Bitcoin Forum

Legalization of Bitcoin in many countries has proven to be a very hot topic since there are countries which viewed Bitcoin as a threat since the currency is decentralized, not backed by anything and is gaining a strong following and use in such a short period of time. Bitcoin has become a phenomenon which caught many by surprise.


Perceived as threat, there are some government authorities who are proposing to regulate the cryptocurrency but as a compromise make it legal. It is as if they want a give and take kind of game.

Should we allow to get into the compromise as long as Bitcoin can be legal or should we make a strong stand against this scenario?

It absolutely needs to be on a legal accepted framework, otherwise any gov't can just come in and seize your assets. There is no stand to make, that fight for complete independence from gov't regulation has already been lost, most of us just haven't realized it yet.

Currently, you are very incorrect.

There are two forms of governmental regulation.
(1) "Indirect Regulation" which has no true power over the Network or Users.
(2) "Direct Regulation" which asserts governmental controls into the Protocol.

A "Legal Framework" within/upon the Protocol automatically terminates the token's
purpose. Arguing that this may have already occurred would contradict it's current
existence. If your belief actually occurs, you will see bitcoin's value drop to nothing.
The only people who would then remain are scammers, ponzi slaves, and ignoramuses.

What you are referring to is Indirect Regulation of the token by third party
systems that are not part of the Bitcoin Network. That "Legal Framework" is
worthless to the bigger picture. Those systems are expendable if necessary.

In addition, any government has the power to seize your property now, whether there
is a Legal Framework or not. Bitcoin/bitcoin is currently "legal" because illegality can
not be enforced. If it can be enforced by Direct Regulation, than your legalities are
actually governmental guarantees and the Network only functions by the sole whim of
that governmental controller. Obviously, if that occurs, Bitcoin no longer has value
since it provides no real utility. It's original function is negated.

Yeah, I think what we are seeing in Japan or Australia is indirect regulation of bitcoin which is necessary for its growth. These indirect regulations treat bitcoin as a currency or an asset and enforce up on it their currency or asset laws including taxes, but this doesn't give the government any true power over the network. Majority of countries haven't regulated bitcoins, but haven't proclaimed it illegal either.

I don't think direct regulation of a decentralized network is possible. The government could do three things with bitcoin.

Unregulated but legal/not illegal
Regulated and legal
Unregulated and illegal/banned

This is exactly the kind of position we all found ourselves or say bitcoin found itself that it not possible for whatever reason that bitcoin will be legalized without any form regulation because in as much we want recognition from government it has to come with a price but the government regulation I fee with be hard in those who wants to HSE bitcoin for illegal purpose which will make me go for the legalization with regulation option if I am to choose.

on the contrary,while it is NOT on a legal accepted framework,i.e. not legalised but not banned
the goverment cannot do a thing to you,except to "advise" you use it or not,like in China
once it is legal you get the rights to be protected by the laws if there are any,but you are subject to be taxed,regulated
persecuted if you break the law regarding bitcoins usage etc. etc.
if you are a business or deal with coins alot,you would most likely,prefer them legalised
if you are a regular Joe,then nonregulated is better-no headache no taxes,no forms to fill no nothing,just do it at your own risk

Yes, I agree with majority, especially with your list and will expand on it for
elaboration below:

(1) No Regulation & Enforced Illegal Use
(2) No Regulation & Non-Enforced Illegal Use
(3) Indirect Regulation & Legalized by Default.
(4) Direct Regulation & Legalized through Controls.

In a way, the four listed above is not only a group of possibilities, but could also
be a timeline of events. For example, When the first Bitcoin client was created and
the experiment was started, Satoshi and all participants were actually in a Stage (1)
scenario, but was not enforced against because it was still "underground" and "new".
Intelligence services monitoring the mailing lists and communications allowed the
experiment to go forward for curiosity and would not yet understand that at that
point in time, it was most vulnerable and "preventable".

As the system grew over time, the Network moved into a Stage (2) scenario
(around late 2010), where it is not actually possible to enforce against the participants
anymore, and this lasted until around 2013-2014 when Governments understood
they needed to protect citizens from consumer fraud and other crimes, due to new
unlicensed money transmitters and other Bitcoin businesses. This was Stage (3) and
we are currently still within this stage. This was the intended Goldilocks Zone, since
it forms a legal limbo under the current legal rules and interpretations in most
jurisdictions.

