ㅤ

[DooMAD]

Regulations are always good

Heartily disagree.  Regulations are what make most hacks possible to begin with.  If companies weren't required to store so much of our personal information and payment details, there wouldn't be as much for hackers to steal.

Take this place, for example.  If this forum gets hacked, I don't have to worry about identity theft (my real-world identity, that is) or someone getting a hold of my payment details.  Aside from my IP address and an email address, my personal information is not tied to this website.  That's a rare thing these days.  

But if an online retailer gets hacked and I happen to use that service, then I have a problem, because they've likely got my real name, my physical address, probably my phone number and my card details.  Everything a nefarious actor needs to commit identity theft or steal my money.  And the regulations tell companies they need to keep all that info stored, like a nice big lucrative pile of hidden treasure.  The world would be a much safer place if it didn't work like that.

[1715533597]

1715533597

[1715533597]

1715533597

[1715533597]

1715533597

[tranthidung]

Heartily disagree.  Regulations are what make most hacks possible to begin with.  If companies weren't required to store so much of our personal information and payment details, there wouldn't be as much for hackers to steal.

It is one of drawbacks but we should consider why we chose centralized exchanges and later have to fullfil their KYC request. If we don't use them, we will not have to worry about KYC and will not have to submit any document.
 

Take this place, for example.  If this forum gets hacked, I don't have to worry about identity theft (my real-world identity, that is) or someone getting a hold of my payment details.  Aside from my IP address and an email address, my personal information is not tied to this website.  That's a rare thing these days.  

You can customize your account settings for Privacy too. Forum has limited time to store data, then move it to archive. Later, there will be time to delete it from Archive as well. It takes two years (maybe I am correct with this info), to have data totally deleted.

Also there are traces on the Internet, with web scrapers and archive pages.

[cheezcarls]

I would rather go for regulation than an outright ban like what China and other anti-crypto countries do. Although there might be some flaws in the regulation part such as the taxes, etc., I think it's way much better in my opinion.

Right here in the Philippines, the central bank governor is not keen on banning crypto nor having the interest on regulating it. If it's a way that would keep the crypto industry going in the country, I'll take it even if it means of taxing our realized gains.

[CryptSafe]

Talking about regulations, I think to some extent investors will be comfortable with it as it controls and checkmate the activities, excesses and shortcomings of some Crypto projects, exchanges and other third party's involved in Crypto. Initially, Crypto was not developed to attract regulations but however, the events unveiling itself has shown lots of red flags that warrants third party, government and organizational regulations.  However regulations itself has advantage and also disadvantages. Regulations on crypto was actually setup as a pressure from government to checkmate activities of Crypto currency operators such as the investors, founders and exchange to knowing their  transaction flows, in and out, purchase if actually it was a genuine transaction, etc. This is also prone to hackers if they really do have access to data base of any Third party organization because hacking such data base gives them direct access to vital information which causes breach of trust thereby making room for litigation.

[EarnOnVictor]

What? I don't make any claims about blockchain transactions by the way, I quote them, but don't you think his words make sense?

Yes, I respectfully say they don't make sense because how could anyone say that blockchain technology is so plain and traceable? We all know that the anonymity of blockchain technology is still there despite getting better day by day. And I will maintain that fiat is more traceable than blockchain technology, so illicit financial activities could better be hidden through it.

[Kelvinid]

I would rather go for regulation than an outright ban like what China and other anti-crypto countries do. Although there might be some flaws in the regulation part such as the taxes, etc., I think it's way much better in my opinion.

Right here in the Philippines, the central bank governor is not keen on banning crypto nor having the interest on regulating it. If it's a way that would keep the crypto industry going in the country, I'll take it even if it means of taxing our realized gains.

Regulations will come momentarily and when someone from the authority will push and shoulder the process. But I never think it find easy and fast, we know the government process in the Philippines, there are a lot of stages before it was become law and implemented. Of course, I will support that one rather than being like in China and those countries that are banning crypto. Because we have this regulation at least we still have the right to own and invest in crypto.

[Plaguedeath]

Not surprised, trading volume in centralized exchanges are very huge compared to decentralized exchanges, this is the reason why most investors think regulation is good to be implemented. If those investors really care with their privacy and really understand what's the behind reason why Satoshi created Bitcoin, they will say regulation is bad. Maybe when their personal information are being used by scammer and then they need to face legal law since police suspect he's a fraudster, they will learn privacy is really important.

[franky1]

many people in this topic read the word "regulation" and jump straight to "kyc"

sorry no. regulations are bigger then this
regulations can also be in the form of the EPA deciding that asic farms cannot exceed Xmw
or cannot use hardware that is above Xhash/kw
regulations can also be helpful where a business has to establish an 'insurance' policy against loss so that people have some form of 'penny on the dollar' return no matter what

as well as a business cannot be trusted to custodianise billions of $ of coins unless their management has been on some economics management course and had previous experience in the sector to show they are proficient to be licenced to do the job

its like would you like a professional car engineer doing your car maintenance if the only experience they have of replacing carb brakes is using duct-tape and glue..


AML KYC is not needed for every regulated business
take your local KFC chicken restaurant. they accept money. they are regulated by the food/health agency and the best business practice agencies. . but doesnt need AML KYC


what people need to realise bitcoin only entered the realms of the SEC that does have AMLKYC policies as part of its bank secrecy act and FATF is because part of bitcoins transition to being main stream was being recognised no longer as a property but as a currency

..
i say this becasue we can actually bring things back to how bitcoin functioned 2009-2014 where people would swap it for fiat like pokemon cards or antiques where its treated like a collectable not a currency

this would then allow us to have more control over our coins as our property and not have to be fighting certain regulation policy points certain people dont like

..
that said their would always be regulations. but instead of broadly handing over jurisdiction to agencies to decide how people should treat bitcoin. it can be more independant where different communities treat bitcoin differently and thus restricted by different things or protected by other things

but instead we will just have as we do now years of certain people not doing research not understanding how things work and just being upset that they want to call bitcoin not fit for purpose and then go about advertising other networks

bitcoin will always have some form of regulation. but lets actually get active and be more involved in the regulations we want to see

EG exchange businesses.. less KYC compliant required. but more consumer insurance required. more safeguards and auditing of the businesses to protect the consumer

we should be pushing for reduction on rules that harm users. and more regulations that restrict businesses from just opening up boiler rooms/scams. (where users are put at risk with no resolution) so that users can then easily interact with bitcoin and fiat without headache or fear

[NotATether]

I know franky1 just mentioned that regulation is not only KYC, but I think that if KYC is restricted to the fiat onramps and offramps, and the EMIs (electronic money institutions), that would be much better than the current status who where you have to complete KYC to trade altcoins, or to receive crypto payments, or play at a casino, or any other configuration where fiat money is not involved.

[CryptoBuds]

Not surprised, trading volume in centralized exchanges are very huge compared to decentralized exchanges, this is the reason why most investors think regulation is good to be implemented. If those investors really care with their privacy and really understand what's the behind reason why Satoshi created Bitcoin, they will say regulation is bad. Maybe when their personal information are being used by scammer and then they need to face legal law since police suspect he's a fraudster, they will learn privacy is really important.

I don't think so, centralized exchanges are used more than decentralized exchanges because they are easier to use, provide more services and transaction fees are much cheaper than decentralized exchanges.

Regulation advocates, it's true that they don't care much about privacy and what they are thinking is that regulation will make the market cleaner, scam projects will be strictly managed, market manipulation actions will also be reduced, and their interests will be guaranteed in the event of a dispute...and if we want to be uninhibited and widely accepted, regulation is essential. For me, no regulation would be better because we would be completely free, but the government would never let that happen. We should be mentally prepared to deal with and adapt to regulations.

[dezoel]

Not surprised, trading volume in centralized exchanges are very huge compared to decentralized exchanges, this is the reason why most investors think regulation is good to be implemented. If those investors really care with their privacy and really understand what's the behind reason why Satoshi created Bitcoin, they will say regulation is bad. Maybe when their personal information are being used by scammer and then they need to face legal law since police suspect he's a fraudster, they will learn privacy is really important.

I think not all centralized exchanges are regulated because not all mandate a KYC but if ever it becomes fully regulated then I believe that many of its users are going to leave. On the other hand, many crypto users are not totally supporting decentralization but what is only important for them is the profit. They are the ones that won't care if there will be regulations or not but they will likely support it since they think this makes them protected.

True crypto users are users who mostly use their crypto as a currency for paying, sending and receiving money. they are the users who mainly support decentralized exchanges and are anti with these regulations.

[goldkingcoiner]

Most investors might think that regulation is a good thing but they have no idea how to regulate Bitcoin or even the fact that Bitcoin cannot be regulated. Either they mean regulate the end-points of Bitcoin transactions like vendors and shops that accept Bitcoin as payment or regulate centralized exchanges where one can buy Bitcoin. Never underestimate the stupidity of investors, no matter how much money they have.

As far as we Bitcoiners are concerned, there is no need for panic. Bitcoin has been out of the hands of the government since its first mining. And that will not change no matter how loud the regulators get.

[Natalim]

Most investors might think that regulation is a good thing but they have no idea how to regulate Bitcoin or even the fact that Bitcoin cannot be regulated. Either they mean regulate the end-points of Bitcoin transactions like vendors and shops that accept Bitcoin as payment or regulate centralized exchanges where one can buy Bitcoin. Never underestimate the stupidity of investors, no matter how much money they have.

As far as we Bitcoiners are concerned, there is no need for panic. Bitcoin has been out of the hands of the government since its first mining. And that will not change no matter how loud the regulators get.

I'd say both as regulations consist of negative and positive output.
Well, of course, some people will disagree without knowing what is really implemented. But could assume that some of these people who think negatively will even change their minds when they see the important role of regulating the market. Why not let the regulating body will show what is this regulation for and whether is will be the time to oppose it or not? I'd say it was early to think about if it is good or not, but for sure it has a deep reason why it is pursue.

[serjent05]

I would rather go for regulation than an outright ban like what China and other anti-crypto countries do. Although there might be some flaws in the regulation part such as the taxes, etc., I think it's way much better in my opinion.

Indeed banning will put halt to all cryptocurrency activities and engaging in it while it is banned is equivalent to a criminal offense.  So for adoption and market improvement, I believe regulation is one of the key factor to realize the said stuff.

Right here in the Philippines, the central bank governor is not keen on banning crypto nor having the interest on regulating it. If it's a way that would keep the crypto industry going in the country, I'll take it even if it means of taxing our realized gains.

The Philippines has been friendly with Bitcoin, even right now, a bank called Union Bank had been given a license to launch a trading platform.

[savetheFORUM]

Not surprised, trading volume in centralized exchanges are very huge compared to decentralized exchanges, this is the reason why most investors think regulation is good to be implemented. If those investors really care with their privacy and really understand what's the behind reason why Satoshi created Bitcoin, they will say regulation is bad. Maybe when their personal information are being used by scammer and then they need to face legal law since police suspect he's a fraudster, they will learn privacy is really important.

I don't think so, centralized exchanges are used more than decentralized exchanges because they are easier to use, provide more services and transaction fees are much cheaper than decentralized exchanges.

Regulation advocates, it's true that they don't care much about privacy and what they are thinking is that regulation will make the market cleaner, scam projects will be strictly managed, market manipulation actions will also be reduced, and their interests will be guaranteed in the event of a dispute...and if we want to be uninhibited and widely accepted, regulation is essential. For me, no regulation would be better because we would be completely free, but the government would never let that happen. We should be mentally prepared to deal with and adapt to regulations.

Centralized exchanges also provide more safety. Do you really think that when you are staking at uniswap and when you are staking at binance, do you feel the same safety? I do not feel the same safety to be fair. This is why I prefer Binance over all, well I prefer binance over other centralized exchanges as well but also all decentralized ones too.

