn’t just inevitable…it’s very necessary. Citing ‘dark activity’ (ie, dark web), Lagarde clarified that she thinks regulators should focus more on the activity tokens are used for, rather than the business entities who are incorporating them. Surprisingly, the market didn’t react negatively to the news. Could people be accepting that some form of regulation may be inevitable?
Singapore just wants blockchain to be successful (and they’ve got some goals for the technology, didn’t you hear?) but thinks that crypto speculators are actually hindering crypto’s experimental nature and the success of the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s (MAS) blockchain project. Apparently, the MAS’ goals are “fabulous.” And no, we wouldn’t recommend listening to mainland China’s media about blockchain, which has been ramping up its negative press about the technology after cryptocurrency activity has continued to practically flourish – even after it was declared illegal. Blockchain is one of the most popular new technologies and has been receiving international praise for several years. Even T-Mobile’s open-source software has been chugging along quite nicely.
One of Russia’s ministries proposed a law that would have a capital requirement for ICO organizers: projects must have $1.73 million in authorized capital, and register as a legal entity in Russia.
At the U.S.’s Technology Tools for Today (T3) conference, financial advisors were practically screaming praise for blockchain. (We’ll patiently wait for the crypto bug to bite.)
Some comic relief: the BBC does its best to explain Bitcoin. Try and hold back the eye rolls. A+ for effort, though.
It’s gettin’ hot in here. Well, in Iceland, to be more specific. There’s currently a mining boom, which begs the question, how will countries deal with this rising industry?
The big headlines yesterday concerned Iceland’s complicated (but potentially awesome) relationship with mining. In case you didn’t know, Iceland is pretty freakin’ rich in hydropower and geothermic energy – so much so that 70% of their electricity is created from hydro, and the rest from geothermic. A lawmaker from Iceland’s Pirate Party wants to tax Bitcoin mines because these companies are generating value in the form of crypto. The issue? If one thing is for sure, it’s that mining is far from dead.
The opposing argument suggests that since computers always require some form of energy to operate, crypto mines shouldn’t be taxed at all. Believe it or not, Iceland is still reeling from the 2008 recession (and is understandably conservative about new money systems), but the hard facts don’t lie: cryptocurrency mining in Iceland is probably going to consume twice as much energy as the country’s households in 2018. And that’s a scary increase of energy for the small country. At least they didn’t catch their nuclear scientists illegally mining crypto on their government work-related supercomputers, like Russia. Major bummer.
Is ‘regulation’ like saying ‘Voldemort’ in the crypto world? More importantly, can regulation be a factor of success for blockchain and tokens? Probably. So calm down, guys.
Regulation is the name of the game right now: IMF’s chief Christine Lagarde thinks that internationally regulating cryptocurrency isn’t just inevitable…it’s very necessary. Citing ‘dark activity’ (ie, dark web), Lagarde clarified that she thinks regulators should focus more on the activity tokens are used for, rather than the business entities who are incorporating them. Surprisingly, the market didn’t react negatively to the news. Could people be accepting that some form of regulation may be inevitable?
Singapore just wants blockchain to be successful (and they’ve got some goals for the technology, didn’t you hear?) but thinks that crypto speculators are actually hindering crypto’s experimental nature and the success of the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s (MAS) blockchain project. Apparently, the MAS’ goals are “fabulous.” And no, we wouldn’t recommend listening to mainland China’s media about blockchain, which has been ramping up its negative press about the technology after cryptocurrency activity has continued to practically flourish – even after it was declared illegal. Blockchain is one of the most popular new technologies and has been receiving international praise for several years. Even T-Mobile’s open-source software has been chugging along quite nicely.
One of Russia’s ministries proposed a law that would have a capital requirement for ICO organizers: projects must have $1.73 million in authorized capital, and register as a legal entity in Russia.
At the U.S.’s Technology Tools for Today (T3) conference, financial advisors were practically screaming praise for blockchain. (We’ll patiently wait for the crypto bug to bite.)
Some comic relief: the BBC does its best to explain Bitcoin. Try and hold back the eye rolls. A+ for effort, though.
Jump to: