How the government view Bitcoin

[Emitdama]

Since the government is not bringing something better to counter Bitcoin or make people believe it's not worth using i don't think tbeir effort would work out, more people are adopting Bitcoin and on the long run the numbers would be massive cause people are beginning to understand that it offers what the banking system controlled by the government can't offer. I wonder why sone government think their citizens would choose being enslaved by the bank over what offers freedom, control, privacy to an extent, inflation hedge, value and so on.

The government is trying to innovate the banking channel. They have introduced digital transactions like cryptocurrency. The government of many countries in the world has launched CBDC through the central banker which provides cashless facilities without the need for cash transactions. This method can be used in the field of goods and services and you will get the convenience of transactions from home.

The government is not sitting still, they are trying to implement their strategy against decentralized currencies. But the funny thing is that the government of no country is taking effective measures to prevent inflation, so the people are turning towards decentralized assets such as Bitcoin.

I would not be able to talk about other governments, but my government did the smart thing as soon as possible when Bitcoin became more known. They said that every single bit of money you profited from would be taxed 1%, which means if you make 100 dollars profit, 1 dollar goes to the government. It was a bit hard at first, because we also made losses, so we tried to explain to them: I made a 100-dollar loss last trade, and 100 profit this trade, so I am not in profit.

However, they did not want to hear about it, and only just last year we managed to pass a deal where we are paying taxes like everyone else, once a year, that way in that month, we provide all our trades and if we are in profit then we pay 1% some taxes on it, and now they are saying, if it is not 1% for each profit but a total profit, then we should be paying 10% on total profit, so we are trying to prevent that. In the end, it has been legal for over ten years now, and not many nations have it legal and taxed and regulated for over ten years, so we are lucky on that part.

[Joy- maker]

At first Nigerians were excited, because this move would definitely attract big investors and large businesses to the crypto space, because one of the major reason why wealthy Nigerian investors have not been investing in Bitcoin is because the Nigeria government has not been regulating virtual assets in the country.

The government can only adopt bitcoin but they can't regulate it, you seem to have forgotten that regulating means having full control over bitcoin. But the centralized nature of bitcoin makes it difficult for the government to regulate or even have control over bitcoin.

I think you're wrong, because government can actually regulate virtual assets like Bitcoin and others. Let's say you are mistaking regulation to control, but regulating virtual assets like Bitcoin doesn't mean having access to it or to decide what happens in Bitcoin.

For more clarity government can actually regulate Bitcoin, but can't control Bitcoin, regulation simply mean setting rules for Bitcoin and ensure that those rules are followed.

[Antotena]

A few days ago, a news report was published online stating that the Nigerian government want to officially begin to regulate virtual assets like Bitcoin in the country.

At first Nigerians were excited, because this move would definitely attract big investors and large businesses to the crypto space, because one of the major reason why wealthy Nigerian investors have not been investing in Bitcoin is because the Nigeria government has not been regulating virtual assets in the country.

However, Nigerians later realized that the motive of the Nigeria government was never to regulate virtual assets so that it can motivate big investors and businesses in Nigeria to start investing in Bitcoin and other virtual assets, instead the government intend to tax the citizens.

I can never be excited about the tax because if the government is not going to get anything from you, they are not going to give it as passes so the tax can start coming. There is no development in crypto Nigeria, all this while we have to struggle, some exchanges are not working and the government is not even friendly. The Binance dispute is still in the bank and they are not ready to negotiate but this exchanges want to work with Nigerian since the numbers dominate.

The bad side of this is that the government also knows that the crypto space depends on Nigeria, they know very well that they can't leave without the Nigerian people that is why they have decided to add the tax. What they don't know is if the government are doing their job, if they provide the job for people, the number of people looking for cheap coins to buy will reduce, maybe another country will be the ones to take that position.

[Onyeeze]

I think you're wrong, because government can actually regulate virtual assets like Bitcoin and others. Let's say you are mistaking regulation to control, but regulating virtual assets like Bitcoin doesn't mean having access to it or to decide what happens in Bitcoin.

For more clarity government can actually regulate Bitcoin, but can't control Bitcoin, regulation simply mean setting rules for Bitcoin and ensure that those rules are followed.

if government are regulating Bitcoin that means they can also control the existence of Bitcoin, for me I'm seeing bitcoin and something that is independent you can be regulated in a particular region like a country but it cannot be controlled by government because assuming it is easy for bitcoin to be controlled by now bitcoin would have been under government, but since government does not have to document Bitcoin on how it was created, I don't think that they have the access in Bitcoin, we are saying the same point, but I want you to understand that government cannot fully regular bitcoin the way we think.

[citywise2]

But now different changes has occurr in many of this country's perspective of crypto as a taxable investment.

A few days ago, a news report was published online stating that the Nigerian government want to officially begin to regulate virtual assets like Bitcoin in the country.

At first Nigerians were excited, because this move would definitely attract big investors and large businesses to the crypto space, because one of the major reason why wealthy Nigerian investors have not been investing in Bitcoin is because the Nigeria government has not been regulating virtual assets in the country.

However, Nigerians later realized that the motive of the Nigeria government was never to regulate virtual assets so that it can motivate big investors and businesses in Nigeria to start investing in Bitcoin and other virtual assets, instead the government intend to tax the citizens.

The argument against regulation was that it gives the government an eye on those involve in cryptocurrencies, which is one thing crypto originally tended to avoid, but trust governments, they pushed crime and criminality towards cryptocurrency, giving it a bad name, so that they can hang it.

Regulation gives a comprehensive data of crypto users in an area or country. They monitor their transactions and while the developed countries will moving in the positive direction of that, I know the governments in the developing countries will use it to further make things hard for their people. These ridiculous tax regimes is their joker to the people and yet they don't know jack how to meet the needs of their people. This same governments know nought about welfare or incentives to citizens, what a blood sucking combination!

[LUCKMCFLY]

I wish more governments would see Bitcoin the way Bukele does in El Salvador. He's a clear example of a leader who understands Bitcoin's potential, buys it, holds it, and integrates it into the national strategy.

From my country's perspective, this approach was a disaster because the government excessively regulated and centralized mining. Those who didn't register had their equipment confiscated, and the entire sector was repressed. Even now, the authorities maintain strict control over the activity because they understand that adopting Bitcoin correctly provides financial freedom to the population, something authoritarian governments fear.

BTC goes far beyond what any government wants to impose; it's an asset designed so that no state or third party can completely control it.

[Jubilee58]

I think different people with how they view Bitcoin, in Nigeria it came to a time when the federal government of Nigeria banned Bitcoin transactions true banks, the government thought Bitcoin was being used for illegal business as we see many investors being defrauded in one way or the other. Unlike any other government backed asset, Bitcoin is still growing in adoption, and has not yet gained government backing, on this note I feel it is not right for any government to begin to tax Bitcoin holders. Government is not giving any security to Bitcoin , and holders are totally responsible of the security of their asset, and as a decentralized asset any government taxing Bitcoin holder I think they are actually doing it in error. The wallet or exchanges that investors uses for their Bitcoin investment or trading is not backed by any government, and I feel the main purpose is nothing but to discourage investors

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

The view of some government on Bitcoin as not a currency but taxable property or a commodity is tremendous outspoken

Government are more interested in saying bitcoin being able to exist under their regulation framework and this will give them the ability to tax every user that is using this decentralized network, but they get more uncomfortable because it is not as they have expected to see bitcoin exist, bitcoin was rather designed for every individual of us to enjoy the benefit of freedom and control our financial economy larger than depending on the government to do so.

[Comeacross]

The government can only adopt bitcoin but they can't regulate it, you seem to have forgotten that regulating means having full control over bitcoin. But the centralized nature of bitcoin makes it difficult for the government to regulate or even have control over bitcoin.

I think you're wrong, because government can actually regulate virtual assets like Bitcoin and others. Let's say you are mistaking regulation to control, but regulating virtual assets like Bitcoin doesn't mean having access to it or to decide what happens in Bitcoin.

For more clarity government can actually regulate Bitcoin, but can't control Bitcoin, regulation simply mean setting rules for Bitcoin and ensure that those rules are followed.

You both have a point but there's a little misunderstanding. There's a difference between regulation and control. I think the way Joy maker is putting it make it sound somehow. Government can not regulate Bitcoin actually but they can regulate how bitcoin is being use in their territory. If you say they can regulate Bitcoin, it's like saying they can interfere with your Bitcoin directly like seizing your Bitcoin or reverse your transaction directly. That's not possible but they regulate Bitcoin usage through exchange and they're already doing it. The way you put it make it sound like control even though that's not what you mean.

[Saltysugar99]

I think you're wrong, because government can actually regulate virtual assets like Bitcoin and others. Let's say you are mistaking regulation to control, but regulating virtual assets like Bitcoin doesn't mean having access to it or to decide what happens in Bitcoin.

For more clarity government can actually regulate Bitcoin, but can't control Bitcoin, regulation simply mean setting rules for Bitcoin and ensure that those rules are followed.

if government are regulating Bitcoin that means they can also control the existence of Bitcoin, for me I'm seeing bitcoin and something that is independent you can be regulated in a particular region like a country but it cannot be controlled by government because assuming it is easy for bitcoin to be controlled by now bitcoin would have been under government, but since government does not have to document Bitcoin on how it was created, I don't think that they have the access in Bitcoin, we are saying the same point, but I want you to understand that government cannot fully regular bitcoin the way we think.

