Government vs Bitcoin

[Marvell1]

Governments often condone such mistakes and do not legalize Bitcoin. When Bitcoin transactions are introduced in a country, that country becomes much more economically developed.  But there are some countries that criminalize Bitcoin transactions, so they are afraid to legalize Bitcoin. Many countries in the world where Bitcoin has been legalized by the government and invested in their countries have become quite economically self-sufficient, and the country has been able to prosper. Again there are some countries that don't want to legalize bitcoin they always think negative never they think positive. Governments of all those countries think that if bitcoin is legalized, illegal activities in their country will come to light and youth of the country will launder money through bitcoin. And due to such negative aspects the government has made bitcoins illegal in their country and I think this kind of move is not good at all by the government. If a country's government accepts Bitcoin and starts Bitcoin transactions in that country, they will surely prosper economically, and this step should be taken by all country's governments.

I see you repeatedly stressing that if a country accepts bitcoin then that country is sure to grow and prosper economically. I am curious to know which countries have accepted bitcoin and which have become more developed economically? Because as far as I know, only El Salvador and Central African Republic are two countries that accept bitcoin as legal tender. But overall their economy has not seen too many significant improvements, which may also be partly due to the ongoing global recession affecting their economy. But besides those two countries, are there any other countries that stand out when it comes to bitcoin adoption and their economies improving?

[stadus]

Governments frequently misunderstand bitcoin innovation.
This impression arises from the disproportionate bans and regulations they enact.
Although occasionally the bitcoin regulations appear unreasonable, I posit that bitcoin is not as detrimental as suggested. Please correct me if I am wrong.

The government does understand Bitcoin because if they didn't, they could have banned it. What's happening is that they are regulating Bitcoin and the entire crypto market, so that's a statement that they understand it. If we had to choose, would we prefer to see Bitcoin banned or regulated?

I understand what you mean about the complete anonymity, right? However, forget about that; it's not realistic anymore as we are not in the early stages. Whether we like it or not, the government will function, and no one is above them, which means they will regulate everything.

[m2017]

Governments frequently misunderstand bitcoin innovation.

Governments are least interested in innovation. These are not research organizations that want to make the world a better place. They have their own goals, such as profit and control.

This impression arises from the disproportionate bans and regulations they enact.

This is all introduced precisely for the reason of control (totally manage everything) and benefit (receive a portion of the profit in the form of taxes).

Although occasionally the bitcoin regulations appear unreasonable, I posit that bitcoin is not as detrimental as suggested. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Harmful to whom? Extremely harmful to any established system (any country with its own financial and regulatory system in the form of a government) due to financial freedom and the inability to control. It is useful for people, because it allows them to get rid of this oppression.

So is bitcoin good or bad? Depends on which side of the barricade you are on: the side of governments or the people.

[Blitzboy]

`

Improving an individual's economy is what bitcoin can do, but to improve a country's economy, that's really an exaggeration for bitcoin. To improve a country's economy, we need to create more jobs, bring high income to people and improve people's lives...Can Bitcoin create jobs? People have misconceptions about bitcoin and this is really dangerous for themselves.

Not only does accepting bitcoin as currency pose a risk to those without knowledge of bitcoin, but the government is also unable to control the national economy because of bitcoin's high volatility. Personally, I still feel that as long as volatility persists, bitcoin is more suitable as an asset than a currency.

Bitcoin's current status may not be enough to overhaul a nation's economy. Indeed, it doesn't immediately produce jobs. The crypto ecosystem, which includes Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology, is producing many jobs. The industry is growing for blockchain developers, crypto traders, security specialists, and crypto journalists.

Bitcoin is misunderstood, which is harmful. However, focusing on knowledge may help us overcome that obstacle. To maximize Bitcoin's wealth potential, informed people are better positioned.

Though volatile, many "traditional" assets (stocks, commodities, even some currencies) have suffered comparable issues in their early days. Its volatility may reduce as more individuals adopt it. I see your position; these debates are essential for our financial future.