For a Stage (4) scenario to come about, the Client and the Protocol would need to
have either a government or corporations/banks that are in control of the Bitcoin
Client or it's Protocol directly. This is what the current battle in Bitcoin is really about.
Big blockers have been infiltrated by attackers to the Network, attempting to bring
about a Stage (4), yet they don't care, but willingly welcome these enemy soldiers
under the premise that, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", yet obliviously they
too will be punished in the end like all others who participate in this system. No one
will be spared when a Stage (4) becomes a reality.

All true Bitcoiners, which enjoy this system for more than the simple monetary value,
should resist and attempt to prevent actions that could lead toward a Stage (4) scenario.
If that scenario occurs, Bitcoin no longer provides freedom or the ability to "help the
unbanked" or etc, it will literally becomes a more "authoritarian Paypal". This form of
payment system, under a Stage (4) scenario is worse than the current financial system
and what was attempted to be corrected.

So, Direct Regulation of a Decentralized System (Stage 4) is possible, as long as the
participants give up on the decentralized nature of the system, by centralizing the
miners AND all validator nodes. Bitcoin as a Stage (3) only exists now because the
blockchain can be easily and reasonably maintained and used for validation & compliance
on personal home computers. This was the design and going into Stage (4) is clearly
experiment failure.

Over here currently, its not anywhere close to what we could refer to the bolded part because it seems people are either shying away or dont know about bitcoin. But either, way its a discussion that would happen whether we like it or not sooner or later but at the same time, if government cannot stop bitcoin and we all wont want it to be declared illegal since it would come with punishment for anyone who do otherwise, then I guess we only have one option left which is to go with bitcoin being regulated and perform our activities within the framework established by the law of the land.

Though a law hasn’t been passed to govern bitcoin transactions globally, it is self explanatory that the kind of activities a person carries out with bitcoin ascertains whether it’s legal or illegal. To ensure maximum protection to users their are various precautionary steps being taken by Bitcoin Wallet agencies, to prohibit the users from indulging in speculative activities.

I personally prefer legal and regulated. Regulation is nothing bad as long as it's just, meaning there are laws written down, that state if and how much taxes you have to pay, but in return you're getting some protection from the courts in case you get robbed or scammed. Regulation gives less ground to false accusations. They can't jail you for trading and say you were distributing money when all laws are already written down.

Most of the forward thinking governments around the world aren't actually as against digital assets as you'd think.

An asset class doesn't have to be heavily regulated for governments to have positive feeling towards it.

The gold bullion market has a somewhat loose regulatory structure - far more loose than the securities markets for example.

But, despite this, we all are aware of the obsession that governments have for gold.

The fact that most of the relevant powers in the world are taking a 'light touch' approach toward creating regulation in the bitcoin market is actually a showing of support and or backing from government.

Overall, they are holding back on creating legislation that could potentially limit the growth and expansion of digital assets. This can be perceived as a sign of silent support.

I may be drastically wrong but, I personally do not view digital assets as a threat to government authority - but rather as a tool that may serve to enhance and boost the efficiency of government: much like the internet.

Ultimately, digital assets, will do a lot to boost the strength of the global economy.

For some reason I sincerely believe that the economy will be expanded, by epic proportion, due to the possibility of machine to machine and human to machine commerce - made possible by the blockchain.

For every one human being, there are two internet enabled devices.

Artificial intelligence is here today! And this world of AI is converging with the world of the Internet of Things. In short, 'smart' devices are becoming 'intelligent' devices.

What happens when these devices begin to transact with each other?

Once iOT converges with the world of digital assets, innovation will take a certain course that will cause the world economy to triple in size and value - due to machines becoming active participants in the global economy.

This will only be possible if the blockchain is given the regulatory room to breathe. I could be wrong but, most of the governments seem to be aware of this.

there can't be regulation without legalization, your question doesn't make much sense, if you don't legalize it first how can you regulate it?

there is not a single thing that is illegal but then regulated it make no sense, because you think that in japan for example where they regulate it they didn't legalize it first? obviously yes...

