...
government control is not always bad .
But it has no boundaries: knives can be dangerous for "stupid population", medications can be dangerous, wearing incorrect clothing... and as a result we'll get an anti utopian world. Government consists of the same people who can make mistakes which can be dangerous and even much more dangerous than a mistake of someone outside, but we don't ban governments because they have a positive meaning also. Don't absolutize governments, their decisions and fears can be as wrong as of someone else of "stupid population". |
|
|
|
I'm not too lucky investor but let's try! |
|
|
|
...
People can be acquiring bitcoin in a low-income country as they can be acquiring it in a country with a stable economy, what you mention is more a myth than reality, bitcoin does not improve the economies of any country. (imo)
It's more not about low income, it's more about global problems in economy of a country and fall in the exchange rate of national currency in the recent past. If we'll look at the top crypto countries we'll see that there are Nigeria, Vietnam, Turkey. Look at the rates of their currencies: I'm nearly sure they were also buying dollars to save money from devaluations previously, so now it is natural to use some other asset as well. And if your currency is stable by itself you'll buy Bitcoin only for investing if you are interested in that. |
|
|
|
Cash is mostly anonymous.
Not any longer, especially with digital cash. I don't remember the last time I used real cash except for roadside stalls or big night markets, which all accept qr code payments now already. Everything you spend from your bank account, your card, your phone, that's all properly and exactly tied to you  Though you're right that people want to assume if you want to hide from the government, you have done something wrong. The government makes people think like this though. What is even more traced than classical digital forms of fiat is forthcoming CBDC: to learn your nowadays transactions governments at least need to connect an intermediary commercial banks, CBDC gives them all data directly... And then we know that governments don't keep data safe enough, all that data will be known by major crime in some time. So right, when I prefer to stay anonymous it is not because I don't want to stay honest, it is because I prefer to stay as safe as reasonably possible. |
|
|
|
...
Maybe we are all talking past each other? which also seems to demonstrate that bitcoin is more than a payment system and more than investment.. so maybe it does not even matter upon which premises any country inches into bitcoin, advantages are likely going to come to the people and to bitcoin through more awareness and more expansion, even if the initial reasons for awareness and expansion seem to be wrong...
Any permissive legislation is good in some way, some ways are better than others, but most important is the right trend. What will work better we'll see in the future, but at the moment we can stand for some specific way and push it with argues. Even if to have some dispute in details most of us agree with each other in general, Bitcoin expansion gives lots of benefits to people. |
|
|
|
McAfee предсказывает, что новым популярным у мошенников инструментом в наступающем году могут стать нейросети, продукцией которых будут создавать фейковые представления о благонадёжности (фото и видеоматериалы якобы от известных людей). Поскольку теперь доступность создания поддельных материалов спустилась с уровня профессионалов на уровень обывателя, доверять чему-либо, полученному из информационных источников, станет полностью небезопасно. Можно ожидать роста предложений различных мошеннических криптопроектов, якобы завязанных на различных знаменитостей, о каких, скажем, сейчас предупреждает та же Metallica. |
|
|
|
There is a negative relationship between the monetary system and the growth, and adoption of cryptocurrency especially bitcoin.
...
What do you think?
"If it is not broken don't fix it." It is how things are usually going on: if a classical system you usually use works not so bad you'll hardly start searching for alternative. And if it starts breaking you start looking for something workable. Having a competitor existing financial project will have to work harder not to lose their clients so it is possible that a majority will stay with them, but it is not a problem as even being an alternative Bitcoin is changing world to the good. |
|
|
|
...
They fear it might cause unaccountability in the economy since they would not know the financial inflow and outflow, and believe it would aid illegal money flows, which is true as a result of its anonymity in most cases.
Cash is mostly anonymous. Following your reasoning do I need to suppose that you use it for some illegal issues as it is theoretically possible? It is so wrong to suppose that majority is criminal. We know that Illicit financial flows are still mainly of fiat currencies and criminals perfectly know how to operate with fiat currencies. When we see statistics it usually says that Bitcoin is rarely used for criminal purposes. So all reflections about Bitcoin and criminals are just assumptions, you need to prove it and not just to spread FUD. |
|
|
|
The same use of Bitcoin will also have a positive impact on the Brazilian economy, benefiting the people of the entire country and making them more free.
