Topic: Introducing a state-issued cryptocurrency (Read 611 times)

Myanmar already declared USDT as legal tender. 

What happens is that they are not acting out of good faith for the well-being of  their citizens, they are protecting themselves, politicians only care about one thing and that is power and then once they obtain power they care about maintaining what they already have and obtaining even more power, they see in bitcoin a tool that is outside their control and that weakens their power, so of course they are going to do everything they can to weaken it or destroy it.

Just like what China did, they ban all kinds of crypto and then try to introduce something to the population that's basically the same but with the downside of being stupid and invades someone's privacy. I don't think that it's a good move, India should've just let crypto proliferate in their country and just benefited from the growth.

Stay low key and dont tend to boast out that you are dealing with crypto even myself on the situation where i do live on which crypto is still on that neutral phase which they dont still make out reactions or steps towards it but i wont be surprised if they would end up on banning or prohibiting it basing on the things happening around on the market on where they do look that crypto is a scam or some sort of a high risks investment which they do give out warnings.
I cant blame them about being protective into its citizens but they shouldnt really make things even more complicated. warnings would be enough and hopefully they wouldnt
really be making further step on it.

They do not really care about things like financial freedom and if anything they want people to be financial slaves, the ideals of satoshi in fact run against what they want which is why they will do everything they can to destroy bitcoin, right now we are seeing bans but if the economy keeps getting worse then it is entirely possible that in the future we will see them trying to prosecute anyone that deals or has dealt at some point in the past with cryptocurrencies, which is why it is important to not bring attention to yourself about the fact that you use cryptocurrencies, just in case this happens where you live.

I think this completely destroys the idea of financial freedom- in why why BTC was created in the first place. The idea of having a "state-issued cryptocurrency" but banning any other cryptocurrency equates to the idea of forcing someone to use a specific cryptocurrency in a country. Bitcoin was created in order to avoid any third-party consensus in handling our transactions- so again, this completely shatters the dream of Satoshi of having to attain financial freedom.

I doubt that this is a good decision of the government given that it equates to no other than having to use fiat, where you are subjected to use a specific cryptocurrency while banning others.

They can do whatever they want, it does not mean that we are going to adopt those coins at all, in fact the reason many people are adopting bitcoin is to stay away from fiat currencies, so it does not matter how much they try to obscure the reality through their lies, we know those coins are just a new form of fiat and we will stay away from it, and this means that while they can deceive the general population which do not know anything about the economy or the monetary system they will never deceive us, and as such bitcoin will keep existing despite their best efforts.

I think everything will be fine if there are side by side between digital money and crypto, it's just that the government is not afraid of a large fund expansion if not with a mature plan, not to mention whether digital money can accompany crypto money, that's all in my mind if indeed digital money has been launched, maybe my country and India are the same as a country that has a very high fiat exchange rate with usd

Digital e-fiat shit coin currency in short or in long terms. 

This had nothing to do with crypto and they had just made out their own centralized coin which is just similar to fiat which is something not really surprising for government or state to create on and would totally avoid

on adopting or make use of crypto directly which it isnt really that surprising eh? They would create their own rather than on dealing with something that cant be handled nor monitored out.

They've hated decentralization on the first place and for sure they would really be hyping and mandating this on best extent that they could.

That’s still the same thing that other governments in other countries are doing, they are banning decentralized cryptocurrencies (bitcoin, ethereum, etc.) to create their own digital currency which is known as the Central Bank Digital Currency.

This has been done in countries like China and Nigeria, the both countries has banned bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies and introduced their CBDC’s known as the Digital Yuan, and E-Naira, respectively. While they have chosen to take this part, there are other countries that have chosen to rather embrace cryptocurrency and declare it a legal tender. One that we know of right now is El Salvador, and there are others that have been said to have same plans.

You cannot really help those that do not want to help themselves, inflation all over the world is growing up at an alarming rate and we know the governments are at fault, so it does not make sense to think those that caused the problem are going to have the solution.

And yet that is precisely what people do over and over again by relying on the government to solve their problems, so I recommend that you do not waste your breath talking to people like that, let them think whatever they want, if they are lucky they will wake up to the truth eventually and invest in bitcoin, and if not then that is their problem, let them deal with their problems and let them watch how their fiat and their digital equivalents get worthless day by day.

Any state issued shitcoin is just "currency" and not "cryptocurrency". Especially in India and China, the governments seems to have realized that if they ban the real cryptocurrencies, then they may be able to fill the vacuum with their own state approved shitcoins. And here in India, a lot of people actually support such draconian initiatives. I have talked to a number of retarded people, and they claim that cryptocurrencies should be banned because only the government should have the power to issue money. They fail to realize that cryptocurrencies are more like an investment asset.

You need to see beyond that, they do not care at all about those things, what they really care about is that what the average person is doing with their money does not escape their gaze, this is why they hate bitcoin since it gives the power back to the people, so when you see things from that perspective it makes complete sense that despite the fact that most of the financial crimes are performed wit fiat so much emphasis is put on those transactions supposedly being common place in this market.

Doesn't this mean that our freedom and right to use our money is severely restricted? And is it true that they will actually track where we are using those crypto assets? Will the crypto be banned or the person? What if only a few people use it for criminal purposes? Will it have an impact on the crypto asset ban even if only a few people or maybe 1 person violates it?

I think it is way more likely that they just do not understand what they are talking about, after all in theory a centralized currency has its advantages, however the big problem with it and the systems based around it and that Satoshi identified on their white paper is trust.

We need to trust that governments and banks will not abuse their power, and the issue is they always do, so a system that eliminates trust from the equation and that at the same time gives the power back to the people is what was needed, and that is exactly what bitcoin does.

When the CBDC or whatever they want to call it comes in, it is going to be a wild chase for Tether and all the similar companies. People keep believing that the market will not look at these but the reality is that if you have BTC-USDT pair on one hand and BTC-USD on the other legitimately, literally backed by the government instead of some crap company based in Bahamas backing it, then people will prefer the government backed one. Yeah, sure we do not like the government hence why we invest into something decentralized and all that but that is just a lie to tell ourselves.

The reality is that people come in here for money, ETH is consumed by Vitalik, Tron has been playground of Justin Sun, SOL is loved so much but froze blockchain with a snap of finger when there was a problem, we haven't been decentralized in a long time, Tether has been the biggest proof of it, tens of billions of dollars given to them with the understanding it could be taken back if needed, who knows? Maybe we won't be. US government still is better.

It’s unnecessary for them to ban bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. I know that majority of them these days now wants to create their own digital currencies (CBDC), but that is not enough reason for them to ban bitcoin. If they are saying that bitcoin is being used for funding terrorism, drugs, and other antinational activities, then they should prove it.

Do they have any proof at all that it has been used for one of those in any way, thereby affecting the country? If they do, then they should provide the proof that shows that what they have said is the truth. Not just making assumptions all the time to put things in their favour, it doesn’t make any sense at all.

States and their governments look at this problem from a completely different angle. For them, first of all, the efficiency of their digitized national currencies is important. And their CBDCs, using blockchain technology, are indeed becoming much more efficient. We will be able to see this soon enough when governments start issuing their central bank stablecoins in large quantities.
The existing private and other commercial stablecoins are competitors to them and could easily be banned, citing low safety for people and possible violations.

Well, it's almost looking like this OP is pro-government and anti-crypto because why would he even say that the Indian goverment made a good decision. Or maybe he/she just didn't understand why people choose decentralized currency over local fiats or centralized currency that is controlled and manned by the government itself. How's that a good decision mate?
Being in a state of liberty or having financial freedom was truly the best option we had, and not being worried about the inflation because we can adjust to it.

Governments are never going to listen to that kind of argument because it does not fit their narrative, they want to paint fiat currencies and any money printed by them as being on the side of justice and cryptocurrencies to be on the side of criminals, we know this is not true but people that are not informed about this will buy their explanation and will give them a chance to try to destroy or at least to limit the influence this market can reach, but I think that with institutional investors already part of the bitcoin ecosystem we can safely say they have failed on all fronts of their fight against this market.

And the same system would continue yet its not really new that citizens would really be obeying on whats been mandated or what are those things been trying to be introduced by the government itself and of course they wouldnt really like any trouble and they would really be having that mindset that its better to follow
than making yourself putting into some headache which these actions arent really that surprising at all.

Even if it is enforced civil disobedience is a thing, despite the fact that most of the time people will just follow whatever the politicians tells them to do, we know at the same time that the distrust in politicians and their actions is very high, so if a person has to pick between following a law that benefits the government and disobeying it while obtaining benefits for themselves in a way that does not damage anyone in any way or form then the chances they pick the latter option go way up.

This is what we have seen in the past with countries going through hyperinflation and the government demanding that the population hands them out their dollars and gold, and the population resisted such measures, so it is easy to me to see this scenario happening with bitcoin as well.

It's not surprising if we know where it is heading.

There will for sure be those countries that won't mind to have those privacy coins keep going into their jurisdiction for their citizens. They know what it can contribute to their society and economy, despite there's some misuse about it.

And for the countries that are too strict, there's something that they're preparing for their people and that's why they try to eliminate the competitor.

If its mandated then it could be possibly be enforced and citizens wouldnt really be having no choice but to follow or else they wouldnt really able to access
some government services or something like that which its always been the main concern when it comes to this.

State issued will really just act like fiat itself and it would really be centralized which is already expected thats why i dont see the need for some
comparison because with just common sense you could able to determine on what it is all about.

