Bitcoin regulation will be about as effective as climate agreements

[Zendalet]

Whether or not you think climate change is an anthropological problem, the fact is there are climate agreements.

I see similarities between trying to control the world's temperature and attempts to regulate Bitcoin. To be clear, there are also essential differences: turning the world into a swimming pool is probably not a good idea, while regulating Bitcoin to death is probably a bad thing.

One of the similarities is that both limiting CO2 emissions and regulating Bitcoin aren't effective because there will always be nations laughing in the face of restrictions if that's profitable.

CO2 emissions are actually increasing despite billions of investments in renewable energy.

https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news-analysis/3028974/iea-energy-related-co2-emissions-break-three-year-trend-to-rise-in-2017

Likewise I wouldn't be surprised there will be nations that bend any restrictions on Bitcoin.

You could argue nations who cheat on agreements will be sanctioned, but they can just pull out of agreements with no repercussions.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/dec/13/canada-pulls-out-kyoto-protocol

We failed spectacularly at the Kyoto Protocol. Why? Because people love money more than anything.

What do you think, will Bitcoin be successfully regulated?

[Zendalet]

Let me put it this way. Do you think all nations will agree on a set of rules for Bitcoin when they can't even agree on a set of rules that's a matter of life and death?

Maybe I'm contradicting myself here after I said "people love money more than anything".

[Isolation]

I do agree that it's hard for nations to all agree on a collective set of rules for anything (Bitcoin, climate change, etc.). That being said, I think that if governments around the world really wanted to regulate Bitcoin, they could. If theoretically they made it illegal to mine Bitcoin/cryptocurrencies, illegal to own a copy of the blockchain for whatever reason, people would have to comply with the law or face repercussions. Something like this is obviously very unlikely in Western countries that are more liberal about Bitcoin, but still a possibility in many other places around the world.

We already see some regulation in Western countries, with the US for example treating Bitcoin and other cryptos as a security, making it harder for Americans to participate in ICOs, and causing tax implications that would not otherwise happen had they regulated Bitcoin as a currency.

Ultimately I think Bitcoin regulation will be as effective as the government enforcing it. Climate agreements are not too effective since nations are not going to go into a war for not meeting certain CO2 emissions goals. Nations can't really force other nations into meeting any deadlines/deals either. However, governments have full enforcement of the laws in their own countries. If they want to enforce certain Bitcoin regulations, or outright make things illegal, they can absolutely prosecute anyone that attempts to skirt these regulations.

[Zendalet]

Hypothetically I could turn it around:

Bitcoin regulations are not too effective since nations are not going to go into a war for not meeting certain Bitcoin regulation goals. Nations can't really force other nations into enforcing any restrictions/requirements either. However, governments have full enforcement of the laws in their own countries. If they want to enforce certain CO2 emissions goals, or outright make emissions illegal, they can absolutely prosecute anyone that attempts to skirt these goals.

However, there are differences that prevent that logic from being turned around. It's easier to monitor monetary transactions than it is to monitor emissions. It's harder to stop CO2 emissions because the world is too dependent on CO2 emitting activities, while cryptocurrencies are still in their infancy.

There's also a similarity. Both meeting CO2 emissions goals and mainstream cryptocurrency adoption require change. Change is hard.

So far those things don't support my initial premise. It doesn't look good for Bitcoin.

Is there any hope left or will Bitcoin regulation indeed be more effective than climate agreements?

[Xester]

Whether or not you think climate change is an anthropological problem, the fact is there are climate agreements.

I see similarities between trying to control the world's temperature and attempts to regulate Bitcoin. To be clear, there are also essential differences: turning the world into a swimming pool is probably not a good idea, while regulating Bitcoin to death is probably a bad thing.

One of the similarities is that both limiting CO2 emissions and regulating Bitcoin aren't effective because there will always be nations laughing in the face of restrictions if that's profitable.

CO2 emissions are actually increasing despite billions of investments in renewable energy.

https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news-analysis/3028974/iea-energy-related-co2-emissions-break-three-year-trend-to-rise-in-2017

Likewise I wouldn't be surprised there will be nations that bend any restrictions on Bitcoin.

You could argue nations who cheat on agreements will be sanctioned, but they can just pull out of agreements with no repercussions.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/dec/13/canada-pulls-out-kyoto-protocol

We failed spectacularly at the Kyoto Protocol. Why? Because people love money more than anything.

What do you think, will Bitcoin be successfully regulated?

There is a huge difference between bitcoin and the world's temperature.  Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency and we deal here with digits and value while temperature and global warming are referring to the weather conditions.

Bitcoin regulations is not harmful to bitcoin. The said regulations being placed by the countries to bitcoin are just protocol being made to any financial activities. The same regulation being placed upon the banks and the securities. There is nothing wrong with complying with KYC and AML regulations.