the China PBOC event explained

[seriouscoin]

If China did ban bank accounts of exchanges, this would be the best thing ever.

1. BTC China and Huobi will be forced to develop exchange market based on individual bank accounts transacting with one another directly.

2. The publicity from the ban will raise people's awareness of bitcoin in china. People will try to understand what is going on and why the PBOC feels so threatened.

3. After the initial drop in price, people will realise that life goes on. The PBOC cannot succesfully ban everyone's bank account.

That would never happen, have you ever used banks b4? sound like some teenage's dream

It's called direct funds transfer.

Which is reversible, are you done dreaming kid?

[1714973332]

1714973332

[zhangweiwu]

Yup - also for foreigners living in China it is *possible* to get a residency card (as opposed to a "temporary residence permit" which you otherwise need to have to legally stay in China) although that is not easy at all (I have only met 1 foreigner who has one of those which he only got after several attempts and who has lived in China over 25 years and ran a multi-million dollar business here employing 30+ Chinese workers).

But even that (the resident card) is not yet a HUKOU.

[CIYAM]

But even that (the resident card) is not yet a HUKOU.

True - although luckily as a foreigner I don't need one of those - they are a big nuisance for Chinese though and rather hard for foreigners (especially westerners) to even *understand*.

BTW the restriction of 50K USD applies to foreigners here also (experienced that personally).

[zhangweiwu]

Sorry man but China is seriously fucked up country.

Damn, that shit about permissions of leaving country remind me of dark period of my childhood when the country I was born in was communist Yugoslavia. What a dipshit communism is..

FYI, the HK border restriction is imposed by HK government to prevent influx of illegal workers.

The purpose "to prevent influx of illegal workers" is clear, but who rules is not clear to me. My permission to visit HK was issued by Chinese  border control, not by Hong Kong's - they do have one too, which issues VISA instead of "Permission". If I have a VISA from them - as many rich Chinese has for using HK as panic room - I can also use that to enter HK, but they don't issue VISA to Chinese for short visits, in which case they would ask Chinese to get a "Permission" from his own mainland government instead. The difference is not really important, because of the following:

Chinese, as far as i know can freely leave their country as long as they have Visa to the foreign country.

Sure true.

[seleme]

Whatever it is, it is very complicated 

[Puppet]

edit wrong thread

[Asrael999]

If China did ban bank accounts of exchanges, this would be the best thing ever.

1. BTC China and Huobi will be forced to develop exchange market based on individual bank accounts transacting with one another directly.

2. The publicity from the ban will raise people's awareness of bitcoin in china. People will try to understand what is going on and why the PBOC feels so threatened.

3. After the initial drop in price, people will realise that life goes on. The PBOC cannot succesfully ban everyone's bank account.

That would never happen, have you ever used banks b4? sound like some teenage's dream

It's called direct funds transfer.

Another method would be to trade bitcoin without ever actually buying it. It would be reasonable complex to do, requiring an account margining system, but there is no reason whereby you could not trade a bitcoin derivative on an exchange. If the cash never actually buys a bitcoin the PBOC cannot complain.

[bclcjunkie]

I personally think this is fud and if it comes true I wouldnt thank enough pboc for another chance to give us cheap coins and removing china from bitcoin ecosystem.. most of us bitcoiners would agree that china had been nothing but toxic to bitcoin's stability so far... I for one cant wait for pboc to act sooner and make bitcoin even more precious to chinese.. also money laundering is bs read on unionpay how mainlanders are bypassing government..

[nakaone]

what i do not get is why the chinese should sell their bitcoins in the event of closing exchanges? I would hodl them and probably sell them overpriced after the 15th of april or when your economic turmoil really has started.

[whatthesith]

Bitfinex operates out of Hong Kong. They are not affected by the Chinese Government.

Do you mean "Bitfinex operates out of China mainland, in Hong Kong; They are not affected by the Chinese Government."?

Because I always thought Bitfinex is a HK business, am I wrong?

Correct.

Bitfinex bank is in Shanghai, will this pose a problem?

They have changed the bank to HSBC HK.

Btw, the previous bank is Offshore bank in Shanghai.

[zhangweiwu]

It makes a lot of sense and means the dip we saw today might just be the beginning.

If you actually listened to me and expected further dip in the 3 days following 28th, you are rewarded.

BTER, an exchange operated in Canada targetin Chinese (they don't even have English version) and has Chinese bank accounts, is the first to stop charging (deposite) completely (others were talking about BtcTrade, another exchange, which stopped online deposite only. Bter is the first to stop deposite in any form).

Their announcement is here (chinese only):
https://bter.com/article/402

What interests me, is why BTER? There are 15 bitcoin exchanges on the PBOC's ban list, BTER is a much less known one. A wild guess is that banks somehow informed or invited exchanges for a talk, to give order without publicity - typical Chinese government's way - and those who are not available are banned out right to get the owner come out and talk.