[n00ber]

`

Improving an individual's economy is what bitcoin can do, but to improve a country's economy, that's really an exaggeration for bitcoin. To improve a country's economy, we need to create more jobs, bring high income to people and improve people's lives...Can Bitcoin create jobs? People have misconceptions about bitcoin and this is really dangerous for themselves.

Not only does accepting bitcoin as currency pose a risk to those without knowledge of bitcoin, but the government is also unable to control the national economy because of bitcoin's high volatility. Personally, I still feel that as long as volatility persists, bitcoin is more suitable as an asset than a currency.

Bitcoin's current status may not be enough to overhaul a nation's economy. Indeed, it doesn't immediately produce jobs. The crypto ecosystem, which includes Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology, is producing many jobs. The industry is growing for blockchain developers, crypto traders, security specialists, and crypto journalists.

Bitcoin is misunderstood, which is harmful. However, focusing on knowledge may help us overcome that obstacle. To maximize Bitcoin's wealth potential, informed people are better positioned.

Though volatile, many "traditional" assets (stocks, commodities, even some currencies) have suffered comparable issues in their early days. Its volatility may reduce as more individuals adopt it. I see your position; these debates are essential for our financial future.

We cannot know what will happen in the future, but given what is happening now, it would be a mistake to think that bitcoin can overhaul a country's economy. We should be more realistic and I agree with you because we are in the early stages of the bitcoin revolution. So maybe bitcoin is only used as a speculative asset, but as things gradually become more popular and accepted. I believe that then bitcoin will have more opportunities to be applied more widely in different industries and fields, thereby creating more useful jobs.

[Crypto Library]

When such topics come up, the answers are almost the same. When such topics come up, the answers are almost the same as what we have given before.
Now I say, wasn't there crime when Bitcoin was not invented, and isn't money laundering through fiat currency today? It can be seen that money laundering is the most through fiat currency. So in past times, crime was done through fiat currency or other valuable assets, and now new technology has come and some dishonest people are doing crime through this technology. Here we cannot blame the entire technology or the system. 
And at this point I would say that governments should take action where such crimes are taking place and bring these dishonest people under the law. If you go against technology, you will go backward. Even the government of my own country has not yet gone to the stage where it can bring those who commit crimes with this technology to the law.in that case I would say my country is lagging behind in terms of this technology.

[Jateng]

Governments frequently misunderstand bitcoin innovation.
This impression arises from the disproportionate bans and regulations they enact.
Although occasionally the bitcoin regulations appear unreasonable, I posit that bitcoin is not as detrimental as suggested. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I think the Governments negative stance towards Bitcoin is rooted in concerns about losing control over their national currencies and potential risks like unregulated criminal activity. El Salvador has adopted Bitcoin because of its benefits while many other countries are still undecided leaving transactions mainly unprotected. I also thing Even in the face of sanctions by nations like China the increasing global acceptance of Bitcoin implies that such initiatives won't impede its ascent. Bitcoin value is anticipated to increase because of how rare it is compared to official money.

[serjent05]

Governments frequently misunderstand bitcoin innovation.

The government understands bitcoin more than you do. They have also known the potentials of bitcoin. They have known how fast bitcoin will grow if given free hands. They also know that their strongest weapon  (centralization) is threatened by the existence of bitcoin. This is the main reason the government does not give bitcoin free hands to operate since they are unable to control it.

If the government has not found a proven and a reliable way to monitor and tax everyone using bitcoin, they can not be at peace with bitcoin.

I highly agree that the government is well-informed about Bitcoin, it is that their announcement is not fueled by honesty but by political sense, so we might find the majority of announcement or statement of the government institution somehow vague and assumptions making their citizen cautious since they don't have any access or control over the Bitcoin network while they are plannng and preparing regulation on the Bitcoin engagement.

[fuguebtc]

Governments frequently misunderstand bitcoin innovation.
This impression arises from the disproportionate bans and regulations they enact.
Although occasionally the bitcoin regulations appear unreasonable, I posit that bitcoin is not as detrimental as suggested. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I think the Governments negative stance towards Bitcoin is rooted in concerns about losing control over their national currencies and potential risks like unregulated criminal activity. El Salvador has adopted Bitcoin because of its benefits while many other countries are still undecided leaving transactions mainly unprotected. I also thing Even in the face of sanctions by nations like China the increasing global acceptance of Bitcoin implies that such initiatives won't impede its ascent. Bitcoin value is anticipated to increase because of how rare it is compared to official money.

Should governments relinquish control over their currencies, they face the imminent danger of losing their power and being susceptible to overthrow. The government is a centralized collective, while bitcoin is a decentralized system where power is divided equally among everyone, which is actually harmful to the government. So it's understandable that they don't accept bitcoin in their place.

In the case of El Salvador, although they have embraced bitcoin as legal tender, they have not eliminated the USD from their economy. This cautious approach indicates a lack of complete trust in bitcoin. Moreover, El Salvador seems to treat bitcoin more as an investment rather than a fully recognized currency.

[tygeade]

Governments are not stupid, my friends. They know all the benefits of bitcoin for everyone, but for them, it is not beneficial for them. What they are building is a centralized system to control us all, whereas bitcoin is decentralized and gives us freedom. If you are a government, do you see any benefit here when your centralized system is threatened by a decentralized system? What they're doing to us makes us feel uncomfortable and wrong, but to them, they're protecting themselves.

I do not agree that it is not beneficial for them. Just because they can't control it directly, doesn't mean that they can't control people. And just like how they let you have gold and stocks, they could also let you have bitcoin as well.

Let's take a look at it from an American perspective, USA is not controlling the price of gold, they can try, but they are not doing it all by themselves that easily, they would have to spend insane amount of money and the same way could be done for bitcoin, or stocks, stocks in the USA could be manipulated by the country, but they can't stop someone from buying stocks in another nation, which they can't control. So bitcoin is as controllable as any other asset and they just tax it.

[philipma1957]

Governments frequently misunderstand bitcoin innovation.

Governments are least interested in innovation. These are not research organizations that want to make the world a better place. They have their own goals, such as profit and control.

This impression arises from the disproportionate bans and regulations they enact.

This is all introduced precisely for the reason of control (totally manage everything) and benefit (receive a portion of the profit in the form of taxes).

Although occasionally the bitcoin regulations appear unreasonable, I posit that bitcoin is not as detrimental as suggested. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Harmful to whom? Extremely harmful to any established system (any country with its own financial and regulatory system in the form of a government) due to financial freedom and the inability to control. It is useful for people, because it allows them to get rid of this oppression.

So is bitcoin good or bad? Depends on which side of the barricade you are on: the side of governments or the people.

Well ideally self governing people would be best, but once a group of people gets big government and organizations get involved.

I would prefer to have less government, but you need far more space for people then the world has.

Bitcoin at best offers a way to flee from government a to government b which may simply be out of the frying pan into the fire concept.

[Renampun]

Governments frequently misunderstand bitcoin innovation.
This impression arises from the disproportionate bans and regulations they enact.
Although occasionally the bitcoin regulations appear unreasonable, I posit that bitcoin is not as detrimental as suggested. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I am 100% sure that governments around the world have assigned people to study what Bitcoin is in detail, but they will definitely reject it because they discovered that they cannot control Bitcoin. governments in many countries don't like it when their power of control over something is weak, they only like and support things that they can control and which only benefit them while they feel that bitcoin is not profitable at all. but there is nothing to worry about, so far bitcoin has continued to grow without support from governments in many countries.

[sompitonov]

Governments are not stupid, my friends. They know all the benefits of bitcoin for everyone, but for them, it is not beneficial for them. What they are building is a centralized system to control us all, whereas bitcoin is decentralized and gives us freedom. If you are a government, do you see any benefit here when your centralized system is threatened by a decentralized system? What they're doing to us makes us feel uncomfortable and wrong, but to them, they're protecting themselves.

I do not agree that it is not beneficial for them. Just because they can't control it directly, doesn't mean that they can't control people. And just like how they let you have gold and stocks, they could also let you have bitcoin as well.

Let's take a look at it from an American perspective, USA is not controlling the price of gold, they can try, but they are not doing it all by themselves that easily, they would have to spend insane amount of money and the same way could be done for bitcoin, or stocks, stocks in the USA could be manipulated by the country, but they can't stop someone from buying stocks in another nation, which they can't control. So bitcoin is as controllable as any other asset and they just tax it.

Control of people can be achieved through rules that are introduced by regulatory in the government. If the rules are strict for buying and selling Bitcoin, then this will to some extent prevent people from making exchanges. The regulator may also impose a very large tax on Bitcoin profits, which will force large holders to look for a more favorable country. I want to say that the regulator has a significant impact on Bitcoin and I would not like the tightening to continue in all countries.

[AmoreJaz]

Governments are not stupid, my friends. They know all the benefits of bitcoin for everyone, but for them, it is not beneficial for them. What they are building is a centralized system to control us all, whereas bitcoin is decentralized and gives us freedom. If you are a government, do you see any benefit here when your centralized system is threatened by a decentralized system? What they're doing to us makes us feel uncomfortable and wrong, but to them, they're protecting themselves.

I do not agree that it is not beneficial for them. Just because they can't control it directly, doesn't mean that they can't control people. And just like how they let you have gold and stocks, they could also let you have bitcoin as well.

Let's take a look at it from an American perspective, USA is not controlling the price of gold, they can try, but they are not doing it all by themselves that easily, they would have to spend insane amount of money and the same way could be done for bitcoin, or stocks, stocks in the USA could be manipulated by the country, but they can't stop someone from buying stocks in another nation, which they can't control. So bitcoin is as controllable as any other asset and they just tax it.

Control of people can be achieved through rules that are introduced by regulatory in the government. If the rules are strict for buying and selling Bitcoin, then this will to some extent prevent people from making exchanges. The regulator may also impose a very large tax on Bitcoin profits, which will force large holders to look for a more favorable country. I want to say that the regulator has a significant impact on Bitcoin and I would not like the tightening to continue in all countries.

regulation is indeed the key if they want to get a hold some of this market. because they are now seeing that even without their mandate, this market will continue to grow. so instead of banning the use of it, why not just regulate this market via implementation of protocols attached to this business? they can get tax from these local crypto-exchanges if they want to because before they can operate, they need to accomplish docs like business permit and others. i believe, most governments are changing their approach towards the crypto market especially now that they are seeing big financial companies which are into this market.

[CageMabok]

regulation is indeed the key if they want to get a hold some of this market. because they are now seeing that even without their mandate, this market will continue to grow. so instead of banning the use of it, why not just regulate this market via implementation of protocols attached to this business? they can get tax from these local crypto-exchanges if they want to because before they can operate, they need to accomplish docs like business permit and others. i believe, most governments are changing their approach towards the crypto market especially now that they are seeing big financial companies which are into this market.

This is also an opportunity that can be exploited by the state because the state can impose taxes on local crypto exchanges that are still operating to serve their local traders. So it is quite logical for the state to make regulations that allow markets to operate forever by binding them through taxation so that every year there is always income for the state.

I also agree that regulations have become the key for the state to control parts of the market, because market users will also be faced with these regulations to understand that they actually have to pay taxes to the state every time there is trade. I see this has started to happen in several of my local exchanges so I am not too worried because the market can continue to operate quite well until now without any obstacles with rules and regulations.

[bayu7adi]

Let's take a look at it from an American perspective, USA is not controlling the price of gold, they can try, but they are not doing it all by themselves that easily, they would have to spend insane amount of money and the same way could be done for bitcoin, or stocks, stocks in the USA could be manipulated by the country, but they can't stop someone from buying stocks in another nation, which they can't control. So bitcoin is as controllable as any other asset and they just tax it.

If a country were to attempt to manipulate Bitcoin prices for the purpose of stabilizing its own economy, would other nations and influential cryptocurrency holders simply stand idly by? Certainly not; each entity's actions regarding Bitcoin would be driven by their individual interests. In essence, if one nation seeks to control Bitcoin's price, but it doesn't align with the objectives of other countries, an economic power struggle to dominate Bitcoin would ensue.

