Hi . i wonder whats pivx future ?
İ saw last days in japan privacy coins delisted because of goverment.
and today i saw one korean exchange delisted privacy coins (same japan delisted coins) too.
thats reallt scary and will effect the price big
whats pivx devs and teams opinion about that ?
what they are planning any protection about this situation ?
Here is Turtleflax's (PIVX support) response to the same question on Reddit:
On a technical level, you can't ban privacy coins without banning crypto, and you can't ban crypto without shutting down the internet. There are too many domestic, foreign, and decentralized exchanges already for fiat gateways to really control people converting bitcoin to any other coin they choose. Further moves against privacy coins will only make PIVX shine brighter because we'll soon have zDEX built into our network which allows private exchanges for other coins.
> Does that mean we as PIVX holders will be come criminals in the future?
No, nobody has even floated this idea that holding any coin would make you a criminal. Conversely, holding a transparent coin like bitcoin can get you in hot water if that coin had history in a hack or darknet market transaction.
> Is there any consumer protection against such kind of government behavior?
From a political perspective, vote. From an economic perspective, support privacy coins to support your right to privacy. From a technical perspective, support censorship resistant technology.
> How would you react if that law becomes widespread thru out the world???
There are hundreds of billions of dollars in economic activity already in this very young space. It is highly unlikely that many countries will turn their nose up at that.
We've always had the option for financial privacy with cash money. The banking system reduces that privacy and now transparent crypto reduces it further. Privacy coins seek to maintain that level of privacy. Your right to privacy is not suddenly evil or problematic. Nobody faults the US Dollar for gambling.
Personally, I agree in principle with most of those points; however, while I don't think a ban would ever be 100% effective, I do think those sorts of government actions have the potential to discourage casual/inexperienced users. In other words, a ban doesn't have to be complete or even enforceable to have an effect (think of something like home distilling--you could make moonshine in your basement and the government would never know, yet the fact that you're not supposed to is enough to discourage many people). I have always assumed that crypto will ultimately move toward a two-tiered system, with 'mainstream' blockchain projects that are endorsed or even managed by traditional financial powers (governments, corporations, etc.) on the one hand, and 'grassroots' projects on the other hand, which continue to uphold crypto's decentralized ideals. The thing is, though, PIVX makes its privacy features optional, so in theory it can satisfy the needs of both of those 'tiers'.
One more thought: A frequent criticism of crypto is that there are a lot of ideas and not much concrete, real-world utility. Currently, exchange tokens like Binance Coin, Kucoin Shares, etc. are among the only projects that have already demonstrated their use-cases (again, not talking about hypothetical future use-cases that only exist on paper). From this perspective, privacy coins have a stronger intrinsic use-case (i.e., they allow the anonymous exchange of value) than many other projects out there. So while anti-privacy noise from regulators might discourage casual users, it should also reinforce the current value of privacy coins' use-case. Thus, even if the potential market for privacy coins is reduced by regulation, the market that remains should tend to value privacy more
because of that regulation (IMHO).
OK, one last thought: In a way, it may be to the benefit of privacy coins if they end up occupying a smaller market outside the mainstream of blockchain. The fact is, anyone who thinks that cryptocurrencies are going to completely overthrow the financial system and subvert centralized government is extremely naive. If all financial transactions were truly anonymous and unregulated, governments would have no tax base. They are NEVER going to let that happen (and, frankly, not many people would actually want to live in a world without the benefits that come from a strong tax base anyway--infrastructure, services, health care [so sorry, USA], etc.). Just like the home distilling example above, governments are quite happy to wink at a certain amount of illicit activity as long as most people are buying their liquor through official (i.e., taxed) channels. I suspect that the same will be true in the blockchain space.
Poll
