Bitcoin and Regulations - page 2. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Ucy

sr. member

Activity: 2674

Merit: 403

Compare rates on different exchanges & swap.

Quote from: Allan Ramanda on October 13, 2017, 08:36:11 AM

in my country anything to do with a project or a foreign company must follow the rules of government in my country. let alone this is related to the digital currency is bitcoin. surely every country will interfere with this bitcoin. because this will affect the income of citizens

The best your government can do is to "ban" Bitcoin/Cryptocurrency in your country... that's all and the rest of the World moves on.
As for regulating it, it's not going to be possible to regulate any "Cryptocurrency". People who talk about regulating Cryptocurrency don't actually know what they are talking about.
I bet in 10years we would still be here talking about regulating Bitcoin.

Am predicting that Bitcoin/Cryptocurrencies/Blockchain will end up Regulating our Countries instead.

Allan Ramanda

full member

Activity: 462

Merit: 100

in my country anything to do with a project or a foreign company must follow the rules of government in my country. let alone this is related to the digital currency is bitcoin. surely every country will interfere with this bitcoin. because this will affect the income of citizens

speedy963

sr. member

Activity: 631

Merit: 253

Quote from: hatshepsut93 on October 12, 2017, 11:18:57 PM

The government is not going to ask us if we want to have Bitcoin regulated or outlawed - there is no official representative, no Bitcoin CEO, no Bitcoin citizens that could vote - regulations are going to happen regardless of what community wants. But everyone will have a choice - either to comply with regulations, pay your taxes, reveal your identity or use Bitcoin on gray markets. Bitcoin is like cash of the Internet - you are free to spend it however you like and no one can block your transactions unless you are using online wallets.

I certainly agree with your opinion. It is because of no head on bitcoin, majority woud be decided on what would be the public's demand or should we say users and investors of bitcoin, and aside from that if it is going to happen then it will be.

nominee

sr. member

Activity: 281

Merit: 250

Quote from: hatshepsut93 on October 12, 2017, 11:18:57 PM

The government is not going to ask us if we want to have Bitcoin regulated or outlawed - there is no official representative, no Bitcoin CEO, no Bitcoin citizens that could vote - regulations are going to happen regardless of what community wants. But everyone will have a choice - either to comply with regulations, pay your taxes, reveal your identity or use Bitcoin on gray markets. Bitcoin is like cash of the Internet - you are free to spend it however you like and no one can block your transactions unless you are using online wallets.

That's the point of view for the actual problem. As it's decentralized, there is no representative and governments will take actions by themselves without asking anything to the society of bitcoin. This is a little problematic for the users.

In the future, we can see lots of countries are banning bitcoin in order to regulate it.

xiboothrezi

sr. member

Activity: 1246

Merit: 285

right. it is a dilemma. legalized or not. The challenge for policymakers, as it always does, is to develop efficient solutions without hindering the growth of newly emerging businesses and markets.

Ucy

sr. member

Activity: 2674

Merit: 403

Compare rates on different exchanges & swap.

Honestly, Regulations of Bitcoin by government makes no sense. What really do they want to Regulate?

I'd bet what they mean by "Regulations" is the ability to have total control of Bitcoin or better still the ability to Manipulate price, split, control and confisticate your Bitcoin whenever they want.

jseverson

hero member

Activity: 1834

Merit: 759

Quote

Now, am wondering, if we go for regulations...does it mean we are actually making the Bitcoin movement less potent and possibly compromise the very reasons why it is existing?

It's quite a dilemma. Government acceptance would mean we would be a step closer to mass adoption, but it would also mean there would be government regulations. Governments can't endorse a technology to its citizens and not be able to protect them from it, and they certainly won't allow that much money to flow without them getting a cut. On the other hand, operating from a legal gray area is enough to discourage majority of the population from getting into it. If we want Bitcoin to spread, then governments will get involved. It's an inevitability, and sadly, we don't have a say in it.

As far as the reason for its existence goes, Satoshi described it as a "system for electronic transactions without relying on trust." That should hold even when under regulation. It's also worth mentioning that Bitcoin wasn't designed to be completely anonymous.

hatshepsut93

legendary

Activity: 3024

Merit: 2148

The government is not going to ask us if we want to have Bitcoin regulated or outlawed - there is no official representative, no Bitcoin CEO, no Bitcoin citizens that could vote - regulations are going to happen regardless of what community wants. But everyone will have a choice - either to comply with regulations, pay your taxes, reveal your identity or use Bitcoin on gray markets. Bitcoin is like cash of the Internet - you are free to spend it however you like and no one can block your transactions unless you are using online wallets.

iamTom123

hero member

Activity: 490

Merit: 501

Quote

The most dangerous attack against Bitcoin is the "carrot": the promise of respectability. The cryptocurrency community wants the blockchain and its currencies to be widely accepted. Some want to expand freedom on an individual-by-individual basis until liberty wins the world. Others believe their holdings and investments will soar in value as governments and institutions become users. And respectability is viewed as the key to increasing value.

Unfortunately, “respectability” is becoming a synonym for “state-sanctioned” when the two terms should be viewed as antonyms. Bitcoin was needed precisely because governments and their associated institutions were looting the wealth of the average person through currency manipulation, inflation, obstructive regulation, taxes and other financial sleight-of-hand. They shut people out of prosperity through licensing, patents, artificial credit and investment restrictions, monopolies and other self-serving obstacles. Governments are the problem; they are not the solution and they never will be. They are the Power side of “the great conflict which is eternally waged” for Liberty. State sanction should mean “shame” and not “respectability.”

An added insult is the clear implication that freedom is not respectable, that freedom and respectability are in conflict with each other. This is a false dichotomy. The opposite is true. Nothing is more respectable than the sight of human beings dealing peacefully and honestly with other to mutual advantage. What governments contribute is violence or the threat of it.

The material is taken from here...

We all want Bitcoin to one day be part of the mainstream but along the way it can mean compromises with the government that can be also concern that they can't control and manipulate the whole thing so they come up with regulations on its use and movement. There are , of course, many grounds why would the government want to put up regulations and some can be valid while others can be creepy (though of course they are not showing them).

Now, am wondering, if we go for regulations...does it mean we are actually making the Bitcoin movement less potent and possibly compromise the very reasons why it is existing?

Topic: Bitcoin and Regulations - page 2. (Read 515 times)