[2018-03-18] Reuters - G20 watchdog ... holds fire on cryptocurrencies

[BenOnceAgain]

Excerpt:

The Financial Stability Board (FSB), which coordinates financial regulation for the Group of 20 Economies, also resisted calls from some G20 members to regulate cryptocurrencies like bitcoin.

G20 watchdog focuses on rules review, holds fire on cryptocurrencies
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g20-regulations-carney/g20-watchdog-focuses-on-rules-review-holds-fire-on-cryptocurrencies-idUSKBN1GU0SF

[Carlton Banks]

lol

Yet again, this is their way of saying "we give up". We've had headline stories about "crackdowns" or "regulatory frameworks" pretty much every week for nearly 10 years, and nothing significant ever actually happens. Ultimately, there's nothing that can be do, peer-to-peer tech cannot be controlled if well designed enough, and that's the whole point.

The world is slowly coming to realise that we can be free & independent of the banks and governments. The real question is: is everyone ready?


I don't think everyone is, but the tech isn't gonna disappear just because some people have their eyes closed and their fingers in their ears. A tipping point will be reached, when more than half the world are using cryptocurrencies. Beyond that, nothing will ever be the same.

The repercussions are possibly difficult to predict, so much else is changing even now, let alone when it gets to the point cryptocurrencies dominate other currencies. The immediate first order effects (legacy banking & finance gone forever, governments losing either alot or all of their power) are obvious, but it's probably gonna be a hell of a time to be alive while the situation stabilises. Maybe these "leaders" would be more responsible to start a public conversation about such events, but don't hold your breath for that.

[zakalwe]

I'm almost sure that cryptocurrencies will be discussed in Buenos Aires on Tuesday 20th March. Okay, crypto-assets don't pose risk to global financial stability, but that doesn't mean that it's an unimportant topic.

[vit05]

This is spectacular news. And I think that's one of the reasons for this rise in the last hour. And it is very likely that in a few hours, when Asian markets open, we will have a rise with volume. After so much bad news, one after another, which created a climate of complete uncertainty, it is very good to start a week with good news

[theCoinMaestro]

I'm waiting to get something positive and concrete from the G20 summit. All we have are mixed signals right now and there is really no solid indication on which direction these policy makers would like cryptocurrency to go. I don't have my hopes up on prices swinging upwards this week, but a positive direction from the G20's would surely mean that there'll be a nice rebound by April.

[amishmanish]

Yet again, this is their way of saying "we give up". We've had headline stories about "crackdowns" or "regulatory frameworks" pretty much every week for nearly 10 years, and nothing significant ever actually happens. Ultimately, there's nothing that can be do, peer-to-peer tech cannot be controlled if well designed enough, and that's the whole point.

I trust you to have the past experience to say this but this sounds far from "we give up". The article says :
"FSB said more international coordination was needed to plug data gaps in monitoring the rapidly evolving but still tiny sector worth less than 1 percent of global GDP at its peak"

That sounds kindda worrisome. Its like they are waiting for the right amount of information and expertise to be able to control how things evolve. They aren't actually giving up on the prospect of regulating or interfering but just putting it off till they think its a bigger issue.

the tech isn't gonna disappear just because some people have their eyes closed and their fingers in their ears. A tipping point will be reached, when more than half the world are using cryptocurrencies. Beyond that, nothing will ever be the same.

The repercussions are possibly difficult to predict, so much else is changing even now, let alone when it gets to the point cryptocurrencies dominate other currencies. The immediate first order effects (legacy banking & finance gone forever, governments losing either alot or all of their power) are obvious, but it's probably gonna be a hell of a time to be alive while the situation stabilises. Maybe these "leaders" would be more responsible to start a public conversation about such events, but don't hold your breath for that.

Very well put. Its hard to visualize the kind of far-reaching changes as well as reactions that the legacy banking systems/ Governments will have if they see their ability to control being compromised.
Apt point about the "leaders". It'a a pretty slim chance that they will act with good intentions on their own accord. We only have to look at the kind of mass movements that had to be organised for governments to finally ignore powerful Energy sector lobbies and take concrete steps towards climate change mitigation. This, after these movements had been going on for decades already and backed by scientific data.