[windjc]

It makes a lot of sense and means the dip we saw today might just be the beginning.

If you actually listened to me and expected further dip in the 3 days following 28th, you are rewarded.

BTER, an exchange operated in Canada targetin Chinese (they don't even have English version) and has Chinese bank accounts, is the first to stop charging (deposite) completely (others were talking about BtcTrade, another exchange, which stopped online deposite only. Bter is the first to stop deposite in any form).

Their announcement is here (chinese only):
https://bter.com/article/402

What interests me, is why BTER? There are 15 bitcoin exchanges on the PBOC's ban list, BTER is a much less known one. A wild guess is that banks somehow informed or invited exchanges for a talk - typical way things done in China - and those who are not available are banned out right to get the owner come out and talk.

In you opinion, why have we not heard from Houbi, OkCoin or BtcChina?

[zhangweiwu]

In you opinion, why have we not heard from Houbi, OkCoin or BtcChina?

Thanks for asking, I was afraid someone would ask this, 'cause that forces me to speculate, which I should but loath to do. No, I don't really know why we are not hearing from these big exchanges. However, I do not doubted the recent ban existed in cetain form (the recent ban = bank accounts to be closed, 15 exchanges named), not only because I trust Caixin, but the ban is too detailed to be rumor - elaborate rumors don't work in China, simpliest rumour do, this is too detailed to be rumour.

My speculation is outlandish to western readers, so first I'd suggest a read of my previous post, to grasp the culture background:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=397614.0

I'd suggest a full reading. Here is the highlight:

A short culture background info on loyalty vs regulation:

Regulation = if you go aginst the rule, you will be punished. Undersand the intention of the rule. You are rewarded by wining the game following the rule.
Loyalty = I can punsih you any time, from a database of regulations, or without any regulation (like how Apple is punished). Understand the intention of the ruler. I will reward you. ("I" is the governer)

It happened more than once, in the past, that a lot of regulations or a very strict one makes it effectively impossible to do business in the industry. This incriminates the whole industry. The government could then, selectively pursue those who are not loyal, and your survival is back on the track - depending on your loyalty.

So picture this: The officials in charge arranges exchanges to talk, and all they demand for from the CEOs, is not that they promise to follow a certain reggulation, but that they are loyal, willing to obey. If CEOs are obiedient, let them run the business as usual and when anything is wrong, know the CEOs are looking for a chance to pay back, and a communication channel is already established to coordinate any future activities. You only want to make sure CEOs fear you and know to talk in line with medias, and ready to obey. Then you let them live for another while, see if you like the result.

If this speculation is true, Bitcoin will be allowed to live for another 3 months in China. The other possibility being pure sluggish excution - meaning we should see more news coming.


--

If you think this is crazy talk, check the other crazy talk I made and how it came to be reality:
My post:  "What will the China government do to bitcoin?" made on 9th Jan 2014.

Short answer: it will not declare a war against bitcoin but cripple bitcoin operations in China.

(snip -- please take time to read the original)

So when will the government make a new decision? It probably is made. Recent news towards bitcoin are hasherer and hasher, as 5th Dec ban interpreated each time stricter than before. This often happen when a higher leader makes a different decision. I am not sure if it is easy to understand for western audience, so I will go through the trouble this time and explain with an mini drama I just improvised:

Improvised mini-drama

Officer: You can take the poverty data for your study, once you have a result, let us know, we want to have such academic output to our knowledge.
Poverty Researcher: Yes.

Another day;
Researcher: The data was missing for the last a few years. Can I get it?
Officer: I cannot give you any more data, because as I said, you can have limited data for your study.
Researcher: But yesterday you said I can take the poverty data.
Offier: Yes, I said you can take 'THE' proverty data, which is what I gave you already.

Another day;
Officer: I must explain that you are not allowed to publish your finding.
Researcher: Why?
Officer: The data is within the poverty management office, so is the result. I explained this in the very first time you asked for it, that we want the result. We will decide if we publish it. I informed your research institution that this project is strictly within our office and they replied they will follow whatever rules and regulation that we improvise.

Another day;
Officer: I am sorry to let you know, the data is fake.
Researcher: What???
Officcer: You heard it right. It was collected by an officer who is no longer on the post. His method have faults and we ordered the survey to be redone in the same years. What you have is the first batch of data, and we cannot offer you the correct data. As I well-explained the first time you asked for the data, I am not authorized to release any data I am managing. I cannot do anything more and this project ceases.

What really happened is each time a higher level offier came and rewrite the decision, but that higher level officier decided not to meet you in person.  You may think it is a joke if it is put on TV news, but I was having fun for lots of years watching ths drama from TV News channel. For a news reader with good memory, news reading is rather entertaining.

