Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
What he means by Monero being illegal is that it already is illegal under existing law. For example XMR might be considered a type of bearer bond that is incorporeal, both concepts already being covered under existing law. The government doesn't automatically take action on new technologies, because it takes the agencies time to come to grips with what the new technologies are even doing. Once they identify what Monero is, they make plans to act. It might be years until they finally do act. However, in the meantime more regulations arrive and some of those - such as the EU's MLD5 - may have more obvious application to cryptoledgers such that agencies act faster.
The myth is that government shuts down any illegal thing as soon as it appears. Like everyone else, they take time to learn what they are dealing with, though they are especially slow. On top of that the wheels of justice take a long time to start up. But eventually they get cranking, and then they grind fine.
The myth is that government shuts down any illegal thing as soon as it appears. Like everyone else, they take time to learn what they are dealing with, though they are especially slow. On top of that the wheels of justice take a long time to start up. But eventually they get cranking, and then they grind fine.
Last edited:
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
BldSwtTrs
Active Member
- Sep 10, 2015
- 196
- 583
@Zangelbert Bingledack
Since the beginning of Bitcoin, the main risk investment-wise was it being made illegal.
I remember sophisticated people everywhere telling "don't bother, it will be made illegal".
This risk has significantly decrease in 2013, with both the first FinCEN's guidance of March 2013 aknowledging Bitcoin existence, and the US senate hearings of the end of 2013, where it became clear that the political class didn't intend to act against Bitcoin in an hostile way.
But for people not paying attention, even after 2013, the regulatory risk was the biggest argument under the "Bitcoin's bear case".
Now here we are, in 2019, and it seems obvious, even to the layman, that Bitcoin will not be made illegal.
This argument coming from sophisticated people has shift towards Monero. Monero is the new bad guy in town.
We just had a new FinCEN's guidance that acknowledge the existence "anonymity-enhanced cryptocurrencies". I don't see history unfolding in a different way than with Bitcoin.
There is competition between governments and states. AML enforcement is not the end goal of goverments. If US put pressure to ban XMR, than Russia will happily not ban it. Global cooperation is a myth. And it's good, because goverments can be dangerous. It's better to see them competiting than cooperating.
CSW has fled Australia. We can take his declarative love for laws and governements with a gain of salt.
Since the beginning of Bitcoin, the main risk investment-wise was it being made illegal.
I remember sophisticated people everywhere telling "don't bother, it will be made illegal".
This risk has significantly decrease in 2013, with both the first FinCEN's guidance of March 2013 aknowledging Bitcoin existence, and the US senate hearings of the end of 2013, where it became clear that the political class didn't intend to act against Bitcoin in an hostile way.
But for people not paying attention, even after 2013, the regulatory risk was the biggest argument under the "Bitcoin's bear case".
Now here we are, in 2019, and it seems obvious, even to the layman, that Bitcoin will not be made illegal.
This argument coming from sophisticated people has shift towards Monero. Monero is the new bad guy in town.
We just had a new FinCEN's guidance that acknowledge the existence "anonymity-enhanced cryptocurrencies". I don't see history unfolding in a different way than with Bitcoin.
There is competition between governments and states. AML enforcement is not the end goal of goverments. If US put pressure to ban XMR, than Russia will happily not ban it. Global cooperation is a myth. And it's good, because goverments can be dangerous. It's better to see them competiting than cooperating.
CSW has fled Australia. We can take his declarative love for laws and governements with a gain of salt.
Last edited:
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
> CSW has fled Australia. We can take his declarative love for laws and governements with a gain of salt.
You do not have to love law and governments to prefer that kind of capitalism to Somali / Afghan anarcho capitalism.
You do not have to love law and governments to prefer that kind of capitalism to Somali / Afghan anarcho capitalism.
kostialevin
Member
- Dec 21, 2015
- 55
- 147
Seeing BU to try to find his space (with no hope) in BCH is something that makes me sad.
BU could be a BSV respected implementation instead of this:
BU could be a BSV respected implementation instead of this:
It's the competition itself that becomes transparent in the blockchain. The blockchain enforces the rules by allowing global spectators to witness the competition. Exposed wrongdoers will correct their mistakes by literally squaring the ledger. This works between competing governments, intra-government mechanics, and the relationship between government and citizen.
