Topic: What are pro-regulation bitcoiners thinking? They seem confused. (Read 193 times)

Regulations are not really bad things, some people do think that it is not really a good thing but at the same time I think it is not really a bad thing at all. We should consider it as something that would be decent and could be a good thing because governments being fine with bitcoin is an improvement.

Obviously regulations means that it comes with taxes and limitations, they are going to ask you to pay taxes and in most nations in the world taxes are not that good and does hurt your income a lot, it is both high but also it doesn't even give you anything bad properly, those are all bad things. However, even worse part is limitations, from simple things like KYC to a lot more on what you do with it, governments will limit what you do. It is still way better than banning it though.

Often, yes.  There's a great deal of "nanny state" nonsense about lately.  I regularly find myself at odds with the FCA's recent 'Consumer Duty' crap.  I can say, first-hand, in terms of how it's being implemented by firms, it's just an additional layer of bureaucratic box-ticking that doesn't benefit consumers in the slightest.  In practice, I basically have to talk to my customers as though they're stupid and constantly check whether or not they understand what I'm saying to them.  It's abysmal.

I observed very similar things in finance the banks and regulators capture each other in a 'symbiotic' relationship and the customers suffer. My conclusion was that regulation is bad long-term and removes customer agency and choice.

another prime example of when lobbying for regulation went wrong was in 2013 when they lobbied to get bitcoin legally recognised as financial currency. this opened the floodgates of allowing governments to then set rules on businesses and citizens that use bitcoin by their government
all for the 15minutes of media coverage to shout "we're legit"

if bitcoin remained under private property status, such as pokemon cards/antiques, businesses and people could have operated and used bitcoin more freely

though things like media coverage of big institutional businesses like blackrock getting involved in bitcoin beams a large neon sign that bitcoin is trusted as a great investable asset. what blackrock then offers is not actually their customers investing in bitcoin direct. its blackrock taking ownership of bitcoin and offering fiat "in cash" payments of share trading of a trust/entity that has bitcoin locked up as collateral for the shares

regulations are not really "consumer protection" regulations, but instead businesses policing/auditing their customer.
heck regulations are not so much business policing.. again they are policing the customers of businesses. not the business itself, many times businesses get away with facilitating laundering of criminal activity if they simply report on the customer that requested the laundering service

heck even this ETF drama is not so much about wanting to police the ETF applicant businesses.. its more about which ETF business can have best-use policies to police and scrutinise and secure the trades of its customers the best way to ensure reporting of taxable gains of their customers, whilst not offering tax shelter services for their customers

The entire situation is more about what government is thinking and not what we are thinking. We surely do not want regulation and we do not want to pay taxes. But the government would definitely want complete surveillance. Without regulation surveillance would not be possible and if we want to use cryptocurrency as a method of payment, that won't be possible either.

So regulation or no regulation, both have their own downsides and positive sides. But as a common people we do not control anything here. Unfortunately that is true!

I feel like this is where the lines are getting blurred and people are getting different concepts conflated.  Anything to do with ETFs isn't "Bitcoin regulation" in my mind.  It's fiat regulation because all these institutional investors would be trading IOUs rather than actual bitcoins.  The actual bitcoins at the centre of an ETF aren't being traded.  They're merely a commodity being speculated upon.

They need permission from their regulators to place bets on our entirely separate economy.  So people mistakenly see these entities as our regulators too.  But they aren't.  It isn't money "coming into Bitcoin".  It's money being bet on the sidelines.  Their regulations don't directly impact us.

A loose analogy would be sports betting.  Gamblers are (generally) regulated when they bet on sporting events.  But the regulators governing that activity are entirely unrelated to the governing bodies of the sports themselves.  By the same token, Bitcoin governance is not dictated by the regulatory entities that govern ETFs.

I think they have various opinions as well. The whole debate about regulating cryptocurrencies is like walking on a tightrope. Some argue that putting rules in place would make crypto more legit, protect investors and keep the market from going nuts. They say it could bring in big institutional players and help crypto go mainstream. Others worry that too many rules might kill off the cool stuff about crypto because of the whole freedom and decentralized vibe. Im still into the news.

we understand that bitcoin was developed to bring freedom to people in terms of transactions. but we cannot deny that in this freedom sometimes bitcoin is misused by people so that it has the potential to harm people and the government as a regulator certainly does not turn a blind eye to this problem, and regulations are made to prevent potential problems due to the use of bitcoin, supervision and taxes for country.

even though we don't like the regulations that have been made, do we have the strength to reject these regulations? in fact no, so just let the regulations run their course. after all, we can still trade bitcoin using the p2p method with vpn and without kyc to avoid these regulations, as is done by many bitcoin users in china and other countries where bitcoin is banned.

I agree it's important to balance freedom and security but I'm not sure the regulations provide the security people think they do. Look at FTX, the most 'pro-regulation' voice in community for a time, was very likely just seeking greater market share and control through regulatory capture.

Do you really think regulation can protect you from psychopaths without a conscience? I'm not so sure.

When people talk about regulation they aren't talking about making Bitcoin not work anymore. They're talking about stuff like making sure crypto exchanges are safe, trying to stop scammers, stopping fraud in the industry, making rules to allow traditional finance firms and whatnot to hold bitcoin. That sort of stuff. Regulation has nothing to do with stopping Bitcoin from functioning the way it functions.

