Topic: How the government definition of Bitcoin, influence addoption. (Read 244 times)

Well, actually they are not really protecting Fiat currencies to prevent anonymous transactions, it is more about "control" ...Yes, we know some governments are fixated on civilian surveillance and anonymous transactions is perceived as a threat, but most Cash transactions are anonymous too and that is why some of these governments are looking at technologies that would enable a transparent Cash-less society.

The future of Crypto currencies, would be a world where you have different ways in which people would use Crypto currencies, namely :

1. Regulated "Private" Blockchains - Where KYC/AML regulations are enforced.
2. Unregulated "Public" Blockchains - Where people would bypass regulations and would use direct transfers between two anonymous entities.
3. Formal GovCoins - This might be digitized versions of local Fiat currencies that use Blockchain tech to create centralized ledger systems to track and control all transactions.

We are moving in very strange times, where Blockchain technology can be used against normal citizens to invade their financial privacy and where governments takes control over people's wealth. 

It may be a little be hard for government to completely change their perspective view of the whole bitcoin as currency because of its anonymity which is the major barrier right now to supporting bitcoin. Government wants something that they can be able to control, they want power to remain with them, and they know that the use of bitcoin as currency will lower their power a little.

For power to really continue to stay with them, they need to protect the fiat and continue to enforce the physical cash, but no matter how much they continue to hold on tight, one day, the system will automatically adjust right before them, and they see that many people starts to use cryptocurrency even without their full approval or support which will break the power of fiat over their citizens.

It should always be borne in mind that for the growth of the economy of any state, it is necessary that its government maintain and protect its national currency. For the purposes of such protection, the states are trying to define cryptocurrency not as money, but as goods from which it will also be possible to collect taxes. In addition, governments have not yet finally decided on the legal status of cryptocurrencies, this will still be clarified over time.

if fiat inflation were the main driver, we would see people running for the exits into all hard assets. when you chart bitcoin against any other asset, it's very obvious that bitcoin's massive rise in value is based on speculation, not fiat inflation.

the correlation people draw between declining fiat value and increasing bitcoin value could be applied to a million other assets. the stock market is a prime example. if there is a causal relationship, it certainly doesn't only apply to bitcoin.


if people actually start losing faith in the USD, gold and real estate will skyrocket from here---to another universe. i don't think anyone has any conception of what that would look like.

This. There is a quote by Andreas Antonopoulos that says it well:

"But we can't have people make anonymous transactions.

They will.

But we must regulate this.

You can't, and you won't.

Because 6 billion people need this. And you have neither the moral authority, nor more importantly, the practical capability to stand in their way, or even stand in the way, of what is going to be the greatest revolution in financial services in three centuries - universal access to basic finance."

The government's definition has a mixed impact on the society. Largely their every statement are boosting the adoption of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
People have realized that bitcoin is a way to freedom. A universal voice of freedom that could free us all apart from the chains of government. They'll make us free of our brainwashing and national propaganda and make us think of a government really by the people themselves where every one could possibly have a voice for everything that matters.

I think the definition of Bitcoin as commodity is only temporary, because usually it doesn't come from new laws, but just a recommendation from regulators. And maybe they don't call Bitcoin a currency because it would be harder to regulate. Also, even if they would treat Bitcoin as a currency, it doesn't mean that it would be allowed to be used everywhere - most countries require everyone to only use their national currency, so Bitcoin would be treated as a foreign currency. So, it all wouldn't be different from what we have now - merchants would still require the services of payment processors to do the currency conversion for them, just like they do now when people use payment cards when buying something from other countries.

You can't expect Gold and real estate to be rising at a similar rate as Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a 'brand new' asset that doesn't yield anything, can't be used for anything other than value transfers, etc, yet it has been increasing because there is something about it as decentralized sound money that people like.

Gold and real estate have already inflated to a point that perfectly reflects how little trust there is in fiat, and how much of it is in circulation. Now it's Bitcoin's turn to usurp fiat as one of the hottest assets in the last 10 years. Eventually Bitcoin will follow a similar trajetory as Gold in terms of price action. Bull runs will no longer be 500-1000% increases, but more like 25%-50% on average, and that over a much longer period of time.

Gold bugs need to wake up and look at how large Gold's market already is, and the insane volumes Gold derivatives are generating, which are suppressing its price. Central banks have been buying physical Gold like crazy but it didn't do anything for the price. What got the price to pump is speculators buying Gold derivatives, and the same speculators will dump it back down eventually.

Bitcoin is actually usable as money today, where Gold isn't really unless you exchange Gold bars for real estate for example. High value transactions.

It is very difficult to notify bitcoin as a commodity and as a currency at the same time, but not impossible! However, clear notification has to be made according to its use at the ground level so that appropriate tax can be applied!

For example, if you pay bitcoin at a grocery store, it is a currency and appropriate tax is applied. But if you buy bitcoin using your fiat money from an exchange, it is a commodity! So appropriate taxes will be applied for such transactions. This is just one example but there will be millions of possible use cases of bitcoin that government will have to define clearly to avoid confusion! This task is very difficult to accomplish!

