Gov must have power to reverse transactions, says co-chair of blockchain caucus

[bbc.reporter]

Is he telling everyone that if someone is using bitcoin and other cryptocoins, he or she will be a willing participant in a conspiracy to commit crime? I am shaking my head.

The congressman also said that cryptocoins must become compliant with federal regulations and laws for them to ever become mainstream instruments for conducting transactions. Does everyone really want regulations or do those people only want a pump and thought regulations would bring it?



Foster continued that cryptocurrencies must become compliant with federal regulations and laws for them to ever become mainstream instruments for conducting transactions.

“We’re going to have to establish a law between the legal and illegal regimes here,” Foster said. “There’s a significant sentiment, increasing sentiment, in Congress that if you’re participating in an anonymous crypto transaction that you’re a de-facto participant in a criminal conspiracy.”

Read in full https://www.marketwatch.com/story/government-must-have-power-to-reverse-crypto-transactions-says-co-chair-of-blockchain-caucus-11624995008

[ranochigo]

You know, some of them aren't really the sharpest tool in the shed. Just search up on their Google hearing LOL. Putting the most incompetent people on subjects that they're not sure about.

If you're giving up your control to the government, just use fiat. Don't bother with cryptos, really. That is not what most cryptos aim to do. Good luck trying to block any transactions on Bitcoin though. I use fiat, am I complicit with money laundering

[leea-1334]

I do not see what is wrong with that. If you have a private blockchain and only the owner or creator able to control it,,, then go ahead and reverse it if you want.

Remember,,, ETH did that before too and it was fine and today it is even called decentralized.

Governments should be able to reverse, they do it already. Not saying it is good,,, but who cares what they do?

[Kong Hey Pakboy]

I wouldn't care about it being implemented if there aren't any people that will use it for sinister or malicious purposes but given that it's not the case, I don't think that it is a good idea even if they try to put a lot of positives to outweigh the negatives.

[avikz]

Not everyone is smart enough to understand cryptocurrency and its technological benefits. Being a congressman, doesn't make you smart! Being a politician, doesn't make you knowledgeable enough to comment on anything. Even in my country, a politician compared bitcoin with ponzi scheme in parliament back in 2017. Stupid pople are everywhere and we must ignore them for our own benefit. This is one of such cases!

[pooya87]

The congressman also said that cryptocoins must become compliant with federal regulations and laws for them to ever become mainstream instruments for conducting transactions.

What some governments have not yet realized is that they should be complaint with the world and what people want not the other way around. Bitcoin and decentralization is what they want and these governments can not change that so they better catch up or be left behind from the rest of the world.

[bbc.reporter]

I wouldn't care about it being implemented if there aren't any people that will use it for sinister or malicious purposes but given that it's not the case, I don't think that it is a good idea even if they try to put a lot of positives to outweigh the negatives.

Did you read the whole article? It appears that you have not read it. Also, people really are and will always be using bitcoin for criminality. This also does not make bitcoin bad not like many other people’s comments.

Many people attempt to protect bitcoin by saying only 1% use it for crime according to Chainalysis. This is foolish. They are really hurting bitcoin because they are indicating that bitcoin is not as good as cash as a monetary tool.

[NeuroticFish]

There’s a significant sentiment, increasing sentiment, in Congress that if you’re participating in an anonymous crypto transaction that you’re a de-facto participant in a criminal conspiracy.

And here comes the way the state and government gives a shit on peoples presumption of innocence.
These rednecks ruling the countries already see us guilty until proven innocent, just because we noticed that their printed paper is not as good as they want us to believe.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Bill Foster sounds like he has no idea what he is talking about, despite being head of the House blockchain caucus. Just look at some of the nonsense he has come out with:

Foster suggested new laws should require a different form of pseudo-anonymity, wherein a court — that is, a third party — could learn the real-world identity of a cryptocurrency user through a “very heavily guarded key.”

Right. Let's just set up a global centralized database and not let anyone create a new address without first completing KYC. We'll obviously have to erase the memories of everyone who understands elliptic curve multiplication and can create a private key and associated address from nothing.

“For most people if they’re going to have a big part of their net worth tied up in crypto assets, they’re going to want to have that security blanket of a trusted third party that can solve the problem.”

What absolute nonsense. That is the exact opposite of the founding principle of bitcoin. The entire reason bitcoin was created is to not trust third parties.

They are really hurting bitcoin because they are indicating that bitcoin is not as good as cash as a monetary tool.

Bitcoin is not as good as cash if your goal is to remain anonymous and commit crimes. Cash has always been the preferred option of criminals and money laundering.

[virtualdn]

Centralization...this is what the government wants. When the government will control BTC it's all over. They will control you also. If the governments will do what they want with your BTC then BTC will become a joke and will be no better than fiat. I see no difference.

[dkbit98]

They are never going to see this reversible transactions for Bitcoin, but I am sure that bunch of altcoins would be glad to reverse any transaction, this happened before with ethereum and I am sure it can happen with binance chain.
This is also telling us that any new centralized digital currencies will have this option to reverse anything they want and to freeze and close accounts.

[dothebeats]

Some people seated in the government should really ask themselves if they are a fit for this job. Seriously, most of them just blurts out random nonsense on topics they know nothing about, and thinks that they have uttered something that is completely logical and understandable to all parties involved. Perhaps next time people should elect officials that know what they should do in their respective offices.

Then again you can't expect most people to know this. We are still in the age wherein people elect celebrities and entertainment personas with the expectation that they'd do an awesome job on their position.

Also, the government always wants direct access to anything cryptocurrency-related, especially on things that will certainly compromise the security of the crypto in question. I guess they just can't keep their hands to themselves and let people use whatever they want on transactions and whatnot.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Yeah good luck with that one. They really don’t like it do they but there’s nothing they can do about it. You just love to see it

The best part is, if they do a China & ban bitcoin then in the long run they will suffer badly. The fiat banking system is on its knees, they just have to be bitcoin friendly or their demise will be even quicker.

[decodx]

If we allow the government to cancel transactions, then why do we need a cryptocurrency at all?

This will never happen as long as there is decentralized mining. I don't think governments can do anything about it.

[Little Mouse]

You would be mad at Bangladeshi media and govt authorities who talk about cryptocurrency. This may sound off-topic. In each and every crime where bitcoin is used for transaction, media and police have highlighted bitcoin. All the recent case had issues with hacking credit card. This is too an criminal activity but they only highlighted bitcoin because bitcoin was purchased by hacking cards.

Don't they see how Bangladesh Bank lost 81 million USD from Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Did they use Bitcoin? No.

[Ucy]

They could build a separate application within a global blockchain network if they want the transactions of their citizens and others reversed. If reversing transactions within a global network is going to be possible, it's must be done in decentralized manner through public consensus. It's not a lawless network.