The fixed rules of Bitcoin cannot be changed or manipulated by anyone. We are all aware of this. But the government can create some rules and regulations for the use of Bitcoin. In some cases it can be strict and in others, it can be tolerable. These issues are under the control of the government. If we want to use Bitcoin for our use then we must convert it to fiat by using an exchange. Now if a government makes it strict in the use of exchange within the country, then people will not be able to use Bitcoin so easily. If the government enforces the law within the country, then the matter will become even more difficult. By creating these rules and regulations, the government may be able to limit the use of Bitcoin for some time or some user problems will arise. But they will not be able to access anyone wallet in any way. If someone protects their privacy then the government will not be able to know who has Bitcoin. And now the popularity and acceptance of Bitcoin has spread a lot. So the government cannot create any fixed rules and regulations and hinder it much. On the contrary now many governments of the world have a very positive attitude of Bitcoin.

[Rengga Jati]

The view of some government on Bitcoin as not a currency but taxable property or a commodity is tremendous outspoken especially in a countries with religion and high volume of Crypto transactions,

My country is one such example. Bitcoin is legal as a commodity asset but illegal if used as currency. But, the reason for this isn't religious. Rather, it stems from fundamental laws regarding currency.

Under current legislation, the Rupiah is the only currency authorized for transactions and payments in Indonesia. Consequently, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies cannot be used as legal tender.

Nevertheless, the regulation recognizing cryptocurrency as a legal commodity asset is significant. It allows the government to collect substantial tax revenue from the sector, providing an additional income stream for the state.

[ZAINmalik75]

You both have a point but there's a little misunderstanding. There's a difference between regulation and control. I think the way Joy maker is putting it make it sound somehow. Government can not regulate Bitcoin actually but they can regulate how bitcoin is being use in their territory. If you say they can regulate Bitcoin, it's like saying they can interfere with your Bitcoin directly like seizing your Bitcoin or reverse your transaction directly. That's not possible but they regulate Bitcoin usage through exchange and they're already doing it. The way you put it make it sound like control even though that's not what you mean.

To make it even simpler, we can say that the government can control everything within centralized platforms and systems through the regulations they impose, because basically, the platforms and systems are compelled to comply with the regulations if they want to operate within their jurisdictions, which means that the government can make your accounts frozen, funds confiscated, or even get all your personal details from the platform where you have submitted them, because centralized platforms can provide authorities with any information they ask for.

So, it's true that governments and their regulations can't do anything with the Bitcoin network or blockchain itself, they can't do anything with self-custodial or non-custodial services, but they can do anything with custodial ones, and this is what people need to understand. Anyway, people who use centralized platfoms and services, they already don't have any problems with their privacy being compromised or anything, so they probably don't care.

[retreat]

-snip-
So the government cannot create any fixed rules and regulations and hinder it much. On the contrary now many governments of the world have a very positive attitude of Bitcoin.

That's because it's basically pointless for them to make stricter rules against Bitcoin. Before, more governments banned Bitcoin, but what happened was that instead of going down, Bitcoin actually grew more. If a government today bans the use of Bitcoin, they're the ones who lose out because they can't make money from legalizing Bitcoin, like taxes, and other economic potential from Bitcoin. So that's why more governments nowadays seem to be more welcoming towards Bitcoin, because it's more beneficial for them than banning it outright.

[Basels]

I'm trying to make sense of some of the things you wrote there. For instance:

The view of some government on Bitcoin as not a currency but taxable property or a commodity is tremendous outspoken especially in a countries with religion and high volume of Crypto transactions

How does the view of your government have anything to do with religion and the volume of transactions made in crypto? Okay, I get your drift now. The country's authorities are concerned that most of the funds being chanelled towards crypto are better directed to the banks?

I think that has been the concern of many finance departments, but that concern is easily checked through proper regulation and taxation.

[Antotena]

That's because it's basically pointless for them to make stricter rules against Bitcoin. Before, more governments banned Bitcoin, but what happened was that instead of going down, Bitcoin actually grew more. If a government today bans the use of Bitcoin, they're the ones who lose out because they can't make money from legalizing Bitcoin, like taxes, and other economic potential from Bitcoin. So that's why more governments nowadays seem to be more welcoming towards Bitcoin, because it's more beneficial for them than banning it outright.

The countries that banned Bitcoin has not change their stand on the law regarding Bitcoin. I want to see Bitcoin fully accepted without restrictions by many countries but unfortunately, this is going to be hard to implement. Anything that government want will have restriction and because the government knows Bitcoin will not function properly if they do that this is why they don't want to put too much regulations around it, even in the US, they have refused to make it like people expected.

