You people are aware of the ban the US had imposed on online poker and the events unfolding on the infamous Black Friday, and the sudden death poker income oriented online casinos suffered as a consequence, right?
What makes you even think if btc does indeed expand enough to represent a threat for the national currency of the US or any other country, said country/alliance will hesitate to and find the correct methods to eliminate such no doubt essential threat?
Topic: Banning bitcoins is against the law (Read 629 times)
What it makes these lawmakers are that they just like to protect their people. They know already the risk of crypto investment but I don't think that they could stop bitcoin users or investors, only they can do is to spread awareness for its high risk.
This is very funny. Law is something that is created and modified by the "lawmakers" (i.e the members of parliament). They can interpret in whatever way they like. Some of the laws in India are self-contradictory. For example, the constitution guarantees equality to all the citizens. But still the government has introduced affirmative action in educational institutions (up to 75% in some cases) and jobs, based on the caste and ethnicity.
They created a lot, some of them are just a contrary to what the others have made before. Actually, not only in India but also it happens around the world. 
The government, expectedly, thinks for the generality of the people.
This is exactly what is wrong with most of the laws-- the law makers are entirely different and do not resemble the regular folks to which these laws apply. We are peasants to them. They stand above us. Why do you think the US and Donald Trump is coercing Iran and N.Korea to ensure that they denuclearize?
Donald Trump isn't anything but a muppet. The US has been in favor of denuclearization of Iran well before he even came into the picture as presidential candidate. It's a circus show for us regular folks to believe....No matter how much pressure the US is exercising on Iran, nothing will prevent them from being able to build a nuclear weapon, which they might already have in full working state.
As much as I am a firm supporter of Bitcoin and by extension cryptocurrency, I think your argument is skewed a bit. I don't want Bitcoin to be banned but then the law is law. The law is the government. The government is the law. The government, expectedly, thinks for the generality of the people. Why do you think the US and Donald Trump is coercing Iran and N.Korea to ensure that they denuclearize? Shouldn't the US have left them alone since it's their properties too and they have a right to own them? Long story short, I don't think it's a crime for government to ban anything it doesn't welcome, whether personal property or not.
Who is the government, the humans in the seat tat wakes up one day to just think this is right and this is wrong, but everyone could think that way and just start shutting everything they feel they don’t want up even if it is right, but thanks to law, despite the fact that they are the leaders and they don’t like a particular system, they cannot just go against it without going back to the law, and whether they are government or not, everything works by the book, they still have to go back to that book to see if it is really against the law or not before they can start backing their argument up. Look at when Trump came and said he does not like immigrants, if it was for Trump alone, all immigrants whether legal or illegal would have all been out of the US, but what folded his arms bit in taking actions against them was just that law.
This is very funny. Law is something that is created and modified by the "lawmakers" (i.e the members of parliament). They can interpret in whatever way they like. Some of the laws in India are self-contradictory. For example, the constitution guarantees equality to all the citizens. But still the government has introduced affirmative action in educational institutions (up to 75% in some cases) and jobs, based on the caste and ethnicity.
A ban on trade is quite possible. I do not know how in the US, but in other countries it is possible to do even at the legislative level
They can only ban exchanges but bitcoin is already traded before with a small number of exchanges are in the market, and with other countries that are supportive with bitcoin, it's still possible to convert the BTC into fiat as moving BTC from one wallet to another wallet is very easy and simple, and it cannot be prevented by any government. Bitcoin will definitely live forever, regardless of its price as it's impossible for the government to totally stop it.
This is correct. Bitcoin is not a currency issued by the government of India. It's just a collectible. People are trading and keeping collectibles for centuries and it has never been illegal.
I can give my collectibles to someone for free or for a service, a good or some money. It's my choice what I do with it.
I can give my collectibles to someone for free or for a service, a good or some money. It's my choice what I do with it.