By the way, I wonder what national government this is coming from. Nations have to deal with this individually to avoid lumping others countries together in ones country's internal affairs. And their decision can only apply to centralized financial system within their jurisdiction.

Well, we regularly participate in anonymous transactios with physical currencies in real world , i don't see why it should be different in crypto world. It shouldn't be a problem if transacting peers prefer to keep their identify private even though they may have had their identities verified, encrypted and stored within the network for their eyes alone. The identity can only be de-anonimized by authorized persons when necessary.  This can be an additional feature within a decentralized cryptocurrency network and it should be made in such a way that every participants has full control over his/her identify and data. ..no one else can for security and legal/moral reasons.


Anonimity feature is important feature in decentralized crypto and can't be taken away else you expose participants to lots of risk as true crpto is transparent and public. People will probably begin to demand that the transparency be taken away to help them feel private/anonymous in a dangerous cyberspace.  
Besides, alot of people will need strong privacy and Anonimity when things become really bad in the world that no one can be trusted anymore.

[qwertyup23]

You know, some of them aren't really the sharpest tool in the shed. Just search up on their Google hearing LOL. Putting the most incompetent people on subjects that they're not sure about.

If you're giving up your control to the government, just use fiat. Don't bother with cryptos, really. That is not what most cryptos aim to do. Good luck trying to block any transactions on Bitcoin though. I use fiat, am I complicit with money laundering

I very much agree with your statement.

The problem is, the government is inclined to control at least everything. Without control, it threatens their very existence since they think that by having no power to control transactions, it may backfire in the future where decentralization of transactions may take over the conventional fiat.

Unfortunately, there are people who are just generally biased over cryptocurrencies. They do not even bother to do their respective research on the topic; they mindlessly throw misleading statements that prejudice cryptocurrencies in the process.

[leea-1334]

Remember,,, ETH did that before too and it was fine and today it is even called decentralized.

Reversing damage due to DAO hack on ETH isn't easy, miner/node need to update their software and many blocks become invalid. Even ETH community don't want bother doing it many times

It definitely was not easy,,, and it caused a big rift, and even it took people like me years to "trust" it. I know that was very big circumstance at the time but it somehow proved also that sometimes they were benefits (and of course a big negative for decentralization). I know they will probably never do it again!

Anyway, we should expect government crypto to still be controlled and permissioned. Anyone who thinks they will do different is deluded:)

[o_e_l_e_o]

Some people seated in the government should really ask themselves if they are a fit for this job.

It is ridiculous, when you think about it. In any other professional job, you have to demonstrate that you are keeping up to date with recent developments and new technology, show evidence of ongoing learning, attend educational conferences and seminars, and so on. But in politics, you can just sit in your safe seat for 40 years without changing anything. I bet half of Congress have the password to at least one account written on a post-it and stuck to their monitor, yet they think they can lecture and pass laws regarding cryptography. It's laughable.

I guess they just can't keep their hands to themselves and let people use whatever they want on transactions and whatnot.

Of course not. They want power. This comes largely from a financial system which lets them spy on their citizens, control or reverse your transactions, rig markets for their own benefit, take their cut off of the top, and accept huge bribes and gifts from corporations. They can't possibly accept an invention such as bitcoin which prevents them from doing all of these things. Thankfully, bitcoin adoption is steadily growing around them, while they rant and rave about how important third parties are.

[Wind_FURY]

Reversing damage due to DAO hack on ETH isn't easy, miner/node need to update their software and many blocks become invalid. Even ETH community don't want bother doing it many times

It definitely was not easy,,, and it caused a big rift, and even it took people like me years to "trust" it. I know that was very big circumstance at the time but it somehow proved also that sometimes they were benefits (and of course a big negative for decentralization). I know they will probably never do it again!

I agree, there are several major bug within smart contract which causes big loss (such as Parity Wallet vulnerability which lock at least half million ETH). But in the end, ETH community decline to reverse the damage.

But i expect newer cryptocurrency which controlled by few company/group wiull have built-in protocol to reverse transaction easily.

The current legacy banking system we have could already be used for that. Plus I believe it shouldn’t be called A “cryptocurrency”, or even considered to be a “version” of one. “Cryptocurrency” has a cypherpunk origin to it, and from what we learned from Bitcoin, what you are talking about is merely like “database rewards” from a technological standpoint.

[hatshepsut93]

Sooner or later we'll see a fully compliant shitcoin where FBI or some other agency will hold a master key that would allow them to do whatever they want with transactions and coins. And of course this coin will be advertised as a coin for mass adoption, and I'm pretty sure it will fail just like CBDC will fail, because crypto enthusiasts are not interested in this centralized crap, and regular people are not interested in crypto in general.

[Sithara007]

Bill Foster from the deep blue state of Illinois, representing the Democrat party. No surprises there. The day Joe Biden was elected, I had told my friends that there will be a rise in harassment from the authorities directed towards Bitcoin users. And Boden immediately appointed Janet Yellen as the secretary of the treasury. Yellen and Elizabeth Warren have made repeated threats to cryptocurrency users since the beginning of this year. They can do whatever they want, but so far their actions had zero impact on the growth of Bitcoin adoption.

[o_e_l_e_o]

But i expect newer cryptocurrency which controlled by few company/group wiull have built-in protocol to reverse transaction easily.

The current legacy banking system we have could already be used for that.

We also already have a bunch of shitcoins which can be used for that. Coins like XRP are completely centralized, all stablecoins can be frozen by their creators, and even coins considered "major" alts like Bcash and ETH have had transactions reversed after consensus from the miners.

Sooner or later we'll see a fully compliant shitcoin where FBI or some other agency will hold a master key that would allow them to do whatever they want with transactions and coins. And of course this coin will be advertised as a coin for mass adoption, and I'm pretty sure it will fail just like CBDC will fail, because crypto enthusiasts are not interested in this centralized crap, and regular people are not interested in crypto in general.

I'm pretty sure any and all CBDCs (in the US, at least) will be fully compliant with whatever the FBI wants, including complete power to deanonymize, freeze, reverse, or seize transactions and coins.

[leea-1334]

I agree, there are several major bug within smart contract which causes big loss (such as Parity Wallet vulnerability which lock at least half million ETH). But in the end, ETH community decline to reverse the damage.

But i expect newer cryptocurrency which controlled by few company/group wiull have built-in protocol to reverse transaction easily.

And now that we even have governments who are making CBDCs to have reversible transactions,,, and now in defi you also have certain projects already working to reverse decisions (up to a certain limit in layer 2) I guess this will become the norm. Back in the day immutability was a big thing but I guess practical considerations mean we have to make concessions on some of these traits. Or do we?

[o_e_l_e_o]

Back in the day immutability was a big thing but I guess practical considerations mean we have to make concessions on some of these traits. Or do we?