Now, if hoarding all the Bitcoin is deemed a sound idea, could everyone easily part with it at a low price when indications of a monopoly become apparent to both the less fortunate and the affluent Bitcoin holders? Certainly not, my friend.

[Asuspawer09]

Governments frequently misunderstand bitcoin innovation.
This impression arises from the disproportionate bans and regulations they enact.
Although occasionally the bitcoin regulations appear unreasonable, I posit that bitcoin is not as detrimental as suggested. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I mean right now I could totally see the Bitcoin adaptation in my country it is already used a lot by a lot of companies and even allows trading this cryptocurrency in their platform which is already a big thing since there are millions of users there that are having a good chance to invest in cryptocurrency or probably just have there interest of it. There are probably some governments that misunderstand Bitcoin or don't really want or support Bitcoin but there are still a lot of countries that support cryptocurrency or blockchain development. Cryptocurrency projects are already starting to give jobs in my country so as long as the government doesnt interfere to probably not banned cryptocurrency it's probably going to be fine since cryptocurrency continues to adapt in most of the country and projects are already starting to be big, and even starting to give jobs to developers here in the Philippines.

There are probably some things that the government doesnt like about cryptocurrency since it is decentralized and they can't really put a tax on it, but it is probably indirect since they could tax the platform that is doing it if it is operating here in the Philippines. I mean it is getting a lot of money out of our economy and the government doesnt really want something that they cant really control. But still, there are some that are just neutral about it because it still has positive and negative.

[lepbagong]

The government thinks bitcoin is harmful to them not to the users of bitcoin. It’s untraceable which makes the government pretty uneasy. Like any other forms of currency, bitcoin can be easily used for things that the government wouldn’t like/allow hence the regulations. The government is smarter than most people think.

It is not easy for Bitcoin to be accepted by a government; of course, it must be adjusted to the situation of the government itself and whether it is able to accept the consequences that will occur.As you said, the government is scary because it can be used for undesirable things such as escaping the proceeds of corruption as well as money laundering, which results in government losses. but now the government is also more familiar with it and does this with regulations that can prevent abuse from happening, so they don't dare to do things that could violate the rules.

[Texac]

The government thinks bitcoin is harmful to them not to the users of bitcoin. It’s untraceable which makes the government pretty uneasy. Like any other forms of currency, bitcoin can be easily used for things that the government wouldn’t like/allow hence the regulations. The government is smarter than most people think.

It is not easy for Bitcoin to be accepted by a government; of course, it must be adjusted to the situation of the government itself and whether it is able to accept the consequences that will occur.As you said, the government is scary because it can be used for undesirable things such as escaping the proceeds of corruption as well as money laundering, which results in government losses. but now the government is also more familiar with it and does this with regulations that can prevent abuse from happening, so they don't dare to do things that could violate the rules.

But even without bitcoin, corruption and money laundering still happen every day and even happen to the government system.  don't blame bitcoin for those things when those evils appeared hundreds of years before bitcoin was born.  in my opinion, the decentralized nature is what makes governments unhappy with bitcoin because it would make it impossible for them to retain their power.  If the government accepts bitcoin and allows people to use bitcoin, people will stop using banks and fiat money, then they will lose all power and it will lead to collapse.

[gunhell16]

Governments frequently misunderstand bitcoin innovation.
This impression arises from the disproportionate bans and regulations they enact.
Although occasionally the bitcoin regulations appear unreasonable, I posit that bitcoin is not as detrimental as suggested. Please correct me if I am wrong.

First of all, we know that Bitcoin was created by the founder not to oppose the government of each country. That's why other governments of countries think badly of Bitcoin; others think that it is a threat, and they know even when it will not be regulated under the government.

And any government also knows that because Bitcoin is decentralized, this decentralization is the reason the government can't control Bitcoin. But the government has the ability to not accept it in their country or other countries, and many people did it, but in the end they also withdrew it because they could not stop the trend regarding Bitcoin, especially since there are other countries that have already made it a legal tender currency, such as El Salvador and others.