Topic: how governments can regulate digital currencies? - page 7. (Read 2200 times)
Due to the decentralized nature of blockchain tehnology, any form of regulation of any cryptocurrency such as bitcoin would be very difficult. I think as the knowledge of cryptocurrency is on the rise now, I believe there would be some form of regulation in the very near future. The world of blockchain technology is fast advancing, any form of regulation by government would be very possible.
I think it can happen, all are connected to the internet and when the government wants to regulate digital money, they can access and capture information from you
Though it’s easy to see why governments would want to regulate the movement of digital currencies, the reality of doing so is much harder. A lot of wallets have no identification to them and rest on a server in a third party country. In the case of offline wallets in devices such as the Ledger Nano, they’re not connected to any network.so is it possible to regulate ?
It's hard for them to regulate cash but they do their best and largely rely on information from third parties -- your employer and bank etc -- and hope people are just being honest and then cracking down on those that aren't. They wont actually regulate actual bitcoin directly just like they can't really regulate the cash in your pocket or under your bed, but they will regulate it via exchanges and the services you use. Lets look at exchanges for example. Most if not all -- especially legitimate ones -- already require KYC to open a new account. They might not know about the bitcoin in your wallet or ledger nano, but they'll know about it when you send money to an exchange. You might be able to avoid that by dealing in cash only but then you've got a lot of cash that is unaccounted for and you'll have to explain the origins of if you ever put it in the bank or try buy anything substantial with it -- houses and cars and so on.
Though it’s easy to see why governments would want to regulate the movement of digital currencies, the reality of doing so is much harder. A lot of wallets have no identification to them and rest on a server in a third party country. In the case of offline wallets in devices such as the Ledger Nano, they’re not connected to any network.so is it possible to regulate ?
For my own opinion a lot of people refer to the crypto world as the wild wild west, because there's no regulation in the markets like there is with trading stocks.I think it might be for the best if the crypto world had some regulations imposed on it,but I don't see how they could achieve that. 
Though it’s easy to see why governments would want to regulate the movement of digital currencies, the reality of doing so is much harder. A lot of wallets have no identification to them and rest on a server in a third party country. In the case of offline wallets in devices such as the Ledger Nano, they’re not connected to any network.so is it possible to regulate ?
Government can regulate cryptocurrency in trading. I think if government regulate crypto trading, i think its good news for market. For payment, i think cryptocurrency can make partnertship with payment processor like mastercard or visa and i am believe it will happen in near future
They can only regulate and control Centralize Crypto, not decentralized ones (according to a recent report, about 86% of cryptoes are centralized) - so, I see no way for any government to control any Decentralized Crypto.
this is the big problem for right now, we can see that bitcoin problem is in this right? we see that there are many people taht against bitcoin because bitcoin is not regulated by government, and if government want to regulate it, how? it is very complicated to regulated
To be honest, there is no practical way to regulate the flow of cryptocurrencies. The best way for the government is to allow users to disclose their crypto transactions and they have the option to monitor it through the domestic crypto exchanges (with KYC). Even though some governments are trying to find the way to track the crypto transactions and ownership of it but I doubt, how full proof it is going to be in the long run.
It is very true that what you say is that the government does not fully regulate but monitors and collaborates perhaps with cooperation that can benefit both parties to become more developed and progress rapidly in the future economic systemThe regulations are clearly impossible to touch open source and decentralized projects. Centralized exchanges in the other hand are easy to regulate because of KYC/AML.
Except that is exactly where the regulations are going to be put at and things like local Bitcoin where you can buy and sell in person will be targeted for shutdowns. Which isn't too bad, just pay your taxes and don't get robbed.Your answer is simple but in fact enlightening. The whole situation is not that difficult to do, of course it will have some workarounds that dishonest people will use but that applies to any currency or commercial activity in the whole world probably during all human history.
Taxes are a good thing because it allows government to have a real reason beyond personal preference to invest in the implementation of processes or systems to regulate and of course accept Bitcoin and all or most others.
It will depends on the country that will be regulating crypto currency r digital currency, I think it will also depends on the people who are using crypto currency in that country, the government itself.
The regulations are clearly impossible to touch open source and decentralized projects. Centralized exchanges in the other hand are easy to regulate because of KYC/AML.
Except that is exactly where the regulations are going to be put at and things like local Bitcoin where you can buy and sell in person will be targeted for shutdowns. Which isn't too bad, just pay your taxes and don't get robbed.Your answer is simple but in fact enlightening. The whole situation is not that difficult to do, of course it will have some workarounds that dishonest people will use but that applies to any currency or commercial activity in the whole world probably during all human history.
Taxes are a good thing because it allows government to have a real reason beyond personal preference to invest in the implementation of processes or systems to regulate and of course accept Bitcoin and all or most others.
Regulation on cryptocurrency is a bit hard because of the decentralization concept of it. However, ICOs can be regulated to bring back the trust to ICOs. I am in favor of regulating ICOs. This will reduce the number of scam and failed ICOs in the future.
I don't believe that they can do this. Sometimes, I have the thought that they just want us to believe that they have all the information but in reality the system of regulation isn't perfect
Eventhough crypto currency can't be controlled by government because of being decentralized but still they have the hold in terms of security, as we know that crypto currency is not yet fully optimized then therefore every holders must convert first into local money through bank and other fiat exchanger of which they require proof of identification, so I think that's the only way government can do their part and that is for security only and beyond that no more.