So is the same thing happening? Is the current news brooding a new decision that overwrites the previous one? I am speculating by saying yes, but even if it is not, it merely put more time between now and a disappointing new government action.

[Swordsoffreedom]

Honestly the news with Russia and China regarding Sanctions and world affairs against the US might make them change their policy
Weird factors in play

[windjc]

In you opinion, why have we not heard from Houbi, OkCoin or BtcChina?

Thanks for asking, I was afraid someone would ask this, 'cause that forces me to speculate, which I should but loath to do. No, I don't really know why we are not hearing from these big exchanges.

My speculation is outlandish to western readers, so first I'd suggest a read of my previous post, to grasp the culture background:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=397614.0

I'd suggest a full reading. Here is the highlight:

A short culture background info on loyalty vs regulation:

Regulation = if you go aginst the rule, you will be punished. Undersand the intention of the rule. You are rewarded by wining the game following the rule.
Loyalty = I can punsih you any time, from a database of regulations, or without any regulation (like how Apple is punished). Understand the intention of the ruler. I will reward you. ("I" is the governer)

It happened more than once, in the past, that a lot of regulations or a very strict one makes it effectively impossible to do business in the industry. This incriminates the whole industry. The government could then, selectively pursue those who are not loyal, and your survival is back on the track - depending on your loyalty.

So picture this: The officials in charge arranges exchanges to talk, and all they demand for from the CEOs, is not that they promise to follow a certain reggulation, but that they are loyal, willing to obey. If CEOs are obiedient, let them run the business as usual and when anything is wrong, know the CEOs are looking for a chance to pay back, and a communication channel is already established to coordinate any future activities. You only want to make sure CEOs fear you and know to talk in line with medias, and ready to obey. Then you let them live for another while, see if you like the result.

If this speculation is true, Bitcoin will be allowed to live for another 3 months in China. The other possibility being pure sluggish excution.

--

If you think this is crazy talk, check the other crazy talk I made and how it came to be reality:
My post:  "What will the China government do to bitcoin?" made on 9th Jan 2014.

Short answer: it will not declare a war against bitcoin but cripple bitcoin operations in China.

(snip -- please take time to read the original)

So when will the government make a new decision? It probably is made. Recent news towards bitcoin are hasherer and hasher, as 5th Dec ban interpreated each time stricter than before. This often happen when a higher leader makes a different decision. I am not sure if it is easy to understand for western audience, so I will go through the trouble this time and explain with an mini drama I just improvised:

Improvised mini-drama

Officer: You can take the poverty data for your study, once you have a result, let us know, we want to have such academic output to our knowledge.
Poverty Researcher: Yes.

Another day;
Researcher: The data was missing for the last a few years. Can I get it?
Officer: I cannot give you any more data, because as I said, you can have limited data for your study.
Researcher: But yesterday you said I can take the poverty data.
Offier: Yes, I said you can take 'THE' proverty data, which is what I gave you already.

Another day;
Officer: I must explain that you are not allowed to publish your finding.
Researcher: Why?
Officer: The data is within the poverty management office, so is the result. I explained this in the very first time you asked for it, that we want the result. We will decide if we publish it. I informed your research institution that this project is strictly within our office and they replied they will follow whatever rules and regulation that we improvise.

Another day;
Officer: I am sorry to let you know, the data is fake.
Researcher: What???
Officcer: You heard it right. It was collected by an officer who is no longer on the post. His method have faults and we ordered the survey to be redone in the same years. What you have is the first batch of data, and we cannot offer you the correct data. As I well-explained the first time you asked for the data, I am not authorized to release any data I am managing. I cannot do anything more and this project ceases.

What really happened is each time a higher level offier came and rewrite the decision, but that higher level officier decided not to meet you in person.  You may think it is a joke if it is put on TV news, but I was having fun for lots of years watching ths drama from TV News channel. For a news reader with good memory, news reading is rather entertaining.

So is the same thing happening? Is the current news brooding a new decision that overwrites the previous one? I am speculating by saying yes, but even if it is not, it merely put more time between now and a disappointing new government action.

I thought I understood your entire post, but I don't know where you got "If this speculation is true, Bitcoin will be allowed to live for another 3 months" from.  Why would you say 3 months?

And again, what game are the CEO's playing? I assume they are smart enough to know what you just explained if what you just explained is true. Why aren't they just moving out of the country?

[zhangweiwu]

I thought I understood your entire post, but I don't know where you got "If this speculation is true, Bitcoin will be allowed to live for another 3 months" from.  Why would you say 3 months?

Look at the recent 40 years of history, of our government wants to remove a business, it is done swiftly wtithout struggle. Managers put to prison (e.g. 顾雏军) or in extreme cases killed, company collapse with bad publicity (the state controls a significant portion of media and have loyalty of the rest - Caixin is already one of the most honest non-governmental that is allowed to live, hence I trusted their report - they are often reluctant to say what they know, but when they say, it is often true).

