Government & Bitcoin

[n2004al]

No because first not the miners but the technology regulate bitcoin.Then the technology regulate the digital bitcoin The digital currency, the currency of internet). The papers bitcoin (the banknotes) will be another thing. If it will be produced (printed) more banknotes than the real number of bitcoins then will be trouble. The technology or your miners in this case can do nothing. At least the technology known since this moment in the production of the digital bitcoin (the internet currency).

No you misunderstand me. The miners do regulate bitcoin, because they have the voting rights.

So whatever issue/problem/event/implementation happens with bitcoin, the miners can veto it.

Not very democratical, but still more fair than the political system, because atleast miner's vote is transparent, while political elections can be faked.

First, it was not this the aim of my answer. It was an lateral explanation.

Second and the most important you haven't answer to the main aim of my answer and our discuss - the paper bitcoin is not auto-regulated - but need rules. You must accept that you were wrong about the things told in your previous post. This is seriousness and fairness in an discussion.

Third, I haven't heard never in my life such foolishness like the words wrote by you in your last post and your "explanations" given there.

Forth, you must see a doctor because suffer from narcissism which will hurt you to much during your life. You love yourself in an unimaginable way and that in the future can damage you seriously. I have no desire to answer to your post but I will obligated because this forum will be read by thousand people and to many from them may be deviated from your hallucinations. Which for more are provoking with the way you do the comments. You don't comment or discuss. You give lessons with your posts. You give mind without having yourself. This way provokes the other pair that - without having desire (at least in my case) - to be taken with you and not with the discussion. Thing that I personally hate.

[RealBitcoin]

First, it was not this the aim of my answer. It was an lateral explanation.

Second and the most important you haven't answer to the main aim of my answer and our discuss - the paper bitcoin is not auto-regulated - but need rules. You must accept that you were wrong about the things told in your previous post. This is seriousness and fairness in an discussion.

Third, I haven't heard never in my life such foolishness like the words wrote by you in your last post and your "explanations" given there.

Forth, you must see a doctor because suffer from narcissism which will hurt you to much during your life. You love yourself in an unimaginable way and that in the future can damage you seriously. I have no desire to answer to your post but I will obligated because this forum will be read by thousand people and to many from them may be deviated from your hallucinations. Which for more are provoking with the way you do the comments. You don't comment or discuss. You give lessons with your posts. You give mind without having yourself. This way provokes the other pair that - without having desire (at least in my case) - to be taken with you and not with the discussion. Thing that I personally hate.

You are again doing ad hominem attacks, which is kind of unfair and disrespectful.

I was just simply explaining to you my views. I wasnt even talking about paper currency, my last post, and my post before that was a satire about the "regulation" that exists on paper printing , which it obviously doesnt exist, otherwise we would not lose 99% of our purchasing power in the course of 30-40 years.

Then again you have your answer, the bitcoin miners are regulating the network, so the questioin is answered.

[n2004al]

First, it was not this the aim of my answer. It was an lateral explanation.

Second and the most important you haven't answer to the main aim of my answer and our discuss - the paper bitcoin is not auto-regulated - but need rules. You must accept that you were wrong about the things told in your previous post. This is seriousness and fairness in an discussion.

Third, I haven't heard never in my life such foolishness like the words wrote by you in your last post and your "explanations" given there.

Forth, you must see a doctor because suffer from narcissism which will hurt you to much during your life. You love yourself in an unimaginable way and that in the future can damage you seriously. I have no desire to answer to your post but I will obligated because this forum will be read by thousand people and to many from them may be deviated from your hallucinations. Which for more are provoking with the way you do the comments. You don't comment or discuss. You give lessons with your posts. You give mind without having yourself. This way provokes the other pair that - without having desire (at least in my case) - to be taken with you and not with the discussion. Thing that I personally hate.

You are again doing ad hominem attacks, which is kind of unfair and disrespectful.

I was just simply explaining to you my views. I wasnt even talking about paper currency, my last post, and my post before that was a satire about the "regulation" that exists on paper printing , which it obviously doesnt exist, otherwise we would not lose 99% of our purchasing power in the course of 30-40 years.

Then again you have your answer, the bitcoin miners are regulating the network, so the questioin is answered.

Who are you to make satire with thoughts of the others telling "was a satire"? Isn't this disrespectful versus the author of the thought? Where is written that "the "regulation" that exists on paper printing"? Who told that exist regulation on paper printing? Bring here this expression and show the post where this is written. Why don't you accept that don't read that the others write but what you want to understand from their that the other write? Or if not that then that you diverges from the object of discussion with words without meaning? In this case why don't you accept that you spoke about bitcoin when the discussion was about the paper printing. And then diverge with other words totally without meaning. like: "The miners do regulate bitcoin, because they have the voting rights" What kind of vote have the miners and in which way is counted this vote? Then who are you to decide that "otherwise we would not lose 99% of our purchasing power in the course of 30-40 years" and what does it mean this phrase? It is not an error your phrase "my post before that was a satire about the "regulation" that exists on paper printing , which it obviously doesn't exist, otherwise we would not lose 99% of our purchasing power in the course of 30-40 years" which mean that "if exist the paper printing of bitcoin we will not lose 99% of our....." So you are against the paper printing and if we will have that will not lose 99% of our purchasing. What is this thought?

[Dotakels]

No because first not the miners but the technology regulate bitcoin.Then the technology regulate the digital bitcoin The digital currency, the currency of internet). The papers bitcoin (the banknotes) will be another thing. If it will be produced (printed) more banknotes than the real number of bitcoins then will be trouble. The technology or your miners in this case can do nothing. At least the technology known since this moment in the production of the digital bitcoin (the internet currency).

No you misunderstand me. The miners do regulate bitcoin, because they have the voting rights.

So whatever issue/problem/event/implementation happens with bitcoin, the miners can veto it.

Not very democratical, but still more fair than the political system, because atleast miner's vote is transparent, while political elections can be faked.

And the most of the miner do the confirmation so they can handle the list of transaction and also the mining is the greatest way to earn bitcoin, they can earn almost 50 btc per day (mining company in china can do that).

[RealBitcoin]

Who are you to make satire with thoughts of the others telling "was a satire"?

I was referring to my own post. I have no idea what you are talking about, please re-read my posts and you will understand better.

No because first not the miners but the technology regulate bitcoin.Then the technology regulate the digital bitcoin The digital currency, the currency of internet). The papers bitcoin (the banknotes) will be another thing. If it will be produced (printed) more banknotes than the real number of bitcoins then will be trouble. The technology or your miners in this case can do nothing. At least the technology known since this moment in the production of the digital bitcoin (the internet currency).

No you misunderstand me. The miners do regulate bitcoin, because they have the voting rights.

So whatever issue/problem/event/implementation happens with bitcoin, the miners can veto it.

Not very democratical, but still more fair than the political system, because atleast miner's vote is transparent, while political elections can be faked.

And the most of the miner do the confirmation so they can handle the list of transaction and also the mining is the greatest way to earn bitcoin, they can earn almost 50 btc per day (mining company in china can do that).

Yep, bitcoin is not a democracy, its a mining oligarchy, because essentially it's the miners who own bitcoin, while we just lend it from them.

If the miners would all got together to form a 70% ownership cartel, then we would all lose our money.

[pattu1]

Yep, bitcoin is not a democracy, its a mining oligarchy, because essentially it's the miners who own bitcoin, while we just lend it from them.

If the miners would all got together to form a 70% ownership cartel, then we would all lose our money.

Consider the scenario - 90% miners decide to make a shift in the Bitcoin protocol.
10% decide on retaining it. Since they are in a minority, this is a hard fork and the 10% form an altcoin.
Now, if the majority of people using bitcoins decide that they will accept only the 10% miner-alt as Bitcoin, then the remaining miners can take a hike (in spite of their majority).