That is a scenario that could come to happen, however governments are taking a risk as it is always possible that their regulations are ignored by the population.

So in the case the demand of bitcoin was high and the government passed a law to try to control this and diminish the interest of the population in bitcoin, the population may simply decide to ignore the law and deal with bitcoin as if there was no regulation in place, now for this to happen the demand and the interest in bitcoin will need to be very high, but I think we are slowly moving towards that direction, and when that happens no amount of regulation will be enough to stop people to adopt bitcoin.

I think a lot depends on what country you are living in and the consequences you have to expect. It will be interesting to see how successful China will be in banning cryptocurrencies. They can't send police everywhere, but they can control every single bank account and they also have the social score. They could make using cryptocurrencies so painful that you would life-long consequences and limitations in your private life and in your job life. Chinese government can be ruthless, now let's see how ruthless they will be with their people.

They are banning what they can control, and they are pushing what they created and what they can control! Of course, now we have some privacy with cash, but with their digital/crypto version of fiat everything will be in their hands, full control I would say! Nothing new in my opinion and the government's moves don't surprise me anymore, it's what they do! And I guess some countries will be very strict about using decentralized and privacy coins, but also I believe there will be more "open-minded countries"...

I do not think much about state issues cryptos. At the end of the day these are no more than the already existing electronic cash in the sense that it can be printed and miraculously multiplied by the banking system. It may carry also a loss of privacy and the main positive effect might be for the unbanked that could possible get an account on a central bank rather than having to go through intermediaries that always take their cut.

The digital Euro, Yuan or USD do not make much of a difference in my strategy with crypto nor outside.

Ok but if there is a blockchain involved, audits should be doable such that it's not possible for governments to counterfeit it. Which is quite different right now. Nobody has a clue what the real money supply is, probably not even the governments themselves.

I think that a state-issued cryptocurrency could be horrible. There'd be no option for preserving privacy anymore and that could entail insane consequences.

People may not necessarily be forced to sell BTC, because some people, the most intelligent people, know very well that BTC is the King of cryptocurrencies, that if it weren't for its technology associated with Blockchain, there would still be no currency, it should be noted that Thanks to BTC, banks and governments are very interested in acquiring the technology to see if they are participants in this technology, but it causes them frustration because they cannot control it. From the point of view of the smart investor, he would take advantage of selling the state currency to buy BTC.

Expect for government on having this kind of acts whether its anticipated or not but for sure they dont really like on something decentralized which they would instead create their own and called it state issued cryptocurrency which its actually not a crypto at all.So this is just simply an e-fiat on just in different name  which it is nothing different so dont expect for some big changes or benefit out aside on functions
just like on what fiat did.

There's a massive cracking down for privacy coins. This is what most states are doing. Why they just can't embrace all types of crypto? They're all concerned about illegal trades but didn't they know that cash is more used for those type of transactions?

There's even no way for people to track it unless you're dealing with the authorities that will use marked money. But it's a different thing, well, they ban cryptos and pushes people to use their own made cryptos, the cbdc's.

At the end of the day they can do whatever they want, however even if they decide to ban cryptocurrencies that does not meant that people are going to obey them, look at what happens with drugs, it is a huge market for something that damages you both physically and psychologically, bitcoin on the other hand brings benefits to the people holding it for the long term, which means that it is going to be even more difficult for governments to ban it, especially if the economy does not recover significantly during the next years.

They're basically the same with the latter just has a crypto plastered on it's name so as to make sure that people from different age group would be interested especially the millennials and Gen Z. I agree that there is definitely no freedom, that all there is to it is just a way for the government to spend more since they have a new source of funds to pull out from and the best thing is it's digital so they might be able to counterfeit it somehow.

Lol, did you just say that it is a good decision that the government have made? Really, what makes you think that’s a good decision? Well, I am sorry to say that I think otherwise. The government is always saying that they don’t like bitcoin because it is being used to fund terrorism.

My question is, all these years, before cryptocurrency, that different places around the world has faced terrorism, how exactly were they being funded? Is there any other ways that they were able to fund these terrorists, if not with the Fiat? And what has the government been able to do about that? They were not even able to stop those that were funding terrorists even with the Fiat they control. It might surprise you to know that most of these terrorist groups are funded by the so called government.

Not a single state, NEVER, will issue a currency that it, the state, cannot manage and control! No, fantastic utopias can exist! Only on paper And a real state simply cannot exist with an uncontrolled financial and banking system. Therefore, you can forget about the "state cryptocurrency". The maximum that will be - a digital analogue of fiat, but with deeper monitoring, control, management capabilities for each transaction or a single cent!

It's like India government want to steal freedom of their community. How would this be a good government decision? A state issued cyptocurrency is centralized and there is no difference in fiat money because they have full control over it. People need a bitcoin because it is decentralized and I think India can't stop their people from using it.