As much as I am a firm supporter of Bitcoin and by extension cryptocurrency, I think your argument is skewed a bit. I don't want Bitcoin to be banned but then the law is law. The law is the government. The government is the law. The government, expectedly, thinks for the generality of the people. Why do you think the US and Donald Trump is coercing Iran and N.Korea to ensure that they denuclearize? Shouldn't the US have left them alone since it's their properties too and they have a right to own them? Long story short, I don't think it's a crime for government to ban anything it doesn't welcome, whether personal property or not.
Bitcoin been a property and assets is right in our own sense but not to the government.
And your points are right.
The main issue is that the government only understands that people are using it as a currency which they can't control. More reason why they intervenes into it before it gets out of their control.
This adds up to them believing that holding Bitcoin has an asset can contributes to less payments of tax which they are indirectly benefiting from.
yeah they think so, the government is too focused on the losses they will get without regard to the great benefits to be gained. although the law belongs to them (the government) but they cannot arbitrarily do it to ban bitcoin. they must have several reasons to consider, that bitcoin is not only used for bad things, but also the interests and benefits of its users, it can be a benefit and improve the micro economy and the country itself. And your points are right.
The main issue is that the government only understands that people are using it as a currency which they can't control. More reason why they intervenes into it before it gets out of their control.
This adds up to them believing that holding Bitcoin has an asset can contributes to less payments of tax which they are indirectly benefiting from.
Maybe OP is right. It is against the law.
But who sued Roosevelt for banning gold in US and won?
It shouldn't be the laws which make bitcoin not be banned.
But who sued Roosevelt for banning gold in US and won?
It shouldn't be the laws which make bitcoin not be banned.
If the government of a country wants to ban crypto, not one of the rights and rules will help you. India is a prime example.
But this authority of law is being manipulated time and again by various communities , shouldn't they make decisions in accordance to everyone in this country not just some big committee set up by old leaders who doesn't even know a thing about blockchain.
Religion is like a big cancer, many political leaders when they want to manipulate their people use religion, in the case of India people first have to end up with fanatics and must stop choosing fanatical leaders and changing the political system. Bitcoin is about technology and freedom, and in a country with the political system and politicians like India, things like "Ban" were expected to be implemented sooner or later. But there is some hope for the future, and this hope is that if young people from India who support science and technology ever dominate the political system and govern the country.
So aren't they breaching this right too ?
do you think they care about the law? they want to control and manipulate their people
First of all, we shouldn't be worry about banning of bitcoin. Bitcoin is based on blockchain technology and that's decentralized. But let's assume that a government can ban bitcoin and people no longer use bitcoin. I ask you a question. Who does make the rules? Governments make the rules. They can change the rules however they want. They can make the rules in favour of themselves. They are governments. They can do whatever they want.
(Note that it was just an assumption. So, they can do what they want, but everything is different when we are talking about bitcoin.)
Even if one country has already legalized the use of bitcoin and then decides to ban it for some reasons,it might be very hard for them to banned bitcoin because its internet operated.Without internet connections,transactions will shut down not only with bitcoin but even their own transactions that needs internet too.And besides people will surely find ways to access bitcoin no matter what. (Note that it was just an assumption. So, they can do what they want, but everything is different when we are talking about bitcoin.)
First of all, we shouldn't be worry about banning of bitcoin. Bitcoin is based on blockchain technology and that's decentralized. But let's assume that a government can ban bitcoin and people no longer use bitcoin. I ask you a question. Who does make the rules? Governments make the rules. They can change the rules however they want. They can make the rules in favour of themselves. They are governments. They can do whatever they want.
(Note that it was just an assumption. So, they can do what they want, but everything is different when we are talking about bitcoin.)
(Note that it was just an assumption. So, they can do what they want, but everything is different when we are talking about bitcoin.)
Manipulation is always there and I think even if the government would show this as not truly a manipulation they can show this to the public as part of the law, but I guess the government would not give any law if they didn't see any wrong things about it, I guess you can surely own something that is your right, for example, you can own a gun with a proper paper license but that very gun is used to killing someone or used illegally I guess the government will do a proper action about this they may implement a gun ban, Then even if a person would have proper property with the gun it can still be confiscated, I guess the government will lead to something like this if Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies would be used illegally.
