Use of cryptocurrencies, a concern – IMF

[Charles-Tim]

I am so curious that many people do not know or research properly about bitcoin and many other crypto assets, they only know little about them and dipicting them bad to people. Normally, there are two types of cryptocurrencies  in term of psuedonymity and anonymity, they are:

1. The ones with public ledger which transactions can be seen by everyone on blockchain. Example is bitcoin
2. The ones that are are completely anonymous in which transactions are not designed to be tracked

I believe people that know about cryptocurrencies should focus on these while saying cryptocurrencies are used for for terrorism financing, money laundering and drug peddling. Although, pseudonymous cryptocurrencies  can raise a concern but not like anonymous coins, that is why some exchanges are delisting anonymous cryptocurrencies, because their transactions can not be tracked.

The International Monetary Fund has called for caution in the use of cryptocurrencies, describing it as a concern. It disclosed this during a virtual briefing on the recently published 2020 Article IV IMF Staff Report for Nigeria. The Resident Representative of IMF for Nigeria, Ari Aisen, said the concern on the use of cryptocurrencies was why many central banks were cautious about the development.

“That is why some central banks, not only in Nigeria, have these concerns about what kind of activities these cryptocurrencies are put and how best to monitor those activities.” Aisen noted that some of the activities might be illegal or related to money laundering and drug peddling.

Is the above quote meaningful? I do not see it meaningful at all. Some people are not concerned about privacy and make use of exchange for crypto purchase, while many providing kyc all because exchanges are making it mandatory to do. Many people do not like exchanges because they are making people not to have privacy. Is it not proper for the government to have laws that will make exchanges be able to track crypto transactions rather than banning it. That is why I like countries like USA that do not ban cryptocurrencies  but regulating it. As fiat is, it is most used in all these (terrorism financing, money laundering and drug peddling).

Central banks that ban bitcoin only encouraging p2p.

[1714954597]

1714954597

[1714954597]

1714954597

[1714954597]

1714954597

[1714954597]

1714954597

[1714954597]

1714954597

[1714954597]

1714954597

[Coyster]

Is it not proper for the government to have laws that will make exchanges be able to track crypto transactions rather than banning it.

The Government can already track crypto users with the aid of exchanges since they are centralized, and can answer to the request of the government to disclose the identity of a customer should any need arise for that, tbh, I don't think there should be any concern on the use of cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin is now being adopted by renowned institutional Investors/companies, prominent individuals and the rest, that's quite an indicator that Bitcoin is not a coin for money laundering or the likes of that, but a currency, investment, a hedge against fiat inflation/devaluation, and prolly the government are only concerned cause it gives it's users control, freedom from manipulation, makes them their own bank etc, something that'll never be possible with fiat.

Central banks that ban bitcoin only encouraging p2p.

Of course they are, the thing about P2p is that it's risky for newcomers, they will prolly find it easier/safer buying Bitcoin from exchange, than from an individual, cause as newcomers they would prolly not be abreast with security protocols, but other than than, P2p is great.

[Charles-Tim]

Of course they are, the thing about P2p is that it's risky for newcomers, they will prolly find it easier/safer buying Bitcoin from exchange, than from an individual, cause as newcomers they would prolly not be abreast with security protocols, but other than than, P2p is great.

P2p can be risky for newbies if using an exchange that is not recommendable. In this regard, I am not implying meeting people physically that might result to physical attack, but referring to using p2p exchanges. Exchanges nowadays have made it simple, clearly stating it that before releasing bitcoin from escrow, that it should be ensured the buyer have paid. Which means the seller should make sure the money has been received and confirmed. Also, if the money have been paid, the seller should release the bitcoin from escrow, if not released within the time frame, the buyer can make a report. Like me, I prefer p2p to bank transfers.

[Fesatmas]

The Government can already track crypto users with the aid of exchanges since they are centralized, and can answer to the request of the government to disclose the identity of a customer should any need arise for that, tbh, I don't think there should be any concern on the use of cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin is now being adopted by renowned institutional Investors/companies, prominent individuals and the rest, that's quite an indicator that Bitcoin is not a coin for money laundering or the likes of that, but a currency, investment, a hedge against fiat inflation/devaluation, and prolly the government are only concerned cause it gives it's users control, freedom from manipulation, makes them their own bank etc, something that'll never be possible with fiat.

and I will just add, that before the official domestic exchange becomes legal, then automatically personal data and all data of a person's interests will be entered into government records, usually this has been approved by the minister of finance and trade. So the stock exchange manager and the government agree to have data on anyone who is indicated to have carried out a suspicious transaction. So what you are saying is true, no more worrying about transactions being so easily detected. unless the platform is still considered illegal, it will be highly vulnerable as money laundering for terrorists etc. whereas in countries that have legalized crypto exchanges it has become an alliance between the platform and the government.

[Ucy]

Bitcoin is built to be anonymous. It's probably not as anonymous as the "dark/non-transparent" cryptocurrencies due to its transparency and other reasons.
People need to understand that Anonymity (safe Anonymity) is part of their natural right and could be useful in keeping them safe from tyrants/evil. You don't handover the right to them in order to be accepted. The deal you make with them on the behalf of Bitcoin users must be fair for both parties (Network Participants/users and your opponents)

From old Bitcoin.org publication:

"Participants can be anonymous."
- Satoshi
https://archive.fo/0BPpp
01 Nov 2008

It's most likely possible that satoshi allowed anonymity due to the safety of users in difficult societies, to help keep Bitcoin antifragile and difficult to attack successfully.

[Coinsfera]

I believe people that know about cryptocurrencies should focus on these while saying cryptocurrencies are used for for terrorism financing, money laundering and drug peddling. Although, pseudonymous cryptocurrencies  can raise a concern but not like anonymous coins, that is why some exchanges are delisting anonymous cryptocurrencies, because their transactions can not be tracked.

The International Monetary Fund has called for caution in the use of cryptocurrencies, describing it as a concern. It disclosed this during a virtual briefing on the recently published 2020 Article IV IMF Staff Report for Nigeria. The Resident Representative of IMF for Nigeria, Ari Aisen, said the concern on the use of cryptocurrencies was why many central banks were cautious about the development.
“That is why some central banks, not only in Nigeria, have these concerns about what kind of activities these cryptocurrencies are put and how best to monitor those activities.” Aisen noted that some of the activities might be illegal or related to money laundering and drug peddling.

Is the above quote meaningful? I do not see it meaningful at all. Some people are not concerned about privacy and make use of exchange for crypto purchase, while many providing kyc all because exchanges are making it mandatory to do. Many people do not like exchanges because they are making people not to have privacy. Is it not proper for the government to have laws that will make exchanges be able to track crypto transactions rather than banning it. That is why I like countries like USA that do not ban cryptocurrencies  but regulating it. As fiat is, it is most used in all these (terrorism financing, money laundering and drug peddling).
Central banks that ban bitcoin only encouraging p2p.

Governments are old-fashioned in the ideas. They want to be the one that controls everyone and everything in their borders. Even without cryptocurrencies, they cannot accomplish their goals. There will be always someone or something that will work without the government knowing. They put their inability of monitoring actions in the country to the cryptocurrencies. Banning or regulating will not decrease malicious actions. People will always find other ways to work secretly. However, cryptocurrencies are not created for working secretly or for malicious parties. The blockchain is public and you can see who paid to whom. But in traditional finance, we cannot see which malicious acts happen currently. Bitcoin is futuristic let's see whether they change their minds.

[andulolika]

Those fuckers that talk just to talk are most annoying and harmfull to cryptos.

[DarkIT]

I am so curious that many people do not know or research properly about bitcoin and many other crypto assets, they only know little about them and dipicting them bad to people. Normally, there are two types of cryptocurrencies  in term of psuedonymity and anonymity, they are:

1. The ones with public ledger which transactions can be seen by everyone on blockchain. Example is bitcoin
2. The ones that are are completely anonymous in which transactions are not designed to be tracked

I believe people that know about cryptocurrencies should focus on these while saying cryptocurrencies are used for for terrorism financing, money laundering and drug peddling. Although, pseudonymous cryptocurrencies  can raise a concern but not like anonymous coins, that is why some exchanges are delisting anonymous cryptocurrencies, because their transactions can not be tracked.

The International Monetary Fund has called for caution in the use of cryptocurrencies, describing it as a concern. It disclosed this during a virtual briefing on the recently published 2020 Article IV IMF Staff Report for Nigeria. The Resident Representative of IMF for Nigeria, Ari Aisen, said the concern on the use of cryptocurrencies was why many central banks were cautious about the development.

“That is why some central banks, not only in Nigeria, have these concerns about what kind of activities these cryptocurrencies are put and how best to monitor those activities.” Aisen noted that some of the activities might be illegal or related to money laundering and drug peddling.

Is the above quote meaningful? I do not see it meaningful at all. Some people are not concerned about privacy and make use of exchange for crypto purchase, while many providing kyc all because exchanges are making it mandatory to do. Many people do not like exchanges because they are making people not to have privacy. Is it not proper for the government to have laws that will make exchanges be able to track crypto transactions rather than banning it. That is why I like countries like USA that do not ban cryptocurrencies  but regulating it. As fiat is, it is most used in all these (terrorism financing, money laundering and drug peddling).

Central banks that ban bitcoin only encouraging p2p.

Before it was hrd to track the flow of cryptocurrency. Byt now it was in different manner. By using the Etherscn.io we can almost track the flow of crytocurrency. May be we can't find the address link to which person. But if you know the address of particular person, we can easily find the incoming transaction to the address .

[magneto]

Is the above quote meaningful? I do not see it meaningful at all. Some people are not concerned about privacy and make use of exchange for crypto purchase, while many providing kyc all because exchanges are making it mandatory to do. Many people do not like exchanges because they are making people not to have privacy. Is it not proper for the government to have laws that will make exchanges be able to track crypto transactions rather than banning it. That is why I like countries like USA that do not ban cryptocurrencies  but regulating it. As fiat is, it is most used in all these (terrorism financing, money laundering and drug peddling).

This is all completely bogus.

You're absolutely right. Their argument is flawed in that essentially what they are saying is since BTC can be used as a means of transaction for illegal entities, then it must be banned.

That is a classic fallacy where the argument stems from an overgeneralisation from a very specific and nowadays increasingly obsolete use case of cryptos due to the introduction of so many institutions into the field.

By this logic, gift cards should be banned because of the high levels of fraud associated with them (and I think Hydrogen posted a nice article a while back regarding this). Heck, bank transfers should be banned altogether because it facilitates certain transactions with tax evasion, money laundering... etc. etc.

It is only that they want to restrict access to decentralised assets that they are making these meaningless statements. No other reason.

[Xavofat]

Bitcoin is built to be anonymous.

No, it's built to be pseudonymous, but it's very difficult to keep transactions pseudonymous because many people have revealed some kind of identifying information about themselves in connection with their address on the Internet.  Especially with exchanges that have KYC in place, governments and others can draw connections between known Bitcoin users and the people that they are sending Bitcoin to.

Satoshi did not claim that Bitcoin is an anonymous system, rather that the possibility to be anonymous or pseudonymous relies on you not revealing any identifying information about yourself in connection to the Bitcoin address you use.

[BIT-BENDER]

Central banks that ban bitcoin only encouraging p2p.

That's what happened in Nigeria, what the government don't know it's that they Ban themselves, and not Bitcoiner from crypto-currency, and if any country knows any better than Banning crypto-currency then they would know a Ban can't make a Bitcoiner leave Bitcoin or crypto-currency, but alternative options that are available to them then they link/connect with it and peer2peer is an alternative.

[dothebeats]

They are still pondering about the illegal activities surrounding cryptocurrencies, though they weren't even able to create guidelines and best practices to limit the use of crypto in an illegal setting or to have an individual find himself in a tight spot with crypto. It seems like the representative tried to justify what Nigeria did on crypto, without having to put out some good reasons, just that it's inherently 'bad' because it 'can be used to something illegal' and that's it.

It would be nice if they are sharing other things that could be improved and be better, together with their criticisms of cryptocurrencies. But all they do is throw unjustified worry about crypto turning from worse to worst.

[whyrqa]

Central banks that ban bitcoin only encouraging p2p.

That's what happened in Nigeria, what the government don't know it's that they Ban themselves, and not Bitcoiner from crypto-currency, and if any country knows any better than Banning crypto-currency then they would know a Ban can't make a Bitcoiner leave Bitcoin or crypto-currency, but alternative options that are available to them then they link/connect with it and peer2peer is an alternative.

The fact is that in Nigeria today there are a lot of questions regarding the use and trade of cryptocurrency, especially about the use of p2p by users of the cryptocurrency of that region, because the government in this situation is not so categorical. In addition, the turnover of cryptocurrency in this region is quite large, and one way or another, this week in Nigeria a new maximum of bitcoin was recorded at $ 76,000. But I don’t understand and wonder what is the reason?

[LUCKMCFLY]

I think that everything comes down to the basics, control and business models, worldwide it is known that both banks and governments want to have control of money, their liquidity is everything, no matter the debt that is generated or how much there are many people who lose their houses through the loss of their mortgages and arrive at situations where they depend faithfully on the world economic system. Everything that threatens not to be in control is like cryptocurrency to superman the economy of bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, since there is a lot of money that is in the market capitalization, and the fact of not being supported as well as the actions of the stock market for they are not safe, and prefer to stay away from volatility and focus on the safe.

Insurance is not bad, like investments in the stock market or investment in gold, but the fact that a market depends on the action of the Law of Supply and Demand, of emotions and of Strong Hands that can mostly be tech enthusiasts, it doesn't give them confidence. I think these are a primary reason for mistrust. And based on the fact that the IMF is a body of respect worldwide, it can make these types of affirmations.

[fiulpro]

I do think that if a crypto currency is saying that is anonymous they are not even concerned with the facts that the banks and their every account is linked and is being tracked. What I do think is , if people are going to make an anonymous Crypto they would have to do transactions in fiat!!! ( More of a reason so as why fiat more dangerous than cryptocurrencies)
Why is the government not worried about the cash in the first place ? People literally stuff money in their houses in corrupted nations and it's so weird that the tax authorities literally put a blind eye to such individuals. The COVID fUND itself was something which never reached people 90% was itself lost to the corruption and then people talk about cryptos being bad for the society.

You can't track the cash , the money , but you can try and track the crypto market and the virgin coins also the moment they make any transaction would be available to the public , what are people worried about in the first place ??

They are just scared go loose control , to loose dominance to give people financial freedom for real because if this happens then their long years of " rich getting richer and poor getting poorer won't work "

[ChiBitCTy]

I see this as a concern to some extent.  As you mentioned, there is no way you could ever ban cryptocurrency because there will always be the OTC ( over the counter ) trading that is absolutely impossible to stop, not to mention the rise of decentralized exchanges that will surely change the game as well.

But..there are a good amount of people who still believe bitcoin is anonymous and that is bad for bitcoin.  I think coins like Monero are amazing but I have a fear that they will end up being banned by quite a bit of countries ( think about it, many countries don't allow for women to vote or show their face in public, or allow people to have freedom of religion etc.).  So while I think most countries will understand that bitcoin and monero , for example, are two very different things, but others will use the anonymity of Monero/Zcash etc as an excuse to "ban" crypto overall.

[DrBeer]

Blockchain technology with transparent transactions, such as Bitcoin, looks much more "legitimate" than, for example, bank transactions covered by the privacy law of account holders. If the IMF is so afraid of the anonymity of cryptocurrencies, then let it open up access to the banking system so that you can see account balances, transactions, and owner data? Or here, in the banking sector, is anonymity correct and in the blockchain technology not correct?

[so98nn]

Central banks that ban bitcoin only encouraging p2p.

After reading your post and at the last this statement hit me hard!! Nonetheless they might be thinking about it in the background but since p2p work based on the mutual consent no one can surely track down whether this is crypto transaction or not. It could be just normal business sending money, or relatives getting their money back from other relatives etc etc.

But this will eventually have worst effect on economy if it happened on mass level. The reason is simple, p2p transactions might be shown as temporary money, lenders money, emergency or anything which may not get taxed at the year end thus its loss of government itself.

[Febo]

Only way for any government t have some control over transactions of opaque ledger cryptocurrencies is that people trade them on regulated exchanges. If they ban them then that cant happen anymore. People will use decentralised exchanges and atomic swaps and Governments will lose all control over all transactions that their citizens make.  But maybe that is inevitable anyway.

[oHnK]

The central bank in my country also prohibits cryptocurrency transactions as a medium of exchange, but the government allows it as a commodity.  At least with the legalization of Bitcoin, the government has the ability to monitor transactions carried out in my country through its exchangers.  But it is not denied, there are still many who carry out p2p transactions for quite confidential purposes. What is important is that every country that bans Bitcoin and other cryptos is a country that is lazy to make regulations.  And the economists are the less literate.

[sana54210]

Blockchain technology with transparent transactions, such as Bitcoin, looks much more "legitimate" than, for example, bank transactions covered by the privacy law of account holders. If the IMF is so afraid of the anonymity of cryptocurrencies, then let it open up access to the banking system so that you can see account balances, transactions, and owner data? Or here, in the banking sector, is anonymity correct and in the blockchain technology not correct?

Obviously they do not care about anything regarding the anonymity, they have no reason to want that neither, look at all the KYC deals in most exchanges, we can't even move our money around, hence I think it is quite obvious that we are not going to get anything remotely close to same thing in other places.

