Is that good or bad in your opinion?
I'm one of the people who think government should keep its dirty hands out of private property, which bitcoin is. The way I see it all regulation is bad.
The EU wants more KYC and more paid licenses, that's what it's all about.
Next step - they'll reach into pockets of private users and demand them to declare their bitcoin wallets so they can assign each address to a name.
I think that governments have rights to attempt to regulate bitcoin in a variety of ways because there are a lot of aspects of bitcoin that relate to the public good...
yet, the level of their draconian-ness is likely another story in terms of how the various battles are going to play out, including the fact that bitcoin is likely going to force various governments to become more responsible, especially since bitcoin disincentivizes the debasing of the money because it competes with the governments in terms of attracting people into it.. because bitcoin is the most sound of monies, and it bothers a lot of government and financial people and even status quo richie (cantillionaires) who want to be able to control bitcoin, and they are not going to be able to use their traditional tools to control bitcoin like they have been able to do with other kinds of monies... but does not mean that they are not going to try... and even battle for a century or more before some kind of balance might be more in the mix, perhaps? In the mean time, our investment timelines are likely way shorter than a century in terms of choosing whether to buy bitcoin and how much.. or how to go about it based on our own circumstances.
[...]
Well said.
Bitcoin regulation
will happen, whether we like it or not. The lack of Bitcoin regulation is one of the reasons for its relatively slow adoption. The goal should be to achieve a form of regulation that preserves the rights and freedoms of the people, by using Bitcoin's unique properties to exert pressure on the governments. This should be done gradually and smartly, using socioeconomic and scientific evidence to push for a pro-Bitcoin regulatory framework.
Having said the above, the battles to be fought will not be small, and there will be casualties and "collateral damage". The EU MiCA regulation is probably the first in a series of such battles to be fought.
I think that we might get to the same place, but I am not sure if our tone is the same.
I'm more of the opinion that they are going to regulate us anyhow, and I am not going to say.. go ahead regulate us, but instead realize that they are going to regulate us and then fight to either stop the regulation or to keep it at a minimum... We know that various governmental actors (and other folks who influence governments) are going to cause legislation to go overboard from time to time, and we already see those kinds of "going overboard," and sometimes the "going overboard" are merely negotiating positions, like when Elizabeth Warren says that she is formulating an anti-crypto group of warriors, and many of us know that is a likely losing battle, but it might even allow her to be more aggressive if she takes that stance, and then she seems reasonable, if she compromises.. when many of us know that she is not going to get her way with such a ridiculous stance in the first place.. and so in some sense, I am not against taking somewhat ridiculous and even anti-legislative (anti-regulatory) stances, and then potentially compromising at some point to some various forms of minimal regulation... and so I am not even saying that I have any exact ideas how these battles and compromises are going to play out, but many of us know that some of the framework is already ridiculous such as asserting that bitcoin is not ESG-friendly or even implications that bitcoin wastes energy because it uses energy.. and it seems that we should hardly even be entertaining these kinds of ideas, even though maybe it also would not be a good approach to just laugh at such nonsense and refuse to even conversate.. when there could be some ways of merely just reframing the issue - and potentially allowing for some token frameworks that try to focus on ways in which some back and forth might be allowable in terms of how maybe there could be a tax on mining that ends up subsidizing the overall grid... but at the same time, I am reluctant in terms of how stringent reporting requirements might become.. even though it might be more justifiable for some of the BIGGER players to report some aspects of their energy usage.. and a lot of that makes me uncomfortable.. because there may already be abilities to see how much energy is being purchased, but if there might be ways in which energy is produced too.. which might seem to be none of anyone's business if the energy is being both produced and used.. (except for the fact that there could be emission that might affect others. if that might be the case with certain kinds of energy production.. whether it is bio fuels, geothermal, solar, wind, hydro-energy, various forms of waste, nuclear or some other energy source.
Hahahahaha
the bitcoin is a bubble visual... ..... in fact a series of shrinking bubbles.