How is this going to have a positive impact on their economy, Bitcoin is just a payment system and just like other payment system that's been recognize by Brazilian government, Bitcoin just became one of them. The Brazil government didn't say they'll be investing in Bitcoin, If that's what they'll do then their involvement will have a positive impact as the country financial will increase when Bitcoin does go higher. Bitcoin has grown so popular that it's unreasonable for any government to not make it a payment currency in their country then invest in them. You bring more awareness to your citizens when you accept Bitcoin and then your citizens investing in it can help them financially. Bitcoin is not about investing only, it is a direct alternative to a classical bank system. So it gives an opportunity of using bank like solutions directly without permission or trust a third party, it returns control over own money. Competition makes system better, so bank system will have to make their system better not to lost their customers. So economy of Brazil will get a positive impact even without investing in Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
...
What do you think about El Salvador’s newly established National Bitcoin Office?
...
Well, as Bitcoin economy is still at the stage of development in a country, a special department is a good idea IMO. They still need to implement Bitcoin to different sectors of El Salvador economy. I think having main Bitcoin center in the country can help to make everything thoroughly and carefully. |
|
|
|
When we talk about a legal tender we see that it has a mandatory acceptance part. So business in the country has to accept a legal tender as a payment for goods or services. May be not immediately but in the future countries legislated Bitcoin as a legal tender will have to control its acceptance by business. So you think governments are going to make Bitcoin their legal currency and require their people to use Bitcoin only? That means the government prohibited the people from using other currencies, correct? I think it's impossible as long as the government wanna control everything. Centralized is everything for the government. The most possible thing is to make Bitcoin the official "second" currency. Incorrect. First, if centralization and control are everything for governments than why to give a decentralized currency the status of an "official second currency"? Next, when it is done. Let's see an example of Venezuela: when pensions were once paid in el petro, there was no option of staying in bolivar which is still an official currency and a legal tender in a country. So you are not maid to use one of two currencies only, but you have no option to refuse it if it is a legal tender. And as for business it should accept payments if they are made with legal tender. So no, it is not about using bitcoins only, it is about how payments can be made. |
|
|
|
...
This Bitcoin textbook, I believe it will contain some of the things that will make their students to know more about the founder of Bitcoin, and the purpose of Bitcoin to humanity.
Wow! It looks really promising. Bitcoin education at a national level will make El Salvador the most Bitcoin understanding nation in the world! And I hope they'll get as much benefits from that as possible. El Salvador pretends to be the first not only in making Bitcoin a legal tender but also in everything related to it. Sounds fantastic! |
|
|
|
...
I bet there will not be a single country now or in the future that requires its citizens to use Bitcoin. There will always be another currency that takes precedence.
...
When we talk about a legal tender we see that it has a mandatory acceptance part. So business in the country has to accept a legal tender as a payment for goods or services. May be not immediately but in the future countries legislated Bitcoin as a legal tender will have to control its acceptance by business. Brazil didn't make Bitcoin a legal tender, it just allowed to use it. And IMO it is good and better corresponds the spirit of Bitcoin: you got an alternative but you are not made to use it. Bitcoin has enough benefits of using it and not to be needed in legislative enforcement to use it.
Brazilian real is still the legal tender in Brazil, while bitcoin has also been legalized as a payment method throughout the country. But even so, this is still a big win for bitcoin as not all countries have been open to bitcoin and legalize it. Brazil can now boost the adoption of digital currencies, and definitely will expand the cryptocurrency community in their own country. As I said, IMO it is the best way of adoption of Bitcoin as it corresponds its spirit. And of course Brazilians will get all benefits they can get from Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I would guess that cash would be limited because in most places you can't really get cash directly, like almost no workers would get cash, in my nation it is even illegal to pay salaries in cash, you have to put it in the bank.