If the government wants to talk to you, then they are demanding for obedience, meaning they think letting you live is acceptable or benificial to them. Henc you will live for another 3 months, just to see if the result pleases them. 3 month is the usually shortest time-frame for our government to make a new decision (remember that when I post last time, 9th Jan, it takes about 3 months for this new decision).

And again, what game are the CEO's playing. I assume they are smart enough to know what you just explained if what you just explained is true. Why aren't they just moving out of the country?

We will wait and see how CEOs act. Moving out of the country has similiar outcome as they shutdown -> China out of the game. Google moved to HK and they are still being punished. You don't work on Chinese market without cooperation of Chinese government.

[windjc]

I thought I understood your entire post, but I don't know where you got "If this speculation is true, Bitcoin will be allowed to live for another 3 months" from.  Why would you say 3 months?

Look at the recent 40 years of history, of our government wants to remove a business, it is done swiftly wtithout struggle. Managers put to prison (e.g. 顾雏军) or in extreme cases killed, company collapse with bad publicity (the state controls a significant portion of media and have loyalty of the rest - Caixin is already one of the most honest among them, hence I trusted their report).

If the government wants to talk to you, then they are demanding for obedience, meaning they think letting you live is acceptable or benificial to them. Henc you will live for another 3 months, just to see if the result pleases them. 3month is the shortest time-frame for our government to make a new decision (remember that when I post last time, 9th Jan, it takes about 3 months for this new decision).

And again, what game are the CEO's playing. I assume they are smart enough to know what you just explained if what you just explained is true. Why aren't they just moving out of the country?

We will wait and see how CEOs act. Moving out of the country has similiar outcome as they shutdown - China out of the game. Google moved to HK and they are still being punished. You don't work on Chinese market without cooperation of Chinese government.

Ok. I understand what you are saying now. But what doesn't make sense to me, is why would the government force them to close bank accounts by April 15th, if they wanted to give them another 3 months to operate before making potential new decisions?

It seems like by setting a date of April 15th, that they putting an end to the exchanges.

Or, are you implying that you don't think closing access to banking accounts will necessarily end the exchanges and there might be work arounds allowed (potentially with a 3 month review)?

[zhangweiwu]

Ok. I understand what you are saying now. But what doesn't make sense to me, is why would the government force them to close bank accounts by April 15th, if they wanted to give them another 3 months to operate before making potential new decisions?

It seems like by setting a date of April 15th, that they putting an end to the exchanges.

Or, are you implying that you don't think closing access to banking accounts will necessarily end the exchanges and there might be work arounds allowed (potentially with a 3 month review)?

Sorry, I skipped lines: I meant to say "in this speculation the leaked-order is an intention that is replaced by a talk, and BTER didn't get a chance to talk, so their accounts closed as planned". I should have added this line where I said "I do not doubted the recent ban existed in cetain form". But then again, I am thinking Chinese, that line is really not necessary for a local reader.

Don't forget that I also speculated sluggish execution, and more news to come.

[Teppino]

The implicit theory behind all this ban/unban question is that the recent (2013) upswing of Bitcoin took China by surprise and now they are forced to take measures.
I call it bullshits: China is a big worldwide economy, with a lot of capable economic managers, you can bet that nothing happens by chance and take them by surprise, as a government they can't simply be that dumb else they won't be where they actually are.
I think that China wants bitcoins badly and they know how much the world is sensible to their moves and they play their cards accordingly, they don't take official positions but they let some "unconfirmed note" slip sometime (which they also quickly dismiss) and close some minor exchange (which, mind you, could be very well proprierty of the same "gray eminence" which will benefit elsewhere from the panic issued).
My guess is that every time a manipulation attempt will not work the way they meant it to go we will experience some new panic-inducing "news" from China.
Therefore i think there will be no ban at all.
Just my 2 cents

[jl2012]

Ok. I understand what you are saying now. But what doesn't make sense to me, is why would the government force them to close bank accounts by April 15th, if they wanted to give them another 3 months to operate before making potential new decisions?

It seems like by setting a date of April 15th, that they putting an end to the exchanges.

Or, are you implying that you don't think closing access to banking accounts will necessarily end the exchanges and there might be work arounds allowed (potentially with a 3 month review)?

Sorry, I skipped lines: I meant to say "in this speculation the leaked-order is an intention that is replaced by a talk, and BTER didn't get a chance to talk". I should have added this line where I said "However, I do not doubted the recent ban existed in cetain form".

Don't forget that I also speculated sluggish execution, and more news to come.

bter just clarified that only their 3rd party processor account got closed. They never had a bank account for deposit. So it is still unknown whether bank deposit is banned.