[~Bitcoin~]

Government also play a role about the adoption of bitcoin in real life. But as bitcoin is not like other currency and physical item it will not be regulated by any government. This have both problem and benefits, as problem bitcoin can be used by scammers,criminals,smuglers with being anonymous and as benefit bitcoin is currency of the miners who have actually grows it from their computer and which is also valuable till now.

I think the government restriction may lower the adoption and price of bitcoin in future. Which is dangerous situation for both us and miners.
 

[n2004al]

Government also play a role about the adoption of bitcoin in real life. But as bitcoin is not like other currency and physical item it will not be regulated by any government. This have both problem and benefits, as problem bitcoin can be used by scammers,criminals,smuglers with being anonymous and as benefit bitcoin is currency of the miners who have actually grows it from their computer and which is also valuable till now.

I think the government restriction may lower the adoption and price of bitcoin in future. Which is dangerous situation for both us and miners.
 

I think the same. But first, it is better not namely restriction but regulation and second, it is not government which can made such regulations by the Authorities which manage the money of the country. And they independent from the countries. Maybe, may be some of those which can be depended bu the government (it it will included to many agencies) but the most important authority (normally Central Banks) is independent.

[RealBitcoin]

Yep, bitcoin is not a democracy, its a mining oligarchy, because essentially it's the miners who own bitcoin, while we just lend it from them.

If the miners would all got together to form a 70% ownership cartel, then we would all lose our money.

Consider the scenario - 90% miners decide to make a shift in the Bitcoin protocol.
10% decide on retaining it. Since they are in a minority, this is a hard fork and the 10% form an altcoin.
Now, if the majority of people using bitcoins decide that they will accept only the 10% miner-alt as Bitcoin, then the remaining miners can take a hike (in spite of their majority).

Interesting, but the bitcoin users are not very unilateral, its far more likely that they will split in 2 if the claims of the 10% are legitimate, and we will have 2 bitcoins with half value each.

That scenario would really suck....

[Preen]

I think bitcoin is already moving away from being a people's coin.

[TTMNewsMJ]

Government regulations are so slowly implemented but they're trying to adopt to new financial markets. Everything is changing, regulations and taxes too. We need few years for mass adoption and official law in almost all countries.

We need to wait until the Government accepts the bitcoin.

[MinerHQ]

Government regulations are so slowly implemented but they're trying to adopt to new financial markets. Everything is changing, regulations and taxes too. We need few years for mass adoption and official law in almost all countries.

We need to wait until the Government accepts the bitcoin.

But I don't think any governments will accept it so easily because the nature of bitcoin usage. As of now they can't trace out the transaction details very clearly.

[Dotakels]

Government regulations are so slowly implemented but they're trying to adopt to new financial markets. Everything is changing, regulations and taxes too. We need few years for mass adoption and official law in almost all countries.

We need to wait until the Government accepts the bitcoin.

But I don't think any governments will accept it so easily because the nature of bitcoin usage. As of now they can't trace out the transaction details very clearly.

Maybe they'll accept bitcoin, but i think they will add various rules such as :
1. Everyone must make bitcoin wallet which provided by government & they'll take tax from it
2. Every bitcoin company must have bitcoin license & report suspicious bitcoin activity
3. Bitcoiner should how they earn & use their bitcoin to government

I think something like that could happen in future & it would be very bad for bitcoin

they can only support and not totally control it, because no one will agree with those rules that they will make, like your examples, "Everyone must make bitcoin wallet which provided by government & they'll take tax from it" if they do that, the new comers will be outweigh by those fee win every transaction they will make, and we are lucky because our address is free and not control with government. So you will agree with  this?

[MikeCoin]

Governments will never allow bitcoins as they cant tax it.