There are still countries that have never allowed guns to be legalized, a bad thing doesn't need to happen for the item to be banned (eg, some governments are being smart by banning guns early on), and this seems to be similar for some countries and Bitcoin.Most countries haven't seen a lot of Bitcoin used, but they will still ban it due to their misguided views about most bitcoin users being criminals - which I'm not saying is good, but we can also do nothing about it.
if a coin is decentralized then banning it is useless.
Still it is possible to ban Blockstream not bitcoin.
That's true, they can't fully "ban" bitcoin, because there are VPNs, accessing your wallets via the tor network, but they can issue large penalities and also make sure it'll never be mainstream in your country, which is still a huge negative.Still it is possible to ban Blockstream not bitcoin.
Let's discuss what is the definition of property
a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively.
Taking this into account , We can consider all the assets that we own as our property.
So is the bitcoins .
We haven't earned it doing some shady business and at the same time it's our money that we have invested in it , a money that we have earned .
Now let's talk about the Right to property in India
The right to property was initially present in Indian constitution under part III : Fundamental right , Article 31 but it was abolished by 44 th Amendment Act ,1978. ... Now it is made a constitutional right under Article 300A which states that no person can be deprived of his / her property except by authority of law.
Here the only thing is see is *except by the authority of law*
But this authority of law is being manipulated time and again by various communities , shouldn't they make decisions in accordance to everyone in this country not just some big committee set up by old leaders who doesn't even know a thing about blockchain.
Now we have some Fundemental rights
Right to freedom: It includes freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association or union or cooperatives, movement, and residence. It also includes the right to practice any profession or occupation.
We have the right to practice any profession or occupation.
What we do in Signature campaign , the trading is no easy profession but it earns better than most of the daily jobs.
So aren't they breaching this right too ?
Those laws you are talking about are the laws of your country and only applicable to you or the people living over there.a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively.
Taking this into account , We can consider all the assets that we own as our property.
So is the bitcoins .
We haven't earned it doing some shady business and at the same time it's our money that we have invested in it , a money that we have earned .
Now let's talk about the Right to property in India
The right to property was initially present in Indian constitution under part III : Fundamental right , Article 31 but it was abolished by 44 th Amendment Act ,1978. ... Now it is made a constitutional right under Article 300A which states that no person can be deprived of his / her property except by authority of law.
Here the only thing is see is *except by the authority of law*
But this authority of law is being manipulated time and again by various communities , shouldn't they make decisions in accordance to everyone in this country not just some big committee set up by old leaders who doesn't even know a thing about blockchain.
Now we have some Fundemental rights
Right to freedom: It includes freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association or union or cooperatives, movement, and residence. It also includes the right to practice any profession or occupation.
We have the right to practice any profession or occupation.
What we do in Signature campaign , the trading is no easy profession but it earns better than most of the daily jobs.
So aren't they breaching this right too ?
Anyways, you are taking all the laws "literally". This is not how laws work. If it says you have the right to practice any profession, it does not mean that you can do or be anything you like. It's not like you can officially be a drug dealer and sell drugs. Again, they can ban the usage of bitcoin if they want. They can't ban bitcoin itself (since it is decentralized), but they can ban its usage and make it an offence if you use them.
You are very much right for everything said, but that is why they are government, you cryptocurrency is something that is indirectly like a fight against the government who has been exploiting its citizens, and it’s a fight for the masses to give them freedom from what the government has been using to control and have some hold against them.
Cryptocurrency is not the issue here, but the use of cryptocurrency by some group of people to make it look like s shady technology is what the problem is, but the mistake government is making is fighting cryptocurrency rather than fighting the bad ones using it for bad purposes just like they use Fiat too for bad purpose. I think the India government is just taking it too far and they will not succeed on it.