I think that a time will come when as citizens, we would have to be ready to organize and demand our right to choose crytpocurrencies over Bank-backed fiats. It's probably going to be an exciting but demanding time.

[Argoo]

I'm almost sure that cryptocurrencies will be discussed in Buenos Aires on Tuesday 20th March. Okay, crypto-assets don't pose risk to global financial stability, but that doesn't mean that it's an unimportant topic.

However, the agenda of the meeting of representatives of the G20 countries does not directly discuss the issue of the crypto currency. If they talk about the crypto currency, they can only mention it, but they should not make any decisions on it. Therefore, nothing bad in the crypto currency there should not be accepted.

[Carlton Banks]

I think that a time will come when as citizens, we would have to be ready to organize and demand our right to choose crytpocurrencies over Bank-backed fiats. It's probably going to be an exciting but demanding time.

You're misunderstanding both this technology and the concept of rights. If this is really a democratic system for free people, then why are regular people asking governments for permission to do something that's in their own interests? If we express that the other way around, so-called democratic governments can prevent people from doing things that would be good for them (assuming your model of asking politicians who are mandated to represent our views to actually do so, instead of conveying to us in various aggressive or manipulative ways that our views are wrong).


The truth is that you already have the right to choose cryptocurrency instead of fiat currency. It's impossible to take that right away from you, because of how well Satoshi designed his network (as well as some further improvements building on the foundations of Satoshi's design).

Governments can take many of your freedoms away for refusing to choose money that's a part of their system (and isn't that a strange kind of free-market capitalism). But it doesn't matter what they do, they cannot take away your rights to cryptocurrency you own (i.e. your private keys) without getting your permission (assuming you adequately secure your private keys, of course).


Cryptocurrency bestows you with qualitatively the most powerful type of rights one could seek: rights you can secure for yourself in an absolute way. We don't own other types of money (or any other asset), in truth, we are only given permission to use them. Bitcoin is about asserting self-provided right to own your money. The only person you have to ask is yourself, and the question is: are you ready for that responsibility?

[BenOnceAgain]

You're misunderstanding both this technology and the concept of rights. If this is really a democratic system for free people, then why are regular people asking governments for permission to do something that's in their own interests? If we express that the other way around, so-called democratic governments can prevent people from doing things that would be good for them (assuming your model of asking politicians who are mandated to represent our views to actually do so, instead of conveying to us in various aggressive or manipulative ways that our views are wrong).

The truth is that you already have the right to choose cryptocurrency instead of fiat currency. It's impossible to take that right away from you, because of how well Satoshi designed his network (as well as some further improvements building on the foundations of Satoshi's design).

Governments can take many of your freedoms away for refusing to choose money that's a part of their system (and isn't that a strange kind of free-market capitalism). But it doesn't matter what they do, they cannot take away your rights to cryptocurrency you own (i.e. your private keys) without getting your permission (assuming you adequately secure your private keys, of course).

Cryptocurrency bestows you with qualitatively the most powerful type of rights one could seek: rights you can secure for yourself in an absolute way. We don't own other types of money (or any other asset), in truth, we are only given permission to use them. Bitcoin is about asserting self-provided right to own your money. The only person you have to ask is yourself, and the question is: are you ready for that responsibility?

I agree.  The government only exists to the extent that we allow it.  Much of what we've "allowed" is due to complacency more than anything else.  Complacency has a way of snapping back periodically, and I think we're at the beginning of one of those periods.  Cryptocurrency, and more generally, decentralization, are and will continue to benefit from being the right technology at the right time in history.

Governments know they cannot abolish cryptocurrency.  From both technical and practical perspectives, its impossible.  Governments also know that countries that attempt to regulate crypto assets too rigidly do so at their own peril and to their detriment.  If I wanted to form a business in most other countries, I could do it right now, more or less, without leaving my keyboard.  It is in the governments' best interests to not excessively regulate crypto assets.  Otherwise, regulatory arbitrage will favor the more reasonable governments, and disadvantage the less reasonable ones.