I will choose Unregulated but illegal because there is no regulations or laws that should be follow. There is no need to pay tax and it will not be controlled by the government. So we are free to do anything that we want because there is no rules that we should follow.

Many countries already are investigating to launch their own cryptocurrency. It's obvious they would prefer a clean start with proven trackrecord and personalized.

For me bitcoin has to be somehow less regulated than other currencies. I am saying this because even fiat currency are regulated, but they aren't only legal transactions happening around the world. It sure, needs to be a tiny bit regulated, to try to stop the  transactions happening because of bad things. And saying that, I don't think this currency should be banned, and perhaps, it would be better to integrate it once it's less volatile.

I will be on the advantage place, legal but regulated. If we choose the other way around I think we're guilty of being a unlawful citizen or we have something to hide that's why. Regulation is not a bad thing, it is for our own good in general but we must be aware how our government taking things out because they were prone of abuses. Corruption is not new to any country especially in government so give attention to that all the time.

Whether we like it or not, the government is mandated to protect its citizens from any investments that exist. And also we can't deny the fact that bitcoin is prone to abuses by those members of bitcoin community who earned through the suffering of others like scammed sites. Criminal activity is the mean reason this cryptocurrency and Blockchain being a hot topic by any government official in every country. And I agree bitcoin must be legalized.

Many countries seem to have a hard time defining and regulating Bitcoin. The current legal framework is not enough to deal with cryptocurrency revolution, thus most countries still have not considered Bitcoin to be an additional legal tender just like the function of their central bank issued fiat money.

I think there is no harm in being LEGAL of btc but it should not be on the cost users interest. Indirect regulation which protect legal interest of the USERS will be the right way to make crypto's regulated. central authorities will soon take a firm stand on after seeing the growth of crypto-market.

i think theres no harm in making it legal

however trusting the government to do it quick and right, well, that's another topic.

Actually their are many harms when it will become legal. Seeing it virtual and how decentralized it is, the government really does not have any hold or trackings of cash deposits beind made in a certain country. They cant fully control trades that would happen everyday. Economically it may help the citizens but not directly the government. Plus it wont be just some common civilian would invest, Corporations will also take oppurtunity leaving more btc to a certain business rather than the government itself.

I preferred the legal way because i'm favor of regulating the bitcoin or the ICO, by means of legal it will ensure the protection of the welfare of the people preventing from joining scam sites and ICO in which their hard earned money is at risk, while becoming a legal means a tax will be a policy which mean it will reduce our earning but not totally lose in which may happen any time if you will become a victim of fake ICO. So which you will preferred? Reduce earning or your investment is at risk of totally lost because of scam?

anything that is not mentioned by the law to be illegal, is legal.  ;)

It's two things when you're trying to legalize and having the government's finger in it.
Of course they're going to want to create structure and monitor everything. Navigating that ground will be a challenge.

I will choose the first one “Legal but regulated”, I’m more on a law follower than a a law breaker. As far as i have knowledge on our country’s stand on bitcoin is “Neutral (not legal and not illegal) but regulated”, the exchanges Is monitored by the central bank and government agency handling cyber investments.

Regulating bitcoin can have bad and good implications but if it is for the best and security of our investments, why not. After all the government is thinking and serving for the people’s welfare.

In this case i would favour legalized and regulated . I know the nature of bitcoin is decentralized and this is why bitcoin is so different from other currencies but this is restricting bitcoin to be widely used by people . If bitcoin is legalized and regulated in a country then there will be  no fear of using bitcoin. Moreover the crimes associated with bitcoin will also be reduced in that country . If the money or wallet is stolen then there would be legal actions and inquiry agains the theif . So  i guess it will be a bettet scenario for the honest bitcoin users to use bitcoin in a fearless environment.

It seems to me that legalization of bitcoin this will be the beginning of its end. For a start, the government will impose big tax but will collect a database on all users. When the government is ready it will inflict the final blow. For example, impose a tax of 80-90%. And then it will be difficult to resist them. I will never believe that the government is interested in the legalization of bitcoin. We need to resist now. Bitcoin is public property and the state should not have any impact in this area.