Introducing a state issued cryptocurrency is not gonna make make anything perfect. The government has a clear picture about its people. From the days of lockdown due to covid-19 pandemic the usage of cryptocurrencies have risen.

The government knows they can't take a decision against the usage of cryptocurrencies, and thats the reason now government have revealed the plan of its own cryptocurrency. However this won't come to light, because similar plans as this have been into discussion for the past few years.

That's right, indirectly they just move and add something into more sophisticated technology but with the same system that is used.
Fiat or crypto issued by the government is actually the same as the monopoly behind it, hoping that when fiat is no longer seen by many people, the crypto issued by the government will be the next option.
even though I think things like this will only be a waste of time because even crypto issued by the government will not necessarily be of interest to many people

There can be no state cryptocurrency as such. States create digitized versions of their national currencies, that is, the stablecoins of their central banks. Digitized currencies cannot be considered cryptocurrencies. These are simply non-cash forms of calculating the national currencies of states, only working already predominantly using blockchain technology. We have yet to see the effectiveness of these digitized currencies.

With such a decision, it can be concluded that there is excessive worry. What is certain that one party benefits and the other can be harmed
I hope other countries can make wiser decisions because it will also affect the economic order so that there will be no crisis or inflation

A digital version of the state currency. I don't see anything that has changed from just using fiat and a state-issued cryptocurrency. This isn't heading in the right direction, this is outright forcing people to ditch bitcoin and other crypto in favor of their own. There is no freedom in there and it will just force people to seek for avenues on where they could get their hands on bitcoin. This isn't solving any problems, this is actually creating another one.

India is too impoverished for them to have to rely on crypto, they're a nonfactor in crypto growth in my opinion. Main countries/regions that would legitimately concern me if crypto was highly regulated/banned is EU, US and China. For India, the least they could do is focus on education/poverty issues along with a proper Covid response, yet they seem so concerned about regulating crypto into the ground. India's Covid response has been abysmal, so if their focus is indeed to eliminate it, they're doing a horrid job.

does their government realise that a lot of its people are relying on crypto during pandemic? that the govt failed to provide their basic needs. ive seen a lot of indians here who are relying from all sorts of bounties. how can their govt address such shortcomings?
anyway, i believe this kind of discussion will be delayed because right now, most govts are focused on how to end this pandemic era.

They've plainly stated they want to regulate crypto currency, that is a step towards a ban. If they view crypto to be a threat (which any common sense government does), then they begin regulating the currency through convoluted tax law which makes no one want to use the currency.

If your left with high taxed crypto or traditional currency, no one will bother using crypto. And India has a poverty problem regardless, so there isn't any incentive for adoption. Adding in whatever regulations they can come up with will squash any crypto growth in India. Any crypto user should be against the regulation of crypto, it's one step before an outright ban.

It is obvious that if we see a government thinking about doing something like this they are not thinking about their population at all, they are thinking about themselves and how they can protect themselves against and adversary that is everywhere and that is so strong, as it is the case of bitcoin.

And the logical thing to do for them is to ban it regardless of how much this kind of movement could affect their population, but by doing something like this they show their population what they truly care about, which will eventually lead people to disobey the law, as if they have to pick between following an unjust law and live in misery and disobeying it and have a decent lifestyle it is obvious they will pick the latter instead of the former.

It is not a good decision if they will ultimately ban the usage of crypto because as far as I see here, from the forum alone, there are a lot of Indians who are relying their income from crypto. So if their government will be tough on this, how can they survive now? Using their own digital currency is not the solution to assist these people. But I think, they are not yet totally banning the use of crypto, maybe for payment purposes but for conversion of their crypto to their fiat is still allowed.

There is nothing concrete to say that the Indian government is planning to ban all cryptocurrencies as we are hearing these rumors for a long time. The last i heard was that they might try to restrict cryptocurrencies as a mode of payment but will regulate the market.


Is there anything that the ruling central government has done in the past 7 years other than dividing people. So do not expect anything that will do good for everyone .

Even if you are a Jr. member you have been part of the forum since December of 2017, that is almost 4 years, why would anyone think that the creation of a government backed digital currency and the banning of bitcoin and altcoins is a good idea?

Personally I do not mind the announcement of the creation of their own coin as this is something we knew was coming in the war against cryptocurrencies, after all as the proverb goes “if you cannot beat them, join them” however the obvious next step is to ban bitcoin and altcoins, which is what they are planning on doing, and I have a problem with that, basically they are seeing they are losing control of the economy because of their own actions and instead of accepting their mistakes they prefer that the population suffer so they can remain in power.

