Bitcoin Forum

https://www.xm.com/research/markets/allNews/reuters/just-give-us-our-money-taliban-push-to-unlock-afghan-billions-abroad-44779875

The Taliban will never EVER see that money again. If only there was a robust, self-sovereign, censorship-resistant currency that an entity can actually HODL in their own actual custody, without any counterparty trust. 8)

I get the idea, but that putting Bitcoin as something that helps the Taliban doesn't look good to me. Maybe they will learn their lesson and buy Bitcoion for what is good for them but they have a mentality of the Middle Ages. They don't seem to be very open-minded about decentralized systems.

Now that would be interesting.

China / The Chinese government regulates religion in general and regulates it a lot. Beyond that they are very anti Islam. Would they deal with the Taliban on an even scale or would they just take what they want and screw them over? Or would the Chinese government try to enforce their will on them if the Taliban wants to trade.

But Wind_FURY does have a point, storing your nations money in another nation can have repercussions for you. Or if you look at it from the other side, it does let the nation who has your money control you a bit.

-Dave

Do you imagine what will happen to Bitcoin,if the taliban regime actually bought and hold Bitcoins?
The trolling about Bitcoin being "the currency of the scammers,criminals and terrorists" will return in full scale.
We don't need this s*it.The big western countries might even decide to ban Bitcoin,only because a regime like the talibans would buy and use Bitcoins.
The USA had spent 2 trillion dollars in Afghanistan with zero results.Of course that they will block a few billion dollars of Afghanistan reserves held by US banks.

It's a double edged sword.
On one hand this proves the country's solvability and it may be OK to be done in a way a third party stops you selling it all too fast (to protect others), hence not great for Bitcoin (maybe unless done somehow with some x-of-y multisig wallet).
On the other hand, as said, the other country can do things from freezing those funds to even seizing them.

However, now all foreign currencies are banned in Afghanistan (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59129470).

Don’t be so sure about that, because until a few years ago these same Taliban were the world’s number one enemy and the terrorists against whom the US spent hundreds of billions of dollars - and then suddenly overnight they became good guys. Funds frozen abroad now serve as a means of forcing them to move in another direction, in fact one that would be in the interests of the US and the EU.

It is completely absurd to bring the Taliban (at the moment) into any connection with Bitcoin, they have just banned all foreign currencies in the country (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59129470).

But let's say they have a large amount of BTC, and if their deposit addresses are known, it would be very easy for these funds to be blacklisted (at least as far as all known crypto exchanges are concerned).

But this is an argument for third-party custody, not against it. If the deposed Afghani government held their reserves in Bitcoin, there would have been a risk that the funds could have ended up in the hands of Taliban, because the government would either had to make a Bitcoin transaction to some other party outside the country or try to physically move the wallets. The first option requires a trusted third party, the second option is vulnerable to physical attack by Taliban.

I hope we all agree here that billions of dollars not falling into the hands of Taliban is a good thing?

That's true! That's how the banking system works and that's why people need cryptocurrency. No doubt about it!

But that brings us to the next question - if a sovereign state wants to avoid such international banking ban, what would be the best solution - adopt an existing cryptocurrency or create a new digital currency system like Petro? I know petro failed but that doesn't mean all other state backed cryptos will fail too!

True, frozen funds are going to be used as bargaining chip by the west to force Taliban loose their extremist policies in exchange for the money. In the end every sides win politically talking... And considering how bad the situation already is, I think that is not a terrible attempt by the west to make things a little better.

On the other hand, in a scenario where bitcoin were adopted in Afghanistan, it wouldn't be good for Taliban anyway, because common citizens could convert their funds into the digital currency, fearing a seizure from the terroristic group, what would weak the influence of the government in the local economical scenario. Actually, crypto miners ran away from the country as soon as Taliban took the power, fearing retaliation against their businesses and freedom of speech by censoring digital gadgets and even the internet.

There's no hope for them to take that reserve, they probably have to try it again if they'll be allowed but for sure reasons, they won't be.

True, they have a better relationship in China but it's more China that will have a better situation there. They'll probably do the Chinese debt trap to Afghanistan as they needed a larger fund as they request but for sure, there should be a collateral and favor for China.

