Topic: Why they need a license if bitcon is not money? - page 13. (Read 4444 times)

The issue with the definition of money is that there are other characteristics which are supposed to be held by an assets to be considered to be money, not only the fact there is an existing and big liquidity for that asset. Otherwise, we could argue gold is money, because of its high liquidity and market. Account the the most conservative definition, for an asset to be money it would need to keep it's relative value through time, be accepted as unit of account and accepted for the exchange of good and services.
In the case of Bitcoin, it lacks the capability to keep it's value stable through time, hence why is a very good vehicle for speculation.
So, I could easily argue Bitcoin (as stands today) behaves more like an asset or commodity than actual money.
Though, volatility is not an imposible obstacle to avoid if a jurisdiction actually wants or desires to use Satoshis as a official currency. El Salvador is an example of it being possible.

All the problem with casinos and Bitcoin as money actually comes for the digital and decentralized properties of the Blockchain, which the governments and the authoritarian ones are scare of, thrus they need to push as much regulation as possible to slow down money laundering and other criminal activities, in detriment of the positive experience of legitimate gamblers who just want to have fun and try their luck.  

The issue of Bitcoin as money is so complicated having carefully read people's stances after my last post here. But so long as it is a medium at which a financial transaction is concluded/settled and can be exchanged for the actual money/fiat, it is arguably money. But it is more than that, the fact that there is no commodity to back Bitcoin is an issue here, and the test of Bitcoin as money is still at the early stage, what if it later fails? What I just mentioned are points that are casting doubts on Bitcoin as money which makes many support Bitcoin as money and others do not support it as money.

Above all, the definition of money itself still considers it as anything that is an asset and exchangeable for its worth. Since Bitcoin is an asset and is exchangeable for its worth, it's money in my conclusive view. But for it to be thoroughly fitting, I guess that there should be some kind of modification to the definition of money. They never considered an advanced situation like we now see in cryptocurrency when they actually tabled down the definition of money.

I totally agree with you, bitcoin is here to stay, and new regulations and new improvements will come with time, bitcoin will not be the same in the next 50 years.


We are not the ones who decide if bitcoin is money or not, governments are the ones who make that decision, just look at El Salvador, for them bitcoin is money, but for most of the countries bitcoin is just a digital asset. And that's the problem how can you regulate casinos where the users don't bet money?

Maybe you are right that mate that we can compare Bitcoin and gold for a reason but in reality Bitcoin is a Digital Currency so it means it is a type of money but Digital not Like fiat that we can see,feel and touch while Bitcoin is in online wallet's to be stored. Also we can not say that Bitcoin is not a money cause we can change from Bitcoin to fiat it means from Digital to a touchable money. And also the best thing we can say that Bitcoin is Money is that  nowadays we can buy something and pay using Bitcoin.

That's true because the most valuable online currency now is bitcoin, 1 btc for over $70k, as the adoption increases it has become more liable and the fact that it's regulated by the government, that only mean one thing, bitcoin is here to stay.

IMO, it's time to change our belief that bitcoin is not money because it is, we are not in the early stage where we still doubt the future of bitcoin, now it seems like the world already know it and thanks to regulation as it strenghten its value.

       -    Overall, for me, Bitcoin is money, not directly money, but it can be exchanged for money. Why? because it has the same value as gold. It's not even touched, but it can still be exchanged for fiat, so how can we say that it's not money? The logic is very simple: if he is not money, that means he is fake money, right? And fake money has no value, right?

Now tell me, is it true that Bitcoin is not money? because if others say that it is not money, it means that Bitcoin has no value, but in reality, a Bitcoin plays at 69 000 to 70 000 dollars. Is this the fake money with value that they say is not money? This is just my point.

I would go even a bit further. If the governments are ok to approve a bitcoin based ETF, that is regulated by the financial authorities and is gaining lot of momentum in the traditional financial forums as alternative investment, how can we still consider that Bitcoin is not some form of money. It is like gold in the sense that you can bet with gold and it is no fiscally different from money.

That's the rule of the government, they take taxes on anything that is making money, they don't tax bitcoin outright since by definition it's only currency or an alternative currency, what they will tax are those platforms that are running to make transactions possible, like the casino and exchanges, and there are also countries that taxes people, you know, when a gambler wins, they are obliged to pay taxes from it.

So it's either they'll ban it, or accept it to gain tax... if they will ban, it's not good for us as what we will do is illegal, so it's better to get tax that face consequences on our illegal actions.

Well said, that's how the government is, because they can't move or interfere with crypto especially bitcoin but they will find any loopholes to make a way for them to get money from crypto users so when they found out that other casino houses accept bitcoin as a means of payment, then they will take action and voila! Hello tax was their solution. Believe it or not, most of the government employees are aware of the movement of crypto so some of them have an idea of ​​what to do so that they can milk the citizens pocker who are crypto users, but to think of it, they themselves are crypto users as well.

The government cannot tax bitcoin directly but they can tax the platforms that are using bitcoin, most popular ones are casinos and exchanges. If a country does not like bitcoin, of course they'll ban anything that uses bitcoin, including gambling sites.

Since you explained that there's a country that doesn't like bitcoin and yet they tax or regulate a casino that is accepting bitcoin, can you name a specific casino you are referring?

Or we can use china as an example, we know that they ban bitcoin, so the question  is, do they regulate a casino that accepts bitcoin?

Although Bitcoin is not money per se since it has no commodity backings and is still young for a time-tested store of value. But notwithstanding, it can still be used for what money is used for because it can easily be exchanged for fiat currencies and even be used to purchase goods and services directly. Besides, what is making Bitcoin look more centralised is where licencing and KYC are being applied due to regulation and the cooperation of the companies dealing with it. They have to obey the authorities of the countries they operate or get their licence from, which will in turn require and expose a lot of the crypto dealings by the company and their customers.

