Why they need a license if bitcon is not money?

[AmoreJaz]

I think that we can use Curacao just like an example. Like the Trinidad, Barbados, etc. In one situation it would be license, in the other - taxes. The main idea is that casino get profit from using BTC that`s why they need a license(or to pay taxes). The casino have to share their profit with the government in some way.

I share your view, casinos need BTC, and the main reason is the number of rival casinos accepting it are many, this alone could cause them to lose customers as it is not convenient for many people in different countries of the world to deposit and withdraw through fiats arrangements, they can go elsewhere with their money.

So, this is not about Bitcoin but the casinos, and for them to achieve their goal whilst they operate in a certain country, they must be accountable and cooperate with the government of the land in line with the extant law. This starts by being registered and regulated by the authorities, which will make the government know much about their services and transactions to know their legality/illegality, inflow/outflow, and also know how to adequately tax them.

For me, this is a win-win for both parties, only that some customers do not find it funny.

With this market going mainstream, government regulation is really needed for this business to become legit when it comes to operations. If people want to reduce the scam relating to this business, at some point, it needs to be monitored by the government employing necessary protocols for this particular business. As we can clearly see now, the value of btc is quite huge and so simple conversion to your fiat can easily be done these days. Also, there will be less scam sites if the government has intervention on this business. They can get tax out of it as well as reduce the scammers that are preying on naive individuals.

[Lanatsa]

I think that we can use Curacao just like an example. Like the Trinidad, Barbados, etc. In one situation it would be license, in the other - taxes. The main idea is that casino get profit from using BTC that`s why they need a license(or to pay taxes). The casino have to share their profit with the government in some way.

I share your view, casinos need BTC, and the main reason is the number of rival casinos accepting it are many, this alone could cause them to lose customers as it is not convenient for many people in different countries of the world to deposit and withdraw through fiats arrangements, they can go elsewhere with their money.

So, this is not about Bitcoin but the casinos, and for them to achieve their goal whilst they operate in a certain country, they must be accountable and cooperate with the government of the land in line with the extant law. This starts by being registered and regulated by the authorities, which will make the government know much about their services and transactions to know their legality/illegality, inflow/outflow, and also know how to adequately tax them.

For me, this is a win-win for both parties, only that some customers do not find it funny.

With this market going mainstream, government regulation is really needed for this business to become legit when it comes to operations. If people want to reduce the scam relating to this business, at some point, it needs to be monitored by the government employing necessary protocols for this particular business.

And this is something inevitable on which we've seen that those long time running companies which example Stake.com which it was KYC-less before but now they are really that directly asking for some verification
for you to be able to make up withdrawal into their site on which it do really sucks. Somehow there are really that still some platforms which are still letting you make up some withdrawals without any issues or not really asking out some KYC but on the moment that you do hit up something big or win up something huge then this is the money that they will really be possibly asking out for some verification on which it does really sucks. Yes, we do remember out those days on which almost every sites do make out some huge payout without any strings attached or simply wayback into those old days or years where KYC is non existent.
You could be able to get your winning without questions asked but in todays it did really make out such changes on where you could be potentially asked out for some verification.

Actually this is something that expected already because government couldnt really be just that sitting still and would really be allowing that these business would really be running without any licenses.
We've seen that those kyc-less platforms wayback is already that gradually becoming that too centralized just like into those typical fiat casinos online on which we do know. This is why as a gambler
then you should really be that expecting for the things to be like this and its really that very normal i should say and does leaves us no choice.

[paxmao]

I think that we can use Curacao just like an example. Like the Trinidad, Barbados, etc. In one situation it would be license, in the other - taxes. The main idea is that casino get profit from using BTC that`s why they need a license(or to pay taxes). The casino have to share their profit with the government in some way.

I share your view, casinos need BTC, and the main reason is the number of rival casinos accepting it are many, this alone could cause them to lose customers as it is not convenient for many people in different countries of the world to deposit and withdraw through fiats arrangements, they can go elsewhere with their money.

So, this is not about Bitcoin but the casinos, and for them to achieve their goal whilst they operate in a certain country, they must be accountable and cooperate with the government of the land in line with the extant law. This starts by being registered and regulated by the authorities, which will make the government know much about their services and transactions to know their legality/illegality, inflow/outflow, and also know how to adequately tax them.

For me, this is a win-win for both parties, only that some customers do not find it funny.