Reports showed that United States army left talibans billions of dollars worth military and other equipment, over 200 aircrafts, 45 helicopters, over 75,000 vehicles, drones, rifles, bombs and who knows what else.
That is more than many countries have combined, and list is much longer, that makes you wonder why they really did such thing and not destroying it if they couldn't bring it back.
Regarding Bitcoin, I would not count on any government (legal or illegal) to hold Bitcoin for me, and if someone really want they could track and try to blacklist their bitcoins for any trading, and CZ can't washtrade anymore.
I think that citizens should should be responsible for their Bitcoin individually, not some institution.

Its more the citizens who will pay, I would like to think if there ever was a "currency"
which offered that as @Wind_FURY suggests  ::), the Taliban would use at least
some of it to ease the suffering of Afghanistan's citizens.

Giving it to someone else to "mind" it is essentially the same as "not your keys,.........."

Of course the banks in Europe and U.S will be VERY reluctant to release those
funds to a rogue government such as the Taliban.

I guess that will entail locking up national fund (which would be in crypto) in smart-contract based on national rules, that can only be released to another government once all agreements are fulfilled.
If the contract says only release the fund to legitimate government (government that follows the law or did what is moral to come into power), nothing will be released if they didn't meet the requirement.

It's more of a military blunder on the US side, they never thought that the Taliban will get back the seat of the government in just matter days. That's why they didn't think about the billions of dollars worth of military and equipment they have left in the country.

And yes, I do agree, it's a double edge standard, on the other hand bitcoin can be that currency that is censor resistant, but imagine if the current government was able to get hold of that billions, what do we think they will do? build schools, have a good relationships with other government around the globe? Nah, they would rather re-arm themselves to the teeth again.

You are right, even that has been clearly seen with the agreement between the two sides between Afghanistan and China which agreed to rebuild the construction infrastructure destroyed by the war. They plan to make a deal to give away some of Afghanistan's wealth on the condition that China provides assistance to get back into running its new country. Besides that, China demands that Afghanistan provide land for the construction of the One Belt One Road (OBOR) program for China, which has been the goal of connecting China to Middle Eastern countries as well as all countries affiliated with it.

The reason why it's not a good idea for nation states to hold bitcoins, is because they might try and influence the market in their own way, the illegal activities especially with Taliban might be problematic for the long term. I do hope they don't try and hold bitcoins since it would cause troubles for the long term.


At the same time the whole idea of putting a strong nation in charge will cause troubles as well. There is no single reason to believe they would be fair.

Smart contracts are an amazing idea.

The people in Afghanistan should try and hold some bitcoins though, it would help them a long way since the government is basically done for they would get a backup and would be able to earn profits as well.

A complicated situation here let's see how it goes.

They are not open minded with their own citizens. How can they be open minded with a decentralized system ?

To be honest, I am happy that those Taliban people are suffering these things but at the same time I feel bad for the Afghan people since they have to go through the same thigns.
Mass starvation and migration crisis problems are still huge problems in Afghanistan without any proper solution.

I doubt those banks will ever release that money to the Talibans. Unless and until their regime are ousted, and a favored government of the West assumes power on the said country, the money the previous administration safekept on foreign lands will be frozen. They can ask China for financial assistance due to their relationship with the said country, but we know what happens when China lends its 'helping hand' to an ailing country. It doesn't always end favoring those who asked for it. Then again, the Talibans are out of options, and they would, most probably, just take the bullet and hope for the best.

While you make a good point it is a rare situation indeed that this happens, so maybe more of an extreme example to illustrate a point that is unlikely to affect most countries ever. A possible downside for Bitcoin, if it were to replace the holdings of foreign currency or gold that these seized assets represent, is that it can be stolen by anyone with internet access. Now it is extremely difficult to ever hack a wallet, but some disgruntled employee or virus getting on to an Afghani banking system could result in huge amounts of money being lost without trace. It could happen to the US banking system, but that is a lot more traceable and the money would likely be returned through various means and pressure.