Eventually, it is my hope that governments see cryptocurrency as a solution for their benefit, as well.  They too have been enslaved by large banks for centuries, they too can benefit from the exchange of value, unfettered by intermediary banks.  Governments and banks sometimes seem to have a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship, but from my perspective, it's really more of a codependent relationship.

Best regards,
Ben

[amishmanish]

I think that a time will come when as citizens, we would have to be ready to organize and demand our right to choose crytpocurrencies over Bank-backed fiats. It's probably going to be an exciting but demanding time.

If this is really a democratic system for free people, then why are regular people asking governments for permission to do something that's in their own interests?

I think the difference is because of the way we look at governments here in developing countries and the way someone in say, the USA, looks at it. In a country like India, if the government decides to paint cryptocurrencies as something that are being used for "terror financing and money laundering", the perception will quickly change.
In that scenario, normal people would like to stay away from it and mass adoption will be difficult to come. While this maybe the reason why i sound eager to have the popular approval, I do get your point about "Cryptocurrency bestows you with qualitatively the most powerful type of rights one could seek: rights you can secure for yourself in an absolute way."

That's a very good point indeed. I suppose even if there is a subtle demonization drive against crytpocurrencies, maybe normal people like us should be able to represent our point of views and argue against such a branding. Because that right is not for the governments to give but for us to claim. Nice! Thanks for those views. You've changed my perception on this.

[BenOnceAgain]

That's a very good point indeed. I suppose even if there is a subtle demonization drive against crytpocurrencies, maybe normal people like us should be able to represent our point of views and argue against such a branding. Because that right is not for the governments to give but for us to claim. Nice! Thanks for those views. You've changed my perception on this.

I agree.  I read this article yesterday, granted it's from a website with a primary audience of women in business (which I am not):

Data Shows Women Won’t Invest In Crypto, So Try It Anyway
http://swaay.com/data-shows-women-wont-invest-in-crypto-so-try-it-anyway/

Though this article was written to women, my comments are not specific to women.  People are confused about cryptocurrency.  They don't understand it and the jargon and relative complexity of using it can overwhelm them.  These are the same people that 25 years ago couldn't send email, 20 years ago had trouble navigating the web, and 10 years ago were overwhelmed by smartphones.  They're doing all of those things now with relative ease.

Because cryptocurrency is in that early stage, and it has to some extent the reputation of being used for nefarious purposes (though you and I know that's a distortion), they really need to be educated on cryptocurrency and its positive benefits, on blockchain and its positive benefits, how they are interrelated, and how blockchain has potential in some other applications.  And in my view, the overall benefits from decentralization away from data silos and gatekeepers, starting with the banks, easily the most entrenched of the control structures over society, and going down the line.

First impressions are sometimes hard to overcome, so to the extent that governments paint a bad impression, it can be more difficult to get users to adopt without a "killer app".  We have plenty of killer apps that are getting there as far as a usability and scalability standpoint and that will increase as we continue to promote decentralization in all of the places it makes sense.

I am often asked by non-technical people about crypto, blockchain, and decentralization and I try very hard to avoid overly technical explanations.  Only if I am asked a question that is of a technical nature do I go there.  I don't want to scare anyone away with jargon overload.  There are some good videos that provide very basic overviews of how Bitcoin works and its benefits.  I believe these should be translated into many languages because the movement we are undertaking is global and needs to reach the widest audience possible.

There also need to be videos that are more focused on certain target audiences, such as law and policymakers, children, business owners, etc.  Well written and produced videos have a way of explaining concepts much better than pages of text when you're talking about fundamental knowledge level materials.  A small team of crypto evangelists, a crypto "army", if you will, armed with the right knowledge and educational materials, working around the world can form positive impressions to many people in a very efficient manner.

Best regards,
Ben