It means that cash is a limited thing to get, it's a ton on excel sheets, if you look at it we have a lot of cash, but how much cash a regular person carries? All of that is just in the vaults of some banks and that's it. I am guessing that the point of the current situation is to make sure people do not hide their wealth, and not the wealthy, they just take their wealth to another nation, and hide their wealth, they do it for all of us that do not have that chance.
There are multiple ways to control monetary and commodity flows in the country government can use. As for salary the employers can be made to report exact transaction hashes when they are paying in cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin's blockchain is transparent so it is even easier to control transactions inside it than to control paper money movements. So governments can be worried about something, but in fact this will say that they are just not aware about how things are running. |
|
|
|
Now I'm so confused, because I didn't find what you said about the better type of regulation in your previous reply; instead you said that Bitcoin doesn't need to be put into "legislative enforcement". That's what I got from your sentence. Whereas in my head the bill is a legislative product, and if the bill is signed by the president, then it will become a law/rule/regulation.
That's right, I was talking about legislative enforcement and in here I don't see the enforcement part. May be I was not attentive to the details of this legal act and it is not only permitting, but as I see no one is enforced using or accepting Bitcoin. This bill gives an opportunity of totally legal usage, but doesn't enforce to do that. Am I not right?  |
|
|
|
|
Altryist активно интересуется криптотематикой и следит за важными событиями в заметных криптопроектах, так что достижение легендарного ранга из разряда вполне ожидаемых событий. Поздравляю!
baeva активная участница нашего локала с собственной позицией по различным вопросам, которая охотно делится своими наблюдениями. Весьма заслуженный героический статус, поздравляю! Думаю, и легенда тут совсем не за горами.
|
|
|
|
To get rid of problems like this is very difficult, because almost everyone buys bitcoin when prices soar high, when prices are low it seems as if the market looks quiet, so not many people dare to buy when prices are low, so certainly not many people can collect the coffers of money from bitcoin, only a few people dare to take the risk of buying when the price is low, it becomes clear that currently bitcoin is prepared for younger people who dare to take high risks.
Is this situation specific for Bitcoin only? Don't you think that any investing has the same patterns? It is not always just about being ready to risk, IMO it is even more common about basic understanding of economy, of market and the things like that. Most don't have it. So we can see the same patterns in other situations as well. And that's why it is not so wise to do investing if it is just about risks acceptation, investing should not be a gambling IMO. |
|
|
|
...
Brazil's government have passed law to use bitcoin as legal tender within the country.
...
It didn't, Bitcoin is permitted to use in Brazil with this legislation act but not made a legal tender. So companies can accept payments in Bitcoin on their choice but they are not made to do it. IMO it is good as permissive legislation at my point of view is the best way of global Bitcoin adoption. Copying El Salvador's experience for other countries is not mandatory to achieve good results. |
|
|
|
Brazil have yet made Bitcoin legal tender in their country but the impact from Brazil is bigger than legal tender in El Salvador.
...
And I hope it won't go that way, because, as I already said, IMO permissive legislation corresponds the spirit of Bitcoin much more than enforcement. For me it is more important that more people would get benefits from Bitcoin and will find out it makes their life better then impact from governmental decisions on Bitcoin's price or smth like that. The rule/law may not be important for some Bitcoin users. But the government will definitely implement it (laws and rules) to regulate all running systems in their countries. If some countries law forbid you to use Bitcoin in their territory, then you have to follow the rules whether you like it or not.
Legislation can be of different kind, prohibition is bad, but permissive is better than enforcement. I'm talking not about if Bitcoin can avoid regulation, I'm talking about which type of regulation is better. |
|
|
|
...
Формально не кирдык конечно, а по факту кирдык.
И... Смотря что считать кирдыком.
...
...оно зациклилось. Потому что кто что чем считает, это очень неоднозначный момент. И возможность скоординированного глобального запрета на фоне разнонаправленных, но преимущественно разрешительных тенденций довольно маловероятна. А разные положительные аспекты биткойна могут работать и при низких курсах, так что и это не смертельно. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
