Topic: Government+cryptocurrencies - page 4. (Read 975 times)

Government can get transparency if they implement their own blockchain currencies but do they let people to access it? Government never wanted the people to know about anything so they are trying to create closed economy while implementing own blockchain.And regulations are here to bring the restrictions to the users which completely goes against the decentralization but regulations will act as advertisement to the people so they might adopt to bitcoin if they regulate before creating their own CBDCs.

Cryptocurrency and Governments functioning together will happen in the future. As of now what governments think is, if cryptocurrencies were encouraged by them automatically the power of government will fall. Upon this fear majority of the country stand against cryptocurrency.

Another thing, few countries try to hold the cryptocurrencies believing in its growth. One of which holding a large volume of cryptocurrency is Bulgaria. Few countries have planned to digitise the traditional money.

I do not think that this is the purpose of government holding cryptocurrency because as wha you pointed out that they all wanted it for taxing. There are ways that it could be done by the power of the government. As we all.that government can easily set rules and regulations for these. But for now it may seem difficult to accept due to the fact that it contradict to their system being cryptocurrency as decentralized system. However, if goverment can make their own cryptocurrency then higher chances it couls eradicate corruption because all transaction and expenses from.the government fund will be transparent through blockchain tech.

I read somewhere that number of wallets over 1k Bitcoins is getting increased from the past which literally means new whales are emerging and the coin distribution is happening which really means the community is getting bigger so its hard to manipulate the prices.

---

I am talking about the whales here, they hoard huge amount of bitcoin on their wallet so the circulating supply is less so it is easy to manipulate the prices if they wants too.

To be real short, let's say most of the governments don't really like the crypto world we know and they are trying to ban it or change it on their own ways. There are many reasons for this, usually they hate it because they can't calculate how much money do really people have when they are using cryptocurrencies and they can't take enough tax in that way. Also there is the other side of the story for the governments in fighting against crimes. Because Bitcoin and the other crypto is made to be not traceable in transactions. however, mostly the governments are kinda forced to accept crypto in their countries because its a new technology and they most accept it.

Suppose you are a big bitcoin holding and if you are not willing to sell your coins how can that dilute the coins from your hands to others who are willing to purchase. Since the supply is limited and if there are more buyers than sellers the price would go up and that is the whole point for anyone to hold the coins much longer, adoption from government means regulation and taxing everyone who make a profit and it will get rid of the fake exchanges and other shady practices.

We all love cryptocurrency, and I know you’re saying this that cryptocurrency can help the economy because of the love you have for it, but man you’re wrong. Even if you should wake up tomorrow and your government decides that your country going all crypto, your economy won’t skyrocket and become the best in the world as long as you all continue doing things in the wrong way.

The problem is with the government and the people , if the people will rise up for what’s right and fight for their right and have their leaders do the right thing and fight corruption, trust me the country will get better. So don’t be one of those who act like cryptocurrency is the Messiah that will change things for good.

Governments can't blame bitcoin for its shady use by some people. Fiat is also used for criminal purposes and both (fiat and bitcoin) are traceable. If governments want to ban bitcoin for this reason they have to ban any kind of money.
When a country bans bitcoin, they are just impoverishing their people and economy. It means this money (bitcoins) aren't going to help the national economy anymore, but a foreigner one, which is crypto friendly.

Reducing costs, cutting expenses are a good beginning.
The problem nowadays is that the government is too expensive for the citizens sustain it.

What you mean from the existing hands are the exchanges, right? It doesn't mean they buy from these exchanges the whole Bitcoin will be staying on someone's hands forever, we do trades so that Bitcoin will continue to circulate. It's not that people are forever hodling their Bitcoin they must have to sell it somehow since Bitcoin is a money. Maybe there's someone who could just play their fiat just to manipulate the market but that's just a complete waste of time I think.

That's not necessarily the case

If some whales are selling, other whales may be buying. And it is not in the least established that smaller whales are buying from the bigger ones. As far as I remember, the coin distribution is heavily skewed toward huge wallets, i.e. the ones with over 1k bitcoins (note, I don't refer to exchange wallets here) and, most importantly, this imbalance tends to become worse over time. That pretty much means that big fish are eating small ones (as well as average Joes)

That is not sorted relationship to be honest. Government's of many countries dint like the idea of decentralised currency since they can not track the money flow. This has actually resulted in various institutes, individuals like politicians etc to store their black money over the bitcoin wallet. I guess that disturbs the whole economic flow of country and over the time this amount of money keeps building up as black form and could impact heavily on market.

Cryptocurrencies are good for those who wants to save their taxes, have fun gambling it, increasing the revenue, passive income you name it!! BUT, when it comes to the government they are just against it for the first para that I wrote.

Since we all know the transactions here can't be traced out to the banks, they literally "miss the white money" and hence no taxes!

Just imagine if this took over the centralised system then how the government will run in first place?

More people entering into the market really means they are buying cryptos, since the max cap is finite so they can only buy from the existing hands.We often see huge amount of bitcoins getting sold on the exchanges so the trades of lots of average joes will buy from this means the whale who sold that amount lost the part of their stack right? If this process keep repeating for years the the manipulating power will be more less than now I my opinion.

Okay, more people will be entering this market

And how is it going to help whales lose their grip on the market? The supply of Bitcoin is fixed (capped), and you can't sell more bitcoins than there are in circulation (well, technically, Bitcoin futures and other derivatives could in fact expand its effective monetary base). So the only way they can lose their manipulating power is through selling their coins. And this is another issue. If they have more purchasing power than the average Joe, they would likely start buying, not selling

An usual assumption is, a whale will be unpowered by a group of small bitcoin adopters in terms of market manipulation.
When mass adoption will be happening, a typical bitcoin holder may able to hoard more only if they are prepared with fiats as buying bitcoins for bitcoins is not making any sense . But, new-small-adopters will have fiats to buy new bitcoins to hoard or to use. So, mass adoption does not lead to assume that whale will get more power. A deep BTC pocket may have lots of purchasing power but not to buy BTC again .

Wealth inequality is not a problem (deserving people make money). Actually it is the one thing which moves this world. If I would have mined one or two blocks by 2010 and if I somehow managed to hold till now then I would not have been writing this post right now. My corner taxi driver waits for me even at mid night as he want to earn like his neighbor. If he is richer like his neighbor then I may not get his service whenever I do call him.

adoption means more people buying bitcoins right which means the availability of bitcoin will be distributed to more people than few hands that is why it is going to reduce the manipulating power less gradually.But they have more purchasing power which could make the coins to go expensive but they can't keep holding at that high price for too long if the adoption take place surely they will lose their holding power when adoption increases.

It would likely mean even greater wealth inequality

First off, what makes you think that big holders are going to part with their precious coins that would become even more precious once governments "adopt" cryptocurrencies in one or another way? Then, as I see it, mass adoption would actually contribute to hoarding instincts of a typical Bitcoin holder. And deep pockets have a lot more purchasing power anyway (that's the crucial point here), and thus they can buy and stash away more bitcoins, right?

How can the government implement a tax system on cryptocurrency if the adoption does occur instead of p2p it's difficult to become the third person? so the government might not be able to do this because there is no tax that goes into the state budget so cryptocurrency is very difficult to be adopted by the government fully.

If the government just announces about cryptocurrency then I am sure growth will increase because this is very influential in the crypto world.

The relationship of government and cryptocurrencies have not been so good to many countries due to persistent denial of government to allow cryptocurrency usage in accordance to the public demand being stated by its citizens. Government have always been tough on what they believe is right and what must be done for the sake of its people. On the point of thinking that government is just ensuring the good of its men, it is collectively just fine but there must be reconsideration to look on both the pros and cons why people persistently wanted to adapt using cryptocurrencies.

That has been become an issue here in the country where I reside. Our government is not encouraging people to get into cryptocurrencies because they are tough on saying that it will just promote chaos and more criminal acts such as money laundering and scams. But they are just seeing the negative and they are just relying on what they want to see and understand and not the whole thing about cryptocurrency. With that, they are discouraging people to get into cryptocurrencies although we are not prohibited, but we must just use it for our own risk only. With that, people are afraid of engaging and adapting crypto and we, who merely understand and know about it are the ones using it. But because of connection (friends or family members using crypto) many are now understanding it. It is just our government who still not supporting the usage and adaptation of it.

They are not. Government only cares once they've seen opportunities to earned by means of implemented taxes,
but in terms of concerning about people to earned from the help that they can
provide it's really far from realizations.
Government indeed can provide if adoptions easily been take place, the value of crypto will increase and the usages
will cater more businesses.

If governments adopted crypto currencies then more people will buy bitcoin which will dilute the bitcoins from huge holders which will eventually make their manipulating power less gradually.But government really care about the value? to save people from the dump.

No, I guess.