Cryptocurrency is not the issue here, but the use of cryptocurrency by some group of people to make it look like s shady technology is what the problem is, but the mistake government is making is fighting cryptocurrency rather than fighting the bad ones using it for bad purposes just like they use Fiat too for bad purpose. I think the India government is just taking it too far and they will not succeed on it.
You've quoted that article and you don't realize that the law is the government.
If they pass a bill saying bitcoin is illegal, then by the authority of the law your fundamental right is toilet paper.
Not exactly true, in my opinion. It would be true, of course, in a country that did not sign any international conventions and has rules that make it easy to change the Constitution, but India is not like that. I am not sure about the Constitution in India (in my country only 2/3 of the Parliament can make constitutional changes), but India is a subject of International law. For instance, India adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and, if Bitcoin is property, then Article 17 has something to say about that:If they pass a bill saying bitcoin is illegal, then by the authority of the law your fundamental right is toilet paper.
Quote
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
If it's about the right of occupation, then there's Article 23:(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Quote
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
International law stands above the national one, so it is possible to appeal to these rights. Not everything can be done by a strict government. Banning cryptos probably can be done, though. But for now it's still a project law, right? So maybe nothing bad will happen. (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
Let's discuss what is the definition of property
a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively.
Taking this into account , We can consider all the assets that we own as our property.
So is the bitcoins .
We haven't earned it doing some shady business and at the same time it's our money that we have invested in it , a money that we have earned .
Now let's talk about the Right to property in India
The right to property was initially present in Indian constitution under part III : Fundamental right , Article 31 but it was abolished by 44 th Amendment Act ,1978. ... Now it is made a constitutional right under Article 300A which states that no person can be deprived of his / her property except by authority of law.
Here the only thing is see is *except by the authority of law*
But this authority of law is being manipulated time and again by various communities , shouldn't they make decisions in accordance to everyone in this country not just some big committee set up by old leaders who doesn't even know a thing about blockchain.
Now we have some Fundemental rights
Right to freedom: It includes freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association or union or cooperatives, movement, and residence. It also includes the right to practice any profession or occupation.
We have the right to practice any profession or occupation.
What we do in Signature campaign , the trading is no easy profession but it earns better than most of the daily jobs.
So aren't they breaching this right too ?
a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively.
Taking this into account , We can consider all the assets that we own as our property.
So is the bitcoins .
We haven't earned it doing some shady business and at the same time it's our money that we have invested in it , a money that we have earned .
Now let's talk about the Right to property in India
The right to property was initially present in Indian constitution under part III : Fundamental right , Article 31 but it was abolished by 44 th Amendment Act ,1978. ... Now it is made a constitutional right under Article 300A which states that no person can be deprived of his / her property except by authority of law.
Here the only thing is see is *except by the authority of law*
But this authority of law is being manipulated time and again by various communities , shouldn't they make decisions in accordance to everyone in this country not just some big committee set up by old leaders who doesn't even know a thing about blockchain.
Now we have some Fundemental rights
Right to freedom: It includes freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association or union or cooperatives, movement, and residence. It also includes the right to practice any profession or occupation.
We have the right to practice any profession or occupation.
What we do in Signature campaign , the trading is no easy profession but it earns better than most of the daily jobs.
So aren't they breaching this right too ?
I can say for sure that you have some points having read through the comments made but then loads of factors are also put into consideration but regulatory agencies in regions just as your, I am not sure of your locationn but i suspect india. It is to our global awareness that India is against Bitcoin and crypto related transactions but then i beleive they have for a genuine reason banned the crypto related operations for the "thought and betterment" of its ciitizens but if you want to participate in they crypto space, I will advice you relocate to an environment where its operations aren't prohibited.
Countries have got their own regulations and laws. Though these laws have been written years back it perfectly connects with the present day. What we have in India at present is the dictatorship rule. The ruling government have a big majority and they make decisions without getting any suggestions from the common people for whom they keep making new regulations and laws.
Jump to: