Why they need a license if bitcon is not money?

[mak013]

Initially, not all countries avoided accepting Bitcoin as money, but in this case they are slowly starting to accept it, so like gambling, you need a license or individual approval, but if it continues to develop, you have to comply with the applicable rules governing the ownership of something related to Bitcoin or Crypto will be of concern to the state and taxation will be continuously monitored until they get the results they want.

I don`t think that serious countries will accept BTC. They have their fiat money and it is enough for all purposes.
Taxes we get on the profit. And i don`t think that someone get a bill with BTC in it. No, we got taxes in fiat money. I don`t like it but it is correct - when you get any profit - you pay taxes.

[1714200889]

1714200889

[1714200889]

1714200889

[1714200889]

1714200889

[Wapfika]

Initially, not all countries avoided accepting Bitcoin as money, but in this case they are slowly starting to accept it, so like gambling, you need a license or individual approval, but if it continues to develop, you have to comply with the applicable rules governing the ownership of something related to Bitcoin or Crypto will be of concern to the state and taxation will be continuously monitored until they get the results they want.

I don`t think that serious countries will accept BTC. They have their fiat money and it is enough for all purposes.
Taxes we get on the profit. And i don`t think that someone get a bill with BTC in it. No, we got taxes in fiat money. I don`t like it but it is correct - when you get any profit - you pay taxes.

I’m not sure if other countries have this law but we have a license dedicated for Cryptocurrencies services, either exchange, casino or anything that involved crypto services needs this specific license before they operate.

So even if Bitcoin is not considered as money, the giver is not blind to not see that cryptocurrency is backed by fiat currency which is money that’s why they have special license or bill that dedicated to regulate crypto services.

[dezoel]

And I've also discovered that most gamblers try as much as possible to stay away from unlicensed casinos, because most believe that they are likely operated scammers who may take down the casino and vanish with customers funds at any time without any form of notice.

I don't think i can also make use of a casino gambling platform that is not licensed, this means that they are operating under no regulation atmosphere and there is nothing that one can use in tracing them in case of anything happens and they take away our money or the website remain inaccessible, nevertheless, we should also not conclude that having license is a means of proof that we should rely and trust in any random gambling website, we need to further more on making research about them.

That sounds pretty bad outside cryptos but since we are here in crypto, I think it is only fine. If cryptos has advantages, it also has disadvantages and one of it is like that you said above. You are right about casinos with licenses and even if we say that most of them are trusted, they still can be weak in terms of other features. The decision of choosing a casino will only depend on us and we must take the consequences because not all casinos can have it all.

For me, I prefer the unlicensed one and I'm lucky that my experiences are all smooth. The good thing about playing in an unlicensed casino is it forces me to be extra careful, so I will only play with smaller amounts. That means, I can also lose less if I'm unlucky and I'm less prone to addictions.

[Hispo]

Initially, not all countries avoided accepting Bitcoin as money, but in this case they are slowly starting to accept it, so like gambling, you need a license or individual approval, but if it continues to develop, you have to comply with the applicable rules governing the ownership of something related to Bitcoin or Crypto will be of concern to the state and taxation will be continuously monitored until they get the results they want.

I don`t think that serious countries will accept BTC. They have their fiat money and it is enough for all purposes.
Taxes we get on the profit. And i don`t think that someone get a bill with BTC in it. No, we got taxes in fiat money. I don`t like it but it is correct - when you get any profit - you pay taxes.

It depends on what you definition of "acceptance" is, I think.
If we call about recognition and free circulation, then I would say most countries in the planet won't have any problems on recognizing Bitcoin as an asset. Even strange and undemocratic countries like mine (Venezuela) give some recognition to Bitcoin and it is legal here to use, mine and store Bitcoin as individuals.
On the other hand, there are countries which go further beyond like El Salvador, where they have started to accept Bitcoin as a legal tender. So you are implying El Salvador is not a serious country? I would disagree with it.

Keep in mind El Salvador before the wide adoption of Bitcoin had free circulation of United States dollars in the country, so we cannot argue they had only a weak Fiat, like we did in Venezuela.
When a country starts to accepts Bitcoin and recognize it as an assets which one could use as wager, it does not mean anything about the serious of such country, it only gives us an idea on the willingness of collecting taxes and regularizing an industry.

[EarnOnVictor]

Initially, not all countries avoided accepting Bitcoin as money, but in this case they are slowly starting to accept it, so like gambling, you need a license or individual approval, but if it continues to develop, you have to comply with the applicable rules governing the ownership of something related to Bitcoin or Crypto will be of concern to the state and taxation will be continuously monitored until they get the results they want.

I don`t think that serious countries will accept BTC. They have their fiat money and it is enough for all purposes.
Taxes we get on the profit. And i don`t think that someone get a bill with BTC in it. No, we got taxes in fiat money. I don`t like it but it is correct - when you get any profit - you pay taxes.

I don't see any reason for serious countries not to accept Bitcoin contrary to what you said. Like I always say, they should stop denying themselves the money due to them due to ignorance and excesses that are not being thought through. They should rather regulate and not castigate. If the US and the top-rated countries of the world could allow Bitcoin, I don't think we need more seriousness anymore because these countries are indeed serious. Bitcoin is not a necessary evil, it is just a means of transacting that is decentralised and that could call for some privacy and anonymity in some cases. Notwithstanding, the government can still make the casinos or any company dealing with Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies accountable in their country with strict regulations that should have been well laid down.

This is to avoid issues like cheating, illegal flows and tax evasion. My country turned a deaf ear to this and has missed billions of dollars in a few years even as the citizens continue to give free money to those companies. This is foolishness in my opinion, and in all good sense of thinking, if the countries can reason it through, they would know that regulation and strict enforcement would have taken care of the involvement of their citizens and the companies dealing with Bitcoin by making them accountable for transparency. They will have access to the inflow and outflows, now tell me, what else do they need to be serious countries?

[Hatchy]

Bitcoin is not a necessary evil, it is just a means of transacting that is decentralised and that could call for some privacy and anonymity in some cases. Notwithstanding, the government can still make the casinos or any company dealing with Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies accountable in their country with strict regulations that should have been well laid down.

That's the way we Bitcoiners sees it. Bitcoin causes no harm and I believe that these so called oppressors are also partakers of Bitcoins freedom of decentralization but in the dark. In reality they claim to be haters and tries everything as possible to stop any business that deal more with Bitcoin. To be sincere, if they so much dont see Bitcoin as a form of money but as a form where criminal activities are carried out, then they shouldn't tax casinos who uses Bitcoin as a currency and stop imposing kyc on them. I believe countries that hasn't yet accepted Bitcoin and keeps chasing it away will never be able to understand what and how valuable Bitcoin is till it's too late. They might claim to have good reasons but I do think they are scared of what Bitcoin can do.

[Ojima-ojo]

Bitcoin is not a necessary evil, it is just a means of transacting that is decentralised and that could call for some privacy and anonymity in some cases. Notwithstanding, the government can still make the casinos or any company dealing with Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies accountable in their country with strict regulations that should have been well laid down.

That's the way we Bitcoiners sees it. Bitcoin causes no harm and I believe that these so called oppressors are also partakers of Bitcoins freedom of decentralization but in the dark. In reality they claim to be haters and tries everything as possible to stop any business that deal more with Bitcoin. To be sincere, if they so much dont see Bitcoin as a form of money but as a form where criminal activities are carried out, then they shouldn't tax casinos who uses Bitcoin as a currency and stop imposing kyc on them. I believe countries that hasn't yet accepted Bitcoin and keeps chasing it away will never be able to understand what and how valuable Bitcoin is till it's too late. They might claim to have good reasons but I do think they are scared of what Bitcoin can do.

For me, anyone or institutions that view bitcoin on the negative light is doing so based on their inability to understand what bitcoin is and the role bitcoin perform in the global financial system, and at to what extent have it effects becomes on those that adopted bitcoin both in the early time and currently timing.


If you checked bitcoin have hard a significant milestone a d at the same time bitcoin have always impacted it investor's positively more than the ratio of whatever negativity may be.

[coinerer]

Initially, not all countries avoided accepting Bitcoin as money, but in this case they are slowly starting to accept it, so like gambling, you need a license or individual approval, but if it continues to develop, you have to comply with the applicable rules governing the ownership of something related to Bitcoin or Crypto will be of concern to the state and taxation will be continuously monitored until they get the results they want.

I don`t think that serious countries will accept BTC. They have their fiat money and it is enough for all purposes.
Taxes we get on the profit. And i don`t think that someone get a bill with BTC in it. No, we got taxes in fiat money. I don`t like it but it is correct - when you get any profit - you pay taxes.

No one can control Bitcoin which is why no government in any country will use it as the primary currency in their country instead of FIAT money. However, there is a possibility of using money as an alternative in the future. But who says that Bitcoin is not money? Bitcoin is much more powerful than FIAT money. So there is no chance to neglect it.  We are currently unable to use bitcoins directly for payment in every country, so we have to sell bitcoins and convert them to FIAT.  In this case, the government can make our FIAT transition truck. So how are we using bitcoin tax free?

[mak013]

I don`t think that serious countries will accept BTC. They have their fiat money and it is enough for all purposes.
Taxes we get on the profit. And i don`t think that someone get a bill with BTC in it. No, we got taxes in fiat money. I don`t like it but it is correct - when you get any profit - you pay taxes.

I’m not sure if other countries have this law but we have a license dedicated for Cryptocurrencies services, either exchange, casino or anything that involved crypto services needs this specific license before they operate.

So even if Bitcoin is not considered as money, the giver is not blind to not see that cryptocurrency is backed by fiat currency which is money that’s why they have special license or bill that dedicated to regulate crypto services.

I don`t know how it works, but i think that such kind of license means, that casino must have enough fiat money to pay cryptousers. I don`t know how it is written, but the idea is about it.

It depends on what you definition of "acceptance" is, I think.
If we call about recognition and free circulation, then I would say most countries in the planet won't have any problems on recognizing Bitcoin as an asset. Even strange and undemocratic countries like mine (Venezuela) give some recognition to Bitcoin and it is legal here to use, mine and store Bitcoin as individuals.
On the other hand, there are countries which go further beyond like El Salvador, where they have started to accept Bitcoin as a legal tender. So you are implying El Salvador is not a serious country? I would disagree with it.

Keep in mind El Salvador before the wide adoption of Bitcoin had free circulation of United States dollars in the country, so we cannot argue they had only a weak Fiat, like we did in Venezuela.
When a country starts to accepts Bitcoin and recognize it as an assets which one could use as wager, it does not mean anything about the serious of such country, it only gives us an idea on the willingness of collecting taxes and regularizing an industry.

Cmmon... Today we know that the democracy is the rule of the democrats.
El Salvador, Venezuela - these countries hasn`t their own currency. I mean serious currency. And about El Salvador - it doesn`t matter what currency they use, USD or BTC - they have no own currency and as result they have nothing to defend. Any country with their own money will never allow any concurrent.

I don't see any reason for serious countries not to accept Bitcoin contrary to what you said. Like I always say, they should stop denying themselves the money due to them due to ignorance and excesses that are not being thought through. They should rather regulate and not castigate. If the US and the top-rated countries of the world could allow Bitcoin, I don't think we need more seriousness anymore because these countries are indeed serious. Bitcoin is not a necessary evil, it is just a means of transacting that is decentralised and that could call for some privacy and anonymity in some cases. Notwithstanding, the government can still make the casinos or any company dealing with Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies accountable in their country with strict regulations that should have been well laid down.

This is to avoid issues like cheating, illegal flows and tax evasion. My country turned a deaf ear to this and has missed billions of dollars in a few years even as the citizens continue to give free money to those companies. This is foolishness in my opinion, and in all good sense of thinking, if the countries can reason it through, they would know that regulation and strict enforcement would have taken care of the involvement of their citizens and the companies dealing with Bitcoin by making them accountable for transparency. They will have access to the inflow and outflows, now tell me, what else do they need to be serious countries?

If you have the only well in the village, will you be happy if someone else will has another? You print money. Will you allow someone else print money too? Why serious countries have to allow BTC?

No one can control Bitcoin which is why no government in any country will use it as the primary currency in their country instead of FIAT money. However, there is a possibility of using money as an alternative in the future. But who says that Bitcoin is not money? Bitcoin is much more powerful than FIAT money. So there is no chance to neglect it.  We are currently unable to use bitcoins directly for payment in every country, so we have to sell bitcoins and convert them to FIAT.  In this case, the government can make our FIAT transition truck. So how are we using bitcoin tax free?

In what country the main part of BTC is? Who crushed Binance? In what country main mining pools are located? Answer these questions first.
Where BTC more powerful? What it can do, that we can`t do using fiat? If i have $100 i can buy some food anywhere. If i have 100 USDT(or $100 in BTC) i must find internet and some freak who needs it.

[irhact]

Many governments were all against bitcoin from the start, but we can all see that the story is gradually changing. They are right now either seeing bitcoin in a good way or in a bad way, like some see bitcoin as a means for criminals to launder money, while others are already seeing it as an asset, whatever that means. We can't deny the fact that for bitcoin to fall under any of these categories, it has already been seen as a currency (money).
 
Which makes it now a legal currency in most countries, which means it could be used to go into a legal agreement that will be bind by law, so unless the casino is not ready to operate under any government and serve the citizens of a particular country, then they will need some licence to operate.
 

The government have tried to hinder the growth and future of Bitcoin due to the fact that they can't control or influence it as much as they can. What suprises them is that bitcoin has developed into a very valuable asset an since they sewn it's benefit sooner or later they'll have no choice than to adopt it just like El Salvador has done. Others can think what they want but just like gold and fiat Bitcoin is money (Digital currency).

 We've seen how it's now playing a big role in different industries and companies, thereby spending up transactions and used as an alternative to fiat currency especially in the gambling industry. And with time other countries that's failed to make it a legal currency would be forced on the long run. We've seen how many individuals who gamble are now turning to casinos and online sites that accepts bitcoin as a mode of transaction. With time many online gambling sites would adopt it also.

[delfastTions]

~ snip ~

~ snip ~

People have really suffered at the hands of those casinos and it could be worse elsewhere. Imagine, decentralisation means that there is no central authority or oversights, so why demand KYC? Who is deceiving whom? Well, a lot of people will still fall victim to this, that's the extent of how gullible they can be. This issue of running away from KYC casinos to find solace in the no-KYC casino has made many become a victim of scams as easily as possible. What baffles me is that many of these people only have a small amount of money to gamble and they got the money through a legit means as well.

So why are they so particular about privacy and no-KYC casinos to the point of abandoning the respectable casinos that would not scam to try those they knew little or nothing about to the point that they lose all the money to them? To make it worse, for those of the casinos who would stay, the No-KYC casino over time may switch to KYC casino, is that not using their heads?

A real gambler often has such circumstances in his life that he simply cannot play these games and provide the casino with his personal data. 
For many millions of people around the world, this could have a significant impact simply on the quality of their life.  For example, a player hides his passion for gambling from his employer, and he, if this contradicts the employer’s position, may be fired.  Sometimes people hide their gambling habits from their immediate family, such as their wives.  If she finds out, there will be a scandal and such a player will no longer be able to continue playing calmly.  You can also add such a limitation as social attitudes in the society to which the player belongs, for example, religious attitudes and condemnations of gambling.  In general, there can be many such factors.  But the person wants to play.  So such a player has to maintain anonymity.
 And accordingly, he has to ignore the casino that necessarily requires KYC.  And this has become more and more difficult lately.

        -     We know that when a casino is regulated, it is normal for them to ask for KYC from their players or gamblers. And if there are other gamblers who don't like KYC, there's no problem;
if they want to gamble illegally, that's up to them, or the Dex casino platform is still their choice, to be honest.

Meaning, the casino is not obligated to those who want to try gambling on their platform. But once you play, there is no choice but to follow their rules; if they need KYC, you have to give it.

Yeah!  Of course, players come to provide their personal data when they are going to play at the casino without problems and in the event that the casino begins to require verification under the KYC procedure. 

But remember for yourself how unpleasant it was for you to take pictures with documents and send them to an almost unknown person, who in this casino is collecting Personal Data of clients, this is your data.  For example, it was very unpleasant for me to do this.  And I know for sure that this does not give clients any overly serious guarantees.  And leakage of personal data into the network is quite real and possible.  Thus, any KYC procedure disrupts your comfortable life.  And for some players who, for some reason, hide their passion for gambling, all this KYC is simply unacceptable.  But they also want to play comfortably and without problms. 
And this must be taken into account since we are talking about casinos with payments in cryptocurrency.

[shasan]

-     We know that when a casino is regulated, it is normal for them to ask for KYC from their players or gamblers. And if there are other gamblers who don't like KYC, there's no problem;
if they want to gamble illegally, that's up to them, or the Dex casino platform is still their choice, to be honest.

Meaning, the casino is not obligated to those who want to try gambling on their platform. But once you play, there is no choice but to follow their rules; if they need KYC, you have to give it.
   

You are right and I agree with you that when anyone gambling on any site the person must follow their terms and there is no alternative whether that is regarding the KYC issue or something else. If the rules are impossible to follow then the person should avoid the site.

[seoincorporation]

-     We know that when a casino is regulated, it is normal for them to ask for KYC from their players or gamblers. And if there are other gamblers who don't like KYC, there's no problem;
if they want to gamble illegally, that's up to them, or the Dex casino platform is still their choice, to be honest.

Meaning, the casino is not obligated to those who want to try gambling on their platform. But once you play, there is no choice but to follow their rules; if they need KYC, you have to give it.
   

You are right and I agree with you that when anyone gambling on any site the person must follow their terms and there is no alternative whether that is regarding the KYC issue or something else. If the rules are impossible to follow then the person should avoid the site.

Is the hose who decide the rules, but is the users who decide where to gamble, if the rules are absurd then the user shouldn't play on that site, a good example of this is the sites that only let you withdraw a min of $1000/day, or those sites who limit the max win but doesn't limit the max bet. And that's why is so important to read the terms of service before deciding to pen an account on any casino. And the main problem with the ToS is those clauses that let the house change the rules at any time, that way is a losing game for the gambler.

[EarnOnVictor]

-     We know that when a casino is regulated, it is normal for them to ask for KYC from their players or gamblers. And if there are other gamblers who don't like KYC, there's no problem;
if they want to gamble illegally, that's up to them, or the Dex casino platform is still their choice, to be honest.

Meaning, the casino is not obligated to those who want to try gambling on their platform. But once you play, there is no choice but to follow their rules; if they need KYC, you have to give it.
   

You are right and I agree with you that when anyone gambling on any site the person must follow their terms and there is no alternative whether that is regarding the KYC issue or something else. If the rules are impossible to follow then the person should avoid the site.

Is the hose who decide the rules, but is the users who decide where to gamble, if the rules are absurd then the user shouldn't play on that site, a good example of this is the sites that only let you withdraw a min of $1000/day, or those sites who limit the max win but doesn't limit the max bet. And that's why is so important to read the terms of service before deciding to pen an account on any casino. And the main problem with the ToS is those clauses that let the house change the rules at any time, that way is a losing game for the gambler.

Absurdity is the only word I can think of that fits the examples you cited, are you even for real? Because I've never come across casinos that are so selfish to this level. It will be awful for people to be playing there unless they are wagering so small to the point that they will never know, and if they know, they will never be affected because they are so low in margin compared to this limit. So, a casino can limit my withdrawal to $1,000 per day, but they can take as much of my deposit no matter how big it is. Think of it, if I wager $50,000 in such a casino, and I placed a bet that delivered $150,000 into my account in aggregates, how many years would I complete the withdrawal of my entire money? It's only a fool who has big money can play there because they offer you nothing but selfishness.

About the maximum win, it is still okay since they are using that to manage their portfolio and internal risk. How would you feel if you wager too much to the point that your withdrawal can't be paid? And this will always be commensurate to the money you wager, so there is no issue here.

Also, the terms and conditions are one of the issues here, and they are doing this because the government is playing uncared attitude, otherwise, they would have stopped them. Fine, they have the right to update their terms and conditions, but they must always alert the customer and send a copy to them and also highlight the exact portions that were updated to avoid reading the whole epistle over again. Any casino that did less can't have any right on the customer in a court of law if sued.

[STT]

Laundering is probably the main concern rather then anything else, all the sites mentioned are probably keen not to be seen as mixers and follow similar rules to avoid being used for any possible criminal activity.   To not do so would only cause more trouble then its worth, from what Ive read where asked by authorities they would provide information so as to avoid any unnecessary association with any illegal money movements etc.  

I agree on the main point that BTC is not classed as money but that might not be as relevant as it would seem; Ive even seen computer game items almost anything online that's exchangeable, any tradable tokens treated in a similar way.
  They are apprehensive about movements of value especially large amounts even if its not really a currency, its just some virtual token and games are usually centralized not related to decentralized blockchains  but digitally I see them treated similarly over many years.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

Laundering is probably the main concern rather then anything else, all the sites mentioned are probably keen not to be seen as mixers and follow similar rules to avoid being used for any possible criminal activity.   To not do so would only cause more trouble then its worth, from what Ive read where asked by authorities they would provide information so as to avoid any unnecessary association with any illegal money movements etc.  

I agree on the main point that BTC is not classed as money but that might not be as relevant as it would seem; Ive even seen computer game items almost anything online that's exchangeable, any tradable tokens treated in a similar way.
  They are apprehensive about movements of value especially large amounts even if its not really a currency, its just some virtual token and games are usually centralized not related to decentralized blockchains  but digitally I see them treated similarly over many years.

Well, with more and more eyes on bitcoin, and the it's acceptance increasing heavily around different parts of the world judging from how valuable bitcoin has become, it would be total ignorance on the part of the government to just overlook it due to them believe that bitcoin is not money.
From all that we have seen so far, it is clear that narratives have changed and that the government are beginning to see and consider bitcoin as money, which is why the talks about regulation is increasingly talked about as each day breaks and age?

But then again, seeing this from an online gambling casino context, it's a business and every business requires a license as law demands, and I think this has nothing to do with how  or through what means that business generates money, they have  to have license to be allowed to operate in places and jurisdictions where a license is a must have.

[Shamm]

Initially, not all countries avoided accepting Bitcoin as money, but in this case they are slowly starting to accept it, so like gambling, you need a license or individual approval, but if it continues to develop, you have to comply with the applicable rules governing the ownership of something related to Bitcoin or Crypto will be of concern to the state and taxation will be continuously monitored until they get the results they want.

I don`t think that serious countries will accept BTC. They have their fiat money and it is enough for all purposes.
Taxes we get on the profit. And i don`t think that someone get a bill with BTC in it. No, we got taxes in fiat money. I don`t like it but it is correct - when you get any profit - you pay taxes.

No one can control Bitcoin which is why no government in any country will use it as the primary currency in their country instead of FIAT money. However, there is a possibility of using money as an alternative in the future. But who says that Bitcoin is not money? Bitcoin is much more powerful than FIAT money. So there is no chance to neglect it.  We are currently unable to use bitcoins directly for payment in every country, so we have to sell bitcoins and convert them to FIAT.  In this case, the government can make our FIAT transition truck. So how are we using bitcoin tax free?

Agree with this mate Bitcoin is not just ordinary money but a digital  money that can be used to buy something we need and want.  And also nowadays there are many Bitcoin holder so in short  we can see Bitcoin where ever we go in some countries. Not all country  accept Bitcoin and if we have Bitcoins then we need to convert it in to fiat so that we can buy something we need  that's the reason why we say that Bitcoin is my money cause we can convert it into fiat. But for me someday it's okay to adopt Bitcoin as a Currencies used to buy something.