Years back the government made a ban on cryptocurrency and banks stopped supporting transactions associated with cryptocurrencies. By that time too, there's discussion on developing a state owned cryptocurrency. Even there were rumours that the state owned cryptocurrency is named as Lakshmi coin. I'm not sure, to what extent this is true.

Now once again the same discussion have come, but this time the government have announced cryptocurrency can be used as a commodity and not as a legal tender few months back. If the state owned cryptocurrency is developed, then it'll serve as the digital version of fiat. There'll be regular news, but the country won't develop its own coin. Because they knew well, people won't get interested using it.

if you see what you say, it means that actually this coin is no different from CBDC and fiat in terms of performance because it seems as if it hopes it will match bitcoin.
I don't understand why the government is always naive in this matter by using a way as if they can match something that can't even be matched

On the other hand, it will be fun when they prohibit and use the coins they empower so that they can manage the finances in it. Will the people there be fooled by this? I think they are also smart in choosing and can distinguish diamonds from imitation

I have heard a lot about Indian "banning" or "trying to ban" crypto currencies. and they haven't done that yet... They just keep on saying they will. As far as I know people are still using crypto currencies over there without any problem. Well, they are banning it because it is not a legal tender over there? Then why don't they just make it a legal tender in their country? If they can make their own state issued crypto a legal tender, then they can make other private crypto currencies a legal tender.

You think it is a good decision by the government? What makes you think that banning Bitcoin is a good decision? They could have introduced their own digital currency without banning Bitcoin. All these things are unnecessary, and moreover they can’t even provide any proof that bitcoin is being used as a means to fund terrorism,all these things are mere assumptions.

People have been funding terrorism even before anyone thought about Bitcoin or anything cryptocurrency. Anyways, the government will always look for any excuse. Of what difference will their CBDC make, is it going to be better? Apart from the fact that it will be fast and make transactions less cost, it is still going to be the same Fiat.

To ban private crypto currencies doesn't mean people are going to stop using them.

To launch a state-isued crypto currency doesn't mean people are going to adopt it.

In other words, nothing significant would happen if the proposal of Union Finance Ministry went ahead. Bitcoin would still be the favorite one and their national crypto would be nothing...

Reducing illegal activities is just a common alibi or reason for them to use and people mostly been blinded out by their promises and tending to introduce on something those things specially attached with state issued
and saying that this one is something better? Not surprising which they are always loving on blinding out people and for those who doesnt have any idea on what cryptocurrency would really easily believed

but for those who do know on what crypto is then they would normally able to differentiate on whats a state-issued coin which doesnt make use of blockchain or simply centralized compared into those coins
which do make use of blockchain and cant really be controlled of.

So this one isnt really differs with e-fiat which it isnt surprising for government to end up on this option.

If it is state issued and cryptocurrency then it is not state controlled, if it is state controlled and state issued then it is not cryptocurrency. Whatever has an "owner" that could control it however they want should not be named crypto, there are some crypto in the market that has some "owners" such as XRP and USDT and BUSD and so forth and even SOL to an extent and there are hundreds of smaller ones that nobody cares about as well.

So, I would say that there is a good chance we could ignore all of this and just not even buy a single dollar worth of state issued crypto. Why would I want to buy something that government controls? If was so interested with something like that then I would have invested my money into dollars, does that make sense? I bought dollars as an investment sentence is quite wrong and should always sound wrong to everyone.

I don't understand why so many people decide to refer back to mentioning cryptocurrency is "not legal tender" in many countries, it's almost as if they don't know what it means and it is totally irrelevant in most scenarios mentioned. In India, the Euro is not legal tender, the Peso is not legal tender, the Pound Sterling is not legal tender - yet they are all perfectly valid currencies and just need to be converted into the local currency. Crypto never has to be legal tender within a country yet can still have a perfectly valid position within the financial system and flourish regardless. It looks to me as if India is trying to dominate the lucrative market and take a cut of all the transaction fees, whether people will have confidence in a government administered online currency is yet to be seen. Part of the reason people like cryptocurrency is that no single entity controls it and could abuse it to the detriment of all existing holders, which governments have a habit of doing when they want to raise money.

This is a very horrible decision by your government. Do u believe placing a ban on cryptocurrency will reduce the means by which illegal activities are been sponsored around your country. Technocrats gets wiser by the day they might even adopt the digital currency that would be released to continue their activities. The truth remains no where is safe all that is needed is just a sensitization on the positive use of crypto currency even if they desire to introduce a new digital currency both can thrive together

I don't really like this idea.Digital state currencies don't have anything similar to original cryptocurrencies. They will still be regulated by the government. The main characteristic of digital money is decentralisation and uncontrollability from authorities, but digital  yuan, euros, rupee, rubles, will be under control, so as for me it is the same as non-cash money on blockchain instead of bank account.

