Topic: Use of cryptocurrencies, a concern – IMF - page 2. (Read 591 times)

It "can be" controlled as in governments could ban websites, there has been so many websites FBI has closed for example and there has been some websites banned all around the world, look at China for example, they are not allowed on many websites, and if it is found out that you went to twitter without Chinese government approving and you said anything critical of the ccp that means you are gone, as soon as they find you, not only they will kill you, but they will kill all of your family just in case there is a vendetta so that there won't be anyone left hating them. This has been proved as well.

So, if things are this drastic and this horrible in some nations, it is obvious that it can be controlled in some other places mildly, not a huge deal, like maybe banning some casino website type deal so it is not a big deal for the general public, but that doesn't change the fact that it was controlled, even if it is an illegal website that sells guns wholesale, if you ban it, that means it is not free, it is good that it is not free in that case but it is still not free.

Anyone who is going to buy or sell huge amount if cryptocurrencies on exchanges will be concerning about the enforced KYC not only to money laundering and so called criminal activities but they really do care about protecting their availability of assets to unknown people who called exchange owners.

Some central banks too stick with such reasons like money laundering to ban cryptocurrency usage but they are nor really concerned about the money laundering they want to stop people from going decentralized.

I agree the Internet was created by ordinary people, and people who invested a lot of time in the 80s and 90s made sure it was free to access. They didn't want any government control that would filter what people could see and what was blocked. Same goes for crypto currencies, the inventors never wanted a government or central being able to control the money supply of crypto currencies. We need to stay strong.

And in this digital age, the government has no full control of what people can read via net and learn how to do things on their own. This is the reason why most governments don't want bitcoin or crypto, because they also have no full control of the financial transactions of crypto users. Most of them don't even understand how to transact with crypto. So right now, they are against with it. However, it may change in the coming years, when they slowly understand its importance to the community and the economy.

Governments seek total control.  However, the Internet and the virtual space are not the territory of separate states. 

The virtual world was created not by kings, emperors and presidents, but by developers and ordinary people.  Therefore, the Internet and the virtual space is a special space that should not be regulated by the laws of individual states.  Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is the money of the virtual space. 

Yes, the Bitcoin blockchain is transparent.  This is done to confirm the reality of transactions, and not for regulatory purposes.

Not a new news when people who supposed to government and are on highest echelon don't know what they're talking about more specifically a technology that's advanced. Even worse their lack of information also influence their poor decision, imagine keep blabbering about crypto involved in the funding of terrorism and that sort of thing meanwhile the paper money that's totally leaves no trace has no problem being used for terrorism funding everywhere cuz released by the central bank.

It is a baseless argument but one that works really well with the masses, if we applied this kind of thought process then no new technology should have ever been adopted as it can always increase the effectiveness of criminal behaviour, we do not ban cars despite car accidents being the leading cause of deaths on the young population, why? Because the usefulness of cars is simply too high that we cannot allow to ban cars so unfortunately it is a price we as a society have to pay, and the same kind of logic should be applied to bitcoin.

Even in the old days, people really would persecute and condemn things that they lack information about, the same thing is happening with bitcoin wherein people who don't use it are the ones to talk badly and depict bitcoin in a bad light. The only way we can feasibly solve this is to provide and help them be informed about the benefits of bitcoin.

If we are talking about the financial system, please give an example of "not freedom"?
For example, having earned money, I can spend it by any available, legal method by buying a fierce product, service or service that does not violate the law. I have no visible or obvious limitations. The only thing is that I have to pay taxes on income that passes through my accounts as a private entrepreneur. But paying taxes is okay. Although I agree - it's not normal when a part of your income is taken away from you without giving anything in return. But I see social assistance in the state, I see old people's pensions, I see medical care, I see many things that were created for taxes, including mine

In fact, what is happening today, even in developed countries, is very difficult to call freedom of choice for each person. Based on this, we cannot hope for this with an appropriate state structure and the government will never calm down if they do not control not only the income and expenses of each person, but also their whole life.

They often speak of "financial freedom" here. And tell me - what do you mean by this concept?
It seems to me that many people confuse "freedom" with "concealment" a little. Freedom is the possibility of choice, action, realization of desires. What many are talking about is "to hide the transaction from the state", income, information about purchases ... You really believe in the society and the state system where the state will not control the income and expenditures of citizens in order to increase tax collection and reduce the risks of illegal payments " services, services "or goods? The only "inconvenience" that I will squeeze out from the classical principles of government work is:
- an attempt to squeeze more taxes out of me. But there is tax legislation, official optimization schemes, etc.
- information about my purchases will become known. But on the other hand, all networks collect and process data about you as network users (bonus programs, etc.)