What practical considerations? What the government sees as practical is not the same as what we see as practical. Bitcoin has functioned just fine for 12 years being immutable, being censorship resistant, being free of third parties, and being decentralized. Obviously the government isn't keen on any of these things, but that's a problem for them, not us. They can rant and rave all they want - at the end of the day, we do not need their permission to continue to use bitcoin as a peer to peer currency as it was designed to be.

If the government want to launch their own centralized shitcoin, taking in to account these "practical considerations", then of course they are free to do so. Just don't expect me to use it.

[Lee_Mire]

It fascinates how desperately some humans want to control other humans. Crypto and blockchain technology is sticking it to these power hungry people, lets hope more tech emerges that completely levels the playing field.

[hatshepsut93]

I'm pretty sure any and all CBDCs (in the US, at least) will be fully compliant with whatever the FBI wants, including complete power to deanonymize, freeze, reverse, or seize transactions and coins.

Of course they will be, but I was thinking more about privately created cryptocurrencies, maybe managed by a company, or even decentralized like the real cryptocurrencies, but with this backdoor for governments. They will try to sell it as a more decentralized alternative to CBDC, though of course it wouldn't matter with this full backdoor.

[Maxine4466]

Back in the day immutability was a big thing but I guess practical considerations mean we have to make concessions on some of these traits. Or do we?

What practical considerations? What the government sees as practical is not the same as what we see as practical. Bitcoin has functioned just fine for 12 years being immutable, being censorship resistant, being free of third parties, and being decentralized. Obviously the government isn't keen on any of these things, but that's a problem for them, not us. They can rant and rave all they want - at the end of the day, we do not need their permission to continue to use bitcoin as a peer to peer currency as it was designed to be.

If the government want to launch their own centralized shitcoin, taking in to account these "practical considerations", then of course they are free to do so. Just don't expect me to use it.

no practical consideration ever exists. there's no reason for governments to have the power to reverse transactions, otherwise one of the best advantages will be destroyed. Governments strive to impose control on people so that they can steal money from them and that's what we definitely refuse to accept! Satoshi gave us the chance to get rid of the control from centralization and we must spare no effort to seize it.
Personally, I love the tamper proof mechanism in blockchain coz I really hate government's judging my action. I live in the shelter of my government in some way so I pay taxes and fulfill my obligation as a citizen and follow the laws it made, that's all I do and I'm willing to do that. Depriving my freedom in crypto world is unforgivable and I will not let that happen! I'm sure folks in this field will do the same and stand with me.

[Wind_FURY]

I agree, there are several major bug within smart contract which causes big loss (such as Parity Wallet vulnerability which lock at least half million ETH). But in the end, ETH community decline to reverse the damage.

But i expect newer cryptocurrency which controlled by few company/group wiull have built-in protocol to reverse transaction easily.

And now that we even have governments who are making CBDCs to have reversible transactions,,, and now in defi you also have certain projects already working to reverse decisions (up to a certain limit in layer 2) I guess this will become the norm. Back in the day immutability was a big thing but I guess practical considerations mean we have to make concessions on some of these traits. Or do we?
 

“Back in the day”? “Was a big thing”? I believe you don’t truly understand, ser. It still remains to be a very big thing. Where do you think Bitcoin’s main value proposition truly comes from?

[PrivacyG]

One thing is certainly known, and it is that you can not stop illegal activity by restricting everyone from using a system the way they want to.  It is extremely stupid to say that banning something slows down criminals.  It is even more stupid to think that anonymity is by default a craving only of the criminal mind.  We all have a moment in which we want privacy, but big words influence minds and this is what governments are doing with the average people now.  It is a mind game where you are falsely taught that looking for privacy means you are becoming a criminal.  Wake the freak up!

In fact, I am convinced such rules actually make MORE people look for ways to avoid the system than prior to the change of rules.  If I was to commit a crime, I would definitely not be scared away by new laws because I knew there are ways out.  There is always a way out if you search long enough for one.

What such laws do is they force everyone to comply and accept the idea that we are all treated as criminals straight from the start.  In consequence, the burden sits onto the regular users rather than the criminals.  The regular users have to comply, the criminals will just avoid.

I know the best days of this world will come when and if people will ever understand that governments only pretend to care about us when the reality is the exact opposite.  They do not care, they just want to take your rights and freedom away from you.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

[imstillthebest]

Is he telling everyone that if someone is using bitcoin and other cryptocoins, he or she will be a willing participant in a conspiracy to commit crime? I am shaking my head.

judging in his qoute yes he almost says that but he was refering only to anonymous crypto transactions .
 i guess this means if your using a full private coins like monero or your using a mixing service for your btc but not all that does that are criminals right ? . some just like their transactions to be more discreet

The congressman also said that cryptocoins must become compliant with federal regulations and laws for them to ever become mainstream instruments for conducting transactions. Does everyone really want regulations or do those people only want a pump and thought regulations would bring it?

no thanks because cryptos were in their way in the mainstream even without it .
not all loves regulations . we dont need cryptos be like a fiat because they created differently

[o_e_l_e_o]

Of course they will be, but I was thinking more about privately created cryptocurrencies, maybe managed by a company, or even decentralized like the real cryptocurrencies, but with this backdoor for governments.

I would like to say that no one in their right mind would use such a currency, but given that people are already perfectly happy to use centralized bankers' coins like XRP and are perfectly happy giving all their details to centralized exchanges to pass on to the government and let their assets be frozen if the government says so, then unfortunately we both know that that's not the case.

It is a mind game where you are falsely taught that looking for privacy means you are becoming a criminal.

This kind of mindset is a direct attack on the Constitution. Whatever happened to due process? Whatever happened to a fair trail? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? We have serving members of Congress openly stating that even just looking to maintain your privacy (a right protected by the Fourth Amendment) makes you a criminal, which flies in the face of due process as established in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

If you are to be scared of anyone, be scared of the dinosaurs in power trying to strip away your rights, your liberty, your freedom, and not of the person next door who just doesn't want these same people spying on them.

[maxreish]

When it comes to implementing laws because of the criminal reasons, then this must be something they will push into considerations. But I dont quite understand that they are making this as a big issue and to make it a mainstream transactions?

Afterall, they have to make a wise decisions if they are planning to make another implementations about cryptocurrency.

[nelson4lov]

Not everyone is smart enough to understand cryptocurrency and its technological benefits. Being a congressman, doesn't make you smart! Being a politician, doesn't make you knowledgeable enough to comment on anything. Even in my country, a politician compared bitcoin with ponzi scheme in parliament back in 2017. Stupid pople are everywhere and we must ignore them for our own benefit. This is one of such cases!

Bill Foster is just making a wild assumption while putting everyone in the same basket. The fact that everyone uses and participates in anonymous transactions doesn't mean that they're willing to take part in criminal activities using cryptocurrencies. It's just wrong to make such assumptions as stuffs like these usually boils down to choice. I've experienced something similar to this ~ where the central bank assumed that citizens in the country are using crypto for illegal activities just because they opt for crypto instead of patronizing government products like treasury bills, shares, mutual funds, etc.

[Coin_trader]

When it comes to implementing laws because of the criminal reasons, then this must be something they will push into considerations. But I dont quite understand that they are making this as a big issue and to make it a mainstream transactions?

Afterall, they have to make a wise decisions if they are planning to make another implementations about cryptocurrency.

Because stealing money is not possible for them if they allow Bitcoin and other Decentralized cryptocurrency to become mainstream money. All transaction will be recorded on the blockchain so having an under the table transaction can be easily spot since all transactions from the government needs a documentation. This is my opinion on this issue since they already have a solution on applying tax on crypto.

[cheezcarls]

The government must have the power to reverse transactions? They’re so delusional! They should realize that they can’t control the blockchain themselves. They can only regulate, but not controlling them and it’s not possible to reverse transactions. This is what the blockchain was built in the decentralized world.

[pawanjain]

I am quite sure he would not even have read the bitcoin whitepaper and understood it's fundamentals before making that kind of a statement.
Obviously the government would need the power to reverse the transactions because if they mess up somewhere then they will have to reverse the transactions.
They can simply create private blockchain with a stable coin instead if they want to control it completely.

[PrivacyG]

This kind of mindset is a direct attack on the Constitution. Whatever happened to due process? Whatever happened to a fair trail? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? We have serving members of Congress openly stating that even just looking to maintain your privacy (a right protected by the Fourth Amendment) makes you a criminal, which flies in the face of due process as established in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Sadly, they are all gone.  Furthermore, the process of making privacy illegal is seemingly a global attempt rather than just the United States government's.  Innocent until proven guilty has been reversed.  You are guilty of crime until you prove otherwise.

-----

I would like to say that no one in their right mind would use such a currency, but given that people are already perfectly happy to use centralized bankers' coins like XRP and are perfectly happy giving all their details to centralized exchanges to pass on to the government and let their assets be frozen if the government says so, then unfortunately we both know that that's not the case.

Love how you specifically mentioned "would like to".

Most of the gadgets we own and use today have government backdoors inside them.  It is just that they managed to make us all comply to it and subconsciously accept the idea.  Today's fiat system already has a direct access for governments to our personal accounts, so the transition from that to backdoor-enabled currencies will likely be so smooth they will not even feel it.

Convincing a mass of people to stop accepting and supporting backdoors is a difficult task. Even getting Messenger users to move on to Signal is a burden.  Now I will repeat your words..: I would like to think I am just the pessimistic one and things are not as bad as they seem.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

[Ozero]

Governments always seek to control the world of finance because finance gives them power. So far, the only thing they cannot do is control the cryptocurrency. Of course, people in power will always try to subjugate cryptocurrency. Moreover, they themselves define the concept of crime. However, you cannot provide them with the ability to suspend transactions in cryptocurrency. This is the main feature of the cryptocurrency so far. The confrontation between people in power and cryptocurrency in this regard will be and it will be long. It is difficult to say how all this will end.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Sadly, they are all gone.  Furthermore, the process of making privacy illegal is seemingly a global attempt rather than just the United States government's.

I'm not sure I would say they are gone just yet, but we are certainly heading in that direction, and people's general ambivalence about everything privacy is only hastening this. When you look at revelations from Snowden and things like the 5-, 9-, and 14-eyes, then yes, it is a clear and obvious trend across the Western world, but there is no doubt the US government is leading the way. For all we like to go on about our freedoms and look down on places like China for their lack of said freedoms, most don't realize our government is doing many of the exact same things as China's. But who cares if the government listens to all your conversations if it means you can ask your home assistant to turn the lights off because you are too lazy to stand up and do it yourself, right!?

Convincing a mass of people to stop accepting and supporting backdoors is a difficult task. Even getting Messenger users to move on to Signal is a burden.

It is difficult for sure. Changing your own habits is one thing - leaving social media, stop using Google, Microsoft, Apple products, not completing KYC, using Tor, etc. Convincing other people to start using open source encrypted messaging apps like Signal instead of backdoored WhatsApp is another thing, particularly when all their contacts still use WhatsApp, or whatever. The herd mentality of "nothing to hide" is strong.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I can't express how freer I feel since the day I registered on bitcointalk. There's nothing that drains even the last drop of my privacy to advertisers and politicians. Just a bunch of intelligent folks who want to see this world changing for the better, with no scummy decisions by the government. In this place I learnt the pure truth about Bitcoin and I changed the way that I'm seeing this world.

I, myself, was a victim of the way I was associating anonymity with criminality. Unconsciously, I used to think that if you want to be hidden from the government, you're de-facto a criminal, but that's not true; that is a right.

Dear fellows, be happy for the bullshit that congressman rattled out. It's a sign that they are afraid of what they'll have to face in the next years. Let them reverse any transaction from their shitty CBDCs. It just a renaming of fiat currency that they've got sick of hearing. Reversing my Bitcoin transaction? Yeah — hold my node.


Let this post be a toast to Bitcoin(talk)ers. Not all heroes wear capes.

[aysg76]

Who cares what a congressmen who has little or no knowledge of decentralisation thinks? Even if they want btc to reverse transaction that is not possible which is worst case they are talking about.So they said btc usage is associated with criminal activities so now they want to make reverse transaction so that they can forge transaction in previous block to make some more profits but so sorry we don't do that here in bitcoin network and not possible.They can implement it in CDBC which is fully centralized.Bitcoin was built with aim to provide freedom and that's what government don't want to give it to the citizens because who will use their Infinite supply of inflationary fiat then? So they will make such Statements which have no base so don't worry about them.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Who cares what a congressmen who has little or no knowledge of decentralisation thinks? Even if they want btc to reverse transaction that is not possible which is worst case they are talking about.

As much as I absolutely hate that the things some dinosaur who doesn't understand bitcoin or cryptography in the slightest says matter to me, they do. Of course we know he can't reverse transactions as he says he wants, but he can certainly do a bunch of other things to make my life difficult, even as someone who has never used a centralized exchange and has never completed KYC. He can push to criminalize anonymous transactions altogether, instantly making me a criminal despite doing nothing wrong. He can continue to push for agencies such as the FBI and CIA to work with blockchain analysis companies to deanonymize all transactions and all bitcoin users.

The US government will quite happily spy on you, monitor your behavior, raid your property, seize your assets, all without any actual proof of a crime. If morons like this senator make privacy illegal, then such things will only get worse, regardless of the fact that they can't actually impact the bitcoin protocol.

[Vishnu.Reang]

As much as I absolutely hate that the things some dinosaur who doesn't understand bitcoin or cryptography in the slightest says matter to me, they do. Of course we know he can't reverse transactions as he says he wants, but he can certainly do a bunch of other things to make my life difficult, even as someone who has never used a centralized exchange and has never completed KYC. He can push to criminalize anonymous transactions altogether, instantly making me a criminal despite doing nothing wrong. He can continue to push for agencies such as the FBI and CIA to work with blockchain analysis companies to deanonymize all transactions and all bitcoin users.

The US government will quite happily spy on you, monitor your behavior, raid your property, seize your assets, all without any actual proof of a crime. If morons like this senator make privacy illegal, then such things will only get worse, regardless of the fact that they can't actually impact the bitcoin protocol.

If a Blockchain transaction is flagged as "suspicious", then the authorities have the right to ask for help from various blockchain analysis companies to trace down the users behind the transfer. But they can't outlaw all the anonymous transactions. That would be against the constitutional rights guaranteed to US citizens. Recently, the FBI requested a judge in California to attach all the assets they found while raiding a safe deposit box business. The judge turned down their request, saying that the FBI first need to submit evidence to prove that the assets found in such safe deposit boxes were linked to illegal business. The same would be applicable to anonymous transactions. In each case, the FBI need to prove that the transactions were linked to some sort of illegal activity.

[o_e_l_e_o]

But they can't outlaw all the anonymous transactions.

Of course they can. They can't prevent them or reverse them, but they can certainly make them illegal and pass a law requiring everyone to KYC every bitcoin address. Then all US citizens must either sacrifice their privacy or become a criminal.

That would be against the constitutional rights guaranteed to US citizens.

Our constitutional rights didn't stop them setting up mass surveillance programs and spying on millions of innocent citizens. Why would they stop them monitoring bitcoin transactions?

The same would be applicable to anonymous transactions. In each case, the FBI need to prove that the transactions were linked to some sort of illegal activity.

That's a big assumption to make, and you have absolutely no guarantee that any court would view these two scenarios as equal.

[leea-1334]

Back in the day immutability was a big thing but I guess practical considerations mean we have to make concessions on some of these traits. Or do we?

What practical considerations? What the government sees as practical is not the same as what we see as practical. Bitcoin has functioned just fine for 12 years being immutable, being censorship resistant, being free of third parties, and being decentralized. Obviously the government isn't keen on any of these things, but that's a problem for them, not us. They can rant and rave all they want - at the end of the day, we do not need their permission to continue to use bitcoin as a peer to peer currency as it was designed to be.

If the government want to launch their own centralized shitcoin, taking in to account these "practical considerations", then of course they are free to do so. Just don't expect me to use it.

Practical like my grandparents who keep asking me to call the bank on their behalf because they send double or triple payments to a bill payment. Trust me,,, when you have grandparents who cannot really read English, and have only used smartphones for the last 2 years AND the government stupidly decides to close ALL the bank counters during covid and force everyone to use apps, you are going to have 50% of error transactions that need to be reversed.

This is the practical life I talk about that most of the world goes through. I know for sure this is not just my country as all my friends are angry about the same decision.

Now imagine the govt moves this all to blockchain. I agree it is a shitcoin fiat but "practical considerations" I hope you get what I mean now.

[Wind_FURY]

Back in the day immutability was a big thing but I guess practical considerations mean we have to make concessions on some of these traits. Or do we?

What practical considerations? What the government sees as practical is not the same as what we see as practical. Bitcoin has functioned just fine for 12 years being immutable, being censorship resistant, being free of third parties, and being decentralized. Obviously the government isn't keen on any of these things, but that's a problem for them, not us. They can rant and rave all they want - at the end of the day, we do not need their permission to continue to use bitcoin as a peer to peer currency as it was designed to be.

If the government want to launch their own centralized shitcoin, taking in to account these "practical considerations", then of course they are free to do so. Just don't expect me to use it.

Practical like my grandparents who keep asking me to call the bank on their behalf because they send double or triple payments to a bill payment. Trust me,,, when you have grandparents who cannot really read English, and have only used smartphones for the last 2 years AND the government stupidly decides to close ALL the bank counters during covid and force everyone to use apps, you are going to have 50% of error transactions that need to be reversed.

This is the practical life I talk about that most of the world goes through. I know for sure this is not just my country as all my friends are angry about the same decision.

Now imagine the govt moves this all to blockchain. I agree it is a shitcoin fiat but "practical considerations" I hope you get what I mean now.

What kind of “blockchain” will that be? Or does it really need a “blockchain”? Wouldn’t a MySQL darabase be enough for that, with signing entrusted to a central financial entity, and monitored under the the watchful eyes of the government?

[o_e_l_e_o]

I agree it is a shitcoin fiat but "practical considerations" I hope you get what I mean now.

Ahh, I see, and it is a fair point. Some people are just not ready to "be their own bank". Making wallets as user friendly as possible could go some way to help with such issues. If there are still concerns, then there is no reason your grandparents couldn't use some third party solution to hold their coins for them, which would prevent them making double or triple spends to the same address without additional authorization. Or you can simply contact the company in question to have them process a refund. Or you could have your grandparents appoint you or a relative as a legal guardian over their financial matters.

There are a variety of potential solutions to such issues, but I don't believe that compromising what bitcoin is by making transactions mutable or reversible in any way is the correct method of addressing such concerns.

[davis196]

The congressman also said that cryptocoins must become compliant with federal regulations and laws for them to ever become mainstream instruments for conducting transactions. Does everyone really want regulations or do those people only want a pump and thought regulations would bring it?

I cryptocoin is just a tool and cannot be "compliant with federal regulations and laws".
I guess that this congressmen is talking about companies,that operate in the cryptocurrency industry.
Most of the cryptocoins/crypto companies are already complaint with federal regulations and laws.
Only privacy coins like Monero will face some problems with the law.

There’s a significant sentiment, increasing sentiment, in Congress that if you’re participating in an anonymous crypto transaction that you’re a de-facto participant in a criminal conspiracy.

Anyone involved in anonymous crypto transactions will be suspected for criminal conspiracy.What?
This is means that everyone is guilty,until he/she proves his/her innocence.I guess that USA will throw the presumption of innocence into the garbage.This is a violation of basic human rights.

[Kittygalore]

The problem with this one is that people in the government if they are controlling and power hungry, they will probably use this reverse transaction as a means to control the business operating under the crypto umbrella. Also, it's difficult to give that kind of power to government because governments are a one big corporation too if you think about it technically.

