Where is the Balance?

[Kprawn]

Things haven't changed and won't change. Bitcoin isn't anonymous, it is pseudonymous. That means govts can enforce their laws if they want to.

If you don't like the laws in a given jurisdiction, you need to move. Staying put and imagining that a bit of technology will get round legal structures is wishful thinking.

No-one said anything about anonymity or staying put being important, it's about the balance of control. Cash or bank account can be confiscated. BTC cannot. It's very simple, but apparently not simple enough for some


And so your reply doesn't even relate to what I wrote

The way most people use Bitcoin these days, I would wager a bet that they will lose almost all their coins, when regulated exchanges are forced

to block accounts. How many bitcoins are stored in services that adhere to strict AML/KYC regulations.. How many of them can be forced to

block accounts and then to transfer the "live" coins and the ones held in cold storage to the government. It has happened with Fiat banks, so

why not with these services?

[Carlton Banks]

The way most people use Bitcoin these days, I would wager a bet that they will lose almost all their coins, when regulated exchanges are forced

to block accounts. How many bitcoins are stored in services that adhere to strict AML/KYC regulations.. How many of them can be forced to

block accounts and then to transfer the "live" coins and the ones held in cold storage to the government. It has happened with Fiat banks, so

why not with these services?

That all makes sense. But who says the majority of people let 3rd parties keep their coins? Maybe that's true, but I'm not seeing any actual evidence for that



The fact remains: those who do secure their own Bitcoins for themselves cannot have them taken by force, it doesn't matter if it's government or just a regular street mugger. That's never been possible ever before, to think that this huge change will go unexploited only demonstrates a severe lack of imagination.


Where the banks and government once held all the power, now everyone is equally powerful.

[Kprawn]

The way most people use Bitcoin these days, I would wager a bet that they will lose almost all their coins, when regulated exchanges are forced

to block accounts. How many bitcoins are stored in services that adhere to strict AML/KYC regulations.. How many of them can be forced to

block accounts and then to transfer the "live" coins and the ones held in cold storage to the government. It has happened with Fiat banks, so

why not with these services?

That all makes sense. But who says the majority of people let 3rd parties keep their coins? Maybe that's true, but I'm not seeing any actual evidence for that



The fact remains: those who do secure their own Bitcoins for themselves cannot have them taken by force, it doesn't matter if it's government or just a regular street mugger. That's never been possible ever before, to think that this huge change will go unexploited only demonstrates a severe lack of imagination.


Where the banks and government once held all the power, now everyone is equally powerful.

Yes, Carlton... It will take a lot of aggressive threats by the governments to "take" your coins and this will not happen to the average Bitcoiner

that stores his/her coins in cold storage, but they can target the soft targets first... namely : regulated 3rd parties. You should NEVER

store more than 20% of your total hoard in these services... to reduce the risk of these services getting hacked or "blocked" by government

actions. Just look at what happened with members on this forum, when they raided their houses. < Reason : suspected money transmitter > 

[Carlton Banks]

Why aren't you saying "Yeah, great that ordinary people now have more control over their money"?

Why concentrate on the negatives? Everything you've said will be completely insignificant when Bitcoin is a cultural norm

[franky1]

?? those that secure their coins cant have them taken by force ??

hmmmm

silkroad stash grabbed by authorities debunks that theory

[avikz]

 A balance needs to be stuck in here between the regulators and the bitcoin end users. Otherwise, bitcoin will be treated illegally around the world. A country should come forward to take a positive decision where the views of users/owners or the regulators view coincide. However, it is not bad that governments are slowly taking interest in to bitcoin. It would help bitcoin grow.

May the regulators come up with a tax structure for the bitcoin business owners or they can impose a certain tax on bitcoin earning. Whatever it may be, a balance needs to be stuck at some point of time. It will be for good I believe!

[Vaccinus]

Things haven't changed and won't change. Bitcoin isn't anonymous, it is pseudonymous. That means govts can enforce their laws if they want to.

If you don't like the laws in a given jurisdiction, you need to move. Staying put and imagining that a bit of technology will get round legal structures is wishful thinking.

No-one said anything about anonymity or staying put being important, it's about the balance of control. Cash or bank account can be confiscated. BTC cannot. It's very simple, but apparently not simple enough for some


And so your reply doesn't even relate to what I wrote

I remember some bitcoin being confiscated and iuctioned by federal, the coins that we call taunted i think, i see no difference in confiscation between bitcoin and fiat, just more hard with the latter

[Carlton Banks]

I remember some bitcoin being confiscated and iuctioned by federal, the coins that we call taunted i think,

Voluntarily handing over the coins is not force, and so not a confiscation at all.

i see no difference in confiscation between bitcoin and fiat, just more hard with the latter

That's because you don't understand the difference, as your previous comment illustrates.

[maku]

Things haven't changed and won't change. Bitcoin isn't anonymous, it is pseudonymous. That means govts can enforce their laws if they want to.

If you don't like the laws in a given jurisdiction, you need to move. Staying put and imagining that a bit of technology will get round legal structures is wishful thinking.

No-one said anything about anonymity or staying put being important, it's about the balance of control. Cash or bank account can be confiscated. BTC cannot. It's very simple, but apparently not simple enough for some


And so your reply doesn't even relate to what I wrote

I remember some bitcoin being confiscated and iuctioned by federal, the coins that we call taunted i think, i see no difference in confiscation between bitcoin and fiat, just more hard with the latter

Here is my final thought about this:
1. Physical banknotes can be confiscated if police will find your stash.
2. Bitcoin is easier to hide, copies of your wallet.dat can be stored on any device, optical disk, usb stick... You can even write it down on paper, or memorize your seed passphrase.

So it all comes to your strong will. You can disclose both location of your hidden paper money as well as where you hide copy of your bitcoin wallet.
The weakest link is as always human brain.

[Carlton Banks]

You can disclose both location of your hidden paper money as well as where you hide copy of your bitcoin wallet.

Hidden physical money exists in a physical place. Someone could find it even if they didn't know it was there. Bitcoin is nowhere, pure information.

[maku]

You can disclose both location of your hidden paper money as well as where you hide copy of your bitcoin wallet.

Hidden physical money exists in a physical place. Someone could find it even if they didn't know it was there. Bitcoin is nowhere, pure information.

Yes, you are correct. But I see no problem with extracting this information from basically anyone. Couple hours of waterboarding should do the trick here.
On the side note: Do we know exactly how FBI seized bitcoins of Dread Pirate Roberts aka Ross Ulbricht?
Did they force him to reveal it by force, stash wasn't protected or he did it from his own good will?