But anyway, let the governments adopt it first within their own economy. Majority of the countries are not yet decided on it yet. Only a handful of countries have either banned it or adopted it!

Governments can resist as much as they want, but the fact stands that Fiat currencies can only be manipulated for so long, until it starts failing. I predict a future where Crypto currencies will be the "Napster" of the next century, because it will force change and disruption. Governments will have to adapt and change their Fiat system to allow for Crypto currencies to change our monetary systems.

Will this be "public" Crypto currencies or would the Fiat system simply be replaced by a digital version of Fiat currencies that would also eventually fail? Time will tell, if governments will learn from their mistakes and improve on those mistakes. 

It makes sense why they are trying to protect their own FIAT currency, but certain governments outright ban it instead of trying to regulate it(Eg : China etc) and accept it as a commodity which proves how nonsensical their thinking truly is.

If they don't wish to regulate it, there is no hope in thinking that BTC adoption as a currency will grow in such countries in the foreseeable future unless a crypto friendly government emerges in such countries.

it doesn't look like a loophole which businesses bypass when they accept bitcoin as payment when the country doesn't consider it a currency. for instance in US as far as i can tell they consider it a commodity and yet many services directly accept bitcoin payments without a payment processor. if i am not mistaken Microsoft has been one of those who have been accepting direct payments.

if that were true wouldn't other hard assets (gold, real estate, etc) be rising at a similar rate? yet bitcoin's gains have blown every other asset class out of the water. there's no comparison. bitcoin is going to the moon a lot faster than fiat is collapsing.

i'm not even convinced of the whole fiat collapse narrative---goldbugs have been pushing that narrative for decades too. bitcoin and fiat may exist side by side for a very, very long time to come.

Its protecting their reserve currencies will be the priority of the government but I think they are going to be open to state backed crypto to somehow make it legal for bitcoin to be currency. Its just to much of an effect though, I wonder if they will add BTC on the FOREX market, will we be able to see BTC in the meta trader software of FX brokers?

Governments know what bitcoin is and this is why they don't like bitcoin to be used as a payment system. They don't want to be unable to trace the transactions people made.
It's not easy to get taxes from those who use bitcoin, as bitcoin transactions can be easily made anonymous. Governments cannot easily trace transactions.
Governments cannot stop bitcoin easily. They know they cannot stop a decentralized system. So, they try to regulate it. Government also are trying to prevent Bitcoin from becoming a payment system. They know they cannot prevent people holding bitcoin.  So, they have already accepted bitcoin as an investment. They don't want bitcoin to be a payment system too.
(I know how bitcoin is treated is different in different countries, I think what I said is right in most of the countries)  

When we are talking about "bypass" here I don't see any kind of loophole the businesses are if they are accepting Bitcoin as either "commodity" or "currency" because at the end in their income statement the whole value of Bitcoin the time they have received it in will be reflected as income, if they hold it and not instantly convert it to cash then they'll be liable for capital gains tax. Basically the government is only giving these kind of terms for the cryptocurrencies to be labeled as "commodity" because majority of the countries have a law stating that we only have one legal tender and that is each countries own fiat currency and nothing else. Basically the government is the one bypassing in terms of classification for them to give way for cryptocurrencies in their country.

Exactly. It's nicely following the same trajectory as the USD>purchasing power chart is indicating, but then in a time span of just a decade. From hundreds of coins for a single dollar, to now just 10,000 satoshis, and in the next decade probably to 1000 satoshis, to perhaps one day people kindly declining an offer to accept dollars in exchange for your satoshis.

Bitcoin increasing is simply put the regular fiat system slowly imploding. The only downside to that is that we still get out paychecks in fiat, which over the years buys you fewer satoshis. 

This is why people should be appreciative of price dips of any nature. Don't think that prices are too expensive to buy. I thought that too back when we were hovering below $1000 and didn't average in for a long time. Stupid decision looking back now.

that logic works in some NWO/one world government scenario, but not in reality. being hostile towards bitcoin (prohibition, regulatory overreach) will only drive economic growth and prosperity to other competing countries and most governments know it. china is the only notable government who has somewhat taken that route---perhaps because they are wrestling against capital flight---but even they are obviously intent on retaining dominance in the mining manufacturing sector.


that's not accurate IMO. bitcoin has risen in value against everything---any asset you can name---over the past decade. it's obviously not just the USD losing value.

Governments have every reason to be hostile towards Bitcoin since it directly competes with their own monetary system that doesn't function. Governments don't like to see something else (better) thrive at cost of their own system.

People often look at how the Bitcoin price has gone up throughout the years, but what really happened is that the US dollar value has gone down against Bitcoin, and will keep going down in the coming years.

What we have seen so far from governments are desperate attempts to exercise control over the centralized ecosystem, and they're doing a pretty good job making sure that they know who owns what amount of Bitcoin.

So, we can say that the Government doesn't really yet understand what Bitcoin is or they just hate Bitcoin?
Because even they want to protect their own reserve currencies, what if they will still collect taxes for those using Bitcoin as payment on some businesses that are connected or licensed with the government?
What I really see now on Bitcoin is we are still at an early age especially if we connect the government on Bitcoin.