[kryptqnick]

Because of guys like this, I think it's good when big companies (PayPal) or influential people (Musk, Soros) get involved with Bitcoin. This gives Bitcoin some credibility in the eyes of the authorities and of people who are hesitant to use cryptos, as surely, such people and companies wouldn't participate in 'criminal conspiracies', ponzis or other similar things.
As for this particular case with Foster, I think it's ridiculous he demands Bitcoin transaction reversion to become possible. If someone gives another person cash, this transaction also cannot be reversed, and people can only meet again for a new transaction that returns the money. Similarly, cash transactions are largely anonymous, as people don't provide their ID most of the time when they're using it. And yet nobody's running around and saying that KYC should be enforced every time people pay using cash or that cash should be banned altogether because it's impossible to reverse these transactions.

[masterrex]

I think these politicians were not brief about how blockchain works, Is that possible to reverse any transaction on the blockchain? I think that's not possible, anyway I'm not an expert regarding that topic I was responding only base on my limited knowledge about how blockchain works in simplicity, Politicians should invite a knowledgeable resource person if there's a hearing regarding crypto regulation so that they will know how cryptocurrency was functioned using blockchain technology.  

[o_e_l_e_o]

I cryptocoin is just a tool and cannot be "compliant with federal regulations and laws".

They have tried to make encryption illegal, or force end-to-end encrypted messaging software to build backdoors for government access. They can certainly make bitcoin, or a certain subset of transactions, illegal if they want to.

I guess that this congressmen is talking about companies,that operate in the cryptocurrency industry.

They will obviously be the first to comply or be shut down, but miners and then users will be next in their sights. We are already seeing the beginnings of miners being forced to only mine transactions which are pre-approved by the government, with pools like MARA mining blocks which they claim are "OFAC compliant".

Only privacy coins like Monero will face some problems with the law.

It is naive to think this. Bitcoin is too much of a threat to them for them to ignore it.

Is that possible to reverse any transaction on the blockchain?

The only way to do this with certainty is if you consistently control 51% or more of the hashrate.

[2double0]

What is so anonymous here? All transactions are transparent, mostly traceable and there are agencies who are capable of tracing any transaction. It had been observed that there were many crypto thefts which got identified and thieves got arrested, as well as money was retrieved whereas in fiat, there is no such point of discussing traceability. Governments are all playing with the sentiments of people to drop the idea of buying btc and it shows that they are trying to manipulate crypto markets to end it all at once.

[Nunoluck]

Honestly I don't like regulations although I think that if the use of bitcoin is regulated by governments then the adoption will be better. I just looking for something that is free from government control. I prefer like to see government don't get involved in bitcoin world, I don't want government to ban or accept bitcoin, just let people use bitcoin as they want. But unfortunately there is also negative thing in this, if government don't get involved in bitcoin world then maybe there are some people will do crime using bitcoin. I think if people who use bitcoin are only good people then it will be good.

[Cryptoshops]

I think the regulation of buying and selling crypto has all ready started here in the UK  Coinbase is regulated by the FCA in the UK to stop money laundering,  where as Binance is not because its situated in the Caymen Islands The UK  FCA has no regulatory power over it but now the banks here in the UK are stopping us from making any purchases from Binance which in itself is a form of regulation I think 5 years down the line and as more and more countries either ban it or start to use it you will see more and more regulations being put into place.

[Vaskiy]

What is so anonymous here? All transactions are transparent, mostly traceable and there are agencies who are capable of tracing any transaction. It had been observed that there were many crypto thefts which got identified and thieves got arrested, as well as money was retrieved whereas in fiat, there is no such point of discussing traceability. Governments are all playing with the sentiments of people to drop the idea of buying btc and it shows that they are trying to manipulate crypto markets to end it all at once.

Yes, there is more easy access for cryptocurrency tracking than the fiat moves. Governments say it doesn't have control over the network and the same could fund terrorism and so on. This is how the government mislead people at the beginning in my country. Later it even tried to relate some fund transaction as funding to terrorism. This made more people stay away from crypto currency usage. Now people have got the better understanding, so nothing to worry on the manipulation by government in a different approach.

[CaVO32]

Honestly I don't like regulations although I think that if the use of bitcoin is regulated by governments then the adoption will be better. I just looking for something that is free from government control. I prefer like to see government don't get involved in bitcoin world, I don't want government to ban or accept bitcoin, just let people use bitcoin as they want. But unfortunately there is also negative thing in this, if government don't get involved in bitcoin world then maybe there are some people will do crime using bitcoin. I think if people who use bitcoin are only good people then it will be good.

That's the ideal scenario however, some people will really use it to their illegal activities just like fiat. Regulation may encourage more adoption from its people but some won't like it because we are used to being free with our crypto transactions. However, if it is for the goodness of crypto, then so be it. But reversing the transactions? That is only possible if you know the people involve from end to end, otherwise, it is hard to implement this situation.

[leea-1334]

What kind of “blockchain” will that be? Or does it really need a “blockchain”? Wouldn’t a MySQL darabase be enough for that, with signing entrusted to a central financial entity, and monitored under the the watchful eyes of the government?

I totally agree with you here. But I guess systems already have similar database and it is too difficult to use and maybe not secure enough. I do not know the answer:) But blockchain should have improvements over traditional database in terms of recording accurately and timestamping I guess.

Ahh, I see, and it is a fair point. Some people are just not ready to "be their own bank". Making wallets as user friendly as possible could go some way to help with such issues. If there are still concerns, then there is no reason your grandparents couldn't use some third party solution to hold their coins for them, which would prevent them making double or triple spends to the same address without additional authorization. Or you can simply contact the company in question to have them process a refund. Or you could have your grandparents appoint you or a relative as a legal guardian over their financial matters.

There are a variety of potential solutions to such issues, but I don't believe that compromising what bitcoin is by making transactions mutable or reversible in any way is the correct method of addressing such concerns.

For sure,,, and we cannot blame them or even ask them to. In most of the world people are not even ready for digital money or digital banking,,, what more to say Bitcoin and keep your own private key safe and sign and broadcast. My grandmother writes her pin down in her wallet for her bank card which she anyway always makes sure one of her grandchildren is with her:) So yes, with her for example we already did a lot of things whenever the banks moved. Imagine teaching SMS. And telling her all those fake calls from the bank were not to be trusted. And then entering her account online. I would probably give up and cry if we had to teach her Bitcoin, even if using 3rdparty wallet (more user friendly but still not as easy. Now we need only to "give her a payment request", she taps, it opens bank app, she puts in password, paid. Instantly. Free, With no hitches.

I do agree though of course at a certain point, we do not need to change Bitcoin. There are many ways, to have 3rd parties, or us. But in this case I do think a government running its own blockchain would for sure want to have that power. Maybe not in developed countries (minus USA haha). But if you ask our leaders here,,, they would want to control the sun if they could.

[Wind_FURY]

What kind of “blockchain” will that be? Or does it really need a “blockchain”? Wouldn’t a MySQL darabase be enough for that, with signing entrusted to a central financial entity, and monitored under the the watchful eyes of the government?

I totally agree with you here. But I guess systems already have similar database and it is too difficult to use and maybe not secure enough. I do not know the answer:) But blockchain should have improvements over traditional database in terms of recording accurately and timestamping I guess.

Can you post what your definition of a blockchain is? Because you and I might have a different understanding of what a working “blockchain” is. I believe some people view it as “something secure/decentralized”, but has stopped there, and hasn’t understood how/why it is decentralized.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I totally agree with you here. But I guess systems already have similar database and it is too difficult to use and maybe not secure enough. I do not know the answer:) But blockchain should have improvements over traditional database in terms of recording accurately and timestamping I guess.

I think the point he was making is that governments won't want to use a blockchain. If you want centralized control and a third party to have complete jurisdiction over the currency in question, then a blockchain is an exceedingly inefficient way to do that. There is no reason the government would not just use a single centralized database rather than a distributed one. Transactions could be almost instant and nearly free (only taking as long as it takes to update an entry on a spreadsheet), but you lose all the benefits bitcoin brings - decentralized, trustless, immutable, censorship resistant, etc. - and the government retains the ability to print more of this currency freely. Any such "cryptocurrency" launched by a government will essentially just be fiat in disguise.

Now we need only to "give her a payment request", she taps, it opens bank app, she puts in password, paid. Instantly. Free, With no hitches.

We are not a million miles away from an experience similar to that with Lightning. There are a few Lightning wallets out there which will handle the opening/closing/funding/liquidity of channels for you. You just need to send some coins to that wallet, and then when you want to pay someone with Lightning, they generate a payment request, you scan it in your wallet, and it is paid, instantly and almost free. Sure, the process isn't as streamlined yet, but I'm sure that with the ongoing development we will get there soon.

But in this case I do think a government running its own blockchain would for sure want to have that power. Maybe not in developed countries (minus USA haha). But if you ask our leaders here,,, they would want to control the sun if they could.

Most governments are the same, which is exactly the reason we need bitcoin.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Any such "cryptocurrency" launched by a government will essentially just be fiat in disguise.

The only benefit I can think of is that CBDCs won't be like a bank account in theory. If you own digital euros, there's no person owing you anything. Debt can be discharged without cash, although it won't have the same resistance in censorship. Criminals will prefer going with cash or Bitcoin/Monero rather than a transaction which can be reversed by the government.  

CBDCs will essentially make human more confined and privacy oriented cryptocurrencies will be the escape from the system. That's my belief.

[o_e_l_e_o]

If you own digital euros, there's no person owing you anything.

I'm not sure I follow you here. As far as I can see, whether you have euros in your hand as fiat, in your bank account as savings, or in some new account as a CBDC, they are all issued and guaranteed by the central bank of your country and/or the European Central Bank, which retains the ability to set monetary policy, print more of the currency, and oversee the activities of the commercial banks which use the currency. Those central banks are ultimately what gives the digital currency value. If the central bank decides to double the supply overnight, then what you are holding effectively halves in value.

CBDCs will essentially make human more confined and privacy oriented cryptocurrencies will be the escape from the system. That's my belief.

I agree with you here. Governments don't like cash because they can't trace it and a lot of cash transactions are done to avoid paying tax, hence their desire to turn all these transactions in to a digital version which they can trace.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I'm not sure I follow you here.

Yes, I may was confusing. I was trying to say that your money in your bank account is an IOU of cash. The CBDCs won't be an IOU, but rather digital cash. That can be seen as an advantage.

If the central bank decides to double the supply overnight, then what you are holding effectively halves in value.

The mint can only double the supply by a government's mandate except if I'm missing your point. The bank can't inflate the system with the currency's units, but with IOUs. That's why we had the capital controls, people were cashing out from their bank based on their IOUs. Although, there were much more euros in IOUs than in the bank and thus, they limited the amount you can cash out. I remember endless lines of people outside of ATMs, trying to cash out €400 which was the maximum amount.

I agree with you here. Governments don't like cash because they can't trace it and a lot of cash transactions are done to avoid paying tax, hence their desire to turn all these transactions in to a digital version which they can trace.

Cash are untraceable, but not fungible. Each banknote has a unique id on it. An analysis can be done by the government and even though it sounds impossible, it's not. Now imagine a society living with three kinds of digital currencies.

• CBDCs that are completely traceable and centrally managed by the government.
• Decentralized cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin that can also be traced.
• Monero.

I don't think that humanity had ever the same fungibility and privacy on a currency. Governments will fight it for sure, that's why it's less likely to succeed same like Bitcoin did. But, you know what they say; the higher the risk, they higher the reward.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I was trying to say that your money in your bank account is an IOU of cash.

Cash itself used to be an IOU of gold. I don't even know what it is now. An IOU of "the government says so"?

The CBDCs won't be an IOU, but rather digital cash. That can be seen as an advantage.

Sure, but either way they are still backed up by the exact same thing - absolutely nothing other than the government's promise that they won't devalue it too much.

The mint can only double the supply by a government's mandate except if I'm missing your point.

My point was it doesn't matter if it is cash or CBDC - either way the supply is limitless and then can be minted at will by their centralized owner.

Cash are untraceable, but not fungible. Each banknote has a unique id on it. An analysis can be done by the government and even though it sounds impossible, it's not.

It is traceable, but not the same way bitcoin is traceable. If you withdraw 1 BTC from an exchange, send it to me, and I deposit some of it at another exchange, then everyone can see a direct link from you to me. If you withdraw $10,000 in marked notes from the bank, and later I deposit some of those notes at another bank, no one knows if there is a direct link from you to me or if there were 100 intermediaries.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Cash itself used to be an IOU of gold. I don't even know what it is now. An IOU of "the government says so"?

It's an IOU². 

Sure, but either way they are still backed up by the exact same thing - absolutely nothing other than the government's promise that they won't devalue it too much.

If you know that your government's currency will be slowly devaluated, you'll prefer spending it rather than keeping it. That's generally good for an economy, it's just the way you see it. You shouldn't be storing value by locking a million dollars in a chest; these dollars should be circulating in the market. Use gold instead, or in this case, deflationary cryptocurrencies.

[CryptoStar19]

The entire premise behind cryptocurrency is freedom from authoritarian control... it would defeat the purpose to have nation-states control any aspect of tokenomics or have the authority to reverse transactions. For state-backed / controlled digital currencies, we have CBDCs and they are well under way. As for cryptocurrencies, freedom from current financial institutions and governments is perhaps the most important advantage and to lose that would be a deal-breaker.

[Xhong54]

This is like simply saying that governments want to control btc. the freedom involved is the key thing is crypto, nothing else. If this is lost, then it loses meaning. Paper currency is losis its meaning every day because of that kind of control and ease in printing.

[pixie85]

The congressman also said that cryptocoins must become compliant with federal regulations and laws

The congressman is nuts to think a decentralized system can be made to comply with this or that. It's like telling all the ants in the world to move away from neighboring houses and into the woods. I'm sure they'll listen.

Demanding Bitcoin to do something is a nice way to show you have no idea how it works.

[2double0]

Yes, there is more easy access for cryptocurrency tracking than the fiat moves. Governments say it doesn't have control over the network and the same could fund terrorism and so on. This is how the government mislead people at the beginning in my country. Later it even tried to relate some fund transaction as funding to terrorism. This made more people stay away from crypto currency usage. Now people have got the better understanding, so nothing to worry on the manipulation by government in a different approach.

You know there are countries where terrorism is funded by governments only, they either do it for the sympathy or they do it to show their citizens and the world how dangerous they are. What can an other country's government do to that government spending behind terrorism? Nothing. So why these 'innocent' governments are before crypto? Because even if traceable, crypto does not bring them huge taxes yet.

[Woodie]

Lol why does this sound like a comedy show 😂🤣

Anyway it is true that too much power corrupts and this could be the case here....

No offense to these guys but do they have an idea how the blockchain technology works, or they are trying to pretend as if they are doing their jobs to impress their pay master's.

[leea-1334]

Can you post what your definition of a blockchain is? Because you and I might have a different understanding of what a working “blockchain” is. I believe some people view it as “something secure/decentralized”, but has stopped there, and hasn’t understood how/why it is decentralized.

I am 100% sure we both understand it differently. I am the definition of the masses. We do not have a good education. We only improved English online in past few years, in fact, I learnt a lot from this forum and just reading other people's thoughts. I still have trouble understanding Bitcoin whitepaper,,, so for sure, I am not the guy who understands fully how/why blockchain is decentralized.

But I always speak from practical side of things,,, because I only know what I know from practice:) I never saw blockchain as decentralized by the way, I saw Bitcoin as. 99% of blockchain projects out there, can claim secure/decentralized but even a small user like me knows these are only claims.

Thanks o_e_l_e_o for all that discussion. You are right about Lightning,,, I hope it happens faster than I feel.

[Wind_FURY]

Can you post what your definition of a blockchain is? Because you and I might have a different understanding of what a working “blockchain” is. I believe some people view it as “something secure/decentralized”, but has stopped there, and hasn’t understood how/why it is decentralized.

I am 100% sure we both understand it differently. I am the definition of the masses. We do not have a good education. We only improved English online in past few years, in fact, I learnt a lot from this forum and just reading other people's thoughts. I still have trouble understanding Bitcoin whitepaper,,, so for sure, I am not the guy who understands fully how/why blockchain is decentralized.

But I always speak from practical side of things,,, because I only know what I know from practice:) I never saw blockchain as decentralized by the way, I saw Bitcoin as. 99% of blockchain projects out there, can claim secure/decentralized but even a small user like me knows these are only claims.

YES, then connect that to the co-chairman of the blockchain caucus, CLAIMING that government must have the power to reverse transactions. Is he talking about “blockchains”, a real blockchain? Or mere databases? Plus what’s his definition of a blockchain? I am sure you know more than him.

[passwordnow]

The basic principle of crypto transactions that they're not reversible should sustain what he's fighting for. They have no choice but to regulate the exchanges that are operating in their jurisdictions but they have no means of regulating bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies unless those cryptos are centralized. It all ends up about taxation because they cannot tax people through transactions that are happening over blockchain because instead, the government earns some portion with those transactions, it goes to the miners and network itself.

[o_e_l_e_o]

it would defeat the purpose to have nation-states control any aspect of tokenomics or have the authority to reverse transactions.

Governments don't care if what they are proposing completely negates the very point of bitcoin, and they don't care if their rules or regulations will destroy it. As far as they are concerned, they either want it to behave how they tell it to behave, or not exist at all. As with most things, control or remove entirely are the only options they are interested in.

No offense to these guys but do they have an idea how the blockchain technology works, or they are trying to pretend as if they are doing their jobs to impress their pay master's.

I entirely suspect that Bill Foster has absolutely no idea how bitcoin works and how ridiculous the things he is saying are, but I also suspect that even if he did, he would continue saying such things. Almost all our politicians are bought and paid for by banks and corporations which are directly threatened by the proliferation of bitcoin.

They have no choice but to regulate the exchanges that are operating in their jurisdictions

By all means. Let them regulate exchanges however they like - they are, after all, private businesses and will be subjected to the laws of wherever they choose to operate. But regulating against a decentralized protocol is nonsense, just like when they try to regulate against encryption itself.

[Shenzou]

all they are are just a bunch of angry boomers they are trying to bring down bitcoin and cryptocurrency because they have been saying for years that it is a bubble and it is not worth investing in it, and for time to prove them wrong they will do and say anything just to bring it down, and governmment having the ability to reverse transactions is a stupid idea and shows how they have no idea about how the blockchain and cryptocurrency work in the first place.

[dezoel]

So anyone who does anything without informing the government is considered a criminal now? At least that's what I understand from such a statement. I understand that many people might be involved in money laundering and such things with the help of bitcoins but does that mean everyone who uses bitcoins should be labeled as a money launderer or scammer? Absolutely weird kind of mentality this.

The entire premise behind cryptocurrency is freedom from authoritarian control... it would defeat the purpose to have nation-states control any aspect of tokenomics or have the authority to reverse transactions. For state-backed / controlled digital currencies, we have CBDCs and they are well under way. As for cryptocurrencies, freedom from current financial institutions and governments is perhaps the most important advantage and to lose that would be a deal-breaker.

They don't the common sense that people are so fond of bitcoins not because of the transparent nature, not because of the decentralization, and even not because of the speed or anything. People are so crazy about bitcoins because they want irreversible transactions and if you make the transactions reversible, it just kills one of the main purposes of crypto currency.

[kaggie]

I believe we already have this, it's called credit cards or banks, or if you feel especially inclined, centralised B.S. coins.

A public ledger with distributed services (aka bitcoin) is the best thing to hold people accountable, especially government officials.

[passwordnow]

They have no choice but to regulate the exchanges that are operating in their jurisdictions

By all means. Let them regulate exchanges however they like - they are, after all, private businesses and will be subjected to the laws of wherever they choose to operate. But regulating against a decentralized protocol is nonsense, just like when they try to regulate against encryption itself.

They think that they can do that and modify the blockchain transactions that are happening. These people in the government that are subjecting the purpose and protocol of blockchain and cryptocurrencies think that they can do something that will change it forever.
They're all thinking that they can alter almost everything but blockchain and cryptocurrencies proved them that they cannot do it with every single entity that they saw that are against the government and are decentralized.