With this market going mainstream, government regulation is really needed for this business to become legit when it comes to operations. If people want to reduce the scam relating to this business, at some point, it needs to be monitored by the government employing necessary protocols for this particular business.

And this is something inevitable on which we've seen that those long time running companies which example Stake.com which it was KYC-less before but now they are really that directly asking for some verification
for you to be able to make up withdrawal into their site on which it do really sucks. Somehow there are really that still some platforms which are still letting you make up some withdrawals without any issues or not really asking out some KYC but on the moment that you do hit up something big or win up something huge then this is the money that they will really be possibly asking out for some verification on which it does really sucks. Yes, we do remember out those days on which almost every sites do make out some huge payout without any strings attached or simply wayback into those old days or years where KYC is non existent.
You could be able to get your winning without questions asked but in todays it did really make out such changes on where you could be potentially asked out for some verification.

Actually this is something that expected already because government couldnt really be just that sitting still and would really be allowing that these business would really be running without any licenses.
We've seen that those kyc-less platforms wayback is already that gradually becoming that too centralized just like into those typical fiat casinos online on which we do know. This is why as a gambler
then you should really be that expecting for the things to be like this and its really that very normal i should say and does leaves us no choice.

It is inevitable and even more when the business reaches a certain size, but not yet enough size to be able to successfully stop the US or EU enquires into it by hiring the right lawyers. Overall, it makes sense for casinos to comply with the basics, there is a lot to loose and not that much to gain from having no KYC given the current climate of money laundering investigations.

To be honest, they are only interested in the small players, but those are the ones playing.

[delfastTions]

I think that we can use Curacao just like an example. Like the Trinidad, Barbados, etc. In one situation it would be license, in the other - taxes. The main idea is that casino get profit from using BTC that`s why they need a license(or to pay taxes). The casino have to share their profit with the government in some way.

I share your view, casinos need BTC, and the main reason is the number of rival casinos accepting it are many, this alone could cause them to lose customers as it is not convenient for many people in different countries of the world to deposit and withdraw through fiats arrangements, they can go elsewhere with their money.

So, this is not about Bitcoin but the casinos, and for them to achieve their goal whilst they operate in a certain country, they must be accountable and cooperate with the government of the land in line with the extant law. This starts by being registered and regulated by the authorities, which will make the government know much about their services and transactions to know their legality/illegality, inflow/outflow, and also know how to adequately tax them.

For me, this is a win-win for both parties, only that some customers do not find it funny.

With this market going mainstream, government regulation is really needed for this business to become legit when it comes to operations. If people want to reduce the scam relating to this business, at some point, it needs to be monitored by the government employing necessary protocols for this particular business.

And this is something inevitable on which we've seen that those long time running companies which example Stake.com which it was KYC-less before but now they are really that directly asking for some verification
for you to be able to make up withdrawal into their site on which it do really sucks. Somehow there are really that still some platforms which are still letting you make up some withdrawals without any issues or not really asking out some KYC but on the moment that you do hit up something big or win up something huge then this is the money that they will really be possibly asking out for some verification on which it does really sucks. Yes, we do remember out those days on which almost every sites do make out some huge payout without any strings attached or simply wayback into those old days or years where KYC is non existent.
You could be able to get your winning without questions asked but in todays it did really make out such changes on where you could be potentially asked out for some verification.

Actually this is something that expected already because government couldnt really be just that sitting still and would really be allowing that these business would really be running without any licenses.
We've seen that those kyc-less platforms wayback is already that gradually becoming that too centralized just like into those typical fiat casinos online on which we do know. This is why as a gambler
then you should really be that expecting for the things to be like this and its really that very normal i should say and does leaves us no choice.

It is inevitable and even more when the business reaches a certain size, but not yet enough size to be able to successfully stop the US or EU enquires into it by hiring the right lawyers. Overall, it makes sense for casinos to comply with the basics, there is a lot to loose and not that much to gain from having no KYC given the current climate of money laundering investigations.

To be honest, they are only interested in the small players, but those are the ones playing.

I would note that two opposing processes are currently underway in information technology. Firstly, more and more casinos are starting to require identity verification. On the other hand, the general direction of development of digital technologies makes it almost impossible to hide your identity. And this is possible in many different ways. Thus, the verification itself according to the KYC procedure becomes almost meaningless and unnecessary, since with great desire and some effort of AI systems and other investigators, in principle, any specific person can be calculated and reliably identified online.
So we can probably already consider that the KYC procedure is hopelessly outdated.

