Wait a moment, we are talking about a system of written laws that is ineffective just because they do not address the topic of confidentiality? Look at Europe. In Germany, there are so many laws to protect personal rights that even when you are offended on the Internet, you cannot always use this information as evidence. Because the opponent did not consent to access confidential data. This is some kind of wildness and not laws. Do you want that?
Most likely, the car hints that the field of digital technologies is changing so quickly that now people wonder who exactly owns information about them and on what grounds. Do you know when the tax inspects your documents? What will you do if they come with a check? If the electronic system was built on the true principles of confidentiality and transparency, you could follow who makes a request for your information.
Topic: Why hasn't any government stopped Bitcoin? (Read 36271 times)
Wait a moment, we are talking about a system of written laws that is ineffective just because they do not address the topic of confidentiality? Look at Europe. In Germany, there are so many laws to protect personal rights that even when you are offended on the Internet, you cannot always use this information as evidence. Because the opponent did not consent to access confidential data. This is some kind of wildness and not laws. Do you want that?
Most likely, the car hints that the field of digital technologies is changing so quickly that now people wonder who exactly owns information about them and on what grounds. Do you know when the tax inspects your documents? What will you do if they come with a check? If the electronic system was built on the true principles of confidentiality and transparency, you could follow who makes a request for your information.Wait a moment, we are talking about a system of written laws that is ineffective just because they do not address the topic of confidentiality? Look at Europe. In Germany, there are so many laws to protect personal rights that even when you are offended on the Internet, you cannot always use this information as evidence. Because the opponent did not consent to access confidential data. This is some kind of wildness and not laws. Do you want that?
Most likely, the car hints that the field of digital technologies is changing so quickly that now people wonder who exactly owns information about them and on what grounds. Do you know when the tax inspects your documents? What will you do if they come with a check? If the electronic system was built on the true principles of confidentiality and transparency, you could follow who makes a request for your information.
Thanks to all advantages that bitcoin does have, big governments like Japan which are techno friendly have accepted it in mass. In fact in Japan there is even a big mall where you can buy things with bitcoin. Next on line is Australia which will try to accommodate bitcoin legally in early July, 1 July to be precise. These moves from such big countries has sparked the interested of many other governments which are quietly thinking of ways to legalize it.
At the early stages Russia ruled it as illegal, China outlawed all withdrawals and some other country also spoke against it. But now everything seem to be smoothing up at least on the government side. Surely Bitcoin must be seen as challenging their authority. Is there something I am failing to see? All it would take is a 51% attack or a new law.
there are government who has power to stop bitcoin in there country despite the decentralised nature of bitcoin, this is not because the nature is no more valid but because of the power and authority the goverment have over the people.few likely reasons behind this attempt could be taxation, internet fraud and crime control mindset..etc. At the early stages Russia ruled it as illegal, China outlawed all withdrawals and some other country also spoke against it. But now everything seem to be smoothing up at least on the government side. Surely Bitcoin must be seen as challenging their authority. Is there something I am failing to see? All it would take is a 51% attack or a new law.
Perhaps with such rapid growth and popularity and by seeing the enormous potential of bitcoin.
it attracts the attention of governments to give statements about the legality of bitcoin.
Although currently not many countries are adopting bitcoin and declare about its legality but it is proven that bitcoin can be a good innovator for the development of digital currency.
And with bitcoin declaration as the official payment instrument, it is necessary to revise finance law on bitcoin services for countries that have declared their Legality.
At the early stages Russia ruled it as illegal, China outlawed all withdrawals and some other country also spoke against it. But now everything seem to be smoothing up at least on the government side. Surely Bitcoin must be seen as challenging their authority. Is there something I am failing to see? All it would take is a 51% attack or a new law.
A new law on how they can stop Bitcoin? They should have done that when Bitcoin was just starting out, they are too late by 5 to 8 years, Bitcoin is moving fast in its adoption and there will be a time when the question will reverse and it will be, why this country or government hasn't adopted Bitcoin yet, or they will be left behind in this technology and will realize that they have no choice but to adopt Bitcoin.
At the early stages Russia ruled it as illegal, China outlawed all withdrawals and some other country also spoke against it. But now everything seem to be smoothing up at least on the government side. Surely Bitcoin must be seen as challenging their authority. Is there something I am failing to see? All it would take is a 51% attack or a new law.
Simply, Bitcoin is currently a decentralized open-source voluntary p2p network.
Each of the above terms prevents specific legal actions from occurring to the network.
Because it was clear that Bitcoin can help the economy of every country thru investments and the adaptation of Blockchain technology in which it is very useful to speed up any transaction. There is no proven claim too that Bitcoin destroy an economy that is why most of the countries are not against of Bitcoin.