This has so much influence on Bitcoin transactions as many details could be revealed, but not the Bitcoin system itself. It is just a way for it to still preserve its decentralisation characteristic but without hidden benefits again. For this, it is not the Bitcoin system and operation that is affected but where you use your Bitcoin and what you use it for.

           -   Yes, I thought about the title of this topic that you made. There are other countries that don't like bitcoin, and yet when there is a casino that applies under their regulation to legally operate in their country, they are given a license, even though the casino itself accepts bitcoin or cryptocurrency as one of the things that will be used. match the casino platform.

This really makes sense to me. Maybe that's because the government has as much interest in the casino itself and doesn't care about the system that the gambling platform has. Because the tax that the casino will pay is also taken from the gamblers who play on their gambling platforms, right?

I hope they keep to it, most online casinos also wanted to be like freebitco but along the line they join other popular online casinos that ask for KYC, I have been using freebitco since many years ago and they have never asked me for KYC before, I am impressed, but what if freebitco become as big as Stake some day? Won't that bring attention?

Online casinos can survive and still become successful under the radar without being  noticed, but when the attention gets bigger they might come looking for them, and they can be forced to go same route like big online casinos have done too.

I believe it's also important to take into account the influence of blockchain technology on the casino business because blockchain could make it simpler for players to monitor and confirm the fairness of games, potentially making regulation more unnecessary, and I think what you're saying about casinos like FreeBitco.in and Just-Dice.com operating without a license is valid. They've been around for a long and have earned a reputation for being reliable and fair. So, I believe a balance must be achieved between regulating the business and allowing for creative thinking and rivalry. So, I believe it's crucial to remember that gaming is heavily controlled for a reason.

It's important to note that while privacy is a valued aspect of cryptocurrencies, completely anonymous participation in crypto casinos might not be possible or legal in all jurisdictions, especially with licensed and regulated platforms.
So I think it depends on the goal. If crypto-casinos are based on legal compliance, operational integrity, and the need to protect users, then a license will be required (even if Bitcoin is not officially recognized as "money").
If it is only about the type of currency used for transactions, licenses mayby not be used. But in this case in our reality, players in such casinos can play not only with their bets, but also with the safety of their funds and personal information. Of course, if the market demands, then there will be such casinos, but very niche. The general mass will obey the law.

This is the reality of our world and the reality of developments in the field of cryptopayments.  Of course we must admit this if we want to be objective.

 But one big question remains, which is that millions of gamblers around the world, for various reasons, simply cannot afford to provide casinos with their personal data.  And games using cryptocurrencies are obviously well suited for them.  But at the same time, they will not undergo KYC in any case, since for them it immediately means the loss of their anonymity.  So, in order to still satisfy the needs of such players, I think there will still be casinos that will not require KYC from the player, and the player, in turn, will be sure that if he wins, he will receive his winnings guaranteed and without KYC verification. 
This niche in the crypto casino business must be occupied by some casino or a whole group of competing casinos.  And the reason for this is obviously due to the fact that there are still a huge number of gammbling people in the world who are ready to gamble, but only on condition of anonymity.

It seems that they are making it less and less possible, for the reasons you have stated above. In the end this long trend of becoming mainstream little by little increases liquidity to the point that bitcoin becomes effectively money-like. I guess that if casinos accepted deposits in copper certificates, then they would ask for KYC for any copper backed transaction

Now Bitcoin is gradually beginning to acquire the function of money and, accordingly, the attitude towards payments in Bitcoin is changing.  First of all, the attitude of the authorities of many countries is changing.  KYC requirements are being introduced everywhere, including for services such as casino gambling.  Overall, I believe that this is the wrong course of events and Bitcoin payments should be anonymous, as was intended by the founder of Bitcoin himself.  But the authorities of many countries simply do not care about such a property of cryptocurrency and blockchain as anonymity. 
Licensing, in my opinion, is also an element of how the authorities are trying to limit the freedom of anonymous payments in cryptocurrencies when playing in a casino.  But I don’t know for sure how and in what words the obligation to require crypto casino users to undergo KYC is written in the very rules for granting a casino license from Curacao or Malta. 
But I know for sure that in any case, the legally approved rules for working with personal information are the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), as enacted by the European Commission.  clearly establish the third principle (out of six principles), which states that a casino can only collect necessary personal information about an individual to provide the service.  And under no circumstances should it collect more unnecessary personal data.  This provision must be included in any license.  So sometimes wave casino only needs to know your email address and nothing more.  And their requirement to send a photo of your face and documents may be completely illegal and excessive.  Sometimes it can even be the subject of a legal dispute. 

But in any case, if possible, KYC in a casino should be avoided in my opinion

That is it,  so for that, we shouldn't have so much mixed up as to what Bitcoin have to do with KYC implementation because have no linking point, and at some point,  those that are speaking of such are just trying to create unnecessary arguments and not really being so much with indept knowledge or ability to differentiate both from each other.

Bitcoin is money,  because bitcoican be use for exchange of good and services and at rhat we need to take it that way,  and not be overly concern about Bitcoin interferences with kyc or what make casino to demand for KYC from Bitcoin users.

That's a great answer, the license is a part of the 3rd party games, and is the way to trust those non-provably fair games. Some users like to play those fancy slots even if they can't verify the rolls, but they feel the game was fair for the simple fact that the site has a license.

Just to conclude the topic, a license is not a warranty for the users. We have seen a lot of licensed casinos who has a terrible reputation, but their marketing strategies is so strong that they keep getting new users, and more than 50% of those new users will end up having a bad experience.