You're completely correct. (And thanks for clearing up).
Still, I hope that bringing this over and over again may help somebody now and then.
And I still don't agree with OP to be cheering about what "good new thing" the governments bring to us plebs.

That poeple really don't care about the things you've mentioned that much.
Convenience will always beat in a number match concerns about privacy and safety, seatbelts are the perfect example, the "it will not happen to me now attitude" can be applied to anything.

Besides, yeah Bitfinex on their own won't seize your coins or freeze them but once a law enforcement agency will ask them to do so they will happily comply, so it makes really no difference between your own national coin and a coin from a company that will obey everything any government orders.

I don't follow much neither XRP, nor USDT, so I'm not sure I got what you meant.
But the fact people keep so much wealth locked especially in USDT doesn't make that right (I would clearly not do that) and while a government can seize funds for "legal reasons", most probably Tether will not do that.

the government may regulate policies regarding cryptocurrencies if it concerns the security of transactions in the community but if the rules tie the strings of freedom, I don't think this is a policy. While the reasons for ryptocurrency accusing its use to finance terrorism, drugs and other 'anti-national activities' may happen in that country not for others

USDT doing twice the volume of BTC and 4x of ETH and having 4milion addresses with a balance. XRP?
Does this answer your question?  


Democracy is all the population voting one government or one parliament (congress).
I don't see how democracy is decentralization.


Both the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution happened before any country adopted universal suffrage.

The federal reserve, america's central bank, is not part of the US government. Separation of monetary policy and state is one common argument for the existence of the fed. A decentralized format intended, in theory, to isolate political conflicts of interest from management of finance and the economy.

Democracy is decentralization of state power and authority. Totalitarianism is a centralized format.

Decentralization (democracy) is a better format for scientific progress and innovation than totalitarianism. Creating a monopoly where a centralized government has all the power and influence has never been a positive precedent for anyone. It has never been good for the wealthy, powerful or ruling class. Its been even worse for the poor and middle class.

State issued cryptocurrency would likely result in a state sponsored monopoly. Which would be defined by decades or centuries of zero innovation and progress. It would be like the bell telecom state sponsored monopoly which stagnated industry progress for many years. I know many will vocally support it. The question is, could they name a single legitimate reason or motive why anyone should support such a thing. Probably not.

Sound like a regime that has not only to prevent their citizens to enjoy their freedom of choice on regards to what to own and what to do with it, but also wants to replace that with a controlled version big-brother style. The argument that bitcoin serves to finance illegal activities can be applied to any currency in the world and there are many countries in which most people can conduct illicit activities or move money under the governments radars.

It is just a lame excuse for an unjustified ban, which anyway cannot be effectively inforced.

Hell no.

It is probably the most terrible decision that they have made.

Most of the innovation in the space are going to come from grassroots movements and projects. Not the government. The government is going to try to increase its control over money supply that is already so tightly restricted.

What would you expect? Government had most likely to have that kind of mindset on which they are mainly against on something which cant really be controlled which it isnt really surprising for them to make such move.Instead on letting their citizens deal up with crypto then they would normally be creating their own and ban all of those crypto
coins in the market and telling that they should focused on state-issued crypto.. Wait what? Anything centralized doesnt really belong into this category.
Laughable indeed.

Well, it's obvious that their point is to control the money of the people which is by the way impossible to do when using Bitcoin. They are just like banks and I think OP is lacking of understanding of how Bitcoin works. It's clear that many will attempt to compare or compete with Bitcoin and is trying to be on the top of the list of their people but that's just impossible to happen since they can't force all people to use their own government crypto-currency. Besides, Bitcoin can never be ban but they can ban their people from using it but there's always a way that people would try to use/trade Bitcoin without the government knowledge.

Makes no sense at all. introduction of a government-backed currency would be like digital money, it would use blockchain but will not have the very required capabilities of a cryptocurrency which is that the supply will not be limited and also the transactions could be reversed and more importantly it defeats the overall concept of decentralization or P2P which focuses on the elimination of any central authority and allows transaction based on trust amongst the users. It's a bad move in all means if you really know what a cryptocurrency actually is.

Anything issued by a government cannot be a cryptocurrency.
You have to understand the fact that the very idea of a cryptocurrency is something that is decentralized and that's the farthest from what Indian government intends to do, now I do think that this is not something that would help crimes and all. Since at the end of the day people do have more probelms with fiat and other things. It's not really an issue with the cryptocurrencies it's the issue with the people itself. Therefore one cannot really think about these things as the fault of cryptocurrencies. If the governmental system was so good why would they need so many laws, rules and regulations??
This would be nothing but fiat therefore there is not even any reason why one should be engaging with them.

honestly this is a pointless act in my opinion.
how can they think of making the same coin and legalizing the coin but on the other hand banning bitcoin and other cryptos?
this is actually not a good thing because I think something like this will only make their plans fail and never work like governments have done before.

