Legal But Regulated or Unregulated But Illegal?

[iamTom123]

Legalization of Bitcoin in many countries has proven to be a very hot topic since there are countries which viewed Bitcoin as a threat since the currency is decentralized, not backed by anything and is gaining a strong following and use in such a short period of time. Bitcoin has become a phenomenon which caught many by surprise.


Perceived as threat, there are some government authorities who are proposing to regulate the cryptocurrency but as a compromise make it legal. It is as if they want a give and take kind of game.

Should we allow to get into the compromise as long as Bitcoin can be legal or should we make a strong stand against this scenario?

[1714941577]

1714941577

[1714941577]

1714941577

[1714941577]

1714941577

[1714941577]

1714941577

[1714941577]

1714941577

[bkbirge]

It absolutely needs to be on a legal accepted framework, otherwise any gov't can just come in and seize your assets. There is no stand to make, that fight for complete independence from gov't regulation has already been lost, most of us just haven't realized it yet.

[AgentofCoin]

It absolutely needs to be on a legal accepted framework, otherwise any gov't can just come in and seize your assets. There is no stand to make, that fight for complete independence from gov't regulation has already been lost, most of us just haven't realized it yet.

Currently, you are very incorrect.

There are two forms of governmental regulation.
(1) "Indirect Regulation" which has no true power over the Network or Users.
(2) "Direct Regulation" which asserts governmental controls into the Protocol.

A "Legal Framework" within/upon the Protocol automatically terminates the token's
purpose. Arguing that this may have already occurred would contradict it's current
existence. If your belief actually occurs, you will see bitcoin's value drop to nothing.
The only people who would then remain are scammers, ponzi slaves, and ignoramuses.

What you are referring to is Indirect Regulation of the token by third party
systems that are not part of the Bitcoin Network. That "Legal Framework" is
worthless to the bigger picture. Those systems are expendable if necessary.

In addition, any government has the power to seize your property now, whether there
is a Legal Framework or not. Bitcoin/bitcoin is currently "legal" because illegality can
not be enforced. If it can be enforced by Direct Regulation, than your legalities are
actually governmental guarantees and the Network only functions by the sole whim of
that governmental controller. Obviously, if that occurs, Bitcoin no longer has value
since it provides no real utility. It's original function is negated.

[krishnapramod]

It absolutely needs to be on a legal accepted framework, otherwise any gov't can just come in and seize your assets. There is no stand to make, that fight for complete independence from gov't regulation has already been lost, most of us just haven't realized it yet.

Currently, you are very incorrect.

There are two forms of governmental regulation.
(1) "Indirect Regulation" which has no true power over the Network or Users.
(2) "Direct Regulation" which asserts governmental controls into the Protocol.

A "Legal Framework" within/upon the Protocol automatically terminates the token's
purpose. Arguing that this may have already occurred would contradict it's current
existence. If your belief actually occurs, you will see bitcoin's value drop to nothing.
The only people who would then remain are scammers, ponzi slaves, and ignoramuses.

What you are referring to is Indirect Regulation of the token by third party
systems that are not part of the Bitcoin Network. That "Legal Framework" is
worthless to the bigger picture. Those systems are expendable if necessary.

In addition, any government has the power to seize your property now, whether there
is a Legal Framework or not. Bitcoin/bitcoin is currently "legal" because illegality can
not be enforced. If it can be enforced by Direct Regulation, than your legalities are
actually governmental guarantees and the Network only functions by the sole whim of
that governmental controller. Obviously, if that occurs, Bitcoin no longer has value
since it provides no real utility. It's original function is negated.

Yeah, I think what we are seeing in Japan or Australia is indirect regulation of bitcoin which is necessary for its growth. These indirect regulations treat bitcoin as a currency or an asset and enforce up on it their currency or asset laws including taxes, but this doesn't give the government any true power over the network. Majority of countries haven't regulated bitcoins, but haven't proclaimed it illegal either.

I don't think direct regulation of a decentralized network is possible. The government could do three things with bitcoin.

Unregulated but legal/not illegal
Regulated and legal
Unregulated and illegal/banned

[olushakes]

Legalization of Bitcoin in many countries has proven to be a very hot topic since there are countries which viewed Bitcoin as a threat since the currency is decentralized, not backed by anything and is gaining a strong following and use in such a short period of time. Bitcoin has become a phenomenon which caught many by surprise.


Perceived as threat, there are some government authorities who are proposing to regulate the cryptocurrency but as a compromise make it legal. It is as if they want a give and take kind of game.

Should we allow to get into the compromise as long as Bitcoin can be legal or should we make a strong stand against this scenario?

This is exactly the kind of position we all found ourselves or say bitcoin found itself that it not possible for whatever reason that bitcoin will be legalized without any form regulation because in as much we want recognition from government it has to come with a price but the government regulation I fee with be hard in those who wants to HSE bitcoin for illegal purpose which will make me go for the legalization with regulation option if I am to choose.

[veleten]

It absolutely needs to be on a legal accepted framework, otherwise any gov't can just come in and seize your assets. There is no stand to make, that fight for complete independence from gov't regulation has already been lost, most of us just haven't realized it yet.

on the contrary,while it is NOT on a legal accepted framework,i.e. not legalised but not banned
the goverment cannot do a thing to you,except to "advise" you use it or not,like in China
once it is legal you get the rights to be protected by the laws if there are any,but you are subject to be taxed,regulated
persecuted if you break the law regarding bitcoins usage etc. etc.
if you are a business or deal with coins alot,you would most likely,prefer them legalised
if you are a regular Joe,then nonregulated is better-no headache no taxes,no forms to fill no nothing,just do it at your own risk

[AgentofCoin]

...

...

Yeah, I think what we are seeing in Japan or Australia is indirect regulation of bitcoin which is necessary for its growth. These indirect regulations treat bitcoin as a currency or an asset and enforce up on it their currency or asset laws including taxes, but this doesn't give the government any true power over the network. Majority of countries haven't regulated bitcoins, but haven't proclaimed it illegal either.

I don't think direct regulation of a decentralized network is possible. The government could do three things with bitcoin.

Unregulated but legal/not illegal
Regulated and legal
Unregulated and illegal/banned

Yes, I agree with majority, especially with your list and will expand on it for
elaboration below:

(1) No Regulation & Enforced Illegal Use
(2) No Regulation & Non-Enforced Illegal Use
(3) Indirect Regulation & Legalized by Default.
(4) Direct Regulation & Legalized through Controls.

In a way, the four listed above is not only a group of possibilities, but could also
be a timeline of events. For example, When the first Bitcoin client was created and
the experiment was started, Satoshi and all participants were actually in a Stage (1)
scenario, but was not enforced against because it was still "underground" and "new".
Intelligence services monitoring the mailing lists and communications allowed the
experiment to go forward for curiosity and would not yet understand that at that
point in time, it was most vulnerable and "preventable".

As the system grew over time, the Network moved into a Stage (2) scenario
(around late 2010), where it is not actually possible to enforce against the participants
anymore, and this lasted until around 2013-2014 when Governments understood
they needed to protect citizens from consumer fraud and other crimes, due to new
unlicensed money transmitters and other Bitcoin businesses. This was Stage (3) and
we are currently still within this stage. This was the intended Goldilocks Zone, since
it forms a legal limbo under the current legal rules and interpretations in most
jurisdictions.

For a Stage (4) scenario to come about, the Client and the Protocol would need to
have either a government or corporations/banks that are in control of the Bitcoin
Client or it's Protocol directly. This is what the current battle in Bitcoin is really about.
Big blockers have been infiltrated by attackers to the Network, attempting to bring
about a Stage (4), yet they don't care, but willingly welcome these enemy soldiers
under the premise that, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", yet obliviously they
too will be punished in the end like all others who participate in this system. No one
will be spared when a Stage (4) becomes a reality.

All true Bitcoiners, which enjoy this system for more than the simple monetary value,
should resist and attempt to prevent actions that could lead toward a Stage (4) scenario.
If that scenario occurs, Bitcoin no longer provides freedom or the ability to "help the
unbanked" or etc, it will literally becomes a more "authoritarian Paypal". This form of
payment system, under a Stage (4) scenario is worse than the current financial system
and what was attempted to be corrected.

So, Direct Regulation of a Decentralized System (Stage 4) is possible, as long as the
participants give up on the decentralized nature of the system, by centralizing the
miners AND all validator nodes. Bitcoin as a Stage (3) only exists now because the
blockchain can be easily and reasonably maintained and used for validation & compliance
on personal home computers. This was the design and going into Stage (4) is clearly
experiment failure.

[audaciousbeing]

Legalization of Bitcoin in many countries has proven to be a very hot topic since there are countries which viewed Bitcoin as a threat since the currency is decentralized, not backed by anything and is gaining a strong following and use in such a short period of time. Bitcoin has become a phenomenon which caught many by surprise.


Perceived as threat, there are some government authorities who are proposing to regulate the cryptocurrency but as a compromise make it legal. It is as if they want a give and take kind of game.

Should we allow to get into the compromise as long as Bitcoin can be legal or should we make a strong stand against this scenario?

Over here currently, its not anywhere close to what we could refer to the bolded part because it seems people are either shying away or dont know about bitcoin. But either, way its a discussion that would happen whether we like it or not sooner or later but at the same time, if government cannot stop bitcoin and we all wont want it to be declared illegal since it would come with punishment for anyone who do otherwise, then I guess we only have one option left which is to go with bitcoin being regulated and perform our activities within the framework established by the law of the land.

[rakesh889]

Legalization of Bitcoin in many countries has proven to be a very hot topic since there are countries which viewed Bitcoin as a threat since the currency is decentralized, not backed by anything and is gaining a strong following and use in such a short period of time. Bitcoin has become a phenomenon which caught many by surprise.


Perceived as threat, there are some government authorities who are proposing to regulate the cryptocurrency but as a compromise make it legal. It is as if they want a give and take kind of game.

Should we allow to get into the compromise as long as Bitcoin can be legal or should we make a strong stand against this scenario?

Though a law hasn’t been passed to govern bitcoin transactions globally, it is self explanatory that the kind of activities a person carries out with bitcoin ascertains whether it’s legal or illegal. To ensure maximum protection to users their are various precautionary steps being taken by Bitcoin Wallet agencies, to prohibit the users from indulging in speculative activities.

[darkangel11]

I personally prefer legal and regulated. Regulation is nothing bad as long as it's just, meaning there are laws written down, that state if and how much taxes you have to pay, but in return you're getting some protection from the courts in case you get robbed or scammed. Regulation gives less ground to false accusations. They can't jail you for trading and say you were distributing money when all laws are already written down.

[MeridianMDN]

Legalization of Bitcoin in many countries has proven to be a very hot topic since there are countries which viewed Bitcoin as a threat since the currency is decentralized, not backed by anything and is gaining a strong following and use in such a short period of time. Bitcoin has become a phenomenon which caught many by surprise.


Perceived as threat, there are some government authorities who are proposing to regulate the cryptocurrency but as a compromise make it legal. It is as if they want a give and take kind of game.

Should we allow to get into the compromise as long as Bitcoin can be legal or should we make a strong stand against this scenario?

Most of the forward thinking governments around the world aren't actually as against digital assets as you'd think.

An asset class doesn't have to be heavily regulated for governments to have positive feeling towards it.

The gold bullion market has a somewhat loose regulatory structure - far more loose than the securities markets for example.

But, despite this, we all are aware of the obsession that governments have for gold.

The fact that most of the relevant powers in the world are taking a 'light touch' approach toward creating regulation in the bitcoin market is actually a showing of support and or backing from government.

Overall, they are holding back on creating legislation that could potentially limit the growth and expansion of digital assets. This can be perceived as a sign of silent support.

I may be drastically wrong but, I personally do not view digital assets as a threat to government authority - but rather as a tool that may serve to enhance and boost the efficiency of government: much like the internet.

Ultimately, digital assets, will do a lot to boost the strength of the global economy.

For some reason I sincerely believe that the economy will be expanded, by epic proportion, due to the possibility of machine to machine and human to machine commerce - made possible by the blockchain.

For every one human being, there are two internet enabled devices.

Artificial intelligence is here today! And this world of AI is converging with the world of the Internet of Things. In short, 'smart' devices are becoming 'intelligent' devices.

What happens when these devices begin to transact with each other?

Once iOT converges with the world of digital assets, innovation will take a certain course that will cause the world economy to triple in size and value - due to machines becoming active participants in the global economy.

This will only be possible if the blockchain is given the regulatory room to breathe. I could be wrong but, most of the governments seem to be aware of this.

[Amph]

there can't be regulation without legalization, your question doesn't make much sense, if you don't legalize it first how can you regulate it?

there is not a single thing that is illegal but then regulated it make no sense, because you think that in japan for example where they regulate it they didn't legalize it first? obviously yes...

[Miles123]

I will choose Unregulated but illegal because there is no regulations or laws that should be follow. There is no need to pay tax and it will not be controlled by the government. So we are free to do anything that we want because there is no rules that we should follow.

[AMLBitcoin]

Many countries already are investigating to launch their own cryptocurrency. It's obvious they would prefer a clean start with proven trackrecord and personalized.

[joseafonso123az]

For me bitcoin has to be somehow less regulated than other currencies. I am saying this because even fiat currency are regulated, but they aren't only legal transactions happening around the world. It sure, needs to be a tiny bit regulated, to try to stop the  transactions happening because of bad things. And saying that, I don't think this currency should be banned, and perhaps, it would be better to integrate it once it's less volatile.

[tweetbit]

I will be on the advantage place, legal but regulated. If we choose the other way around I think we're guilty of being a unlawful citizen or we have something to hide that's why. Regulation is not a bad thing, it is for our own good in general but we must be aware how our government taking things out because they were prone of abuses. Corruption is not new to any country especially in government so give attention to that all the time.

[Nameless27]

Should we allow to get into the compromise as long as Bitcoin can be legal or should we make a strong stand against this scenario?

Whether we like it or not, the government is mandated to protect its citizens from any investments that exist. And also we can't deny the fact that bitcoin is prone to abuses by those members of bitcoin community who earned through the suffering of others like scammed sites. Criminal activity is the mean reason this cryptocurrency and Blockchain being a hot topic by any government official in every country. And I agree bitcoin must be legalized.

[savushkinTA]

Many countries seem to have a hard time defining and regulating Bitcoin. The current legal framework is not enough to deal with cryptocurrency revolution, thus most countries still have not considered Bitcoin to be an additional legal tender just like the function of their central bank issued fiat money.

[SixOfFive]

I think there is no harm in being LEGAL of btc but it should not be on the cost users interest. Indirect regulation which protect legal interest of the USERS will be the right way to make crypto's regulated. central authorities will soon take a firm stand on after seeing the growth of crypto-market.

[gregall]

i think theres no harm in making it legal

however trusting the government to do it quick and right, well, that's another topic.