I can't imagine what will happen. Is there any possibility that you guys are predicting that the Taliban might invest in bitcoin with the money held in other countries' banks? If you are guessing these things, I can't predict what the hype is going to get. But there is another swindle, such as when the Taliban buys bitcoin to conduct transactions, but then sells it because they need money, and they use bitcoin to transfer money from other countries to them.Then what will happen? It might be if we see a huge pump, then we might see a huge dump too. Then we might call it "fud" too. What is your opinion? It's mine, thanks.

Isn't it surprising enough that they did at all decide to hold all that money with banks essentially out of their reach in times of crises or coordinated attacks? Who would do that? I am puzzled, I mean they most likely did plan their attacks for a long time. Maybe they thought transferring that money out might be a suspicious on their behalf?

“Doesn’t look good for you”, but there’s no “you” or “me” in the blockchain, and the transactions that happen in the blockchain.

One of those might be the Taliban, https://blockstream.info/tx/recent 8)


But they will be open-minded with what is practical.

Plus what’s the difference between El Salvador and the Taliban in the context of them making their Bitcoin transactions? None.

I remember reading about them destroying most of it, but not everything got wrecked.

You can check out these two sources that talk about it:
https://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2021/9/8/taliban-disappointed-by-destroyed-equipment-left-by-us-forces
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2021/08/30/what-military-equipment-left-behind-afghanistan-us/5658895001/

They even made a video where they are destroying vehicles, lol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giY2lAsP3jA

The source mentions that some equipment was blown up and set on fire.
The aircrafts were also destroyed:
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2021/08/30/what-military-equipment-left-behind-afghanistan-us/5658895001/

They did leave behind counter-rocket and artillery systems and the explanation about why they did that makes sense. Those defensive systems were operational and used to protect their own troops from attacks. Hence, they couldn't be dismantled or destroyed because it would leave the Americans without a shield.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2021/08/30/what-military-equipment-left-behind-afghanistan-us/5658895001/

Then it must be true if they said it supported by press :D
There are so many videos of talibans (even on censorship king youtube) driving trucks, helicopters, airplanes with full US equipment and even uniforms.
I don't believe most of the things on mainstream media, and there is clear opposite opinion between republicans and democrats about this, and only difference is that they don't agree if it is wort $85B or less.
https://fee.org/articles/here-s-the-list-of-billions-in-military-equipment-the-us-left-behind-for-the-taliban/

Let's get back to Bitcoin topic, Chainalysis 2021 report showed that Afghanistan saw big jump in Bitcoin usage and they are better ranked than many other countries.
They are top20 country for global crypto adoption according to Chainalysis, and that is a big jump even better than in Turkey, but they still have lower volume and less transactions.
Let's try to imagine situation in Afghanistan, banks and ATM's didn't work as well as Paypal, so people had no other option than to use bitcoin.
https://bitcoinke.io/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Geography-of-Cryptocurrency-2021.pdf

But “good usage” and “bad usage” does not exist in the blockchain. In the blockchain, they’re only mere transactions made by one entity to another, neutral, and censorship-resistant. If you tag me as someone who “doesn’t care” about Bitcoin adoption because of that opinion, OK then tag me. 8)

@Wind_FURY I would say that the thing with your statement is that it is entirely true, but will be portrayed by Bitcoin opponents and the media in a different way regardless. That doesn't stop Bitcoin, but it might slow it down in so far as the skeptics get a confirmation of their misguided understanding (or simply the lack thereof) of Bitcoin and what it is all about. They twist the neutrality proposition of Bitcoin into something that is bad because when everyone is the same it would mean the bad guys are as good as the good guys and vice versa, while not understanding that (quote:) "“good usage” and “bad usage” does not exist in the blockchain".

What’s new with that? That will merely be just another FUD, that will DIE, like all of the other FUD. Did that stop Bitcoin from being adopted by the billionaires as a HODL-type, long term investment? NO, they came, they bought, they HODL. Did it stop the network? No, the network keeps chugging along, to used by ANYONE, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME. Permissionless, censorship-resistant.

Slow down, speed up, does it matter? Bitcoin WILL be used where it will be used.


Did any FUD stop development? No.


Then you agree with me? Or are you contradicting yourself? Or did I misunderstand you when you posted,


I believe another 90% market crash is necessary for us to relearn, and remind us “what is Bitcoin”.