So, that means is you could find someone who uses an exchange, find the exchange address they were given, see the address they sent money from to their exchange and follow them up from there all from blockchain. Like you said it is a lot more clear and available, whereas in banking world, can you and I follow up what Elon does with his money? Of course not. Long story short this is not about anon or not, this is about banks versus crypto, this is about rich vs poor, this is about fair versus unfair and if the world goes more crypto they know that people will have a too much power.

[Twentyonepaylots]

It's made to be a concern because cryptocurrency threatens the structure that the economy we live in is built upon. The same structure mind you that incentivized abuse of the common worker and had left countries in shambles, and people in huge debts. And their ca to action further reinforces the fact that they are scared of cryptocurrency, because once the power is put back to the people, their plans and ploys will fall down.

The central bank in my country also prohibits cryptocurrency transactions as a medium of exchange, but the government allows it as a commodity.  At least with the legalization of Bitcoin, the government has the ability to monitor transactions carried out in my country through its exchangers.  But it is not denied, there are still many who carry out p2p transactions for quite confidential purposes. What is important is that every country that bans Bitcoin and other cryptos is a country that is lazy to make regulations.  And the economists are the less literate.

Or they are just afraid of what crypto can really do, that's why they opted to ban it instead of regulating it. That might actually be the case.

[verita1]

I am concerned about the IMF because until now it has not learned about bitcoin and what it has achieved.
I have no problem using a centralized or decentralized exchange. KYC is not a problem for me because it is necessary for my P2P transactions.
I think it will not be a problem for bitcoin if the IMF tries to review the concerns of the central bank of Nigeria. I think that bitcoin deserves an exhaustive and verifiable reversal of the solutions that people who invest in it are looking for.

[qwertyup23]

I do think it is about weighing the pros and cons of cryptocurrencies, as a whole.

We all know that the blockchain shows every transaction in the public ledger in which such information cannot be altered as it is physically impossible. However, its application on its day-to-day use shows its importance and use for future references. For example, you can track down the history of an item and every processes it went.

The downside, however, is such avenue may be a gateway or an avenue of purchasing illegal and covet items in the dark web. I think this area of concern should be the main focus of the government on how to balance the pros and cons of implementing the blockchain in our daily use.

[20kevin20]

I believe people that know about cryptocurrencies should focus on these while saying cryptocurrencies are used for for terrorism financing, money laundering and drug peddling. Although, pseudonymous cryptocurrencies  can raise a concern but not like anonymous coins, that is why some exchanges are delisting anonymous cryptocurrencies, because their transactions can not be tracked.

Cash has been around for so, so long. You can use it pretty much anywhere you want (or you could've done that before the pandemic at least) and nobody would've given a damn where your money came from and where it's going.

I don't see the point they're trying to make: if I can take care of my own cash without someone else having to bother me and spy on me, why should I not be allowed to take care of my own Bitcoins or Moneros? Monero can be tracked. Pretty much all coins that are private can be traced. The only difference is that I can only track your XMR if you agree with it. Bitcoin, on the other hand, makes it possible so that I can spy on you without your consent.

I would have seen a point in doing this if crimes were on the rise since BTC's inception. But with so many surveillance cameras and so much technology invading our private lives, I don't see why exactly it makes sense to invade my financial intimacy.

“That is why some central banks, not only in Nigeria, have these concerns about what kind of activities these cryptocurrencies are put and how best to monitor those activities.” Aisen noted that some of the activities might be illegal or related to money laundering and drug peddling.

Swap the words I put in bold with "fiat" and you cannot tell me the statement does not apply although now you're talking about fiat instead of cryptocurrencies. To be honest, I actually find it scary how people do not think for themselves anymore and listen to the words of these idiots trying to control every little aspect of our lives. It's outrageous..

[DrBeer]

They often speak of "financial freedom" here. And tell me - what do you mean by this concept?
It seems to me that many people confuse "freedom" with "concealment" a little. Freedom is the possibility of choice, action, realization of desires. What many are talking about is "to hide the transaction from the state", income, information about purchases ... You really believe in the society and the state system where the state will not control the income and expenditures of citizens in order to increase tax collection and reduce the risks of illegal payments " services, services "or goods? The only "inconvenience" that I will squeeze out from the classical principles of government work is:
- an attempt to squeeze more taxes out of me. But there is tax legislation, official optimization schemes, etc.
- information about my purchases will become known. But on the other hand, all networks collect and process data about you as network users (bonus programs, etc.)

Maybe we do not correctly formulate and understand the problems? Maybe some things are objectively contrived?

[Spaffin]

They often speak of "financial freedom" here. And tell me - what do you mean by this concept?
It seems to me that many people confuse "freedom" with "concealment" a little. Freedom is the possibility of choice, action, realization of desires. What many are talking about is "to hide the transaction from the state", income, information about purchases ... You really believe in the society and the state system where the state will not control the income and expenditures of citizens in order to increase tax collection and reduce the risks of illegal payments " services, services "or goods? The only "inconvenience" that I will squeeze out from the classical principles of government work is:
- an attempt to squeeze more taxes out of me. But there is tax legislation, official optimization schemes, etc.
- information about my purchases will become known. But on the other hand, all networks collect and process data about you as network users (bonus programs, etc.)

Maybe we do not correctly formulate and understand the problems? Maybe some things are objectively contrived?

In fact, what is happening today, even in developed countries, is very difficult to call freedom of choice for each person. Based on this, we cannot hope for this with an appropriate state structure and the government will never calm down if they do not control not only the income and expenses of each person, but also their whole life.

[DrBeer]

They often speak of "financial freedom" here. And tell me - what do you mean by this concept?
It seems to me that many people confuse "freedom" with "concealment" a little. Freedom is the possibility of choice, action, realization of desires. What many are talking about is "to hide the transaction from the state", income, information about purchases ... You really believe in the society and the state system where the state will not control the income and expenditures of citizens in order to increase tax collection and reduce the risks of illegal payments " services, services "or goods? The only "inconvenience" that I will squeeze out from the classical principles of government work is:
- an attempt to squeeze more taxes out of me. But there is tax legislation, official optimization schemes, etc.
- information about my purchases will become known. But on the other hand, all networks collect and process data about you as network users (bonus programs, etc.)

Maybe we do not correctly formulate and understand the problems? Maybe some things are objectively contrived?

In fact, what is happening today, even in developed countries, is very difficult to call freedom of choice for each person. Based on this, we cannot hope for this with an appropriate state structure and the government will never calm down if they do not control not only the income and expenses of each person, but also their whole life.

If we are talking about the financial system, please give an example of "not freedom"?
For example, having earned money, I can spend it by any available, legal method by buying a fierce product, service or service that does not violate the law. I have no visible or obvious limitations. The only thing is that I have to pay taxes on income that passes through my accounts as a private entrepreneur. But paying taxes is okay. Although I agree - it's not normal when a part of your income is taken away from you without giving anything in return. But I see social assistance in the state, I see old people's pensions, I see medical care, I see many things that were created for taxes, including mine

[CarnagexD]

Even in the old days, people really would persecute and condemn things that they lack information about, the same thing is happening with bitcoin wherein people who don't use it are the ones to talk badly and depict bitcoin in a bad light. The only way we can feasibly solve this is to provide and help them be informed about the benefits of bitcoin.

[Silberman]

Is the above quote meaningful? I do not see it meaningful at all. Some people are not concerned about privacy and make use of exchange for crypto purchase, while many providing kyc all because exchanges are making it mandatory to do. Many people do not like exchanges because they are making people not to have privacy. Is it not proper for the government to have laws that will make exchanges be able to track crypto transactions rather than banning it. That is why I like countries like USA that do not ban cryptocurrencies  but regulating it. As fiat is, it is most used in all these (terrorism financing, money laundering and drug peddling).

This is all completely bogus.

You're absolutely right. Their argument is flawed in that essentially what they are saying is since BTC can be used as a means of transaction for illegal entities, then it must be banned.

That is a classic fallacy where the argument stems from an overgeneralisation from a very specific and nowadays increasingly obsolete use case of cryptos due to the introduction of so many institutions into the field.

By this logic, gift cards should be banned because of the high levels of fraud associated with them (and I think Hydrogen posted a nice article a while back regarding this). Heck, bank transfers should be banned altogether because it facilitates certain transactions with tax evasion, money laundering... etc. etc.

It is only that they want to restrict access to decentralised assets that they are making these meaningless statements. No other reason.

It is a baseless argument but one that works really well with the masses, if we applied this kind of thought process then no new technology should have ever been adopted as it can always increase the effectiveness of criminal behaviour, we do not ban cars despite car accidents being the leading cause of deaths on the young population, why? Because the usefulness of cars is simply too high that we cannot allow to ban cars so unfortunately it is a price we as a society have to pay, and the same kind of logic should be applied to bitcoin.

[torrantz]

Not a new news when people who supposed to government and are on highest echelon don't know what they're talking about more specifically a technology that's advanced. Even worse their lack of information also influence their poor decision, imagine keep blabbering about crypto involved in the funding of terrorism and that sort of thing meanwhile the paper money that's totally leaves no trace has no problem being used for terrorism funding everywhere cuz released by the central bank.

[Smartprofit]

Governments seek total control.  However, the Internet and the virtual space are not the territory of separate states. 

The virtual world was created not by kings, emperors and presidents, but by developers and ordinary people.  Therefore, the Internet and the virtual space is a special space that should not be regulated by the laws of individual states.  Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is the money of the virtual space. 

Yes, the Bitcoin blockchain is transparent.  This is done to confirm the reality of transactions, and not for regulatory purposes.

[tippytoes]

Governments seek total control.  However, the Internet and the virtual space are not the territory of separate states.  

The virtual world was created not by kings, emperors and presidents, but by developers and ordinary people.  Therefore, the Internet and the virtual space is a special space that should not be regulated by the laws of individual states.  Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is the money of the virtual space.  

Yes, the Bitcoin blockchain is transparent.  This is done to confirm the reality of transactions, and not for regulatory purposes.

And in this digital age, the government has no full control of what people can read via net and learn how to do things on their own. This is the reason why most governments don't want bitcoin or crypto, because they also have no full control of the financial transactions of crypto users. Most of them don't even understand how to transact with crypto. So right now, they are against with it. However, it may change in the coming years, when they slowly understand its importance to the community and the economy.

[Mauser]

Governments seek total control.  However, the Internet and the virtual space are not the territory of separate states. 

The virtual world was created not by kings, emperors and presidents, but by developers and ordinary people.  Therefore, the Internet and the virtual space is a special space that should not be regulated by the laws of individual states.  Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is the money of the virtual space. 

Yes, the Bitcoin blockchain is transparent.  This is done to confirm the reality of transactions, and not for regulatory purposes.

I agree the Internet was created by ordinary people, and people who invested a lot of time in the 80s and 90s made sure it was free to access. They didn't want any government control that would filter what people could see and what was blocked. Same goes for crypto currencies, the inventors never wanted a government or central being able to control the money supply of crypto currencies. We need to stay strong.

[semobo]

Anyone who is going to buy or sell huge amount if cryptocurrencies on exchanges will be concerning about the enforced KYC not only to money laundering and so called criminal activities but they really do care about protecting their availability of assets to unknown people who called exchange owners.

Some central banks too stick with such reasons like money laundering to ban cryptocurrency usage but they are nor really concerned about the money laundering they want to stop people from going decentralized.

[justdimin]

Governments seek total control.  However, the Internet and the virtual space are not the territory of separate states. 

The virtual world was created not by kings, emperors and presidents, but by developers and ordinary people.  Therefore, the Internet and the virtual space is a special space that should not be regulated by the laws of individual states.  Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is the money of the virtual space. 

Yes, the Bitcoin blockchain is transparent.  This is done to confirm the reality of transactions, and not for regulatory purposes.