I mean occasionally there is the horror story of some sort of politicians or regulators want to change how it works (which obviously is impossible because politicians/govts have no say in how bitcoin works) or make some function of it illegal, but those people simply don't know what they are talking about. In general when people talk about the industry needing regulations they mean the helpful stuff mentioned above, stuff that has nothing to do with how blockchain/bitcoin functions, but has to do with making rules for the ecosystem to make things safer.

Yes. Bitcoin will loose it's core value if regulated. but you didn't understand one thing that regulating crypto exchanges or companies is not same as regulating Bitcoin. Bitcoin cannot be 100% regulated. so everyone who trying to regulate Bitcoin will end up with nothing at the end of the day.

I also think that pro-regulation crowd who think regulation is important and beneficial have a point. because everyday Crypto industry is getting filled with new type of scammers, with new ideas to steal peoples money. regulation can be really helpful to eliminate some of those scammers.

Except if they are also speculators themselves who are only interested in the numbers. This will result in lots of investors coming into Bitcoin with the only purpose of profiting from it with no intention of actually using bitcoins.

They can still promote the other utilities of Bitcoin, cause it will still be more secure than fiat on the network level and would still be very much borderless.

bitcoin ALWAYS had rules to "reject" "abandon" "ban" "orphan" "drop" "eviction" transactions that didnt meet consensus
yep buzzwords like "eviction" "rejection" belong in bitcoin terminology because it helps the network function cleanly
thats what consensus code does. defend the network. it creates rules about what conditions need to be met to fit in the network


the word censorship is abused because suddenly a group of sponsored devs want to ruin bitcoin, shift bitcoiners to other networks and leave bitcoin just handling junk
these idiots should not have the github maintainer keys to mess with bitcoin to make it filled with junk. they are doing bitcoin a dis-service
the junk was never part of bitcoin utility. its a new addition in the last few years. the exploit that allows it needs to be fixed

..
the devs shouting "censorship is bad" are the dev politicians that are governing bitcoin and regulating it into a junk chain and making it expensive for actual bitcoiners. these dev politicians promoting other networks are not bitcoins salvation..

the word censorship is a bait and switch buzzword.. its used to remove practical code that defends the network. to allow annoying junk to make bitcoin less useful

pro-regulated investors are not "bitcoiners"
they are fiat profiteers that just want to use bitcoin to make fiat profits..
they are not actually bitcoiners

they want to legally be able to temporarily handle bitcoin to not upset their fiat profits when its time to exit bitcoin

Do you think they care between regulated BTC or unregulated BTC in the first place? no, check the trading volume in Binance, you will see a lot people trade and hold their coins in Binance.

It doesn't need regulations or government interventions to censor Bitcoin, the fact is the developer and even the Bitcoin enthusiasts want to censor Bitcoin!

Miner avoid to include Coinjoin transactions
Many users support to censor ordinals inscriptions

If someone want to censor ordinals, you're nothing different with government that want to censor mixers.

Irrespective of what anybody says, I will always advocate for the sane world, too much freedom is a curse in society, so we should be careful of what we wish for and to do as no one will know the next victim of such freedom. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are good on their own and it would have been perfect if they could be left alone as it is now. But the heart of an average human being is wickedly wicked, that is why I will never agree to that, more regulation is needed, it will not solve the issue 100%, but will lessen the negative effect. I love the way the crypto transactions are private and somewhat anonymous and has helped us solve the cross-border payment issues where the top world countries alone had the most privilege. Nonetheless, a lot of people are using it for bad purposes too, that is my own concern here.

We can't leave it alone to freedom or let what we use it for judge our conscience, some people do not have a conscience, hence regulation is advised. However, I expect more regulations over time, a light one might be added in 2024 though, but in the next 5-10 years, cryptocurrency will have been effectively regulated whether we like it or not.

You can see the difference between exchanging freely and not. Regulation isn't completely detrimental, it can also offer you protection.

They occasionally have the desire to do so, only a handful because they have never experienced a technical fiat failure in an urgent situation (this really happened in several crisis countries).

If new regulations and new consensus from developers, community won't lead to censorship on Bitcoin blockchain, the core utility of the blockchain will be intact.

I only feel fearful if censorship comes on the blockchain which, if occurs, will make Bitcoin blockchain be no longer unique and different than altcoin blockchains that are all centralized and can be rolled back, censored.

Regulations can help to bring Bitcoin to mainstream if it help SEC. to approve Bitcoin Spot ETFs in the USA. and huge capital from Wall Street companies will come into Bitcoin and cryptocurrency market.

Yea I've heard this idea: regulation -> adoption -> price increase -> profit.

Once you regulate BTC it adopts a lot of the properties of fiat. But why would the type of person who only uses regulated currency see any difference between regulated BTC and regulated fiat? There would be no reason for them to substitute their fiat for BTC, right?

Of course it is expected that once a community grows big or grows bigger, there will always be some people who would want to change the order of things or might not see clearly what or how bitcoin should be

They do not really respect the main purpose of bitcoin and therefore only see bitcoin as an investment that they need to raise the price of so they can gain more profit it seems like a lot of people needs their bitcoin 101 again