[Hatchy]

As long as it becomes a body where the government now has a say, it's no longer decentralized even though they accept Bitcoin as money or not. The truth is that the government were once haters of BTC and still are. But they now see what Bitcoin technology can do so they just want to control anything that relate to Bitcoin since they know they will never control BTC instead. Any casino that still remains till now without abiding by any government set rules are still amongst the best crypto casino.

[STT]

Bitcoin is not money or it would have to be recognized as legal tender and not be subject to taxes, I believe gold is exempt for this reason as gold is acknowledged to be money in law so far as I know.   Where silver is taxable  in some countries and suffers sales taxes and other tax revenue capture devices despite also being used as coins etc.

Either way you got to expect governments to always want their taxes one way or another but anyhow the point on BTC is if any point its exchanged for dollars it becomes the interest of various authorities.
   There is some logic to that which is why I prefer to just keep the crypto to its own domain if at all possible for simplicity but thats not always possible.

[Blowon]

Indeed, some casinos are successful and still exist today, as Op mentioned, but be aware that because of the many scammers and casinos that are arbitrary towards users, other people are hesitant if they find a casino without a license. I understand what OP means, but why should we go against the flow, right?

[Bushdark]

As long as it becomes a body where the government now has a say, it's no longer decentralized even though they accept Bitcoin as money or not. The truth is that the government were once haters of BTC and still are. But they now see what Bitcoin technology can do so they just want to control anything that relate to Bitcoin since they know they will never control BTC instead. Any casino that still remains till now without abiding by any government set rules are still amongst the best crypto casino.

Ig may looks like the government is supporting the adoption of Bitcoin but I don't think that's true. The government want to have dominance on Bitcoin and anything related to crypto than is why it looks like there is huge support for the crypto adoption.
There is a plan to make Bitcoin centralize digging every corners to make sure that all our crypto activities are obvious and can be traced except where the IP address is hidden. Very soon just like we have been seeing with centralized exchange always asking for KYC for users to carry out transactions. We could be surprised that soon the decentralized exchanges coukd be monitored and attacked.

[ultrloa]

Indeed, some casinos are successful and still exist today, as Op mentioned, but be aware that because of the many scammers and casinos that are arbitrary towards users, other people are hesitant if they find a casino without a license. I understand what OP means, but why should we go against the flow, right?

This is the negative side towards dealing with those who says that they are NO KYC compliant casino since we don't know if they are really legitimate since as being said to many scam casino already exist and hard to trust new one saying that they are offering such feature.

For me I would really go with the current flow since we cannot stop the regulation happening. Government usually regulate any platform dealing financial matter and same goes with these crypto casino. I will be more happy if the casino I trusted comply to the requirements asked by the government since that means  they are really for long term of their business and there's low chance that the scamming incident will happen.

[delfastTions]

Indeed, some casinos are successful and still exist today, as Op mentioned, but be aware that because of the many scammers and casinos that are arbitrary towards users, other people are hesitant if they find a casino without a license. I understand what OP means, but why should we go against the flow, right?

This is the negative side towards dealing with those who says that they are NO KYC compliant casino since we don't know if they are really legitimate since as being said to many scam casino already exist and hard to trust new one saying that they are offering such feature.

For me I would really go with the current flow since we cannot stop the regulation happening. Government usually regulate any platform dealing financial matter and same goes with these crypto casino. I will be more happy if the casino I trusted comply to the requirements asked by the government since that means  they are really for long term of their business and there's low chance that the scamming incident will happen.

Many players believe that if a casino cooperates with some local authorities, then this is a guarantee of the quality of its work. I think that this is not entirely correct, since much more depends on how much the management of this casino plans the work of their business and how the balance of income / expenses of this casino is maintained. But as for KYC, I began to consider this an outdated and now practically unnecessary procedure, especially since it entails even greater costs for the security of the casino itself, which is forced to maintain databases of personal data of clients, which requires increased security measures. And ultimately, the players themselves pay for all this. This money is clearly taken from the losses of the players of this casino.

[TribalBob]

Indeed, some casinos are successful and still exist today, as Op mentioned, but be aware that because of the many scammers and casinos that are arbitrary towards users, other people are hesitant if they find a casino without a license. I understand what OP means, but why should we go against the flow, right?

So it can be said that a casino that already has a license is a casino that has been recognized and has legal protection so that it is safe for all transactions, even though the government rejects BTC, here it can be seen that by issuing a license they support BTC, even if only for casinos.

