Is regulation really inevitable?

[danadc]

For me, every government and bank is corrupt, I will never be able to change that, the only way that I believe in a government is that it be an AI that is completely impartial and is for everyone the same, this is something that will not be for now, but I think that in the future yes, if they regulate bitcoin it is because obviously it can end the entire world economic suisetme, that is the reason and because of the lack of control they have over that technology, if we see it that way that is why there are regulations, but the boniernmos they cannot contain all that because it is inevitable that all this will come to the countries, bitcoin is already worldwide, the adoption is already there, no one can deny it.

[serjent05]

Regulations are only done to curb criminal activity and allow honest users to streamline their trading. It will not be a sort of restriction to stop you from using it. What governments want is to oversee such money launderers and to keep offshoring of money in check. ~snip~

Really? I guess the beginning of regulation was to kick bitcoin since they have no control over the bitcoins circulation. Money laundering and criminals using bitcoin are just some of their reasons. However, because they couldn't hold the users growing, they changed the regulation to manage the bitcoin users. CMIIW.

If the government really wanted to kick Bitcoin, why do they have to regulate it and not ban it?  Banning Bitcoin is easier than regulating it since they have to prepare guidelines and spend time debating what to put on that guidelines while banning is simply making all crypto dealings illegal.  The government does not want to kick Bitcoin out of circulation but rather to get profit from it under the guise of customer protection thing.

Countries and governments can only restrict and pass laws to limit how cryptocurrencies or bitcoins are handled but they can't simply eliminate them and never will.
and it is very clear that Satoshi Nakamoto created bitcoin with the sole purpose of creating a system that is independent of any regulatory entity, and if bitcoin is regulated, it will no longer fulfill its original purpose.
So the state or government can only make rules and it depends on how strict the rules they make, but they will not be able to eliminate or break them.

Bitcoin network is immune to government regulation but the system outside the Bitcoin blockchain can be manipulated by the government.  I think regulation is inevitable if we use centralized services and it is really needed if we want Bitcoin to be adopted by every country in the world.

[dlightag]

The world are really connect through the internet, which bitcoin has seen the vision of the world economy to connect in less than 5 second of any given transaction, which is Bitcoin is a decentralize finance, that you can send any part of the world at the same rate, nothing change and acceptable any part of the world, Therefore, Government coming into cryptocurrency regulation, is a waste of time, but rather they can only implement taxi for any transaction been made through local bank,their will be a specific task been paid, and that is all government can do, because Bitcoin have no central point to be controlled. 

[TheUltraElite]

I just think like; when Bitcoin comes up to the world for the first time, they don't care about it instead of thinking that Bitcoin will "attack" fiat money. Then users are still growing, so they are thinking this is a "war". But finally, they can see that Bitcoin still can give huge benefits to their country, so the "main leader" is saying "let's regulate them".

Banning bitcoin has twofold problems:

1. Putting a ban on something like bitcoin means cutting down electricity and internet to a region, because these two things are essential to run a wallet and transact. This leads a lot more problems than solutions.
2. Banning something in general only raises public curiosity about it.

Coming to regulating bitcoin, government want to generate taxation from capital gains, so regulation is the two pronged sword here, it is a method to monitor the gains and keep launderers at check. Therefore average honest users will not face big problems with regulation.

Majority of the people who are against regulation have illicit bitcoins at hand, and hence they want to save their asses.

[BITCOIN4X]

Believe you me no matter how advanced bitcoin decentralisation might look or sound the government will never risk giving their citizens full control of their assets.

Obviously that's bad, but either way there's always a way to stay decentralized with your bitcoin.

I can't expect the government to give full freedom about financial and their management. They expect to profit from our asset ownership in any way including taxes or the like. It's always hard to expect financial freedom if the government doesn't want to allow it, but we can always minimize this centralization as long as we have options.

[jokers10]

There are pulls and pushes from government for a regulatory mechanism, but so far nothing concrete. I don't think so they will put regulations all of a sudden, but yes it will be done slowly in steps. Infact they can't regulate the whole crypto ecosystem, so I assume yes in future there will be regulatory mechanisms, but they will quasi regulations.

