India Rejects Cryptocurrency, But It Isn't Giving Up On Blockchain (betanews.com) 51
Mark Wilson shares a report from BetaNews: A budget speech given by India's finance minister led to numerous reports that India was banning the use of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum within the country. While Arun Jaitley noted in a speech that the Indian government does not recognize cryptocurrencies as legal tender, his slightly ambiguous language resulted in something of a misunderstanding. Now the Blockchain and Cryptocurrency Committee of the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) has spoken out in an attempt to clarify the issue, and allay fears that Bitcoin et al are on the verge of being banned. At first glance, Jaitley's speech certainly seemed to imply that the Indian government wants to forbid the use of cryptocurrencies. In reality, he merely voiced concern about how cryptocurrencies were being used, and announced vague plans to introduce regulation to stop their use for illegal purposes. Delivering his speech, Jaitley said: "Distributed ledger system or the block chain technology allows organization of any chain of records or transactions without the need of intermediaries. The Government does not consider crypto-currencies legal tender or coin and will take all measures to eliminate use of these cryptoassets in financing illegitimate activities or as part of the payment system. The Government will explore use of block chain technology proactively for ushering in digital economy."
Cryptocurrency is tool of INFIDELS! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
There's a hard limit on coins-per-cryptocurrency, but not on number of cryptocurrencies. Thus the total number of cryptocoins is unlimited and subject to inflation.
So, while in operation, a cryptocoin's coin-limit is deflationary, but the act of creating that cryptocurrency in the first place is inflationary to an at-least-equal extent.
Also, INFIDELS are awesome. Glory and Honor to the INFIDELS!
Can someone explain blockchain sans currency (Score:2)
First I know what a block chain is and how I would do it. I can see there is no need for a currency at a technical level.
On the otherhand it seems to be that it's not possible to have a distributed blockchain without having some limiter on who can emit it. That is, it has to be hard to compute the hash or anyone can come along, unwind the past transactions and double spend.
So how does a blockchain work when there's no limits on how fast one can hash?
Or conversely if there's no incentive to hash via either
Re: (Score:2)
I've wondered this too every time I hear a new company or organization say they're going to utilize a blockchain for something. The related articles always fail to mention what the POW or POS that blockchain is going to be based off of is.
Cryptocurrencies? (Score:2)
The world would be a much easier place if we shorten that term to "crypto" from now on.
Re: (Score:1)
Or even just "data"; it's more general.
Re: (Score:3)
bad headline (Score:5, Insightful)
India Rejects Cryptocurrency
Followed by an article which explains they don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Fake news about fake news. We should be cynical about it by now.
Re: (Score:2)
This is fantastic to see. 5M+ user accounts and so few have what it takes to write this. Well done!
Say it ain't so? (Score:1)
Most are decentralized, buyers and sellers can trade in other currencies and then convert.
Miners operate by proxy.