Topic: Why Governments Ban Cryptocurrency {Bitcoin} - page 4. (Read 796 times)

The government likes control.  When they cannot regulate or control it, they ban it. The decentralized nature of some cryptocurrencies like bitcoin has prevented the government from tracking the activities of the people. If the government allows the usage of Bitcoin,  government revenue will be affected because it will be difficult for the government to ascertain the percentage of tax to be imposed on the citizens. And we know that citizens will prefer to go for an option that will save costs. The value of fiat too will reduce.  This they know, hence the decision to ban bitcoin.

The government also want to be in control in terms of welfare and safety of its citizens.  We have heard of cases where people are kidnapped and a ransom is demanded before the victims can be released or cases of fraudulent practices. Most of this culprits were tracked down from the bank transactions they did. It will be difficult for a culprit doing business with crypto to be tracked and punished accordingly.
The list goes on and on. Cryptocurrency is a threat to the government.

It's easy sometimes things are not as expected because governments are not direct participants in Bitcoin, but I believe and know that many of the municipal governments have bitcoin in hodl mode, and they continue to actively buy, because they know that the bticoin is going to go up, and if it goes up they will still win, but for people they say that they are against it because they do not trust that class of assets, they say that it is dangerous and that they do not Recommend it, but if they buy , then they take advantage and charge the taxes on the people who use it , and they use the regulations to maintain their Positions Before their people , the truth is a Dirty play.

There are many reason of banning bitcoin, the first reason governments are afraid of bitcoin’s importance, if bitcoin is legal the people start buying bitcoins in their country and ultimately the devaluation of their own currency starts. The other reason is smuggling government of different countries thinks people do smuggling through payments in bitcoin.

This topic has been discussed quite a lot and we here already know what the answer is because the government is afraid of Bitcoin. Bitcoin has various features that could disrupt the adoption of fiat for the wider community. They are concerned that more people will adopt Bitcoin and that makes Bitcoin the best alternative to banking that provides affordable, equitable and decentralized financial services for society. Therefore, they inhibit the adoption of Bitcoin and as far as possible do not allow their people to use it as a means of payment to replace the role of fiat and banking.

Govts and Bitcoin. This is a typical fight between old and new, centralized and dispersed power. Governments have always set conditions, regulations, and taken their share of the pie. Bitcoin threatens this status quo by creating an unmanageable, untrackable system beyond their reach.

Its deeper than that. Bitcoin's intellectual and socially open community is a major social change. These communities want authority to be distributed democratically. The fabric of our civilizations is being rewritten, not simply finance. Bitcoin presents complex issues and has significant potential.

Governments can print fiat currencies, can mint their CBDCs and they want their citizens to use those fiat currencies, CBDCs as much as possible. Because with those currencies, they already have centralized systems to follow flows and can help their taxation governance better.

They don't want Bitcoin to become more popular, more easily to be accepted in their nations because they do know it's big threat for their currencies (fiat and CBDC).

Governments don't care about supply of Bitcoin but they are fearful that Bitcoin with its designs and use cases can get more people who change from cash, fiat currency, CBDC to use Bitcoin. It will make their bank systems weaker and result in more challenges for their taxation.

In simple words, the government wants to have control over the currency and they will not be willing to give a free hand to the public when they use bitcoins as a medium of exchange. The governments can print fiat money, so they are always in control and they are always rich because they get money out of thin air.

This is not possible when it comes to Bitcoin as no government or financial institute can print Bitcoin. Bitcoin supply is limited and that is one of the reasons why financial institutions oppose bitcoins as they need a flexible currency that they can print without keeping gold or anything in backup/reserve.

It is normal that when there is a change there will be pros and cons, and of course this can actually be addressed well. Every development certainly has positive and negative values, so that there is no development that immediately achieves perfection, the same is the case with bitcoin, where there are several considerations that make it unacceptable, and of course this will be answered with time which requires technological changes, because conventional ones is no longer relevant

Governments do not legitimize Cryptocurrencies because Governments have no control over Cryptocurrencies. So the government is always against it.