Government's nature makes it trying to regulate everything and quasi regulations are still regulations. Lots of things are regulated indirectly, main idea is to control as much as possible. If you have no option of regulating the ledger itself you can try to regulate miners, trade based on Bitcoin, etc. Mostly every connection between Bitcoin and outer world can be regulated: so may be Bitcoin itself will not be regulated but it is not a spherical horse in vacuum, we need it to use it for real cases which can be regulated much more easily.

[Minecache]

I just think like; when Bitcoin comes up to the world for the first time, they don't care about it instead of thinking that Bitcoin will "attack" fiat money. Then users are still growing, so they are thinking this is a "war". But finally, they can see that Bitcoin still can give huge benefits to their country, so the "main leader" is saying "let's regulate them".

Banning bitcoin has twofold problems:

1. Putting a ban on something like bitcoin means cutting down electricity and internet to a region, because these two things are essential to run a wallet and transact. This leads a lot more problems than solutions.
2. Banning something in general only raises public curiosity about it.

Coming to regulating bitcoin, government want to generate taxation from capital gains, so regulation is the two pronged sword here, it is a method to monitor the gains and keep launderers at check. Therefore average honest users will not face big problems with regulation.

Majority of the people who are against regulation have illicit bitcoins at hand, and hence they want to save their asses.

I agree with you that since the government wants to tax bitcoin there will be regulations instead of outright ban, outright ban is not in their favor either. But those who are against regulation are not the ones who are holding bitcoins illegally, there are some who prefer privacy and not being controlled by the government or anyone. There are many cases where assets in banks are sometimes frozen, confiscated for unknown reasons and take a long time to get back, causing them to miss a lot of their plans or many cases of not getting their assets back despite doing nothing wrong. So they want a private space that no one can invade.

[Doan9269]

There are pulls and pushes from government for a regulatory mechanism, but so far nothing concrete. I don't think so they will put regulations all of a sudden, but yes it will be done slowly in steps. Infact they can't regulate the whole crypto ecosystem, so I assume yes in future there will be regulatory mechanisms, but they will quasi regulations.

Let's see this as much applicable to other cryptocurrencies than with bitcoin, there's high probability that other currencies will continue to maintain being under regulations just as they have already been, but we cannot derive a conclusion with bitcoin to being centralized because it is a decentralized network already and governments have been finding this a major thing of concern they never got a solution to.

[CryptocurencyKing]

I agree with you that since the government wants to tax bitcoin there will be regulations instead of outright ban, outright ban is not in their favor either. But those who are against regulation are not the ones who are holding bitcoins illegally, there are some who prefer privacy and not being controlled by the government or anyone.

I don't blame anyone for being against the regulation of cryptocurrencies. What is it with centralisation anyway, how is it making the system better? Do regulation commodities or centralized systems comes without fault? Hell No!

The quest for centralisation or a mode decentralized system or cryptocurrency without regulation  is one that seeks to correct the failures of centralized systems. If they've been better, then there would be no need.

It's wrong how your money can be confiscated without any reason by the government and yet they make you feel so powerles on doing anything about it.

[Blawpaw]

Regulation is innevitable unfortunately. One way or another there has to be regulation otherewise the state intervention will be a lot worst. The thing is that the real problem is that while regulation is needed to protect the inerest of consumers, it also needs to be applied with moderation so that it not stifles the development of the technology.

From what we have seen with the ethereum network, regulation takes us back to centralization which is exactly what we have to fight against. Regulation is more like a hindrance to the development of the tech than it does any good.

[molsewid]

Regulation is innevitable unfortunately. One way or another there has to be regulation otherewise the state intervention will be a lot worst. The thing is that the real problem is that while regulation is needed to protect the inerest of consumers, it also needs to be applied with moderation so that it not stifles the development of the technology.

From what we have seen with the ethereum network, regulation takes us back to centralization which is exactly what we have to fight against. Regulation is more like a hindrance to the development of the tech than it does any good.

