|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transactions must be included in a block to be properly completed. When you send a transaction, it is broadcast to miners. Miners can then optionally include it in their next blocks. Miners will be more inclined to include your transaction if it has a higher transaction fee.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don Pedro Dinero
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1491
The first decentralized crypto betting platform
|
 |
May 30, 2018, 05:20:36 PM |
|
That is good news. We only have to options: regulations or bans. Regulations well done will allow business and at the same time will make it difficult to scam and commit fraud.
|
|
|
|
|
audaciousbeing
|
|
May 30, 2018, 10:14:36 PM |
|
I think its a good news and one in the right direction but what we should also be weary about this is beyond some words as follows 1. This is a pronouncement by the Supreme Court and as the judiciary does not have the power to implement any judgement passed and if its a country where judgement can be ignored, there is really not much that can be done since its neither a criminal matter nor a political related matter and if the executive felt they are not bound to obey, they would use every means to frustrate the judgement and the worst that would happen is protest here and there. 2. Another is that we are talking about government here with all its bureaucracies. So let's agree government is bound to obey, it would take several months if not years to come with a road map then another year to talk about pilot roll out then full roll out which means the effect of this might probably not someone one should look forward to in the short time. |
|
|
|
|
marielbeckham
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 185
Merit: 0
|
|
May 31, 2018, 09:39:14 PM |
|
I also can't help agreeing that the news about South Korea moving towards allowing ICOs is good, extremely good.
|
|
|
|
|
Wheelige
Member
Offline
Activity: 238
Merit: 68
Do good things
|
|
May 31, 2018, 11:46:32 PM |
|
I don't think this development from the supreme court really has good or bad indications. They simply agreed that bitcoin has value and as it was earned as proceeds from crime it can be seized by the state. No one would argue that bitcoin doesn't have value at this point in time, if looked at as a snapshot of this second, as you could sell it on an exchange for X $. So the supreme court has pointed out something that everyone should agree upon, Bitcoin is an intangible asset with measurable value. There was no real arguments presented to say that it wasn't the proceeds of crime so that got an easy tick too.
|
|
|
|
buwaytress
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2786
Merit: 3436
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
|
|
June 01, 2018, 12:39:49 PM |
|
I don't think this development from the supreme court really has good or bad indications. They simply agreed that bitcoin has value and as it was earned as proceeds from crime it can be seized by the state. No one would argue that bitcoin doesn't have value at this point in time, if looked at as a snapshot of this second, as you could sell it on an exchange for X $. So the supreme court has pointed out something that everyone should agree upon, Bitcoin is an intangible asset with measurable value. There was no real arguments presented to say that it wasn't the proceeds of crime so that got an easy tick too.
You're right that it doesn't actually have any "good" or "bad" indications. Every development and event can have its own slant - this is really the way it is with something so new for them as Bitcoin. But in terms of the law, events and rulings like these have very strong legal implications as they set precedent - meaning that this case, in the eyes of the law, established a new principle or rule in dealing with similar circumstances in the future. And because this was the Supreme Court, all other judicial bodies in the country will likely take its lead. This was an important case and it is, in its own way, historical for Bitcoin in South Korea. |
|
|
|
gentlemand
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2590
Merit: 3008
Welt Am Draht
|
|
June 01, 2018, 07:45:38 PM |
|
I've been consistently astounded at how lax S Korea has been over this. Even countries that had nothing much to say glued existing regulations and taxation to crypto as best they could yet Korea let these shithole exchanges spring up with zero oversight and it nearly ate their markets.
If that's how they run the rest of the country that's one place I won't be emigrating to.
|
|
|
|
|
buwaytress
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2786
Merit: 3436
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
|
|
June 02, 2018, 03:50:48 PM |
|
Aaand it looks like the government had a heart attack thanks to the Supreme Court, haha. Just read this update now that says the govt wants to distinguish its stance from that of the high court, and each policy should be viewed separately. Not uncommon, if slightly unusual, I would say.
Still, it's not entirely divergent views. One sees Bitcoin as having asset value, the other does too, just the govt doesn't yet think this qualifies it to be a financial product or asset.
Guess we'll need to have a few more cases in court.
|
|
|
|
Wheelige
Member
Offline
Activity: 238
Merit: 68
Do good things
|
|
June 05, 2018, 01:17:46 AM |
|
Again I would say that this statement from Hong Sung-Ki, was more of a clarification of the current position and doesn't add anything either way. As noted just because a asset has value doesn't mean it is a financial asset. Korea is yet to accept bitcoin as a currency and that position was in no way altered or commented on by the High Court or the Supreme Court. The Financial Services Commission were simply making sure that people were not getting overly excited by misinterpreting the judgement from the Supreme court.
I'd would believe that the chatter concerning a regulatory framework similar to that of Japan coming in to place in Korea is the truly news worthy stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
jseverson
|
|
June 05, 2018, 02:47:40 PM |
|
Again I would say that this statement from Hong Sung-Ki, was more of a clarification of the current position and doesn't add anything either way.
I wouldn't say it doesn't add anything. It's surely a baby step as far as Bitcoin actually getting accepted goes, but it does garner actual acknowledgement from the government and it makes crypto less vague from a legal definition standpoint. It doesn't make a huge difference at all, but it's something. I do agree it's not exactly news worthy though. There have been so few developments in the crypto world lately that people just seem to sensationalize everything they can get their hands on. |
|
|
|
Wheelige
Member
Offline
Activity: 238
Merit: 68
Do good things
|
|
June 06, 2018, 12:54:50 AM |
|
The courts are part of the judiciary not the government though. The government makes the laws and policy etc and the judiciary applies those rules. The ruling didn't add anything because bitcoin obviously has value and accepting that doesnt show an acceptance of bitcoin as a currency or transactional vessel and it was just applying the previous rule to the current situation. The statement in response to that ruling was essentially pointing that out.
Sure i guess any statement that isn't closing doors on bitcoin is a benefit and could be considered good news, but this is far from acknowledgement from the government. I'm not going to hold my breath on anything exciting coming out of Korea until they get on the same train as Japan and make Asia a crypto stronghold.
|
|
|
|
|
jseverson
|
|
June 06, 2018, 12:08:48 PM |
|
The courts are part of the judiciary not the government though. The government makes the laws and policy etc and the judiciary applies those rules.
I agree, but this potentially sets judicial precedence (or common law), so any future cases, and even their legislative branch, at this point in time, should acknowledge the fact that Bitcoin is formally recognized as an asset with measurable value until a law is passed that says otherwise. It's pretty big for people who get scammed out of their Bitcoins because the court would formally recognize that they were defrauded of something with actual worth. Making litigation easier and less vague is beneficial (though not towards acceptance) for their citizens. It's also quite literally acknowledgement because the courts have ruled that it as an asset with value. Their government itself has already treated it as such by proceeding to seize the 191 Bitcoins ruled to have been earned illegaly. Either way, we seem to agree that the ruling doesn't really bring South Korea further as far as government acceptance goes, so let's just agree to disagree on the other points. |
|
|
|
Wheelige
Member
Offline
Activity: 238
Merit: 68
Do good things
|
|
June 07, 2018, 01:16:15 AM |
|
The courts are part of the judiciary not the government though. The government makes the laws and policy etc and the judiciary applies those rules.
I agree, but this potentially sets judicial precedence (or common law), so any future cases, and even their legislative branch, at this point in time, should acknowledge the fact that Bitcoin is formally recognized as an asset with measurable value until a law is passed that says otherwise. It's pretty big for people who get scammed out of their Bitcoins because the court would formally recognize that they were defrauded of something with actual worth. Making litigation easier and less vague is beneficial (though not towards acceptance) for their citizens. It's also quite literally acknowledgement because the courts have ruled that it as an asset with value. Their government itself has already treated it as such by proceeding to seize the 191 Bitcoins ruled to have been earned illegaly. Either way, we seem to agree that the ruling doesn't really bring South Korea further as far as government acceptance goes, so let's just agree to disagree on the other points. Agreed on the agree to disagree. But I feel i should note that Korea has civil system not a common law, so their laws are all codified and there is no 'precedent' per se in any decision of a court. In a given case a higher court overrules a lower one however in a future case no consideration is REQUIRED to be given to previous decisions so a flip flop could happen (although this is pretty unlikely because of decision is sound). As for the previous decisions there was not really a debate as to whether bitcoin was an asset as such is was more around whether the state was legally entitled to seize bitcoin as its intangible (just numbers on a screen). The ratio decidendi was that the tangibility of an asset is not relevant to its seizure. |
|
|
|
|
Snaic
|
|
June 16, 2018, 08:07:58 AM |
|
The fact that South Korea is going to regulate the ICO process is very good information, because we have long needed such regulation. The current ICO is damaging the image and popularity of the crypto currency, given that about half of the ICO projects are fraudulent. Regulation of the crypto currency is an unavoidable and logical development of the crypto currency, therefore such regulation is necessary. |
|
|
|
Palmerson
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 434
Merit: 255
Live cams shows pimped with cryptocurrency
|
|
June 16, 2018, 10:46:29 AM |
|
The fact that South Korea is going to regulate the ICO process is very good information, because we have long needed such regulation. The current ICO is damaging the image and popularity of the crypto currency, given that about half of the ICO projects are fraudulent. Regulation of the crypto currency is an unavoidable and logical development of the crypto currency, therefore such regulation is necessary. This contradicts the idea of the emergence of cryptocurrencies and ICO. I am not against the existence of certain rules in the market, but if the government regulates the turnover then I do not need such a currency. We do not know but perhaps the current decline in demand and prices due to the fact that people do not believe in the freedom that bitcoin promised. |
|
|
|
|
palle11
|
|
June 18, 2018, 07:03:10 AM |
|
This contradicts the idea of the emergence of cryptocurrencies and ICO. I am not against the existence of certain rules in the market, but if the government regulates the turnover then I do not need such a currency. We do not know but perhaps the current decline in demand and prices due to the fact that people do not believe in the freedom that bitcoin promised.
That then makes it difficult. What then is a solution or way forward? Do we now allow innocent people to keep losing their money? Regulation that is talked about is not total or in all spheres of cryptocurrency but maybe modalities on how icos are going to run or what exchanges are to do to better secure investments in their custody. You and I know that fraud is bedevilling the system. |
|
|
|
|
Ar.harry
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 182
Merit: 0
|
|
June 18, 2018, 07:23:25 AM |
|
Nowadays south korea make rules and regulations on crypto. This will make difficult for scamers or hackers. I think its a good idea
|
|
|
|
|
|
orions.belt19
|
|
June 18, 2018, 12:27:26 PM |
|
This contradicts the idea of the emergence of cryptocurrencies and ICO. I am not against the existence of certain rules in the market, but if the government regulates the turnover then I do not need such a currency. We do not know but perhaps the current decline in demand and prices due to the fact that people do not believe in the freedom that bitcoin promised.
That then makes it difficult. What then is a solution or way forward? Do we now allow innocent people to keep losing their money? Regulation that is talked about is not total or in all spheres of cryptocurrency but maybe modalities on how icos are going to run or what exchanges are to do to better secure investments in their custody. You and I know that fraud is bedevilling the system. People need to stop thinking that regulation is TOTALLY bad. It may put a limit to your actions but it will benefit not only the citizens and potential victims of scams but also the active users of crypto. Having regulations is better than having a total ban or declaration of illegality of crypto in your country. This may actually encourage investors because regulations make it safer and secure. |
|
|
|
|
|
NavI_027
|
|
June 19, 2018, 06:59:45 AM |
|
For the past few months, South Korea has taken a stricter stance towards cryptocurrencies and ICOs. But it looks like with the latest developments the country is in for crypto legalization. It's surprising to know that a government could still be able to change their bad point of view into good when it comes to discussions about cryptocurrency. Though South Korea's government opposed unto this concept, at least they now realized what they might missed a gret opportunity if they choose to ignore it. This news only prove that it is not too late to embrace the power of crypto, maybe governments are just scared because this can be a threat but if they will harness its potentials properly I'm sure they're country will become more productive. I hope South Korea will become an inspiration for others  . The decision came when a previous appellate court ordered to confiscate 191 bitcoins from an individual named Ahn. These bitcoins (BTC) are worth 2.4 billion won or $2.3 million that are earned from running an online pornography website. This was reportedly the first time a cryptocurrency has been “subject to confiscation." I wonder where's the confiscated btc now and what they will do with a very large of money like that?  |
|
|
|
|
|
Kronos21
|
|
June 23, 2018, 05:04:15 PM |
|
We have already heard many different interpretations of bitcoin from the courts and governments of different countries. They all have different interpretations of the concept of cryptocurrency, but the goals pursued are the same. They do not want to recognize cryptocurrencies as a currency but at the same time want to get taxes, so they try to give some legal status to bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