It "can be" controlled as in governments could ban websites, there has been so many websites FBI has closed for example and there has been some websites banned all around the world, look at China for example, they are not allowed on many websites, and if it is found out that you went to twitter without Chinese government approving and you said anything critical of the ccp that means you are gone, as soon as they find you, not only they will kill you, but they will kill all of your family just in case there is a vendetta so that there won't be anyone left hating them. This has been proved as well.

So, if things are this drastic and this horrible in some nations, it is obvious that it can be controlled in some other places mildly, not a huge deal, like maybe banning some casino website type deal so it is not a big deal for the general public, but that doesn't change the fact that it was controlled, even if it is an illegal website that sells guns wholesale, if you ban it, that means it is not free, it is good that it is not free in that case but it is still not free.

[slapper]

On the strength of new technologies, each individual has different purposes for using bitcoin as well as for cryptocurrencies.  As you can see, the majority use bitcoin in order to gain a huge profit from the increase in the price whereas it is believed to be a strong hedge again the monetary. Others like bitcoin because of its anonymity and thus, they avoid use any exchange which forces them to become exposed to the authorities. Only a few manipulate bitcoin for bad influences such as terrorism, money laundering, etc

Banning Bitcoin is a way in which Nigeria chooses to solve the problem without having any appropriate regulation on using, owning, and trading cryptocurrency. They avoid the facts that people in their country are innovators who easily understand and adapt to advanced practical applications.

To me, bitcoin is a wonderful asset generating money passively for me without doing anything except stacking it.

[Silberman]

Governments seek total control.  However, the Internet and the virtual space are not the territory of separate states.  

The virtual world was created not by kings, emperors and presidents, but by developers and ordinary people.  Therefore, the Internet and the virtual space is a special space that should not be regulated by the laws of individual states.  Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is the money of the virtual space.  

Yes, the Bitcoin blockchain is transparent.  This is done to confirm the reality of transactions, and not for regulatory purposes.

The problem for governments is that such a goal is impossible to accomplish, I think we all understand that one of the first and probably the most important duty of a government is to guarantee the security of their citizens, but with that excuse they are taking so many measures that go against our freedoms that sooner or later people would have reacted against it and once that happens any attempt to try to control their citizens will fail completely and bitcoin is a perfect example of this.

[20kevin20]

The virtual world was created not by kings, emperors and presidents, but by developers and ordinary people.  Therefore, the Internet and the virtual space is a special space that should not be regulated by the laws of individual states. 

Actually, the internet is way too centralized and becomes more and more censored as we speak. It's in the worst state it has ever probably been, and that really sucks.

[Coinsfera]

I am so curious that many people do not know or research properly about bitcoin and many other crypto assets, they only know little about them and dipicting them bad to people. Normally, there are two types of cryptocurrencies  in term of psuedonymity and anonymity, they are:
1. The ones with public ledger which transactions can be seen by everyone on blockchain. Example is bitcoin
2. The ones that are are completely anonymous in which transactions are not designed to be tracked

The International Monetary Fund has called for caution in the use of cryptocurrencies, describing it as a concern. It disclosed this during a virtual briefing on the recently published 2020 Article IV IMF Staff Report for Nigeria. The Resident Representative of IMF for Nigeria, Ari Aisen, said the concern on the use of cryptocurrencies was why many central banks were cautious about the development.
“That is why some central banks, not only in Nigeria, have these concerns about what kind of activities these cryptocurrencies are put and how best to monitor those activities.” Aisen noted that some of the activities might be illegal or related to money laundering and drug peddling.

Is the above quote meaningful? I do not see it meaningful at all. Some people are not concerned about privacy and make use of exchange for crypto purchase, while many providing kyc all because exchanges are making it mandatory to do. Many people do not like exchanges because they are making people not to have privacy. Is it not proper for the government to have laws that will make exchanges be able to track crypto transactions rather than banning it. That is why I like countries like USA that do not ban cryptocurrencies  but regulating it. As fiat is, it is most used in all these (terrorism financing, money laundering and drug peddling).
Central banks that ban bitcoin only encouraging p2p.

Probably they fear that if people hold the mass amount of crypto and wanted to convert it to cash then it will be a problem those banks have low cash holdings. Considering the significant price increase in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies it will be hard to pay them back if they want to take their cash out. This can be considered a major problem.

[Dave1]

Governments seek total control.  However, the Internet and the virtual space are not the territory of separate states.  

The virtual world was created not by kings, emperors and presidents, but by developers and ordinary people.  Therefore, the Internet and the virtual space is a special space that should not be regulated by the laws of individual states.  Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is the money of the virtual space.  

Yes, the Bitcoin blockchain is transparent.  This is done to confirm the reality of transactions, and not for regulatory purposes.

The problem for governments is that such a goal is impossible to accomplish, I think we all understand that one of the first and probably the most important duty of a government is to guarantee the security of their citizens, but with that excuse they are taking so many measures that go against our freedoms that sooner or later people would have reacted against it and once that happens any attempt to try to control their citizens will fail completely and bitcoin is a perfect example of this.

So it's a double sword standard that we are currently live it. Initially we thought that Internet is censorship resistant and it was developed to really connect us in a way without any interference from government. However, it has drastically change when it become centralized because of the monopoly of companies such as Google. Bitcoin will like to change all of that, or at least crypto for that matter. But for me the pattern continues, they want total regulations, they want everything under their control.

[Snappycoco]

Having no control at all means they are vulnerable to such accusations. The government aren't convince at all because some crypto currencies aren't regulated. These institutions are much more prone to money laundering and this is why KYC are much important.

[Sterbens]

By this logic, gift cards should be banned because of the high levels of fraud associated with them (and I think Hydrogen posted a nice article a while back regarding this). Heck, bank transfers should be banned altogether because it facilitates certain transactions with tax evasion, money laundering... etc. etc.

It is only that they want to restrict access to decentralised assets that they are making these meaningless statements. No other reason.

In order to control the pace of the main economy, they are very aggressive in a dirty way. They restrict us from having the financial freedom Satoshi hoped 10 years ago. they make regulations that really want to suppress our finances which are easy to control and they can also stop at any time. this needs to be fought.

[el kaka22]

Probably they fear that if people hold the mass amount of crypto and wanted to convert it to cash then it will be a problem those banks have low cash holdings. Considering the significant price increase in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies it will be hard to pay them back if they want to take their cash out. This can be considered a major problem.

That is exactly what they fear! In crypto if you own crypto you can buy more or sell and it is always there, there is no "money lost" there, you buy a certain amount of bitcoins and you sell certain amount of bitcoins, there could never be more or less amount in the world.

So, why can't banks handle that? Simple reason, because they do not have the money they claim they do, that has been known for years and world didn't just crashed the whole banking industry, I do not know why and I can't say how but the reality is that we put money into banks, and they spend that and if every single person that has money in that bank wants to withdraw it, that would result with them collapsing and not being able to pay, that is basically means banks are a ponzi scheme surviving with the new money coming in. Crypto doesn't allow that and financial industry hates it for that.

[Silberman]

The problem for governments is that such a goal is impossible to accomplish, I think we all understand that one of the first and probably the most important duty of a government is to guarantee the security of their citizens, but with that excuse they are taking so many measures that go against our freedoms that sooner or later people would have reacted against it and once that happens any attempt to try to control their citizens will fail completely and bitcoin is a perfect example of this.

So it's a double sword standard that we are currently live it. Initially we thought that Internet is censorship resistant and it was developed to really connect us in a way without any interference from government. However, it has drastically change when it become centralized because of the monopoly of companies such as Google. Bitcoin will like to change all of that, or at least crypto for that matter. But for me the pattern continues, they want total regulations, they want everything under their control.

Right now we are experimenting an invisible battle which many people do no appreciate but that it is there, and it is the battle of centralization vs decentralization, governments want to centralize everything, it is on their very nature and unfortunately technological advancements have allowed them to reach a level of power that was impossible to imagine just 30 years ago, but there is hope, technologies like bitcoin and cryptography allow us to bypass some of that centralization and I think for the first time in a long time people are reacting negatively to all the power governments and private companies like Google and Facebook have over them.

[fullhdpixel]

that means is you could find someone who uses an exchange, find the exchange address they were given, see the address they sent money from to their exchange and follow them up from there all from blockchain.

It's near impossible to find the address an exchange allocates the user unless the user is just naive and gives it away for no reason to anyone. It's similar to sharing your bank account number, nothing much can be changed but a lot of things can be extracted if known.

Also what happens if you deposit money to that address by withdrawing from another exchange, for example, I withdraw from Binance to another exchange. It's impossible to track it.

Like you said it is a lot more clear and available, whereas in banking world, can you and I follow up what Elon does with his money? Of course not.

If he shares his account numbers publicly then for sure someone can get that information.

Long story short this is not about anon or not, this is about banks versus crypto, this is about rich vs poor, this is about fair versus unfair and if the world goes more crypto they know that people will have a too much power.

It's also about transparency and giving control to the people rather than banks.

I understand there are some possible ways of finding others' addresses and track their transactions but if they are educated enough they can remain anonymous for as long as they want.

We know Michael Saylor bought tons of BTC, do we actually know which address he uses to hold them? Obviously, NO. because he knows how to buy, let everyone know yet remain hidden.

[Sithara007]

The biggest scam ongoing in the world right now is fiat currency. Governments are printing banknotes as if there is no tomorrow and the global debt is now estimated at around $300 trillion, which is close to the global GDP. Now IMF is the agency which has been one of the main players in this scam. Ordinary citizens are the victims of this scam, and every year they lose out in the form of increased debt burden and falling purchasing power of their bank deposits.

[Coyster]

So, that means is you could find someone who uses an exchange, find the exchange address they were given, see the address they sent money from to their exchange and follow them up from there all from blockchain.

Centralized exchanges hold your data/info as well as your private keys in your web wallet, but it doesn't mean they'll give that information to just anyone, your post above isn't only specific to Exchange addresses, you can somewhat trace any address on the blockchain network, but the only information you'll be able to get is just the addresses it received from/sent to, but the personnel behind all the transactions remains unseen.

Having said that, the difference is now that, with other wallets that you hold your private keys, if you've not converted crypto via an exchange, there's no way a transaction can be traced to the point of knowing who you are, but if you've used a centralized exchange, on a serious order from the government your identity could be revealed to them, but that order wouldn't just come from anyone, but the government. There are other risks with exchanges and that's data hack/leak, and that's one way your data can find its way into the hands of scammers in the black market.

[Twinkledoe]

The biggest scam ongoing in the world right now is fiat currency. Governments are printing banknotes as if there is no tomorrow and the global debt is now estimated at around $300 trillion, which is close to the global GDP. Now IMF is the agency which has been one of the main players in this scam. Ordinary citizens are the victims of this scam, and every year they lose out in the form of increased debt burden and falling purchasing power of their bank deposits.

They forgot to look at themselves first, before overthinking the impact of cryptocurrencies.  I believe they are concern of the rising popularity of crypto, because this currency, they don't have the control so they don't know where money are going to or coming from. They are not comfortable that people will find a way how to control their own funds without the knowledge of the government. Anyway, they should place their concern over other pressing matters that involved fiat.

[Gozie51]

That is why I like countries like USA that do not ban cryptocurrencies  but regulating it. As fiat is, it is most used in all these

Most things come in stages and time. It is clear to the world the cryptocurrency and bitcoin is a world phenomenon and with time, countries that are not positive will turn around. If not a total adoption but will use it as an option. Countries that have pronounced ban on it have not been totally successful on the ban. India and Nigeria have their citizens buying on P2P basis and things are going on. Time is a factor that will bring the reversal because the government is losing.

[bryant.coleman]

They forgot to look at themselves first, before overthinking the impact of cryptocurrencies.  I believe they are concern of the rising popularity of crypto, because this currency, they don't have the control so they don't know where money are going to or coming from. They are not comfortable that people will find a way how to control their own funds without the knowledge of the government. Anyway, they should place their concern over other pressing matters that involved fiat.

They believe that cryptocurrencies pose a direct challenge for them. Why should people use shitty fiat currencies to store their wealth, when they have a much better alternative? The stock market and bullion were the only options available to the users earlier. But the government has manipulated these markets as well and they have a close interlink with fiat economy. But that is not the case with cryptocurrencies, and that explains their panic.

[worle1bm]

Actually most of the government and their cabinet are unable to understand the usage of Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or simply they don't want to understand it because they fear of losing control over monetary transaction.But they need to look it at other way because the transactions are not anonymous as blockchain holds the record of each and every transaction made on Bitcoin network and most customer have KYC done on the exchange revealing their Indentity so we can't say it is completely anonymous and used for dark web crimes.The control is in owners hand and the government cannot rob them of their funds unlike fiat which Is completely under their functioning.So they are giving such lame excuses to avoid usage and demotivate people by spreading FOMO but it will be of no usage.So let them try their tricks which will result in their economical loss.

[Ucy]

Bitcoin is built to be anonymous.

No, it's built to be pseudonymous, but it's very difficult to keep transactions pseudonymous because many people have revealed some kind of identifying information about themselves in connection with their address on the Internet.  Especially with exchanges that have KYC in place, governments and others can draw connections between known Bitcoin users and the people that they are sending Bitcoin to.

Satoshi did not claim that Bitcoin is an anonymous system, rather that the possibility to be anonymous or pseudonymous relies on you not revealing any identifying information about yourself in connection to the Bitcoin address you use.

I just checked the dictionary definition of pseudonymous just to be sure, and as far as I can tell, users who run full nodes don't use false name for their addresses or wallets. Their addresses are typically anonymous with no false/fake names tied to them unless they want their identities to be known.

Ofcourse, no anonymous system/network is really fully anonymous. There will always be ways to know or guess the identity behind them.

[iv4n]

Bitcoin is built to be anonymous.

No, it's built to be pseudonymous, but it's very difficult to keep transactions pseudonymous because many people have revealed some kind of identifying information about themselves in connection with their address on the Internet.  Especially with exchanges that have KYC in place, governments and others can draw connections between known Bitcoin users and the people that they are sending Bitcoin to.

Satoshi did not claim that Bitcoin is an anonymous system, rather that the possibility to be anonymous or pseudonymous relies on you not revealing any identifying information about yourself in connection to the Bitcoin address you use.

I just checked the dictionary definition of pseudonymous just to be sure, and as far as I can tell, users who run full nodes don't use false name for their addresses or wallets. Their addresses are typically anonymous with no false/fake names tied to them unless they want their identities to be known.

Ofcourse, no anonymous system/network is really fully anonymous. There will always be ways to know or guess the identity behind them.

But some are really fully anonymous! Monero is one of them! I didn't hear that someone claimed that $ 500k bounty on cracking Monero chain, issued by some US agency... maybe I am wrong?!

Bitcoin is transparent, you can connect yourself with your address (or not), but the transaction is visible to all of us! With Monero (and some other privacy coins) you can't keep track of transactions!

...
Central banks that ban bitcoin only encouraging p2p.

The future is in p2p... people are sick of banks, governments, and all their shit!

[barbara44]

The biggest scam ongoing in the world right now is fiat currency. Governments are printing banknotes as if there is no tomorrow and the global debt is now estimated at around $300 trillion, which is close to the global GDP. Now IMF is the agency which has been one of the main players in this scam. Ordinary citizens are the victims of this scam, and every year they lose out in the form of increased debt burden and falling purchasing power of their bank deposits.

They forgot to look at themselves first, before overthinking the impact of cryptocurrencies.  I believe they are concern of the rising popularity of crypto, because this currency, they don't have the control so they don't know where money are going to or coming from. They are not comfortable that people will find a way how to control their own funds without the knowledge of the government. Anyway, they should place their concern over other pressing matters that involved fiat.

That is exactly the reason why they do not like crypto, because they know that they are not going to be able to stop it and that is why they hate it, that is the main reason why they are doing all of what they can to make it look like bitcoin is something shady and illegal but the reality is that bitcoin is the most legit currency there ever was in history of mankind.

If bitcoin becomes so popular that it breaks over gold market cap and that will be one step that we are starting to eat fiat and slowly destroy it, people will slowly stop investing with fiat and will start using crypto instead, that should be our number one focus right now. But, one another important fact is that we need to find a way to transfer bitcoin around very very cheaply and super fast so that we could actually spend it everywhere, that would be second goal that would help us a lot.

[jaysabi]

The problem for governments is that such a goal is impossible to accomplish, I think we all understand that one of the first and probably the most important duty of a government is to guarantee the security of their citizens, but with that excuse they are taking so many measures that go against our freedoms that sooner or later people would have reacted against it and once that happens any attempt to try to control their citizens will fail completely and bitcoin is a perfect example of this.

So it's a double sword standard that we are currently live it. Initially we thought that Internet is censorship resistant and it was developed to really connect us in a way without any interference from government. However, it has drastically change when it become centralized because of the monopoly of companies such as Google. Bitcoin will like to change all of that, or at least crypto for that matter. But for me the pattern continues, they want total regulations, they want everything under their control.

Right now we are experimenting an invisible battle which many people do no appreciate but that it is there, and it is the battle of centralization vs decentralization, governments want to centralize everything, it is on their very nature and unfortunately technological advancements have allowed them to reach a level of power that was impossible to imagine just 30 years ago, but there is hope, technologies like bitcoin and cryptography allow us to bypass some of that centralization and I think for the first time in a long time people are reacting negatively to all the power governments and private companies like Google and Facebook have over them.

Facebook and Google don't have any power that people don't give to them. You opt into that by using google services or opening a facebook account and posting information about yourself.  If you don't like what facebook or google do or the power they have over you, stop using their services.  It's an entirely solvable problem.