Simply, Bitcoin is currently a decentralized open-source voluntary p2p network.
Each of the above terms prevents specific legal actions from occurring to the network.
Each of the above terms prevents specific legal actions from occurring to the network.
I don't think it would be so much of an easy task for government to stop bitcoin. First off, the government didn't create it. Secondly, it is not really one system that is regulated by anyone or a particular body, so it isn't going to be an easy one if the government decides to regulate it. And then, I don't really see it causing any danger, so why the need for it to be stopped?
There are about a dozen governments that have banned the use of bitcoin on their territory. This does not bring him significant harm, as long as he walks freely in other more than a hundred states. So far, the leading states do not see any threat from cryptocurrency to global financial stability and, first of all, because the volumes of the cryptocurrency market are still too small compared to other markets.
Yes, in fact the prohibition on bitcoin has occurred but indeed the ban that occurs in small countries will not have the effect for the use of bitcoin in large countries which in the end the cryptocurrency market continues to grow and slowly these restrictions become a thing that does not get serious attention due to a mass adoption.
There are about a dozen governments that have banned the use of bitcoin on their territory. This does not bring him significant harm, as long as he walks freely in other more than a hundred states. So far, the leading states do not see any threat from cryptocurrency to global financial stability and, first of all, because the volumes of the cryptocurrency market are still too small compared to other markets.
To stop Bitcoin you need to have leverage. For example, to know who is the creator of the coin.
Governments can prohibit the use of Bitcoin, but in no way the coin itself
Governments can prohibit the use of Bitcoin, but in no way the coin itself
Implied in this question is the notion that bitcoin COULD be stopped by any government. It CAN'T.
Even if they will announce bitcoin to be illegal, they cannot fully stop it. People can still do some transaction as long as miners are doing it, this is not a one company where we have centralized servers, this one is decentralized and it's hard for a centralized government to stop a decentralized system, which is bitcoin.
Also, I think it's not fair to stop bitcoin when it could contribute by giving a fast, cheap, and transparent transaction, in fact, they are given a help here because with blockchain everything can be trace, what they should do is start on focusing on how to regulate bitcoin.
Is because they knows the importance of bitcoin as future currency, nobody can stop the poewr of new technology which bitcoin is including from this progress of the technology in the world.
Government against bitcoin is because some of the reason bitcois economic sabotage but not until government understand how bitcoin can help to the economic growth in the future that's some countries want bitcoin to become regulated to collect taxes from digital currency.
Government against bitcoin is because some of the reason bitcois economic sabotage but not until government understand how bitcoin can help to the economic growth in the future that's some countries want bitcoin to become regulated to collect taxes from digital currency.
There are enough lobbyists that are working to convince the government about it's benefits. Ciphertrace was recently in Washington to tell them how bitcoin can actually provably show money laundering while other large companies are fighting for banking the unbanked
no wonder , Ciphertrace is protecting its business and wants to expandthey are cooperating with the agencies , making , by the way , your life harder
these are the institutions that are behind the " love letters " from IRS , since they trace the users who are trading through the exchanges such as Coinbase
and in this case Ciphertrace is right , making bitcoin transactions more transparent could lead to legalization of cryptocurrencies and no more fairytales about money laundering
that is done exclusively in cryptocurrencies and terrorism sponsoring , which might be happening through bitcoin but is negligible in comparison with the fiat volumes
There are enough lobbyists that are working to convince the government about it's benefits. Ciphertrace was recently in Washington to tell them how bitcoin can actually provably show money laundering while other large companies are fighting for banking the unbanked
Individual states may decide to prohibit the circulation of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, however, a separate state cannot control the implementation of its decision. To really prohibit the use of cryptocurrency, you need to turn off the Internet in the country, and this is already unacceptable, because there is too much information and various services. provided over the internet. Only if all states unite and prohibit the cryptocurrency circulation, only in this case its use will be very difficult. However, if at least several states do not prohibit its circulation and allow having exchanges on the territory of trade and the exchange of cryptocurrency on its territory, the cryptocurrency can continue to exist.
Implied in this question is the notion that bitcoin COULD be stopped by any government. It CAN'T.
It can be . there are countries that ban bitcoins .
They see the benefit of it esp in means of being able to better trace where funds have been coming and going. There are blockchain forensic firms like Ciphertrace who are helping bridge the gap between regulators and crypto community to better facilitate a mere shut down entirely
Cool . its nice to witnessed a government like that .
those who banned bitcoin may have their own valid reason on why they did it and we cant do anything about it but obey it just to stay away from trouble . but those who allow the use of bitcoin , they also have thier own good reason . they see that bitcoin can greatly improve the status of thier own country .
Jump to: