How huge is the job of the legislature in the improvement of Bitcoin?

[Akash83]

The administration assumes an imperative job in the advancement of Bitcoin in a nation. For instance, an administration declares that it will acknowledge Bitcoin in that nation, so I'm certain the improvement of Bitcoin in that nation will be quick!
What do you think, the Government or the network who assume a critical job in the improvement of Bitcoin?

[1714178841]

1714178841

[1714178841]

1714178841

[1714178841]

1714178841

[1714178841]

1714178841

[Beerwizzard]

It doesn't really tell us anything outside of context. For example we remember Bitcoin Futures on CME. Everyone in crypto was excited about it but unfortunately, BTC futures became extremely unpopular and would probably be delisted from the exchange soon. So as we see if the government would be crypto friendly and allow people and organizations use cryptocurrencies it still doesn't mean that they would use it.

[Haunebu]

So as we see if the government would be crypto friendly and allow people and organizations use cryptocurrencies it still doesn't mean that they would use it.

It will push adoption in a positive direction though which is what we are all hoping for. Governments have a huge role to play in the cryptocurrency market(Whether they actually come around to using it or not) whether people like it or not.

Just observe how the market rallied when Japan openly accepted cryptocurrencies. That was the first huge rally of 2017 which led to the insane rally during Dec 2017.

[dothebeats]

It depends on what country are we talking about. Here in the Philippines, the development of regulations and legislation regarding bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies (which are aptly termed as 'digital currencies' by the SEC) has been somewhat warm and receiving, with just a few notices here and there regarding potential scams and other things related to money laundering and other illicit activities. While the spread of information regarding cryptocurrencies here is somewhat slow, the framework is being built, and rightfully so with the government and private entities cooperating with each other.

[bitbunnny]

I think this is quite a big issue but it's different from country to country because each one has the different perspective and different approach to cryptocurrencies. Many governments have already started processes of regulation but no one can't predict how and when is this going to end. Still I beleive there will be some positive movements and at the end majority of countries will accept Bitcoin as inevitable part of our future and future of finances.

[Ailmand]

It depends on what country are we talking about. Here in the Philippines, the development of regulations and legislation regarding bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies (which are aptly termed as 'digital currencies' by the SEC) has been somewhat warm and receiving, with just a few notices here and there regarding potential scams and other things related to money laundering and other illicit activities. While the spread of information regarding cryptocurrencies here is somewhat slow, the framework is being built, and rightfully so with the government and private entities cooperating with each other.

True, it is really good how Philippines government is viewing cryptocurrency in a neutral way. Mostly in Philippines, a lot of people are using bitcoin as a tool for sending money, goods, or transacting p2p. The government is also being critical and strict when it comes to companies which uses crtprocurrency to attract investors since a lot of people had been involved and victim of scam recently.

[Erickan]

Government is one of the decisive factors for the development of bitcoin. It can be said that bitcoin is the first decentralized money in the world, but if it wants to grow and be widely accepted, it must receive government support. Depending on the policy each country will have its own rules about bitcoin, but the good thing is that many governments are starting to support bitcoin now.

[Bitinity]

It doesn't really tell us anything outside of context. For example we remember Bitcoin Futures on CME. Everyone in crypto was excited about it but unfortunately, BTC futures became extremely unpopular and would probably be delisted from the exchange soon. So as we see if the government would be crypto friendly and allow people and organizations use cryptocurrencies it still doesn't mean that they would use it.

At least it gives freedom for people to use crypto as they wish once the government is becoming more crypto friendly. I believe it will bring more adoption and the "Bitcoin Futures" on CME wont happen in the future.

[alisafidel58]

It doesn't really tell us anything outside of context. For example we remember Bitcoin Futures on CME. Everyone in crypto was excited about it but unfortunately, BTC futures became extremely unpopular and would probably be delisted from the exchange soon. So as we see if the government would be crypto friendly and allow people and organizations use cryptocurrencies it still doesn't mean that they would use it.

At least they have the alternative to use crypto as a source of payment or an asset that they can have. Majority of the citizen wouldn't know how to use crypto but certainly, there are the maginalized group of people who are using it and is wishing that crypto wouldn't be a ban on their country. Like in China where they are implementing a strict measure towards crypto and yet there are many Chinese people who use and trade crypto on a daily basis.

[BrewMaster]

...in the improvement of Bitcoin?

what you are talking about is "adoption of bitcoin" which has nothing to do with "improvement of bitcoin". these two are complete different things.

and the answer is obviously yes! in a society that every business and service is regulated and is functioning according to the laws, obviously bitcoin adoption is going to be hastened if the "law" is positive towards bitcoin.
we have already seen many examples of it, like the 2017 regulations in Japan which contributed greatly to the rise towards $20k and that was just a small sign of mass adoption.

[marycrazy08]

it is huge but the thing here is that, the score is too wide to cover.

[franky1]

The administration assumes an imperative job in the advancement of Bitcoin in a nation. For instance, an administration declares that it will acknowledge Bitcoin in that nation, so I'm certain the improvement of Bitcoin in that nation will be quick!
What do you think, the Government or the network who assume a critical job in the improvement of Bitcoin?

government regulations do not help
1. regulations are just a shiny sherrifs badge given to COMPANIES so that they can police their customers. its the fake aura of trust that this sherrifs badge gives that mistakenly makes people throw money at the companies. but reality shows that these companies are just as scammy as unregulated companies.
take enron
take the 2007 financial crises
take the 2008 credit crises
take how HSBC laundered billions but was fined only pennies on the dollar

2. other examples of regulations not helping. even though the 'war on drugs' has relaxed against cannabis in many american states, guess what. banks still dont want to serve cannabis businesses even when the business is now considered 'legal'

3. other examples of when prohibition does not remove utility(the opposite to legalisation). a century ago alcohol who prohibited in america. but guess what people still got drunk. drugs have been prohibited for decades-centuries but people still get high.

all in all nations regulations are meaningless and just give a faint shroud of 'trust' / legitimacy

[avikz]

The administration assumes an imperative job in the advancement of Bitcoin in a nation. For instance, an administration declares that it will acknowledge Bitcoin in that nation, so I'm certain the improvement of Bitcoin in that nation will be quick!
What do you think, the Government or the network who assume a critical job in the improvement of Bitcoin?

It's a very generic question! What kind of improvement your referring here?

When you talk about legislation, I don't see any role of network here. The legislative structure of anything within a country is a job of the resident policy makers! The crypto network doesn't come in picture! They can mostly help in creating a hype to force the ignorant law makers to listen to the community!

If you are talking about technical improvement, then only the network comes into picture where law markers have no control. So both type of improvements have different owners and stakeholders as you see!

[gilangIDR]

The administration assumes an imperative job in the advancement of Bitcoin in a nation. For instance, an administration declares that it will acknowledge Bitcoin in that nation, so I'm certain the improvement of Bitcoin in that nation will be quick!
What do you think, the Government or the network who assume a critical job in the improvement of Bitcoin?

The increase in Bitcoin is very necessary, because Bitcoin is still developing without clear direction. While the role and support of the government, Bitcoin will be much better and will have a clear direction. The government's active role is very important, although I know the reason is that the government has not been able to accept the rapid fluctuations in Bitcoin prices. Even though when there is a regulation, it is likely that Bitcoin can have good stability.

[Beerwizzard]

So as we see if the government would be crypto friendly and allow people and organizations use cryptocurrencies it still doesn't mean that they would use it.

It will push adoption in a positive direction though which is what we are all hoping for. Governments have a huge role to play in the cryptocurrency market(Whether they actually come around to using it or not) whether people like it or not.

Just observe how the market rallied when Japan openly accepted cryptocurrencies. That was the first huge rally of 2017 which led to the insane rally during Dec 2017.

Imagine that there are some people that don't use crypto simply because they don't need it. Then their government allows them to use crypto! And guess what? They won't start using crypto simply because they still don't need it.

It doesn't really tell us anything outside of context. For example we remember Bitcoin Futures on CME. Everyone in crypto was excited about it but unfortunately, BTC futures became extremely unpopular and would probably be delisted from the exchange soon. So as we see if the government would be crypto friendly and allow people and organizations use cryptocurrencies it still doesn't mean that they would use it.

At least it gives freedom for people to use crypto as they wish once the government is becoming more crypto friendly. I believe it will bring more adoption and the "Bitcoin Futures" on CME wont happen in the future.

Even now they are free to use crypto. No one is getting jailed for that. Crypto related services are working in countries, where cryptocurrencies are not mentioned in the law at all.

[Yakamoto]

The administration assumes an imperative job in the advancement of Bitcoin in a nation. For instance, an administration declares that it will acknowledge Bitcoin in that nation, so I'm certain the improvement of Bitcoin in that nation will be quick!
What do you think, the Government or the network who assume a critical job in the improvement of Bitcoin?

<snip>

Frank is absolutely spot-on when describing why regulation and legislation is not a benefit for Bitcoin. Legislation is (often) just a way to prevent competitors from entering a market by adding so much red tape and paperwork that new companies don't have the army of lawyers required to comply. His examples of companies that do shady and unethical actions and then proceeding to be rewarded for it, or a slap on the wrist at worst, is another perfect example of why legislation is broken.

Now, personally, I can't see any sort of regulation benefitting Bitcoin. We already have various systems in place that "regulate" commerce, such as the trust system within Bitcoin Talk, as well as trust and reputation in general. There are some shortfalls for this system, however, it is a relatively solid means of conducting commerce.

Governments also only know how to ruin stuff. I wouldn't trust a government to regulate internal commerce effectively let alone something that has no borders and a decentralized community.

[vv181]

The nature of Bitcoin improvements relies on the community, it is a decentralized currency and open source software. Governments as a centralized entity rarely significantly contribute to the ecosystem and the network, I mean the decision. It is indeed governments regulation could help the adoption process a little bit helped. But the nature of Bitcoin and history shows it does not need any promotion and regulation to be widely known and accepted.

[gentlemand]

There is not and cannot be any regulation of Bitcoin itself. There certainly can be plenty about how custodial parties handle it and how it interacts with other areas.

The most useful thing legislators can do is remove uncertainty. There may well be a lot of pent up potential waiting for confirmation that what they get up to won't be nailed. Until all question marks are removed most won't bother risking the time, money and effort to look deeper.

[LeGaulois]

Everything is to be done and nothing is built and I can tell you that there is still a lot of work to do on this side. Some countries are getting further ahead than others, but sooner or later all countries will do something. Countries don't have the same politic priorities.

One of the problems is the way Bitcoin is considered. Indeed in some countries, it can be considered as a currency while in another country it is considered as a banal investment. This, in the long term, could not only harm cryptos (but hey people asked for regulations so here we go) but companies could also prefer other countries to set up shop.

It could create an inconsistency in the BTC system. The good thing is we don't need legislations to use Bitcoin.

[monalia]

The administration assumes an imperative job in the advancement of Bitcoin in a nation. For instance, an administration declares that it will acknowledge Bitcoin in that nation, so I'm certain the improvement of Bitcoin in that nation will be quick!
What do you think, the Government or the network who assume a critical job in the improvement of Bitcoin?

Which nation you are taking about? Many countries have plan to implement the blockchain technology and all the administration can be handled with data chain which can connect with this technology only.
There are people suggesting to implement e governance and countries like Estonia, Japan and all taking action to implement it and experience it. Let's see who is next on it.