Though it’s easy to see why governments would want to regulate the movement of digital currencies, the reality of doing so is much harder. A lot of wallets have no identification to them and rest on a server in a third party country. In the case of offline wallets in devices such as the Ledger Nano, they’re not connected to any network.so is it possible to regulate ?
Wallets and exchanges that require identification of the user is a form of regulation. Local wallets in some countries which are recognized/approved by central banks (a.k.a. governments), is an obvious regulatory act. Indirect taxes in the form of trx fees are part of this regulation. Good thing about regulation though is that it aims to protect users from fraudulent activities. Unless, the frauds are the governments themselves... 
I also do not understand how they control the bitcoin, but in my opinion they will try to buy a lot of bitcoin and achieve a certain% and then they will disturb this market.
Maybe they control what market do in their country, then control what ICO project, it is like some ICO project must get approved by government. That will be very cool if can really happen. 
I don't believe that they can do this. Sometimes, I have the thought that they just want us to believe that they have all the information but in reality the system of regulation isn't perfect
Eventhough crypto currency can't be controlled by government because of being decentralized but still they have the hold in terms of security, as we know that crypto currency is not yet fully optimized then therefore every holders must convert first into local money through bank and other fiat exchanger of which they require proof of identification, so I think that's the only way government can do their part and that is for security only and beyond that no more.
I don't believe that they can do this. Sometimes, I have the thought that they just want us to believe that they have all the information but in reality the system of regulation isn't perfect
They should just accept the use of digital currencies and stop the false speculations they spread regarding the use of cryptocurrencies. They should adapt to this new advancement and stop the idea of trying to control it. We need to make them understand that cryptocurrency operates on a decentralized ecosystem.
I would say that the state can control the currency, but most likely it will use it to its advantage, here are some examples of the proper use of cryptocurrency:
1)Taxes are needed, but minimal. It is important - the first three years, for example, the ICO should be exempted from taxes. And then the country will receive: a) huge liquidity (one ICO - the budget of a region or even a few small ones); b) new funds on deposits; c) new business entities; d) a huge labor market; e) additional funds from related services (purchase of traffic, payment for the work of specialists).
2)Mining Divide it into industrial and home. For example, in terms of power: up to 15 kW - home, over - professional. I always cite the example of hosting: I do not pay any taxes for home hosting, I do not get licenses. Another thing, when it is put on a grand scale.
3)Training. Free and for all: this will remove the issue of investor professionalism, for which (allegedly) many officials are experiencing. Are you afraid that a person will invest in ICO and burn through? So teach him how not to do it: bans will not become a barrier - Forex has already proved this, and binary options have put an end.
4)No interference in the zone of complete virtuality: control only over the points of entry and exit. Why go where there is still no competence? Even Japan, and this country will certainly give two odds on manufacturability, has refused to regulate this aspect.
5)And the main thing is to stop looking at cryptocurrencies as something absurd: this is the future that has come. All that is needed is not to interfere with its development, otherwise we will lose again, as was the case with bank cards, the Internet, online services, PC development, etc.
1)Taxes are needed, but minimal. It is important - the first three years, for example, the ICO should be exempted from taxes. And then the country will receive: a) huge liquidity (one ICO - the budget of a region or even a few small ones); b) new funds on deposits; c) new business entities; d) a huge labor market; e) additional funds from related services (purchase of traffic, payment for the work of specialists).
2)Mining Divide it into industrial and home. For example, in terms of power: up to 15 kW - home, over - professional. I always cite the example of hosting: I do not pay any taxes for home hosting, I do not get licenses. Another thing, when it is put on a grand scale.
3)Training. Free and for all: this will remove the issue of investor professionalism, for which (allegedly) many officials are experiencing. Are you afraid that a person will invest in ICO and burn through? So teach him how not to do it: bans will not become a barrier - Forex has already proved this, and binary options have put an end.
4)No interference in the zone of complete virtuality: control only over the points of entry and exit. Why go where there is still no competence? Even Japan, and this country will certainly give two odds on manufacturability, has refused to regulate this aspect.
5)And the main thing is to stop looking at cryptocurrencies as something absurd: this is the future that has come. All that is needed is not to interfere with its development, otherwise we will lose again, as was the case with bank cards, the Internet, online services, PC development, etc.
Though it’s easy to see why governments would want to regulate the movement of digital currencies, the reality of doing so is much harder. A lot of wallets have no identification to them and rest on a server in a third party country. In the case of offline wallets in devices such as the Ledger Nano, they’re not connected to any network.so is it possible to regulate ?
We all know that bitcoin is a decentralised crypto currency and thus there is no such proper authentic regulating body over the bitcoin who could keep eye over all its activities and thus leading to illegal use of bitcoin and the only thing that could happen to control the illegal use of bitcoin is to legalise it all over the world as those countries who has legalised bitcoins in their nation are now regulating all the illegal activities, though imposing taxes but still the regulation of bitcoin there is so wonderful. 
To be honest, there is no practical way to regulate the flow of cryptocurrencies. The best way for the government is to allow users to disclose their crypto transactions and they have the option to monitor it through the domestic crypto exchanges (with KYC). Even though some governments are trying to find the way to track the crypto transactions and ownership of it but I doubt, how full proof it is going to be in the long run.
It is very true that what you say is that the government does not fully regulate but monitors and collaborates perhaps with cooperation that can benefit both parties to become more developed and progress rapidly in the future economic system Jump to: