Bitcoin Forum

ㅤ

With this kind of article, It had to be Bloomberg. Not surprised, they are always negative about Bitcoin and crypto in general.

I think we are already seeing the signs.

Remember the old days when there were not stablecoins and one has to determine trading pair prices in sats?
And then came the centralized stablecoins and before we know it there will be CBCDs in most crypto exchanges.

The problem is that masses tend to trust centralized and custodial services where they have to sign up and avoid being responsible with their own money. It why custodial services like Coinbase and blockchain wallet are so popular among new users and noncustodial wallets like Electrum less popular. Some people just don't want to go an extra mile.

I'm normally on the idea that increasing regulation increases the sophistication of scams and doesn't get rid of them. In this age of technology, scams move faster than law enforcement can and people are able to scam and go missing still - and a lot do (and once those people are gone you're going to find it hard to recover the money). I think investors are happy to know the source of their funds too, they're a lot less likely to be propping up illicit industries if regulation does well and non kyc coins cost more than kyc ones for example (like how "fund" coins are cheaper - due to management fees mostly - like Grayscale).

I liked the Theymos endorsed ico idea though with howeycoins, I think more of that sort of education might come from regulation which should be supported. Transactions in bitcoin are likely to remain irreversible though too and that's something that could be educated on more too (I don't know if it's a good or bad thing that wallets don't include their own education documents and force them onto their users - electrum's readthedocs seem like a good example of having useful education but aren't something an excited newbie would potentially find).

Getting a user to enter the nmemonic they've just written down and then a phrase of "I downloaded this software from electrum.org and can confirm it by going to my browsers download history or seeing it's been signed, I also understand confirmed bitcoin transactions are irreversible and will try my best to follow the documentation from [source] if I'm using this wallet for any purpose other than testing with a small amount of funds. I understand bitcoin has value and that I'm the sole controller of my wallet and will keep it secure along with my computer to the best of my abilities and not install untrusted software on my computer".

Regulations in a country or a well-organized government system as well as layered rules for most investors who will enter a product industry in various worlds may have obstacles for the entry of these investors, but with these regulations at least it will provide security and supervision guarantees for investors. investors as the main financiers will not open cryptocurrencies in the world.

Basically the concept of cryptocurrency is no centralization, no KYC, everything is anonymous and without third parties. But at the same time, without regulation, a large number of scams and scammers emerge, many crypto exchanges in the market can manipulate prices.

At least the regulations that are implemented as an example of the existence of the KYC system are nothing but to create a conducive ecosystem and also to facilitate efforts in a country which of course will have a significant impact on job creation, especially in encouraging the country's economy.

Finding an effective balance on this big issue is the key to make sure that regulations are not being utilized to suppressed and even kill the very thing that is being regulated. On the side of the government, there are a lot of reasons why regulations are and will be in placed for the whole crypto marketplace...and I even agree with many of the reasons. Now, on my own PoV, what the government is doing is exercising its own power over everything as it does not want to be caught with anything off-guard. At this age, governing is a very complicated thing and for sure it does not want to add cryptocurrency to the mix of things that it does not any control with. And as such, it is hoped that eventually there will be more and more investing people that will be looking - and entering - at cryptocurrency with more trust and confidence. In other words, we are slowly getting away from the old Wild, Wild West era. Now, will that be good or bad? Let history be the judge.

The institutional investors are tied to the fiat money system. They can't untie. Dumping the fiat system and choosing an alternative would simply mean that the institutional investors would lose the support of the central banks and the governments, which will kill their business.
The more crypto looks like fiat money, the more institutional investors will get interested into investing in crypto. The problem is that cryptocurrencies will lose their true nature, if they simply turn into another form of fiat money.
The current situation in terms of global crypto regulation seems enough balanced. Any more regulations regarding the mandatory declaration of cold wallets and/or dumping PoW coins would simply destroy the balance. This means that crypto will turn into "fiat 2.0" and the institutional investors might like it, but the true crypto supporters, who want decentralization would be repulsed by the new regulations.

The "Investors" will not ask for regulations, because they want the volatility to increase their profits.... and a unregulated commodity will have more volatility, because Crypto whales can flourish in a unregulated environment.

The Retail industry on the other hand, want a less volatile currency, because it works better with the pricing of items and services, if you have a less volatile currency.  ;)

I don't think many people are against laws to protect investors and make the space more fair and transparent. It looks like the cryptocurrency regulatory process is in full swing and will continue until regulators are sure they can monitor everything.

Now, all who are involved in the world of the Money Market need a system that protects investors. If we are not sure whether something is legit or not it is better to just avoid it.

In other words, the future of cryptocurrencies will depend on regulation—but regulation is done right. There is nothing wrong if the parties want to regulate this industry, as long as it is done in the right way. But by protecting consumers and investors, regulators will help cryptocurrencies thrive—not hinder them.

The majority of institutional and retail investors lose their money, can't keep up with the inflation, and therefore are stupid enough to make reasonable judgments; they simply can't know whether this or that measure is going to be beneficial for the market, let alone a decentralized cryptocurrency that is nothing less but phenomenon humanity hasn't witnessed before and couldn't have predicted. Trying to regulate a phenomenon, a breakthrough in technology, alleged regulators make it less significant and less useful because any attempt to invade its development process prevents people from achieving the desired financial well-being. Regulated bitcoin won't enable people to express their will via peaceful protests against the broken traditional fiat system; it won't protect their savings from rapid devaluation, it won't set them free from shackles of financial slavery, with regulated bitcoin, masters - banksters will retain their power in keeping people poor.

I am one of the strong advocates of a fully regulated environment, and this includes Bitcoin. I was hesitant to deal with Bitcoin many years back because of some of the illegalities that it aids due to its decentralization and anonymity, but thanks to regulations that are reducing its anonymity. Many may get this wrong, but I don't care, all I care about is a better world of transparency that would reduce where criminality could hide.

Yet, I don't support the regulation that controls one's account, No. The regulation I support does not stop the decentralization and total ownership of Bitcoin and others, it would only aid traceable deals. And if you are clean, there is nothing to worry about. Anything outside this is excessive by the government and companies involved.

I will be surprised to hear that if the real time bitcoin investors are the the ones demanding for regulations, how could this be, it rather serve more bad and insecure on their privacy than they could thought of, nothing is good with regulations ones it cones to bitcoin because here regulations could serve another means to got colonized under central authorities for directives, what bitcoin stand for is complete decentralization and no any big time investor would prefer government regulations when how to remain secure lies with using cold storages or running a bitcoin full node with bitcoincore than centralized exchanges, other cryptocurrencies may adopt regulations since they were centralized while bitcoin is fully decentralized and need not to be regulated.

Crime existed hundreds of years before bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, and without bitcoin, the government would never be able to stop all crime. Regulating bitcoin will never stop criminals, they will find another way to continue their behaviour, don't always associate crime with bitcoin.


This is not going to happen. Regulation means user account control, if you don't control users how can you hunt criminals, there is no such kind of regulation. Regulation is inevitable and what its impact will be, let time tell. Nor can we object or oppose it.

Some people consider KYC important to be protected, although there is no guarantee at all after doing KYC, on the other hand many retail traders continue to push for regulation, which they think can protect their investment and the security system we expect.
Regulations and KYC also cannot guarantee the level of security and the overall process of crypto travel. This will only impose the wishes of some people who think differently from the concept of Crypto.

There is a kind of fear of the growth of Bitcoin or Crypto in general, so the regulation is constantly being developed, but to make people believe it more, they use the excuse as a form of security. If I'm honest, regulation is always being pushed and talked about everywhere, only for the benefit of some people, but not entirely the wishes of those involved in Cryptocurrency investment, this concept is completely against the bitcoin journey, even bitcoin adoption continues and grows very developed, although no such regulation exists, regulation is just another reason to limit decentralization.

For this reason I strongly agree, Cryptocurrency does not require KYC, Regulation and Centralization, all forms of development methods are self-determined steps, as you said the concept is anonymous and does not require third parties.
In the future we will continue to be faced with regulatory pushes, making it even more annoying. Despite Bitcoin's growth and widespread adoption, there is no close connection to the reasons that continue to be voiced.

I hope you are differentiating between scam tokens/companies and privacy, because neither is supposed to imply the other. Actually, the fact that things like ICOs are heavily regulated now is a good thing, if you look back at the time when this forum was buzzing with scam ICOs to such an extent that Wikipedia blacklisted us.

Yes because for having a regulation they can assure that their money or assets has little secured on the platform which is proper regulated by government. They mostly don't care about doing Kyc or even paying taxes since what this type of guys are into profits on low risk as possible they can.

At the moment those other investors who don't like to do Kyc will surely like this option if they realize that this is part of regulation and they will be protected on it.

The world should not be a place without law. Even we can disagree with a lot of things launched by governments and central banks, we must recognize that they somewhat govern societies and keep things on the right track.

Without laws, without regulations, without governments, the world would be a very chaotic place that is not what I want to live in. I guess most of us don't want to live in a society without law and regulations too.

In my opinion, I agree that "Regulation is a good thing".

I'm not surprised, yeah they are known professional investors (in this case KYC is no longer a problem) who generally always prefer the centralized way. Of course regulation is their first condition as protection, because basically their only interest is volatility which means another space for profit. However, that doesn't mean they ignore cryptocurrency innovation altogether, just that they are not interested in taking advantage of the technicalities.

This is intriguing paragraph and really don’t know where to start the non ending discussion really! So you telling me if KYC becomes solid thing in the crypto from all the directions then we might just see crypto as centralised system.

So it may happen that bitcoin would be nothing but informal alternative to the fiat system. Now this has given second thoughts like, if it becomes reversible transaction then many people will start using it because they will have security of error free system and use it as alternative to fiat.

Practically transactions are irreversible but with KYC we know both parties so any third party managing transactions can resend money easily to them.

That’s gonna be hard to digest if it happens. In next 10 years you ask, it would be nothing but fiat system.

Thats gonna be hard. Let just say decentralized are in favor of some especially the scammers, hackers and many thieves. Who keep jumping from ship to ship just to ransack money from people. Its something the government cannot tolerate. On the otherhand, even though the government has all authority on such regulation, being on centralized compromised corruption since it cant be held transparently which is also bad.

Not sure how to balance this cause both sides have their own pros and cons.

I think it is inevitable that trading BTC on a platform will always require some regulation. A business needs some control and unfortunately, most of the time government (even if they are unreliable) is the only one who can do that. The best thing to do if you're not a fan of it is to do P2P trades. The network is gonna be fine regardless of what happen on the regulation side imo.

It is necessary to understand that it is impossible to live in a state and be free from its established rules of conduct. This is especially true for the financial sector of the economy. No state can allow capital to flow uncontrollably and anonymously on its territory, sometimes on a fairly large scale. Therefore, a certain regulation of the circulation of cryptocurrency in society is inevitable. On the other hand, the regulation of cryptocurrency circulation in the state is an integral part of its legalization, during which the state takes relations with cryptocurrency under the protection of its law enforcement and judicial system, and this has a positive effect on people's trust in cryptocurrency and increases the level of security when working with it.
The whole point is that states can choose the golden mean between the decentralized nature of the cryptocurrency and its regulation so that the cryptocurrency can not only exist, but also develop freely.

So far, they've been busy looking for ways to control people using cryptocurrencies and forcing cryptocurrencies to get into centralized systems.

If they want the "cake", they should legalize all cryptocurrencies (but not shitcoins) and then make rules for marketplaces and all business platforms that use cryptocurrency, so fraud can be resisted instead of regulating how cryptocurrency (Bitcoin) is used.
But it would be hard to happen because they really want to control everything. Decentralised and centralised will never match forever.

The years to come will be the same as now, full of debate, and new regulations will be made to suppress cryptocurrencies. I think that's one of the reasons why CBDCs were created.

A number of good points, but as much as regulation and centralization processes progress, there will also be new technologies underway that might force even governments to start thinking a different way. The reason I bring this thought up is because the legalization of Cannabis has some similarities. When you over-regulate (at max prohibit) an industry or system, ways are going to be found to circumvent these regulations or right out violate them. With drugs the problem was that enforcement wasn't effective because of the sheer number of cases that would have to be pursued.

When Bitcoin fully finds its way into peoples' daily lives and builds its own parallel economy, governments might also be forced into the direction of making compromises. Bitcoin could indeed derive its value from a grey area economy even if it is over-regulated.

They are now going to slow down adoption by a lot by publishing all these assumptions and suggestions regarding horrible regulation. The KYCing of sender and receiver is indeed outrageous. They said in the EU that you soon need to KYC any address that sends crypto to your exchange account address. But that comes with lots of bureaucracy as well not only on behalf of the exchanges, but also on behalf of the government and more precisely the judicial system when it comes to arbitration in edge cases.

Interesting times ahead of us and I hope that time also plays into our cards in the way that more and more politicians from the Stone Age retire and a younger, more digital and technology affine generation has a say. 

Bloomberg although notoriously being a hater of bitcoin actually had a fair point in this one, at least to some degree. Regulating bitcoin or cryptocurrencies for that matter warrants more sophisticated systems of security that would then force scammers and hackers to be very tricky to get the upper hand in this cat and mouse game. Besides that I don't think there's any other benefit one could get from a centralized cryptocurrency regulated by an authoritative power like the governments.

This is where you guys are getting it wrong when I read your replies. No one is saying that crimes don't exist before cryptocurrencies, I was just referring to how easier it is for criminals to use the decentralization and anonymity of crypto. No doubt, crypto has huge benefits, but don't let us always turn blind eye to its shortcomings.

You are right to some extent, regulations might be targeting users' control but not in the case of crypto which is the subject matter here. If a blockchain is truly decentralized like Bitcoin and one uses an open-source non-custodial wallet, there is no way any government would control that, they could only trace the transactions, which is what I advocate.

I am not surprised by the support of regulations. It seems to me that it's always been the minority who deeply care about privacy, who disagree with the level of intervention into privacy that the state often has, who have something against providing an ID for some operations etc. But also, regulations aren't always about strict KYC; they can also be about a reasonable taxation system and about an ability to ensure that what you're doing is legal, which in turn means that you won't be persecuted but also that you'll be protected against the violations of others.
I think more regulations are pretty much inevitable, so we should focus on making those regulations reasonable.

There are two points here regarding your comment:
1. If you don't like regulation > P2P is the solution
2. If you like > Follow and follow the regulation.

As users we can choose one of these two points without blaming one of them. I don't think we have the power to go against the government and its rules, and we also know the world is filled with rules whether people like it or not.

I always think that regulation is needed for adoption and is inevitable when adoption reaches a certain threshold.  Though Bitcoin is created to have freedom with transactions or money transfers, we cannot deny the fact that the industry still needs government regulation in order to strengthen the trust of institutional investors.  Aside from that many people trust government-regulated industry more than those that are unregulated for a certain reason such as security.  So I agree that regulation is somehow a good thing.


The good thing with decentralized blockchain technology and cryptocurrency is that all transactions are recorded in a transparent way to which every individual has access. So I think corruption will be countered by the transparent record of blockchain technology.


I believe the government is also thinking to regulate P2P transactions  but at the moment they don't have any idea how.  ;D


I agree we don't have the power to go against the government and its rule but we have an option to not go with it and suffer the consequences.

Its also what is said by popular supporters of Bitcoin which it needs regulation for it to be accepted by all. Regulations however comprises of lot more things which the authorities can seize your crypto easily.  

Here is the latest news I saw which Biden Administration Wants To Make It Easier To Seize Crypto Without Criminal Charges.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2022/10/25/biden-administration-wants-to-make-it-easier-to-seize-crypto-without-criminal-charges/?sh=5c952917557d

I'm not sure but the reverse transaction in crypto I think was proposed by someone from congress. Weird Idea and ts definitely what crypto is suppose to be. If they want this, they can just use Paypal who by the way re-insist the $2500 charges.

Regulating crypto will make common man stay out of crypto while the big whales and influencers will keep on getting bitcoin and making the general public more difficult to get bitcoin. A famous youtuber Davincij15 told about these views in his current video ALTCOINS WILL EXPLODE SOON!!!! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnZC3O6Fx18).
After seeing the views in this video about regulation, i am just confused whether regulation of crypto is good or bad for crypto  ??? There may be few good things about regulation while there are some drawbacks for crypto regulation also.

I don't really know if regulation is good or bad for crypto investors.
If we look at it from one perspective it shows that crypto can be widely adopted with the help of regulation.
This in turn means a bigger marketcap and hence the prices of various cryptocurrencies would increase.
If we look at it from another perspective then regulation directly means centralization of cryptocurrencies.
This in turn increases the risks of data security, privacy etc...
So in a way regulation has it's own advantages and disadvantages. For some might be good and for others its bad.

@sukmo you really hit a point here, this days people are running away from responsibility and are rather comfortable with other person's being saddle with such responsibility while they just sit at bar and watch. And with such case regulatory tendencies now emerge from those taking up the responsibility against those shying away from going the extra mile.
There's always a cost to pay for every decision

I do not think so.  Crypto regulation won't make common man stay out of crypto but those who wanted to hide their asset fromt the government.  For sure big whales and influencers will seize this opportunity to profit.


There is always pros and cons but if adoption is priority, regulation weighs more than the cons.

There is a good difference though, I mean if we are talking about regulation to set the legal boundaries for crypto then it is of course a good thing. However, let’s be honest there are a lot of stocks that goes down with certain regulations.

Like put up some pollution preventing regulations to energy sector and see how they will go down, over half of all the companies in the USA that pollutes the world comes from Texas energy companies for example, and that should tell you how regulations regarding pollution would destroy them. Which means not "all" regulations are good, some of them are good and some of them are not really that great in the end.

This is a very good point you are bringing up here. The real problem about the discussion about Bitcoin is that regulators try to deflect from the truth, which is that the banking system currently is again struggling at least partially. And that is by no means because Bitcoin exists. If anything is going to lead us into another financial crisis or even catastrophe, I think it is rather a crumbling, gambling addicted banking system than Bitcoin. Their argument always is that without regulation an armageddon is going to happen in the financial world. At the same time we are witnessing gigantic collapses of fully regulated companies like Wirecard, which was listed in the DAX 30. Regulation should definitely not be based on false premises. That would only lead to overregulation in this case as the hypothesis is that Bitcoin is dangerous.

Scams and frauds will always exist. Regulation doesn't stop that, it never did. It only makes it punishable. But, in the end, it's you who needs to realize what's fraudulent and what's not, not some politicians. You're the one who's responsible for your money. As for your second part, are you sure about that? Regulations might calm things down for a little, but as far as I'm concerned, there's a lot of manipulation and a lot of regulation already. That says a lot.

When bitcoin is stable in another couple of magnitudes in fiat price, then people will not feel the need to use a centralized exchange to get out of crypto.  If you transact in and stay in crypto then KYC would seem to be much less of an issue.  Instead of control freaks, one will have more freedom.

The reason why most people and especially investors think that way about the bitcoin regulation is clear to me, imagine if you see more countries step into the regulation of bitcoin is mostly because we can see more demand on the market, people all over the world think everything is good if the governments accept it and when they see something is not related or approved by the governments they will probably prefer the other investment options instead of that, so just like you said I guess the bitcoin regulation is good for the future of the bitcoin price and can have positive effects.

They still think or rather think Bitcoin as some kind of money that's easy to access just like how they access it through banks but they didn't realize what was the purpose of why Satoshi made Bitcoin. Some of them are out of their minds or they just want some kind of security where they can be safe against scammers but I would say that's not the point if that's what they it's all about for having a Bitcoin. Pushing KYC or regulated cryptocurrency is just weird since it's most likely there's no difference between fiat and cryptocurrency that's being handled by the banks or third-party.

Which precisely an anti government tools. Imagine how many corrupt politician would definitely disagree on implementing this on the transaction part of their work. There will be always a downside which one we pick, but decentralized will be favor to scammers thats why government dont like it. But I believe its fine to be centralized but that includes them on process. I doubt they will.

So you think regulation will destroy Bitcoin Industry?  I don't think so, it may counter or nullify the decentralization feature of Bitcoin but I doubt it will destroy the Bitcoin market.  Government regulation bring more trust.  People trust government licensed entity, same goes with Bitcoin if the government adopt it as legal tender or whatever as long as it isn't a ban.


Come again???


KYC is implemented only on centralized exchanges or services that caters bitcoin transaction.  If you go p2p, you won't undergo any kyc requirement.  Another thing, using Bitcoin does not make us special that we can have the right to bypass government regulation.

When we talk about cryptocurrency regulation some people do not actually understand the pros and cons of the regulations. What always come to their mind when they talk about cryptocurrency regulation is the regulation of price, they are of the opinion that if the crypto industry is regulated price will be stable. Actually this is a bait that is been told them in order to lure them into the regulation that we finally seize their privacy and liberty.
Many of those people clamoring for regulation does not actually understand what crypto regulation is. You can easily hear them say when cryptocurrency is regulated there will be massive adoption and they give their reasons. We have nothing to do than to watch and see how things happen but I know many things will be lost in the quest for regulating the cryptocurrency industry.

I don't know what they think, but whatever it is then investors don't seem to want to go against government regulations. Maybe because they are not adopters of bitcoin as a means of payment and they just want to profit from their trading and investment. So it is safe for them to think that the regulation is good even though they have to pay high taxes to the government.

Obviously this is going to be really weird, and I don't want to endorse this one. The government's first rule always wins, but users have to be smarter.

The government's desire to centralize bitcoin users through regulation and KYC will probably work to some degree, but anyway I don't expect them to be able to centralize bitcoin.

Of course, I do.
Are ICO's still a thing?  Try another form of shitcoins... Like NFTs  ;D

Governments don't give a damn about regulating ICOs so that the general population do not get scammed. You and I know better why the Government's are trying to put a tight grip on cryptos.

There goes your privacy!

Governments don't care!
If they did, then why are we still seeing scam and ponzi ads on Google which is a centralized service? ::)

look at the stock market, that's how a financial market works when it comes to regulation, the biggest loss we have to suffer is privacy. regulations are inevitable because simply you and I are also living under their control, so whether we like it or not, we have no right to refuse or agree. i don't like regulation but people say price is stable or it will be more popular, that's true. simply because the government will control and once the trust of the government is gained, people will feel more secure. that's the point of view of citizens who don't care about privacy.
apart from privacy, what I fear is stability, if the stable market can't bring big profits then I will give up the market

the government that starts to regulate regulations will certainly not stay silent because the cryptocurrency industry will be very promising. They will benefit a lot by providing regulation so that crypto users will be regulated as they wish. about some adoptions that will be carried out, regulation is the main way so that the adoption will go well but there will be many there are many rules behind all that. For example, today, regarding the application of taxes to every crypto user or crypto industry that runs, everything will be subject to income tax, the fee will certainly be more expensive. Regulation is not really the best way, there will be a purpose behind the regulation.

Regulation of cryptos is good if done properly. No investor wants to invest his money where there are no security of their funds. Institutional Investors needs regulatory clarity before they will invest their money and the industry needs their money in order for the market to move, If there a proper set of rules / guides in cryptocurrency space to help protect investors without altering the decentralized nature of Bitcoin , Therefore, I support regulation that will protect investors.

If there must be something to regulate then it's other cryptocurrencies which have done much of bad on investors than the good, I've not for once seen someone who has invested in bitcoin over the years now regretting his decision, government want o regulate crypto because they don't want it to serve the same way as unregulated ponzi scheme, which they wouldn't want to be identified in support for fetchy things like that, only bitcoin is safe and others use this fact to hide under it since they were all cryptos but the difference is clear, bitcoin cannot be regulated, other cryptocurrencies can.

we invest in BTC where regulators can't control though. if crypto industry is just too little and not popular today, the authorities wouldn't really care about it as they will just see BTC as internet money meant for gambling. we're just find without regulations.

its only the institutions that needs the regulations which they can ask to be bailed out like what happened to Celsius and the likes.

I think the above is where the problem lies, how to find the balance. Institutions supporting regulations don't like it just as the rest of us (i want to believe) but the rate at which scammers and scam project flood the space was a big concern.
If this should go on for another decade, who knows what the space will turn out to be? KYC sucks no doubt but with a high rate of scams and impunity, manipulation sucks even more.

Governments recognize that, and that's why they regulate rather than ban. The government recognizes that cryptocurrencies have advantages and disadvantages so they won't reject it sooner before learning about it. Now many countries are preparing for CBDC, and it is fully centralized.

You're right, taxes are one of the benefits governments get from crypto users, but there's a lot more to them if they let the industry thrive.

You've fundamentally misunderstood the situation. Crypto users don't want regulation. It's the authorities that want it.

Define me "security of their funds". Is buying bitcoin secure enough? Is holding fiat currency secure enough? Views differ.

Unless merchants use intermediaries to transact, governments will have a hard time collecting taxes from peer-to-peer transactions.

They do think regulation is a good thing because it will help more business to legally and more easily accept bitcoin. But I bet most of those investors are also those people that are super rich, has power and prefers centralization because it helps them to keep more power to themselves. They are scared that once decentralization takes place, they will lose control of everything which hamper them more from building their wealth. Most of those investors are very likely market manipulators. If everything becomes truly decentralized, market manipulation won't be as easy as it is right now.

It's a fairly simple distinction for the most part.  As a general rule, speculators want and need regulation.  Real users who transact peer-to-peer and who respect and appreciate why bitcoin exists don't want regulation.

Those who leave their funds in the possession of intermediaries and already bend over and take KYC/AML have nothing to lose.  Centralised entities probably do need regulation to help keep them secure.  Custodians holding large caches of bitcoins are painting a target on their backs.  It's only natural that scammers and thieves are going to target them.  But that's not how this invention was designed to be used. 

If you use Bitcoin like the whitepaper describes, one sender, one recipient, then you shouldn't have those issues.  And adding middlemen to get in the way of one sender, one recipient, makes the system weaker, not stronger. 

So if there's going to be regulation, it should only ever be regulation of third party custodians and intermediaries.

Then why is fiat still more popular as a money laundering tool than cryptocurrency? I've read two articles that published in March 2022 about reports from the U.S. Treasury that say fiat is still on top compared to crypto in financial crime. You can read here:
- Fiat Still Accounts for Majority of Financial Crimes, Says U.S. Treasury Report (https://beincrypto.com/fiat-still-accounts-for-the-majority-of-financial-crimes-us-treasury-department-report/).
- Fiat - Not Crypto - Still The Top Choice For Financial Crimes, US Treasury Says (https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/fiat---not-crypto---still-the-top-choice-for-financial-crimes--us-treasury-says-11158150).

Quoting from Dave Weisberger, the CEO of CoinRoutes, which was published in the article Comparing Money Laundering With Cryptocurrencies and Fiat (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/comparing-money-laundering-cryptocurrencies-fiat-aly-madhavji-%E7%A9%86%E4%BA%9A%E9%9C%96#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThe%20goal%20of%20money%20laundering%20is%20to%20create%20a%20chain%20of%20transactions%20that%20can%E2%80%99t%20be%20traced%2C%20so%20since%20the%20bitcoin%20blockchain%20is%20designed%20to%20have%20an%20indelible%20public%20record%20of%20all%20transactions%2C%20it%20makes%20%E2%80%98laundering%E2%80%99%20much%20more%20difficult.%E2%80%9D);

Scammers and exchanges faking volume can be already spotted and caught with the currently tools and mechanisms regulators have at this point.

The problem is that the law forces act too slow, therefore more regulations wouldn't solve the main issue. It would only make things worse, with common investors being prejudiced by bureaucratic demands and even impediments, like we see at the traditional financial markets, while the big wealthy investors are the only ones capable of participating investments' activities.

Unfortunatelly I guess more regulations, censorship and limitations for us are inevitable in some years. We have no resources to fight against it.

I must say that you make things contradictory with the post you made and the proofs from what people merely opined based on the angle they view it. You have to wake up to the reality that despite the regulation of fiat, money laundering still happens, what about blockchain technology that is underregulated? More laundering will surely happen.

Also, you surprised me with the claim that all blockchain transactions could be traced, have you heard of mixers and some internal dealers that make your transactions untraceable with a little stipend? Aside from that, money laundering could be easily done with blockchain technology because you are free to open as many accounts as you want without KYC.

One of the advantages of crypto has been minimizing the need for middlemen profiting from transactions. Regulation might mean more charges to be shouldered by sender or receiver or both.

It is not as simple as you think, mate.
Ideally, crypto is decentralized, supports privacy, and upholds freedom. It is against centralization, KYC, and regulation.
You must understand why Satoshi created Bitcoin, it was because he didn't like centralization and wanted people to have freedom in managing/transferring their money. So, if there is an idea for regulating crypto and asking for KYC, it has deviated from the real purpose.

Well, regulation is needed to manage a country. But it is not needed to manage a crypto world.
Regulation can be considered to secure crypto users, but it shouldn't limit the activities of crypto users.
It is no problem if the government cares about crypto users, but they don't bother crypto world.

Argh, what do you mean? Did you really have read my reply? Because your reply now confuses me. I repeat; if crypto is easier to use for money laundering, why do criminals prefer to use fiat then crypto?

What? I don't make any claims about blockchain transactions by the way, I quote them, but don't you think his words make sense?

Heartily disagree.  Regulations are what make most hacks possible to begin with.  If companies weren't required to store so much of our personal information and payment details, there wouldn't be as much for hackers to steal.

Take this place, for example.  If this forum gets hacked, I don't have to worry about identity theft (my real-world identity, that is) or someone getting a hold of my payment details.  Aside from my IP address and an email address, my personal information is not tied to this website.  That's a rare thing these days.  

But if an online retailer gets hacked and I happen to use that service, then I have a problem, because they've likely got my real name, my physical address, probably my phone number and my card details.  Everything a nefarious actor needs to commit identity theft or steal my money.  And the regulations tell companies they need to keep all that info stored, like a nice big lucrative pile of hidden treasure.  The world would be a much safer place if it didn't work like that.

It is one of drawbacks but we should consider why we chose centralized exchanges and later have to fullfil their KYC request. If we don't use them, we will not have to worry about KYC and will not have to submit any document.
 
You can customize your account settings for Privacy too. Forum has limited time to store data, then move it to archive. Later, there will be time to delete it from Archive as well. It takes two years (maybe I am correct with this info), to have data totally deleted.

Also there are traces on the Internet, with web scrapers and archive pages.

I would rather go for regulation than an outright ban like what China and other anti-crypto countries do. Although there might be some flaws in the regulation part such as the taxes, etc., I think it's way much better in my opinion.

Right here in the Philippines, the central bank governor is not keen on banning crypto nor having the interest on regulating it. If it's a way that would keep the crypto industry going in the country, I'll take it even if it means of taxing our realized gains.

Talking about regulations, I think to some extent investors will be comfortable with it as it controls and checkmate the activities, excesses and shortcomings of some Crypto projects, exchanges and other third party's involved in Crypto. Initially, Crypto was not developed to attract regulations but however, the events unveiling itself has shown lots of red flags that warrants third party, government and organizational regulations.  However regulations itself has advantage and also disadvantages. Regulations on crypto was actually setup as a pressure from government to checkmate activities of Crypto currency operators such as the investors, founders and exchange to knowing their  transaction flows, in and out, purchase if actually it was a genuine transaction, etc. This is also prone to hackers if they really do have access to data base of any Third party organization because hacking such data base gives them direct access to vital information which causes breach of trust thereby making room for litigation.

Yes, I respectfully say they don't make sense because how could anyone say that blockchain technology is so plain and traceable? We all know that the anonymity of blockchain technology is still there despite getting better day by day. And I will maintain that fiat is more traceable than blockchain technology, so illicit financial activities could better be hidden through it.

Regulations will come momentarily and when someone from the authority will push and shoulder the process. But I never think it find easy and fast, we know the government process in the Philippines, there are a lot of stages before it was become law and implemented. Of course, I will support that one rather than being like in China and those countries that are banning crypto. Because we have this regulation at least we still have the right to own and invest in crypto.

Not surprised, trading volume in centralized exchanges are very huge compared to decentralized exchanges, this is the reason why most investors think regulation is good to be implemented. If those investors really care with their privacy and really understand what's the behind reason why Satoshi created Bitcoin, they will say regulation is bad. Maybe when their personal information are being used by scammer and then they need to face legal law since police suspect he's a fraudster, they will learn privacy is really important.

many people in this topic read the word "regulation" and jump straight to "kyc"

sorry no. regulations are bigger then this
regulations can also be in the form of the EPA deciding that asic farms cannot exceed Xmw
or cannot use hardware that is above Xhash/kw
regulations can also be helpful where a business has to establish an 'insurance' policy against loss so that people have some form of 'penny on the dollar' return no matter what

as well as a business cannot be trusted to custodianise billions of $ of coins unless their management has been on some economics management course and had previous experience in the sector to show they are proficient to be licenced to do the job

its like would you like a professional car engineer doing your car maintenance if the only experience they have of replacing carb brakes is using duct-tape and glue..


AML KYC is not needed for every regulated business
take your local KFC chicken restaurant. they accept money. they are regulated by the food/health agency and the best business practice agencies. . but doesnt need AML KYC


what people need to realise bitcoin only entered the realms of the SEC that does have AMLKYC policies as part of its bank secrecy act and FATF is because part of bitcoins transition to being main stream was being recognised no longer as a property but as a currency

..
i say this becasue we can actually bring things back to how bitcoin functioned 2009-2014 where people would swap it for fiat like pokemon cards or antiques where its treated like a collectable not a currency

this would then allow us to have more control over our coins as our property and not have to be fighting certain regulation policy points certain people dont like

..
that said their would always be regulations. but instead of broadly handing over jurisdiction to agencies to decide how people should treat bitcoin. it can be more independant where different communities treat bitcoin differently and thus restricted by different things or protected by other things

but instead we will just have as we do now years of certain people not doing research not understanding how things work and just being upset that they want to call bitcoin not fit for purpose and then go about advertising other networks

bitcoin will always have some form of regulation. but lets actually get active and be more involved in the regulations we want to see

EG exchange businesses.. less KYC compliant required. but more consumer insurance required. more safeguards and auditing of the businesses to protect the consumer

we should be pushing for reduction on rules that harm users. and more regulations that restrict businesses from just opening up boiler rooms/scams. (where users are put at risk with no resolution) so that users can then easily interact with bitcoin and fiat without headache or fear

I know franky1 just mentioned that regulation is not only KYC, but I think that if KYC is restricted to the fiat onramps and offramps, and the EMIs (electronic money institutions), that would be much better than the current status who where you have to complete KYC to trade altcoins, or to receive crypto payments, or play at a casino, or any other configuration where fiat money is not involved.

I don't think so, centralized exchanges are used more than decentralized exchanges because they are easier to use, provide more services and transaction fees are much cheaper than decentralized exchanges.

Regulation advocates, it's true that they don't care much about privacy and what they are thinking is that regulation will make the market cleaner, scam projects will be strictly managed, market manipulation actions will also be reduced, and their interests will be guaranteed in the event of a dispute...and if we want to be uninhibited and widely accepted, regulation is essential. For me, no regulation would be better because we would be completely free, but the government would never let that happen. We should be mentally prepared to deal with and adapt to regulations.

I think not all centralized exchanges are regulated because not all mandate a KYC but if ever it becomes fully regulated then I believe that many of its users are going to leave. On the other hand, many crypto users are not totally supporting decentralization but what is only important for them is the profit. They are the ones that won't care if there will be regulations or not but they will likely support it since they think this makes them protected.

True crypto users are users who mostly use their crypto as a currency for paying, sending and receiving money. they are the users who mainly support decentralized exchanges and are anti with these regulations.

Most investors might think that regulation is a good thing but they have no idea how to regulate Bitcoin or even the fact that Bitcoin cannot be regulated. Either they mean regulate the end-points of Bitcoin transactions like vendors and shops that accept Bitcoin as payment or regulate centralized exchanges where one can buy Bitcoin. Never underestimate the stupidity of investors, no matter how much money they have.

As far as we Bitcoiners are concerned, there is no need for panic. Bitcoin has been out of the hands of the government since its first mining. And that will not change no matter how loud the regulators get. ;D

I'd say both as regulations consist of negative and positive output.
Well, of course, some people will disagree without knowing what is really implemented. But could assume that some of these people who think negatively will even change their minds when they see the important role of regulating the market. Why not let the regulating body will show what is this regulation for and whether is will be the time to oppose it or not? I'd say it was early to think about if it is good or not, but for sure it has a deep reason why it is pursue.

Indeed banning will put halt to all cryptocurrency activities and engaging in it while it is banned is equivalent to a criminal offense.  So for adoption and market improvement, I believe regulation is one of the key factor to realize the said stuff.


The Philippines has been friendly with Bitcoin, even right now, a bank called Union Bank had been given a license to launch a trading platform.

Centralized exchanges also provide more safety. Do you really think that when you are staking at uniswap and when you are staking at binance, do you feel the same safety? I do not feel the same safety to be fair. This is why I prefer Binance over all, well I prefer binance over other centralized exchanges as well but also all decentralized ones too.

It’s just a feeling, it doesn't have to be based on facts or stats it just needs to be based on emotions and if I feel happier with binance then it's settled. Regulation is good because it gives you a chance to invest based on what you already know and there is no unknown left, more regulations mean more things are certain.

This notion is problematic. First of all, I don't find it fair to have someone else decide for me, and then let me oppose to it. The order is incorrect. I should first have the details, make my vote, and then let the regulations begin. Secondly, there isn't much to study. Regulation on crypto is nothing but a direct attack on individual crypto holders. It limits human innovation.

Be sure that bureaucrats are going to be hostile with something that eliminates them.

The world and everything needs rules and regulations regardless of whether they are well received or not. I agree about regulation but it doesn't always have a good impact on some risky things like KYC regulation on centralized exchanges. In fact nowadays the regulations are not only about personal documents (KYC) but also about how you can't use bitcoin as a currency which is then called ban.

That is why they are not the ones tasked with regulating Bitcoin.  ;D  It is the government's task since they have the authority over things on their jurisdiction.


The blockchain network of Bitcoin may be untouched by the government but the third-party company that wanted to take advantage of the trending Bitcoin can be regulated.  And these third-party companies are mostly the ones responsible for Bitcoin promulgation. 

As a common normal person, I think that regulations when it comes to money and a better future for a person should not be regulated or prohibited, I see that in some news they always say that bitcoin is prohibited in China, mining cannot be do from there, and I don't see the point, people are so blind that they are not able to see that bitcoin is the only asset that can remain despite the fact that there are many global economic downturns in the world? I do not understand that, I also see the point of the economists who speak ill of bitcoin, because they receive money for doing so, but they manage to confuse people and that is what should not be allowed, to live in confusion.

That's true. In modern business practices the centralized location and ownership factor remains extremely regulateable
(If that is even a word...). But I am mainly focused on the future of decentralization and the new markets and technologies which the future will bring us. At that point, regulation will become mostly redundant.

The ones that are not regulated are the ones you have a risk on. Maybe they are not regulated where they are, but they are regulated where they go. For example, Binance is not headquartered in USA, they are based off Asia as far as I know, right? But, if they want to make any business in the USA then they have to follow their rules. Which is why they created binance.us if I am not wrong.

This means that you do not have to be regulated as a company on where you are, but you will be regulated wherever you want to take your business to, which makes you regulated basically for the people who live there. I am using it literally because of that, and I like it, it’s giving me freedom.

Binance US is made for users in the US who certainly use Binance a lot. This forms a new platform targeting clients in the United States in partnership with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). Binance US led by a local division will serve the US market and be in full compliance with US regulations.

As foreign entrants, we do have to comply with the rules that apply where we are, such as Binance bringing its business to the US for the establishment of a new platform.

Some of the regulatory frameworks implemented by the US include Combating money laundering, Digital Dollars which are fully regulated under the central authority and full support of the central bank, and Maintaining financial stability.

Regulation will be the legal foundation of a country to establish rules that are adapted to that country, so the good or bad things that are produced by regulation depend on which point of view we see it.

As you have practiced, I agree with you that Bitcoin will bring benefits for regulation and the future, and Bitcoin price will be positive. However, most investors use bitcoin exchanges that only deal in fiat. However, bitcoin does not have this mechanism that only MA developers know. Even though blockchain technology is advanced, it is traceable to fiat.

And once it was regulated, the more we become traceable and have no escape from the government.
Of course, this will help to combat illegal activities like fraud and money laundering but sad to say that being anonymous is now obviously possible. I'm not sure how it affects the price of Bitcoin once implemented but I was afraid of rampant market manipulation will take place and changes the volatile nature of the market. From a decentralized market to a centralized one, that seems not acceptable probably for the majority.

Nowadays, investors enter the market for profit, while centralized exchanges offer them many opportunities to make money, so trading volume on highly centralized exchanges is easy to understand. Not to mention if you are a newbie, using CEX will be a lot easier than DEX and CEX's fees are also much cheaper. I have to admit that CEX is much more convenient than DEX.

As more people advocate regulation because they don't care about privacy, they think they will be safer with government protection, and scams will be under control.

Bitcoin was created by satoshi with the purpose of being a decentralized monetary system that does not need anyone's supervision and is an anti-inflation tool with a fixed supply. But eventually people turned it into an investment and nowadays people come to bitcoin with only one thought which is profit.

All of centralized exchanges has a mandatory KYC rule, you check it yourself on their terms of service. Nope, even though those centralized exchange will ask everyone KYC, people wouldn't leave centralized exchange since they're hold most of their coins on that's exchange.

Who said Uniswap is a decentralized exchange? Uniswap is just a centralized swap platform where they're know your IP address and have control over your coins, don't mix it with a real decentralized exchange e.g. Bisq. I think you're never use a real decentralized exchange, so you're don't know how decentralized exchange work and the safety.

Nowadays, investors enter the market for profit, while centralized exchanges offer them many opportunities to make money, so trading volume on highly centralized exchanges is easy to understand. [/quote]
Was there ever a time when investors didn't enter market for profit? By the way, what you described is a trader who would have ahard time do the their business without centralized exchanges, while investor doesn't really need them as you can easily invest in bitcoin while avoid any centralized exchange.


Even though all centralized exchanges will soon have mandatory KYC, we are not there yet. For example, FTX doesn't have mandatory KYC as of yet. Daily withdrawal limits for a non-KYC account is low though and they can ask for KYC at any moment they please so I wouldn't use it for bigger amounts if your goal is to avoid KYC.

Of course, and there will always be endless pros and cons.
Apart from that, the state is obliged to make regulations for whatever it deems necessary. Unfortunately, some things that may not make sense are the reasons why the regulation is bad so that as a result trust in the government and its regulations is not good.

This thread is up to 5 pages, I actually read some of the arguments both good and unimportant. I'm trying to understand something and of course this regulation can be considered broad and not only on one or two things.

I don't think there's much any regulation would do except to limit the crypto industry. You need to understand that when the government introduces regulation under the guise of consumer safety, they won't merely approach the matter with a light hand -- you give even the slightest leeway, the government will be more than happy to take that opportunity to create industry gutting regulations.

Most regulations that are being introduced aren't doing anything for consumer protections regardless. They're just looking to limit crypto's growth because it exploded over the last couple of years. Combine this fact with the inflation rate of most currencies being near double digits, if not surpassing double digits, the government institutions will look to protect their own interest, and that includes regulating crypto into the dirt to scare away investors and ordinary consumers. Don't fall for their tricks, regulation is NOT a good thing.

Countries regulating the usage will let the people use cryptocurrency without any problem. The real problem gets hidden and the same might make people not use it. When we use cryptocurrency, we can stay anonymous without revealing our identity. Even after regulation the same could happen, but governments will surely try to make transactions through specific medium. Only through such plan the government is able to generate revenue.

I don't know which country you live in, but it's very likely that your country and government have reasons why it's not legalizing bitcoin as legal tender. I'm not arguing with any decision the government makes about bitcoin rules or regulations because in the end the government always wins. Agree or not, governments have the power to regulate and centralize users through their rules, but they also expect lot of profit by not completely ban transactions especially about trading and investing.

There are expectations about regulatory changes if almost all European and American countries adopt bitcoin as means of payment, IMO - it will obviously encourage many non-European governments to adopt bitcoin as means of payment.

The biggest negative news about cryptocurrencies is their association with criminal activity, which is why government regulation stands out.

In my personal opinion, it is very natural for most investors to think that regulation is a good thing, because with the regulations that have been set, it is certain that every market cannot manipulate crypto prices, even the government does not want to be regulated by any party. what the government set is actually not to pressure or make people who invest lose control, but to guard all elements from unwanted things, the point is for the government or for investors and companies, regulation is the most prioritized.

In your opinion, is the stock market doing well and growing? it's a market with a lot of regulation and it's still growing. Regulation will have advantages and disadvantages for the market and regulation does not limit the development of the market but simply it will develop according to government regulation, not freedom.

Personally, I don't like regulations simply because I don't want my assets to be tracked by the government or seek to control it, I don't feel safe leaving my assets to them, I have the ability to self-manage. The rest what regulation brings is limited scams, no more market manipulation… those things are good for the market. Like it or not, it is inevitable, between choosing a regulation or a permanent ban, which will you choose?

There is a good level of balance there that you actually do need. If there is ZERO government, then if you invest into a company and they reach to 100+ billion dollar invested into them let’s say, they can take the money and leave, what are you going to do? Sue them? There is no government or law or regulation, they are free to do it.

I know it’s a basic example, but it shows you that you need at least a MINIMUM regulation and government to be there, otherwise it means you are going to get robbed. What we need to talk is not "do we need regulation", it should be "how much regulation is too much?" because if you do just enough it’s a good thing, if you do a lot then it’s a bad thing.

In fact, I think like you. I think there are advantages and disadvantages that we gain. But so far the existing regulations are aimed at protecting, be it investors or investment service providers. This is because there are many adverse events that have harmed both of them along with the growing growth of crypto investment.
I think the legal certainty and recognition of the government has a lot of positive impacts. Investors will feel more protected and ready to invest. For criminals, they will think several times if they want to violate the law because they violated the law. The government also benefits from the taxes they take. So as long as this deal goes fair I don't think it's a problem.

Regulation will not look good for the growth of crypto and regulation can also bury people's interest in decentralized digital assets, regulation will set certain limits and regulate the crypto journey according to their wishes.
For me, regulations are not important, because there will be many problems that will arise when they are implemented, many regulations are not able to run as planned.

The bigger the growth of the crypto and bitcoin market, the more attractive it is to third parties who want to control it, that's why for me regulation is only a matter of interest not for security as they say.
Because basically almost no one is able to maintain security, especially in relation to investments that do not involve third parties. In another sense, security is the basis for every individual in maintaining the value of the investment, while other rules have no relationship and connection at all.

If we deduce from all the accusations involving cryptocurrencies or bitcoin in particular, then we will find the answer why governments, bankers and regulators continue to impose regulations that must be issued in the crypto field, even before crypto developed rapidly and bitcoin adoption occurred everywhere, no never before have we heard of such a thing, they just want to find legal loopholes to restrict crypto and bitcoin, while drugs and fraud are an excuse for hooking up for them to enforce regulations, even though there is no other much better solution they offer, while Crypto and Bitcoin is much more successful in getting people to find investment formats and get out of the economic problems they are facing.

In general I prefer the concept of bitcoin as it is now, no KYC and centralization required, Bitcoin is independent in determining its performance, without involving other influences as additional concepts are deemed necessary, even without regulation Bitcoin has limited itself to fraudulent transactions or called PoS, because Satoshi Nakamoto has formulated a concept so perfect for running Bitcoin that it doesn't require any additional concepts or other performance as a basis for consideration.
We think that the basic concept is final without any changes or additions needed, either regulations or other technical issues.

Government regulation can look at this issue from different roles. As a government, they hope that the economy will be in order, and they will think that the huge volatility of Bitcoin price is difficult to be used as an asset store, and it is difficult to enter the currency payment channel. But as investors, the volatility of Bitcoin is a tool and channel for them to make money, and they can do some things that they don't want others to know. In the long run, I am not in favor of regulation, because all I want is more freedom, a few decades of life, and I want to be in charge of myself.

We all want freedom, everyone wants not to be tracked, but too much freedom is not good, if you live in an environment without laws, the evils of theft, rape, murder...Do you want to live anymore? Not everyone is as pacifist as we are, many are perverts and without laws, they would rule us we would be so much worse. Crypto regulation is similar, regulation is in place to prevent scams, scammers want to take money from runaway investors, not build a developed market. I can't say regulation is good or bad, for me it has both good and bad sides.

This is equivalent to asking again: Are rules made to be followed or broken?
Rules exist as a code of conduct and order of action that can be recognized by the vast majority of social members after long-term screening and precipitation in social life, and there must be rationality and necessity for its existence.
I think that only by constant trial and error and breaking the rules can it be possible to rebuild a new order and create new products.

My take is that many investors who are accustomed to centralized classic investments and systems may be eager to put some percentage of their capital into Bitcoin or Ethereum (as part of their risk investment portfolio), but they probably feel discouraged by the collapses of platforms, the hacks/heists and the scams dressed up as legitimate and registered businesses.

They are willing to risk some capital in order to get some gains, but their are not willing to go down 100% just because they got robbed or a CEO mismanaged their funds. We can handle it, because we read and practice self-custody and know how to spot most of scams, but those investors do not care enough to become part of the community and learn about Bitcoin. They want to invest and go to sleep with no worries.