I agree, we cannot stop that since that certain country wants to be regulized. There's a many different good benefits when your country regulized crypto, I admit that before I don't want government to do that, but there's a good way as well. But the thing is when it is now regulated we need to pay for taxes but these taxes will be used for your country's improvement.

[qwertyup23]

main exchanges getting forced by governments to turn over bitcoin is my worry.
coinbase, kraken, gate.io are us based companies.  couldn't the us government eo6102 them?  what would the effect be on bitcoin? what about binance or someother big exchange. 

I agree with your statement- if the government cannot regulate BTC and its outputs, then their regulation would stem from its exchanges.

Back in 2017 when I first joined this forum, our local exchange was very lenient. We can freely use our wallet to buy/purchase BTC without any restrictions and KYC. In addition, you can even gamble your BTCs and put them on the wallet that you provided.

Fast forward to 2022, our local exchange now requires KYC + other supporting documents in order to prove the origin of funds. In addition to this, their TOS now prohibits any gambling-related activity. Not to mention, they become very strict and they also flag your account if you make transactions that are relatively huge.

[Artem Sereda]

For me, every government and bank is corrupt, I will never be able to change that, the only way that I believe in a government is that it be an AI that is completely impartial and is for everyone the same, this is something that will not be for now, but I think that in the future yes, if they regulate bitcoin it is because obviously it can end the entire world economic suisetme, that is the reason and because of the lack of control they have over that technology, if we see it that way that is why there are regulations, but the boniernmos they cannot contain all that because it is inevitable that all this will come to the countries, bitcoin is already worldwide, the adoption is already there, no one can deny it.

It sounds like some kind of nonsense. How do you think AI should regulate the exchange rate? The value of each currency is determined precisely by events in the world. And these events can be deliberate and beneficial for certain people. And this, unfortunately, cannot be changed.

[Angello Flores]

From all stand point as Bitcoin keeps gaining more popularity and adoptions it won't be inaccurate to say the government are endlessly finding a way to do a complete regulation on Crypto currency specifically Bitcoin, Despite most times the word crypto currency might be used to address all crypto related digital asset but the main target remains Bitcoin due to it's decentralised and distributed network as well as been the major crypto asset.

Why it is obvious getting full control of Bitcoin functionality and distribution seems impossible due the fact it has no central point of control one might expect stricter rules governing the use of custodian and non-custodian wallet, declaration of all cold wallet addresses, Setting up committee to monitor transactions on the blockchain public ledger, introduction of wallet trackers and ownership on different OS and maybe lots of wild experimentation to make regulation a possibility.

Believe you me no matter how advanced bitcoin decentralisation might look or sound the government will never risk giving their citizens full control of their assets. The always want to be in charge and has long has they have this limitation of full custody stricter laws regarding Bitcoin usage might spring up. Technology is advancing

In practice, blockchain cannot be fully decentralized. Although the technology is revolutionary and aims to solve many centralized problems, it is not perfect. If there’s no some control and regulation at all, we have to deal with such as FTX…

[BlackHatCoiner]

There's a many different good benefits when your country regulized crypto

Depends on the regulation. If you're in the USA, I presume things don't go well, do they? They're taxing about 15-20% of your capital appreciation that comes from holding bitcoin. Besides that, the FATF has published a paper where they describe that even self-custody puts you in their list of suspects for money laundering. That's some nonsensical regulation there.

This is generally for government regulation. It isn't necessarily bad, but it usually is-- perhaps because most politicians don't want your good.

[jokers10]

In practice, blockchain cannot be fully decentralized. Although the technology is revolutionary and aims to solve many centralized problems, it is not perfect. If there’s no some control and regulation at all, we have to deal with such as FTX…

Blockchain can easily be fully centralized by appointing some node as a master node which and only which can approve transactions. That's why there are many projects pretending to be crypto but which are centralized and that's why are not true crypto.

Fortunately Bitcoin is not built that way so direct regulation by governments is impossible and all regulations will be outside of Bitcoin's blockchain.