It's true that many governments worldwide have expressed concerns about Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. The former European Central Bank President's skepticism and various other opinions reflect the complex relationship between governments and decentralized digital currencies.

Governments often ban or heavily regulate cryptocurrencies for several reasons. One key factor is the decentralized nature of Bitcoin. As a decentralized currency, it operates outside traditional financial systems, which makes it challenging for governments to control and monitor funds. This can raise concerns about financial security and tax evasion.

Additionally, as Bitcoin's adoption grows, it poses a potential challenge to governments' ability to maintain control over their national currencies. People worldwide are increasingly turning to Bitcoin as a form of currency and store of value, which can diminish the government's influence over monetary policy.

While it's true that cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin can be volatile, leading to concerns about their trustworthiness, they also offer several advantages. One of these advantages includes lower transaction costs. For instance, Coinremitter, a crypto payment gateway, offers a competitive 0.23% processing fee, making it a cost-effective solution for businesses and individuals.

Crypto payment gateways like https://coinremitter.com/?utm_source=rep&utm_medium=bitcointalks enable businesses to accept Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as payment, expanding their customer base and financial options. This innovative approach to payments can benefit both businesses and consumers while allowing governments to adapt to the changing financial landscape.

In conclusion, the debate around Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies is multifaceted, with concerns about government control, trustworthiness, and volatility playing a role. It's essential to strike a balance between fostering innovation and addressing these concerns, and crypto payment gateways like Coinremitter are part of that evolving landscape, offering competitive fees and facilitating the broader adoption of cryptocurrencies.

I think it is impossible to ban bitcoin and cryptocurrency because they are decentralized, which is impossible to ban. Yes, we can call it a ban, not a restriction. The countries that have banned bitcoin do not mean a categorical ban; they mean restrictions. And in my opinion, Bitcoin can only be brought to the limit of restriction because it is a decentralized network, and it is impossible to fully control and ban it. As you said, Russia, China, etc. have banned Bitcoin. So they have not imposed a full ban but have restricted it. 10.1% of the whole population of Russia is still engaged in Bitcoin, but according to you, Russia has banned Bitcoin.

So what I mean is that Bitcoin is a decentralized pity under blockchain technology; no one can ban it, and those who have Bitcoin assets can share them with each other without third-party assets under a peer-to-peer network. Therefore, there is no fatwa of ban on it, but only to say that measures of restriction have been taken to prevent it.

Obviously, there is no doubt that the government is afraid of Bitcoin because it is afraid of the two major problems facing the government due to Bitcoin. The first is that Bitcoin will end the government's fiat currency, which they do not want, and the second is that Bitcoin is used for money laundering, although the justification for money laundering is based on zero tolerance. This is not strong evidence of money laundering for not recognizing Bitcoin. Moreover, decentralized (Bitcoin) is thousands of times better than this government's actual currency.

So it means that it is the lame excuse of those who are not ready to adopt Bitcoin. But we cannot do anything because we are subordinate to them; the will of those who want to do it is the ruler. We can only advise him on Bitcoin adoption and nothing else. But there will definitely come a time when the government will recognize Bitcoin.

I also hope that the reason the country bans bitcoin is purely because of the reasons you say. There is no other meaning.

But imo, This is mainly because the government cannot regulate and track it. The government wants to be able to investigate your bank activities if necessary, freeze assets, obtain taxes, etc. Since it was distributed, Bitcoin exists in many different locations at the same time. This makes it very difficult for one regulatory agency to impose its will across national borders. This also means that the government or other third parties technically cannot raid an office and shut anything down.

Apart from that, what makes them afraid of bitcoin, because bitcoin is a combination of finance, technology and utility along with an intellectual community and a socially open community. This leaves ancient ways of life behind and opens up many possibilities for a future as a global humanity without government interference.

I have heard arguments from some government officials that for them to enforce economic policies it is important for them to control the the financial system. The want to know how much is circulating in the economy. But this not true because huge funds are still smuggled into the country everyday and they cannot control its circulation. People should be allowed to make their financial choices.