It’s just a feeling, it doesn't have to be based on facts or stats it just needs to be based on emotions and if I feel happier with binance then it's settled. Regulation is good because it gives you a chance to invest based on what you already know and there is no unknown left, more regulations mean more things are certain.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Why not let the regulating body will show what is this regulation for and whether is will be the time to oppose it or not?

This notion is problematic. First of all, I don't find it fair to have someone else decide for me, and then let me oppose to it. The order is incorrect. I should first have the details, make my vote, and then let the regulations begin. Secondly, there isn't much to study. Regulation on crypto is nothing but a direct attack on individual crypto holders. It limits human innovation.

Be sure that bureaucrats are going to be hostile with something that eliminates them.

[indah rezqi]

The world and everything needs rules and regulations regardless of whether they are well received or not. I agree about regulation but it doesn't always have a good impact on some risky things like KYC regulation on centralized exchanges. In fact nowadays the regulations are not only about personal documents (KYC) but also about how you can't use bitcoin as a currency which is then called ban.

[serjent05]

Most investors might think that regulation is a good thing but they have no idea how to regulate Bitcoin or even the fact that Bitcoin cannot be regulated. Either they mean regulate the end-points of Bitcoin transactions like vendors and shops that accept Bitcoin as payment or regulate centralized exchanges where one can buy Bitcoin. Never underestimate the stupidity of investors, no matter how much money they have.

That is why they are not the ones tasked with regulating Bitcoin.    It is the government's task since they have the authority over things on their jurisdiction.

As far as we Bitcoiners are concerned, there is no need for panic. Bitcoin has been out of the hands of the government since its first mining. And that will not change no matter how loud the regulators get.

The blockchain network of Bitcoin may be untouched by the government but the third-party company that wanted to take advantage of the trending Bitcoin can be regulated.  And these third-party companies are mostly the ones responsible for Bitcoin promulgation. 

[danadc]

I would rather go for regulation than an outright ban like what China and other anti-crypto countries do. Although there might be some flaws in the regulation part such as the taxes, etc., I think it's way much better in my opinion.

Indeed banning will put halt to all cryptocurrency activities and engaging in it while it is banned is equivalent to a criminal offense.  So for adoption and market improvement, I believe regulation is one of the key factor to realize the said stuff.

Right here in the Philippines, the central bank governor is not keen on banning crypto nor having the interest on regulating it. If it's a way that would keep the crypto industry going in the country, I'll take it even if it means of taxing our realized gains.

The Philippines has been friendly with Bitcoin, even right now, a bank called Union Bank had been given a license to launch a trading platform.

As a common normal person, I think that regulations when it comes to money and a better future for a person should not be regulated or prohibited, I see that in some news they always say that bitcoin is prohibited in China, mining cannot be do from there, and I don't see the point, people are so blind that they are not able to see that bitcoin is the only asset that can remain despite the fact that there are many global economic downturns in the world? I do not understand that, I also see the point of the economists who speak ill of bitcoin, because they receive money for doing so, but they manage to confuse people and that is what should not be allowed, to live in confusion.

[goldkingcoiner]

Most investors might think that regulation is a good thing but they have no idea how to regulate Bitcoin or even the fact that Bitcoin cannot be regulated. Either they mean regulate the end-points of Bitcoin transactions like vendors and shops that accept Bitcoin as payment or regulate centralized exchanges where one can buy Bitcoin. Never underestimate the stupidity of investors, no matter how much money they have.

That is why they are not the ones tasked with regulating Bitcoin.    It is the government's task since they have the authority over things on their jurisdiction.

As far as we Bitcoiners are concerned, there is no need for panic. Bitcoin has been out of the hands of the government since its first mining. And that will not change no matter how loud the regulators get.

The blockchain network of Bitcoin may be untouched by the government but the third-party company that wanted to take advantage of the trending Bitcoin can be regulated.  And these third-party companies are mostly the ones responsible for Bitcoin promulgation. 

That's true. In modern business practices the centralized location and ownership factor remains extremely regulateable
(If that is even a word...). But I am mainly focused on the future of decentralization and the new markets and technologies which the future will bring us. At that point, regulation will become mostly redundant.