Maybe we do not correctly formulate and understand the problems? Maybe some things are objectively contrived?

Cash has been around for so, so long. You can use it pretty much anywhere you want (or you could've done that before the pandemic at least) and nobody would've given a damn where your money came from and where it's going.

I don't see the point they're trying to make: if I can take care of my own cash without someone else having to bother me and spy on me, why should I not be allowed to take care of my own Bitcoins or Moneros? Monero can be tracked. Pretty much all coins that are private can be traced. The only difference is that I can only track your XMR if you agree with it. Bitcoin, on the other hand, makes it possible so that I can spy on you without your consent.

I would have seen a point in doing this if crimes were on the rise since BTC's inception. But with so many surveillance cameras and so much technology invading our private lives, I don't see why exactly it makes sense to invade my financial intimacy.

Swap the words I put in bold with "fiat" and you cannot tell me the statement does not apply although now you're talking about fiat instead of cryptocurrencies. To be honest, I actually find it scary how people do not think for themselves anymore and listen to the words of these idiots trying to control every little aspect of our lives. It's outrageous..

I do think it is about weighing the pros and cons of cryptocurrencies, as a whole.

We all know that the blockchain shows every transaction in the public ledger in which such information cannot be altered as it is physically impossible. However, its application on its day-to-day use shows its importance and use for future references. For example, you can track down the history of an item and every processes it went.

The downside, however, is such avenue may be a gateway or an avenue of purchasing illegal and covet items in the dark web. I think this area of concern should be the main focus of the government on how to balance the pros and cons of implementing the blockchain in our daily use.

I am concerned about the IMF because until now it has not learned about bitcoin and what it has achieved.
I have no problem using a centralized or decentralized exchange. KYC is not a problem for me because it is necessary for my P2P transactions.
I think it will not be a problem for bitcoin if the IMF tries to review the concerns of the central bank of Nigeria. I think that bitcoin deserves an exhaustive and verifiable reversal of the solutions that people who invest in it are looking for.

It's made to be a concern because cryptocurrency threatens the structure that the economy we live in is built upon. The same structure mind you that incentivized abuse of the common worker and had left countries in shambles, and people in huge debts. And their ca to action further reinforces the fact that they are scared of cryptocurrency, because once the power is put back to the people, their plans and ploys will fall down. Or they are just afraid of what crypto can really do, that's why they opted to ban it instead of regulating it. That might actually be the case.

Obviously they do not care about anything regarding the anonymity, they have no reason to want that neither, look at all the KYC deals in most exchanges, we can't even move our money around, hence I think it is quite obvious that we are not going to get anything remotely close to same thing in other places.

So, that means is you could find someone who uses an exchange, find the exchange address they were given, see the address they sent money from to their exchange and follow them up from there all from blockchain. Like you said it is a lot more clear and available, whereas in banking world, can you and I follow up what Elon does with his money? Of course not. Long story short this is not about anon or not, this is about banks versus crypto, this is about rich vs poor, this is about fair versus unfair and if the world goes more crypto they know that people will have a too much power.

The central bank in my country also prohibits cryptocurrency transactions as a medium of exchange, but the government allows it as a commodity.  At least with the legalization of Bitcoin, the government has the ability to monitor transactions carried out in my country through its exchangers.  But it is not denied, there are still many who carry out p2p transactions for quite confidential purposes. What is important is that every country that bans Bitcoin and other cryptos is a country that is lazy to make regulations.  And the economists are the less literate.

Only way for any government t have some control over transactions of opaque ledger cryptocurrencies is that people trade them on regulated exchanges. If they ban them then that cant happen anymore. People will use decentralised exchanges and atomic swaps and Governments will lose all control over all transactions that their citizens make.  But maybe that is inevitable anyway.

After reading your post and at the last this statement hit me hard!! Nonetheless they might be thinking about it in the background but since p2p work based on the mutual consent no one can surely track down whether this is crypto transaction or not. It could be just normal business sending money, or relatives getting their money back from other relatives etc etc.

But this will eventually have worst effect on economy if it happened on mass level. The reason is simple, p2p transactions might be shown as temporary money, lenders money, emergency or anything which may not get taxed at the year end thus its loss of government itself.

Blockchain technology with transparent transactions, such as Bitcoin, looks much more "legitimate" than, for example, bank transactions covered by the privacy law of account holders. If the IMF is so afraid of the anonymity of cryptocurrencies, then let it open up access to the banking system so that you can see account balances, transactions, and owner data? Or here, in the banking sector, is anonymity correct and in the blockchain technology not correct?