Bitcoin can actually work alone without the governments, it used to be and in fact, many people just like the way Bitcoin was anti government but suddenly that's the way again. I do see Bitcoin is going to bank the unbank, those series of adoption are now something of the past, Bitcoin seems to be for the rich looking for the profits than what Bitcoin can actually do in adoption.

[tabas]

I'm trying to make sense of some of the things you wrote there. For instance:

The view of some government on Bitcoin as not a currency but taxable property or a commodity is tremendous outspoken especially in a countries with religion and high volume of Crypto transactions

How does the view of your government have anything to do with religion and the volume of transactions made in crypto? Okay, I get your drift now. The country's authorities are concerned that most of the funds being chanelled towards crypto are better directed to the banks?

I think that has been the concern of many finance departments, but that concern is easily checked through proper regulation and taxation.

I think that I've read it somewhere before that some of the believers think that having bitcoin is haram. But I'm not sure specifically if it's with their government. I guess that's just a personal view of each person who's got a religion. Possible also about the source of the funds and that's why they're trying to connect it with religious matters but I don't think that's important to be concerned of. And it's with the latter of what you have said that banks want more inflows/outflows going to them than of bitcoin.

[Sunshine1525]

The countries that banned Bitcoin has not change their stand on the law regarding Bitcoin. I want to see Bitcoin fully accepted without restrictions by many countries but unfortunately, this is going to be hard to implement. Anything that government want will have restriction and because the government knows Bitcoin will not function properly if they do that this is why they don't want to put too much regulations around it, even in the US, they have refused to make it like people expected.

Bitcoin can actually work alone without the governments, it used to be and in fact, many people just like the way Bitcoin was anti government but suddenly that's the way again. I do see Bitcoin is going to bank the unbank, those series of adoption are now something of the past, Bitcoin seems to be for the rich looking for the profits than what Bitcoin can actually do in adoption.

While some think it’s right to place ban on what they don't have full control over, some saw the need to adopted it as strategic reserve currency and also allow people to use it as a medium of storage but gain partial control and tax them through centralized exchanges but regardless Bitcoin has survived every threat from the government till date.

If it relied on government policies for survival maybe it would've been shitty but the potential of Bitcoin is far beyond what governments can imagine and as it progresses, people see reasons to adopt it. Bitcoin is for everyone including the rich and poor.

[knuckey]

Bitcoin isn't legal tender in my country; it's only a legal commodity. However, Bitcoin trading is still taxed, and here's a funny twist: the government collects sales taxes, while the majority religion still considers Bitcoin "haram." Essentially, Bitcoin is permitted for trading and investment purposes, but otherwise, it's prohibited.

[liasbaa]

The view of some government on Bitcoin as not a currency but taxable property or a commodity is tremendous outspoken

Government are more interested in saying bitcoin being able to exist under their regulation framework and this will give them the ability to tax every user that is using this decentralized network, but they get more uncomfortable because it is not as they have expected to see bitcoin exist, bitcoin was rather designed for every individual of us to enjoy the benefit of freedom and control our financial economy larger than depending on the government to do so.

The biggest obstacle to government adoption is the inability to control Bitcoin, a country's government can independently manage the economy of that country. They can print fiat if they want and control the country's financial institutions. Due to this unique and distinctive feature of Bitcoin and its limited supply, it become a store of value and the number of holders is increasing.

Bitcoin only provides financial freedom to individuals, not to any specific powerful group or government of any country. Since the government does not enjoy the freedom to impose taxes, they do not want to accept a decentralized system because most governments do not want to allow citizens to be financially independent.

[MusaMohamed]

The biggest obstacle to government adoption is the inability to control Bitcoin, a country's government can independently manage the economy of that country. They can print fiat if they want and control the country's financial institutions. Due to this unique and distinctive feature of Bitcoin and its limited supply, it become a store of value and the number of holders is increasing.

There are different hierarchies of adoption and Bitcoin has many use cases so governments can have Bitcoin adoption at a level they see fit with their economic and governance perspectives. Especially with chance of making national treasuries bigger with time by holding bitcoin, it's not reasonable to ignore such great asset.

Can not control Bitcoin, it's true but there is another fact, no single country can control bitcoin so any national governments that can be earliest governmental adopters, they will have very big advantage in national Bitcoin treasury race with other nations.

USA can not control Bitcoin, China can not do that, same with Germany and other countries, so if a nation is the fastest with adoption, and build up a biggest national Bitcoin treasury, it will be their fortune toward the future, simply because they have advantage and other countries surely can not control Bitcoin to change their domination by being an early Bitcoin national adopter.