CSW fled Australia because of the lack of a well structured relationship between the government and it's citizens due to a lack of a Bill of Rights and the political overreach that occurs as a consequence. Both are problems which can be solved by BitCoin.
Also with the advent of Assange's extradition to the US, it would behoove Mr. Wright to tread lightly about claiming to be Satoshi as the inventor of what some American oligarch might deem illegal money.
Last edited:
bitsko
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 730
- 1,532
Amaury has rights to the BCH ticker, and so if BU wishes to fly that flag, they have a dictator. Everyone needs to understand this and act appropriately. Roger, BU, etc.
Green is only a symptom of BCH inability to respect their dictator while simultaneously upholding their dictator.
Green is only a symptom of BCH inability to respect their dictator while simultaneously upholding their dictator.
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
The pattern of selectively excluding those who don't play ball with the ABC lead developer just continues.
It started with un-inviting the BitcoinSV developers from the BU financed 0-conf event in Italy.
I'm ashamed that I voted in favor of this event that excluded a key player of the BCH community at the time.
Everyone better stay in Amaury's favor or you will find yourself excluded swiftly and rigorously.
It started with un-inviting the BitcoinSV developers from the BU financed 0-conf event in Italy.
I'm ashamed that I voted in favor of this event that excluded a key player of the BCH community at the time.
Everyone better stay in Amaury's favor or you will find yourself excluded swiftly and rigorously.
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
@BldSwtTrs
That's just a smear campiagn, based on a lie. And you help spreading it.
The proof of this is the context of the clip. It's an obvious joke.
I expect you to admit that this clip is taken out of context to change the message. Here is the original video, starting a few seconds before your clip:
That's just a smear campiagn, based on a lie. And you help spreading it.
The proof of this is the context of the clip. It's an obvious joke.
I expect you to admit that this clip is taken out of context to change the message. Here is the original video, starting a few seconds before your clip:
BldSwtTrs
Active Member
- Sep 10, 2015
- 196
- 583
I agreee, with a longer sequence that sounds more like a joke.
just reviewing the FinCen guidance. this sounds to me like Blockstream, or any anonymity software developer creating a business around their particular CVC, is a money transmitter:
4.5.2. Providers of anonymity-enhanced CVCs:
(c) a person that develops a decentralized CVC payment system will become a money transmitter if that person also engages as a business in the acceptance and transmission of value denominated in the CVC it developed (even if the CVC value was mined at an earlier date). The person would not be a money transmitter if that person uses the CVC it mined to pay for goods and services on his or her own behalf.
https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/FinCEN CVC Guidance FINAL.pdf
[doublepost=1560532301][/doublepost]does FluffyPony or any of the other Monero devs have an XMR based business?
kyuupichan
Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 95
- 348
There's only room for Amaury in BCash. He won't stop alienating and kicking out until it's just him. Amaury's BitCoin.
BldSwtTrs
Active Member
- Sep 10, 2015
- 196
- 583
It is not surprise that a developer who is also involved in a business which accepts and transfers cryptocurrencies could fall into the money transmitter regulation.
Actually being a developper is irrelevant: If your business has something to do with the acceptance and the transfer of Cryptocurrencies, then you are regulated as a money transmitter.
Monero developpers who don't run a business on the side are safe.
Actually being a developper is irrelevant: If your business has something to do with the acceptance and the transfer of Cryptocurrencies, then you are regulated as a money transmitter.
Monero developpers who don't run a business on the side are safe.
Last edited:
actually, after digging into Tari a bit more, it looks more like a protocol vs a business (despite having investors). as well, Ricardo is stepping away from much of Monero dev. my point about Blockstream still stands though in light of Liquid:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/8lgvw4/introducing_tari_a_decentralised_assets_protocol/
[doublepost=1560534985,1560534252][/doublepost]
79b79aa8
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2015
- 1,031
- 3,440
this time the network chokes when bagholders attempt to cash out at $10,000.