The assumption that the government is banning or restricting cryptocurrencies because they could be used for criminal activities is a cover-up of the main intentions of these authorities. After all with the recent development of new technology tools the government has been able to track and recover stolen or scammed cryptocurrencies They are just scared of losing control of the financial transactions of some people. They should focus on the problems and stop pursuing shadows.

With only a public address, nobody can identify who owns that address if you don't let others know you are the owner.

If you use a throw away account to post that address and if you don't let any possible trace to your identity from that account, you are anonymous owner of that Bitcoin public address.

Like Satoshi Nakamoto's identity is still unknown after many years and we only know about public addresses posted by Satoshi Nakamoto. The public address can not help you to be anonymous if you have other bad practices with your coins and addresses.

Does your wallet address or the wallet itself shows your name or anything that can show your identity to someone? No, it doesn't, and that is the reason why Bitcoin is said to be pseudonymous which means that one can see your transactions or the balance but they can't know who is actually behind that wallet and that is enough privacy in my opinion. No one will ever know that a certain wallet is yours unless you have given your address to someone yourself and told them that it's your wallet address.

This is also one of the reasons why governments are mostly against Bitcoin because it promotes privacy and decentralization, and the authorities will barely be able to identify the owner of a certain wallet or a transaction unless they find a way to regulate all the transactions using some sort of KYC or something.

Yep, most governments are just afraid of their people or the protection of the consumers. As we all know, a lot of tragedies are already happening in the cryptocurrency market where millions/billions have already been lost due to scam/hacking incidents or illicit activities.

You make a valid point, and indeed, the perception of Bitcoin by governments often tends to be binary. Heres my take on it. For governments, especially in regions with low Bitcoin awareness, they often resort to the familiar. Its always easier to reject what one doesnt understand. And as you rightly said, for many politicians, understanding Bitcoin is time-consuming, and the lack of widespread support doesnt help either.

However, isnt the very nature of innovation to challenge established norms and systems? And with that challenge, often comes resistance. Its easy for them to label Bitcoin as a tool for illicit activities, but isnt every technological advancement vulnerable to misuse? Computers, the internet - all had their fair share of skepticism. Yet, here we are.

The real issue here, might be the fear of change. Governments fear the unknown, and Bitcoin, for many of them, is still an enigma. Educating them, then, becomes the community's shared responsibility

I think there are more reasons why they are just banning bitcoins and want to disconnect themselves in any way shape or form regarding cryptocurrency. due to the fact that some people are still ignorant of it, their people might become prone to many Ponzi scheme scammers that are on the loose who used bitcoins as their props to fool people. it's important that they have some basic knowledge first and some preventive measures on how to protect themselves from such scammers and hackers as well, in order to save themselves from false investment platforms and other scenarios that lead them to lose all their savings. that's why some governments take countermeasures in order to protect their citizen but as soon as their people are aware of all of this they lift the ban and stay neutral about it.

Governments which ban Bitcoin have a common characteristic among themselves, despite presenting different reasons for the ban: they have overcontrolling tendencies and don't take the individuality of citizens as a postive trait for the rise and development of the country.

These governments want to shape the society on the path they think it's ideal in theory. Anyone who goes against it must be punished and cancelled. So decentralized tools which empower citizens in an autonomous way are completely censored, especially Bitcoin which brings a decentralized concept into finances.

Overcentralized governments want to know everything people are doing in real time, and Bitcoin makes this harder for them, although not completely impossibilitates.

Bitcoin offers many benefits when adopted by a country. Bitcoin do not have to topple the Fiat in a country when used together with a country's currency it strengthens it. If bitcoin is adopted in more countries other than El Salvador those countries would experience an increase in the wealth of its citizens. Another benefit is that such a country would become even more technological advanced in terms of payment systems and even cyber security. And if it is a country where there is a high rate of crime we might see that with the adoption of Bitcoin where most citizens of the country have bitcoins they might be a drop in crime rate because of course the way it will be equally distributed across the citizenry.