I think it's a terrible decision by the way, especially on the part of the citizens, for the government who like to control everything in their way, then this could be good, it is to their advantage if they stop people from being their own bank, take away the control Bitcoin gives people, and somewhat compel them to use crypto that they the government controls, prints and distributes as they like, just the same way they handle their fiat currencies, that way the government remains in control, which is exactly what they want.

But having said that, for citizens who actually appreciate the benefits of being their own bank, then this is indeed a wrong decision from the government, people should be allowed the liberty to have their finance in their own hands, the government can make do with the control they already have via their fiat currencies, and allow people to use decentralized crypto the way they like, and mind you that CBDC's are nothing but just digital fiat currencies, and it'll be no different.

I am pretty certain they were talking about how cryptocurrencies are issued (issued by private entities) and not about the open/close nature of the ledger.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

These are allegation that has been there along time with bitcoin and the critism about bitcoin used for illegal transactions, drug dealing , terrorism or trafficking will still continue but it is an excuse and nothing but an excuse. I ask a question that is fiat not used to also pay for bad businesses? Payment of terrorism, bandits , smuggling of hard drugs before bitcoin created were all done by cash and yet the businesses are still flourishing , the government have not stopped them. The Nigerian government ban crypto accounts that are with banks for the reason that it was a channel for supporting an #endsars struggle against the government but these are all just flimsy, the government is creating allegations but can't stop the moving train.

Well... It's a good decision for their side I guess? I mean, I doubt the government has made any decision so far that's actually good tbh, except for probably a select few. Well it's a pretty bad damn decision, heck no just that even the reasoning is pretty stupid imo. Just the argument of fiat being used for the same of whatever they claim crypto is being used for. It's not even private crypto, it's completely public. I don't even know why they managed to use anti-national activities as a reason when it's completely transparent, and it's pretty damn stupid to ban a medium to the activities of those who use it.

Plagiarism https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.58466400

Not everything failed miserably, actually. eNaira (Nigerian CBDC) seems to be doing well with 500k wallet downloads in 3 weeks since the launch, and IMF agreeing to provide technical support. Then there's also digital yuan from China which hasn't fully launched yet, I believe, but has been tested since April and is about to go live, and it allegedly already has 140 million users.
I don't think CBDC is necessarily a failure, and I don't even mind that some countries are experimenting with them. They are competing with fiat more than with cryptos IMO, and the only thing I do think it deeply wrong is attempting to meet the demand for cryptos with CBDC and ban cryptos in the meantime.

What are you smoking?

All Crypto currencies or digital currencies that are controlled by a centralized entity or a government is doomed to failure. We have first hand evidence of this with fiat currencies that are being manipulated and printed like toilet paper. 

A centralized entity will have full control over the supply and also the transactions that are done or not being allowed on these platforms. (They can block transactions / wipe out the history of specific transactions / add transactions / confiscate people's tokens ...etc.. etc.)

This is sooooo wrong!

1.Any link to the source of this information?
2.Can you explain to us why this is a good decision by the government?
It seems to me that the Indian government and central bank are full with anti-crypto boomers,who keep repeating the same old "crypto is a currency of the criminals and terrorists" type of propaganda.
If India ever launches it's own state-issued cryptocurrency,who can guarantee that this state-issued cryptocurrency won't be used by criminals and terrorists?
The government coin is going to be entirely pure and free of any crime and corruption,but the cryptocurrencies are a source of evil,corruption and crime.Sounds like a joke to me.

How can that be a good decision? I believe the question that should be put to whichever Government that is still trying to use all these lame excuses to bring cryptocurrencies down is for them to provide prooves of all the illicit transactions they have been associating to Bitcoin and other cryptos. Bitcoin is just barely 11 years while terrorist financing/Drugs financing has been around way longer than that. If you still don't understand why the Government is doing this, then you are not supposed to be here and whatever they issue as a cryptocurrency is not cos it will never fit the characteristics.

Well, Bitcoin is not a private cryptocurrency. I hope people understand what Private in that context means? Bitcoin is open-source and is owned by Citizens/members of the Network. If you contribute and always work for the interest of the Network, you are citizen and part of the Network. If it's private it wouldn't be open to the Public to be part of permissionlessly.

It's Public and Open to honest people in any country to use and help keep it safe & operational.

In regards to people abusing it, I think it's Transparent and Public enough for Law enforcement people in any country to monitor and prevent abuses coming from their respective country. I think you can safely have IP/Identity linked to dangerous criminals unmasked when you notice their addresses are used for committing dangerous crimes. This could be done on a safe and decentralized identity system for people using Bitcoin. If the I.D System is not safe enough for innocent people ,they are free to use Tor, VPN or other privacy preserve tools. So,it's better and wise to make it Safe

As long as people know how to deal with the tax, they will not have a problem because when someone can keep his coins secretly, you will be okay. Paying taxes is a contribution for people but the government should be fair because they should add a big amount of tax to rich people while reducing the tax for the poor. Hopefully, the government can be wise regarding crypto to have crypto without worrying about their regulations.