[Amph]

Governments will never allow bitcoins as they cant tax it.

well that's not true, since IRS can already tax it pretty well, and there it is also regualted

taxes would be the only reason for them to tax bitcoin if anything...

[pitham1]

taxes would be the only reason for them to tax bitcoin if anything...

What exactly is this supposed to mean? 

[MinerHQ]

Governments will never allow bitcoins as they cant tax it.

That is true, not only they can't tax on those transactions but also they can't trace out 100% who has done the transaction.

[n2004al]

Government regulations are so slowly implemented but they're trying to adopt to new financial markets. Everything is changing, regulations and taxes too. We need few years for mass adoption and official law in almost all countries.

We need to wait until the Government accepts the bitcoin.

But I don't think any governments will accept it so easily because the nature of bitcoin usage. As of now they can't trace out the transaction details very clearly.

Maybe they'll accept bitcoin, but i think they will add various rules such as :
1. Everyone must make bitcoin wallet which provided by government & they'll take tax from it
2. Every bitcoin company must have bitcoin license & report suspicious bitcoin activity
3. Bitcoiner should how they earn & use their bitcoin to government

I think something like that could happen in future & it would be very bad for bitcoin

they can only support and not totally control it, because no one will agree with those rules that they will make, like your examples, "Everyone must make bitcoin wallet which provided by government & they'll take tax from it" if they do that, the new comers will be outweigh by those fee win every transaction they will make, and we are lucky because our address is free and not control with government. So you will agree with  this?

Of course, no one would agree with that if it happened, bitcoin would be totally useless
So, of course i won't agree with this. I better use wallet which i like even government would send me to jail

I hope it won't happen to any country

I think that have no meaning and cannot be happen that Government will take on "his shoulders" the creation and the management of the wallets of bitcoin. It would be totally out of its duties and impossible to be managed (its impossible). The govern of USA cannot decide and have no power in Venezuela or China or Russia. So even it will be such rule there (in USA) the people can store their bitcoins online in wallets out of USA and the Government can do nothing.

But is not this the risk that a Central Bank (and not Government) can ban bitcoin (as it is verified in some countries already). Is the fear that bitcoin "leave in shadow" the national currency. This event (if verified) can damage the power of the national currency and can damage even the finances of the country. This can be (I think) the risk of acceptation of bitcoin for one country.

And this normally can happen in countries not financially wealthy. USA for example have regulated bitcoin because have not such problem (i guess from its actions in this direction). Russia which has problems with its national currency has banned bitcoin. China has choose an middle decision. Free for bitcoin for the people but not for financial institutions (situation which is called "restricted" status for bitcoin). Maybe this is connected with the national currency of China which is not totally free to be changed as the other currencies. Can move in fixed margins about a fixed amount which is determined with reference to a basket of world currencies. This kind of currency can be damaged because of its status.

As about for the taxation of bitcoin, this action can be realized in the same way like with the actual fiat money. If it will be regulated, it will be possible that bitcoin can be controlled and manged like all the other actual currencies.

This situation can change if every country can and will adopt as a national currency a digital coin currency. This can made possible the change of behavior of every country in confront of bitcoin. Practically there were be two digital currencies and it will be more easily for the Authorities to make the people to chose the proper digital coin and not bitcoin.

Anyhow I believe and hope that bitcoin can and must have a much higher role in the world of national currencies. Even if those will have all a national digital coin currency.

[Abiky]

The government always spies on you everyday, every single hour. They can check the sites you've accessed over the internet, the transactions you've made in the bank and probably even Bitcoin transactions if they manage to link the public address you are using to you. I think the only way that government can't interfere with your BTC transactions, is by using Tor and a Bitcoin Mixer. 

[wearepoor]

Growth of Bitcoins is totally depends on the policy of the governments. If all the countries and their governments start regulating and recognizing bitcoins as a legal digital currency then there will be increase in the user of bitcoins and it will be more popular if accepted universally.