My government still not regulate bitcoin yet so it's illegal but I can still own bitcoin without being fear to get bust by police since they still not make any legit policy against bitcoin.
They made wise decision because bitcoin can be use for criminal activity but in other side, everyone are looking efficient and cheap transaction especially on this digital era.

I have the same sentiments and fears. I'd go for the compromise. It's risky to possess something which is illegal.  still respect our land's laws and have fear for it. I'm still a law abiding citizen above anything else. It would be better even if there would be some regulations - taxes and whatnot. I'm more scared of confiscation for the illegal possession of bitcoin.

We have no choice. As the popularity for bitcoin and crypto is increasing, it is but inevitable for crypto regulation to happen.

Sometimes regulation is a good thing and the most of time goes badly but let just give the government the chance to make an arrangement that they can offer the best deal that is beneficial to bitcoin enthusiast and for the improvements on the state.. Countries needs our taxes and we need the government to get those criminal minded bitcoin scammers who are giving cryptocurrency a bad name.. I will go a legal way but regulated.

I'll choose Legal But Regulate, but why does it sound like regulation is bad. I think it is part of every law and policies on monetary activities to be maintained and regulated. As for the regulation, i would love it if the Government will not put too much effort and time just to extract a little piece from the cryptocurrency, let the regulation be inside the box of preventing Money Laundering and not generating tax from it.

I would prefer legal but regulated because I don't want to do something illegal. Currently, our government do not have regulations yet regarding bitcoin but they did not declare it to be illegal so people can still use it freely along with the tax free status in our earnings because they cannot classify it yet. However, they are looking into it and just issued warning to the people to be always be vigilant because many are taking advantage especially the scammers. I don't think that having it legal is something bad because the government would just want to protect its citizens from investing in something not protected by the law.

I keep myself out of any illegal issues when the topic is money. To be legal but regulated is the best choice we can get from this all dramas happening in the cryptocurrency vs banks word war. If the government will make some laws that might worked with us, investors maybe it will worked. Is bank will stop complaining when we are totally legalized? Nope, but still we can answer straight with a laws accordingly.

I prefer for legal but regulated I dont want any legal activities about bitcoin ,government must imposed law by  it and we should follow it for the sake of our money especially in terms of our investments.If they will give a law from bitcoin we should follow their rules and regulations and also their policies just to be in good terms and legal by bitcoin.

i think its more beneficial to have a regular but regulated type of option in bitcoin, because it is much more easy to use bitcoin and you dont have to hide from the government in using it, unlike when it is illegal its like youre selling drugs because you have to hide from the government.

The popularity of bitcoin largely stems from the fact that it is not available to regulate whether anyone. All of what concerns the state is doomed. I am sure that the regulation may simplify the use of bitcoins only for a short time. Then bitcoin will lose its popularity. It is not related to illegal actions. People simply do not trust politicians and want to be independent.

Im not sure ....Bitcoin is the first decentralized peer-to-peer payment network that is powered by its users with no central authority or middlemen. From a user perspective, Bitcoin is perhaps best described as ‘cash for the Internet’, but Bitcoin can also be seen as the most prominent triple entry bookkeeping system in existence.

I am for bitcoin remains unregulated. For me it does not matter be it legal or not. People must finally understand that the power belongs to the people not just words. With bitcoin we can force the government to go to meet people. If people want to use bitcoin then no the ban is not a hindrance to that.

When it comes into a certain thing that would really be already come to a point on where it is being controlled by the government then popularity would really lose up which isnt just like before.People would really still prefer on bitcoin on unregulated way not only seeing on the illegal way but on the privacy that we do get from it. Far away from being detected or being surveillance for those people who are above on ranking.
I would rather choose up on this current situation.

Why are we so against with regulation anyways? I mean is it really that bad for what we call as a currency to become a regulated one in out country? Think about it being regulated means the government will sort of have control with it meaning that it has a chance to be stable and more usable for use consumers. Most of the government does not see it as a threat but in order to be safe they must control it somehow in order for their economy not to be affected. What is the use of an illegal currency anyways if they have the power to block it?