All I am going to say is, the past two years of allegedly good choices have shown me enough.  They do not care about you, or your freedoms.  They will not stop terrorism.  They will make you feel so safe you will not feel safe anymore.  When there is Orwellian-style surveillance anywhere you turn your head, safety will be already replaced by fear.

What they are doing now is just proving you they want you under control, not under freedom.  They want you to fear using a currency giving you more rights.  They want to make you feel like a terrorist for using a free currency.  And apparently, they are doing a great job at it.  Tor is fueling terrorism, Bitcoin is fueling drug trafficking, cash is fueling the pandemic, Monero is fueling human trafficking and pedophilia, transactions over $600 are fueling money laundering if not suspected of crime, burner phones and disposable/non-KYC SIM Cards are for drug dealers, Telegram and Signal are for those who have something to hide, gold and silver fuels terrorism funding and the list could continue for pages long.

But we use Signal even if we told you they are bad.  But we do not wear masks, we are using secure smartphones, cash and we are laundering more money than your entire family tree has ever been able to because we are politicians.  But YOU use the National Digital Surveillance Currency and all of this is going to be fixed in a second.  No more crimes, we will monitor every single aspect of YOUR life and we promise it is all for your good.  But to vote for us to stay in power again?  Not even an ID required.

How do people NOT see a pattern in all of this?  No, definitely NOT a good decision.  Sorry for the rant, I have had enough of this.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

Governments will try to enter the world of cryptocurrencies more and more, for one reason only! They understood that it is possible to profit by taxing this too! Your financial freedom is yours and yours alone, why should anyone get involved? What would be the good side of this?

It's a hard question for me to answer. On the one side I can understand governments who don't want to give up their control over the monetary system. Losing control over the supply of money can be problematic if the country relys heavily on debt. All the politicians are aware of the crypto boom and would like to profit of it without giving up control. For the government it seems like a good idea to issue a state controlled crypto coin. But on the other side are the investors who need to decide if they want to use the new crypto coin. For me the attractiveness of crypto currencies is the independence from government. I am not looking for government controlled crypto projects, because we never know desperate a country might be in the future. I think there will be more investors looking did independent projects with no government influence.

Do you realize that if you hold such a currency the authorities can automatically withdraw or seize your coins in your wallet?
Do you realize that the authorities can make mistakes or abuses and this can become even a tool against their opponents?
Now think again: is it a good decision or not?

Are you joking?

In the Bitcoin forum par excellence, what do you think we will find? We are for a decentralized currency and not the digital versions of the crappy fiat currencies controlled by governments and central banks.

I see the irony right there, in between these lines 'all cryptocurrencies alleging its usage to fund terrorism, drugs and other 'anti national activities' and 'govt may introduce an official digital currency in India'.

What frustrates me is that every person reasoning why they are anti-crypto uses the 'weapon terms' it fuels terrorism, drugs and other illegal activities - and I'm like, these things exist with fiat and will exist with everything else that is of value, it is not a cryptocurrency born issue, no the issue always existed and will continue to exist!

I am really expecting that eventually the government of India will be regulating cryptocurrency and not banning them altogether in favor of having a state-issued cryptocurrency or what we call as CBDC. This is bad news for the growing cryptocurrency enthusiasts and supporters in India and I am hoping that there can be a good representation of the industry in the discussions of this proposed plan. India is a big market can be a big force in cryptocurrency if its market can be allowed to be open.

Considering that previous attempts by other governments creating centralized shitcoins (eg. el Petrol) have failed miserably it is obvious that this is not a "good decision" in any way! Not to mention that they can't effectively ban bitcoin usage ever.

I don't like what I read in some articles; it seems like India is threatened with what cryptocurrencies could do to the economic balance. But that's just how it becomes an impact on everyone's lives. I think they are just making it harder for the inevitable. I believe they have a large amount of volume within the cryptocurrency space, right?

So.. ban the people from using cryptocurrencies like bitcoin that provide financial freedom to the people, and let them use digital versions of local currencies instead; which the government can inflate(and set certain restrictions to people's finances) if they wanted to. I'm sorry how is this a good decision again?

Union Finance Ministry has take a decision on a state-issued cryptocurrency soon but ban all private cryptocurrencies. The VHP leader had sought a ban on all cryptocurrencies alleging its usage to fund terrorism, drugs and other 'anti national activities'. As all private cryptocurrencies are still not considered as legal tender or coin in India, but the govt may introduce an official digital currency in India.

I think its a good decision by government.. What you guys think about it?