[Kavelj22]

Indeed, some casinos are successful and still exist today, as Op mentioned, but be aware that because of the many scammers and casinos that are arbitrary towards users, other people are hesitant if they find a casino without a license. I understand what OP means, but why should we go against the flow, right?

OP doesn't want to go against the flow as much as he tries to find an explanation for it. According to the comments on this thread, OP's question seems to be somewhat valid and many are wondering about the point of imposing licenses if the currency used is not recognized. The same logic can lead to the question of licensing authorities when you are in a country that does not legalize gambling activities and does not allow gambling service companies to operate locally. In general, the most logical answer seems to be that the authorities want to impose taxes on the activity and they will not be able to do so if the activity is not licensed. Licensing also provides a kind of legitimacy to the platform as users trust it in everything related to privacy and secure their deposits.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

Indeed, some casinos are successful and still exist today, as Op mentioned, but be aware that because of the many scammers and casinos that are arbitrary towards users, other people are hesitant if they find a casino without a license. I understand what OP means, but why should we go against the flow, right?

So it can be said that a casino that already has a license is a casino that has been recognized and has legal protection so that it is safe for all transactions, even though the government rejects BTC, here it can be seen that by issuing a license they support BTC, even if only for casinos.

Well, you are wrong bud, as long as its online gambling casinos we are talking about, I did categorically tell you that license mean shit to them, or most of them actually, possibly because there are alot of fake licenses around, and several casino are operating with a fake license which is always kind of hard to identify by gamblers.
This is possibly the reason why we still see some supposedly licensed casinos rugpull on their users.

I personally have always advices gamblers to never really trust new casinos whether they possess all the necessary licenses, that does not stop them from scamming if they want to.
So, to be safe, better to choose a casino with long and standing history of good services to the gambling community, but when one must try a new casino, make sure to start with a very small amount of money and try to grow it on the casino.

[Learn Bitcoin]

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Bitcoin users are supposed to be anonymous, and crypto casino users should be as well. So, if you are running an anonymous crypto-based platform, you don't really NEED a license. Players look for a license when they want to play on a platform, and the platform owners decide to give them a license. There are plenty of crypto casino platforms without any license, and I am sure you know about them.

The Curacao license is nothing but an eye wash. I don't think they help any of the platforms or the players when there are any kind of disputes. All they do is, provide a license and make some money out of a thin air.

[EarnOnVictor]

As long as it becomes a body where the government now has a say, it's no longer decentralized even though they accept Bitcoin as money or not.

That's a very valid point and I've iterated it here many times. Bitcoin is no more decentralised with most people's transactions even as the coin itself maintains its decentralised nature. I wonder what we call a decentralised system when the government already can plainly trace your transaction and make you accountable for it easily. That is the power of the decentralised systems we are using, it has weakened the decentralisation of Bitcoin.

I am not against this, let us be accountable for all our deeds. We have nothing to fair if we are legit, bro.

The truth is that the government were once haters of BTC and still are.

I disagree with you, this shows some of the unappreciative approaches of the people. Calling the government as an entity here is an injustice because only a few governments of some countries were/are against Bitcoin and most of them still maintain their stance today. Others were concerned (which is right for a reasonable government) and yearned for regulations (which is also good).

[freedomgo]

Bitcoin users are supposed to be anonymous, and crypto casino users should be as well.

The two can’t really work together. Yes, Bitcoin is decentralized, and we value anonymity, but gambling operates within an industry that is mostly regulated. Those that aren’t regulated will eventually be banned or deemed illegal. The main reason for regulating casinos is consumer protection. We can’t claim we want freedom in gambling but then turn to the government for help when issues arise. The government already sees the potential problems, and if casinos weren’t regulated, money laundering would become even more widespread. Do we really want casinos to be used as tools for laundering money, especially when those funds could be used for harmful activities like terrorism?

[Learn Bitcoin]

The two can’t really work together. Yes, Bitcoin is decentralized, and we value anonymity, but gambling operates within an industry that is mostly regulated. Those that aren’t regulated will eventually be banned or deemed illegal. The main reason for regulating casinos is consumer protection. We can’t claim we want freedom in gambling but then turn to the government for help when issues arise. The government already sees the potential problems, and if casinos weren’t regulated, money laundering would become even more widespread. Do we really want casinos to be used as tools for laundering money, especially when those funds could be used for harmful activities like terrorism?

  Do you think regulating the casinos helps stop money laundering in casinos? Do you think the government helps the people when they have some issues with the casinos? I have seen plenty of scam accusations on the forum against some casinos which is regulated, do you think victims get any sort of help from the government. The well-known scam website 1xbit is a regulated platform. But they are scamming people, and no one can do anything against them.

If you check online, hundreds of casinos do not have any licenses, and yet they are operating their business well. We are in the crypto casino. I don't care if the government bans casinos for not having a license. Nobody can stop me from using it because they also don't know me. I am not going to do KYC on casinos and not going to deposit fiat money.

[arwin100]

The two can’t really work together. Yes, Bitcoin is decentralized, and we value anonymity, but gambling operates within an industry that is mostly regulated. Those that aren’t regulated will eventually be banned or deemed illegal. The main reason for regulating casinos is consumer protection. We can’t claim we want freedom in gambling but then turn to the government for help when issues arise. The government already sees the potential problems, and if casinos weren’t regulated, money laundering would become even more widespread. Do we really want casinos to be used as tools for laundering money, especially when those funds could be used for harmful activities like terrorism?

  Do you think regulating the casinos helps stop money laundering in casinos? Do you think the government helps the people when they have some issues with the casinos? I have seen plenty of scam accusations on the forum against some casinos which is regulated, do you think victims get any sort of help from the government. The well-known scam website 1xbit is a regulated platform. But they are scamming people, and no one can do anything against them.

If you check online, hundreds of casinos do not have any licenses, and yet they are operating their business well. We are in the crypto casino. I don't care if the government bans casinos for not having a license. Nobody can stop me from using it because they also don't know me. I am not going to do KYC on casinos and not going to deposit fiat money.

Even though there's regulation happened this money laundering schemes and scamming still exist. Criminals have strong guts to do their thing without getting any fear to get caught by authorities. Since they know its hard for them to get tract since they are dealing multiple platforms online. But at least some casinos are doing collective efforts to combat money laundering schemes and they implement certain measures so that this activities if not totally erased will lessen.

Also its useless if they say something about regulated thing but they the authority didn't pay much attention on what's happening in the scene since its so hard for them to sue those scammers even if they are regulated and got their license from certain country.

[Learn Bitcoin]

Even though there's regulation happened this money laundering schemes and scamming still exist. Criminals have strong guts to do their thing without getting any fear to get caught by authorities. Since they know its hard for them to get tract since they are dealing multiple platforms online. But at least some casinos are doing collective efforts to combat money laundering schemes and they implement certain measures so that this activities if not totally erased will lessen.

Also its useless if they say something about regulated thing but they the authority didn't pay much attention on what's happening in the scene since its so hard for them to sue those scammers even if they are regulated and got their license from certain country.

So, Basically, you agreed with what I said in my previous post. Unfortunately, some people oppose what I said. I'm not sure if they will willingly support the government and centralization of crypto. It's just their misunderstanding. I never believed a single country's government could handle casinos that were based on crypto. They won't be able to handle the players as well.

Imagine a casino based in Russia and they have a license from Curacao. If that casino scams all their players, will Curacao be able to recover those funds from that casino? Absolutely Not. So, what is the point of having a license if they cannot do anything against the casino?

[Don Pedro Dinero]

So, Basically, you agreed with what I said in my previous post. Unfortunately, some people oppose what I said. I'm not sure if they will willingly support the government and centralization of crypto. It's just their misunderstanding. I never believed a single country's government could handle casinos that were based on crypto. They won't be able to handle the players as well.

That's because you don't know how casinos work in Europe, and how crypto casinos will have to work, in the not too distant future, if they want to operate there.

Imagine a casino based in Russia and they have a license from Curacao.

I don't know about Russia, but a casino with a Curaçao licence cannot operate in Spain or in most (if not all) EU countries. In order to operate there, or offer its services to citizens there (even if it operates from somewhere else), it needs to acquire a specific Spanish licence, which is much more expensive and involves more paperwork than a Curaçao licence, plus if it gets the licence its operations will be supervised by the Dirección General de Ordenación del Juego from the very beginning.

If that casino scams all their players, will Curacao be able to recover those funds from that casino? Absolutely Not. So, what is the point of having a license if they cannot do anything against the casino?

You see, your question here makes no sense because of what has been explained above. By the way, since gambling was regulated in 2012 I have not known any case of scamming by casinos in Spain, which does not mean that it cannot happen but it is much more unlikely, like way more, than with the crypto casinos licensed in Curaçao.