We Will Regulate Bitcoin if Risks Are Not Tackled, EU Finance Head Says (theguardian.com) 143
The European Union has warned that it will regulate cryptocurrencies if the risks exposed by the meteoric rise of bitcoin and its ilk are not addressed. The Guardian: The boom and bust of cryptocurrencies has seen some investors make millions where others have suffered heavy losses. Bitcoin, which now trades around $9,000 a token but recently dropped to less than $6,000, leads the pack rising nearly 2,000% to just under $20,000 in 2017, fuelling a global investment craze. "This is a global phenomenon and it's important there is an international follow-up at the global level," Valdis Dombrovskis, the EU's financial chief, said on Monday. "We do not exclude the possibility to move ahead (by regulating cryptocurrencies) at the EU level if we see, for example, risks emerging but no clear international response emerging."
Great idea (Score:5, Funny)
Cryptocurrencies are fundamentally different from other investments, in that they are the only kind where unexpected market twists and turns lead to winners and losers.
Re: (Score:1)
The difference is not of kind, but of magnitude and frequency.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Beanie Babies & Pogs. They should remain just about as valuable as they are right now.
Re: (Score:2)
These other investments that aren't susceptible to unexpected market twists and turns...
Beanie Babies & Pogs...
Yeah, because both of those solved one of the oldest problems in computer science...
So, if I follow your logic, cryptocurrencies aren't "susceptible to unexpected market twists and turns" because they solve an interesting problem. I don't think that's the case. Nobody suggested that Beanie Babies & Pogs are analogous to Bitcoin except you. In fact, I specifically offered them as a counter-example. When something is worthless, its price doesn't fluctuate much. This isn't the case with Bitcoin. Bitcoin can be traded for cash or contraband, so it has value.
Re: (Score:2)
It has value because it is a technologically superior form of money.
It has value. Its value is not based on its technological sophistication.
I'm sorry you don't see the value. In a few years, even dollar transactions will be riding on the Bitcoin blockchain.
Who said I didn't see the value? Bitcoin can be traded for cash and contraband. Therefore it has value. If I can no longer trade it for cash or goods, it will cease to be valuable. I think cryptocurrency is here for the long term, whether the dominant player is Bitcoin or otherwise, but it's only worth what it can be traded for. Right now Bitcoin has a special kind of value because it can be traded easily for things that are tough to a
Re: (Score:2)
Such regulation typically results in exploitation and manipulation by the powers that be.
Go ahead and regulate Bitcoin all you want though, it won't stop people from actually using it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not unexpected (Score:3)
Look if frequent thefts of uninsured capital occur in a market, the attractiveness of that market is going to diminish.
The downfall of BTC is going to be that many people aren't sure if they can trust their wallets or the exchanges. These problems have little to do with the technology and trumps any advantages that cryptocurrency might offer an investor or consumer.
also high fees and long transaction times (Score:3)
also high fees and long transaction times
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I think people day trading Bitcoin's like stocks should pay taxes on gains and be able to claim losses too.
Theoretically this is the law and the IRS is certainly going to come after people once they figure out how.
Re: (Score:3)
Apart from this, currency speculation is only really a viable way to make money at very high volumes and over long periods of time. Currencies are relatively stable under normal circumstances because they have a generally agreed upon value and are backed by something. The fact that bitcoin does not function like a currency but more like a penny stock should tell us that in its present form it really isn't a currency - or at least the market's own laws of physics have judged it not to be such.
Re: (Score:2)
Currencies are relatively stable under normal circumstances because ... and are backed by something.
Please name one backed currency.
I know of none.
Re: (Score:1)
The US dollar.
It's backed by the worlds largest military with the second largest stash of nuclear weapons on earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Having the ability to destroy civilization doesn't really inspire confidence in fiat money.
Re: (Score:1)
currency is actually backed by the fact that you HAVE TO PAY TAXES WITH IT. That's what gives national currencies their value... you know you can pay your standing "liability" to the government with it.
-craig
Re: (Score:2)
No it is not backed by that fact.
If it was backed by TAXES I could exchange my currency for TAXES ... no idea if that makes sense. ... that makes even less sense.
Or could exchange my TAXES for currency
Get fucking clue what "backed" means and stop such bullshit posts: backed by PAY TAXES WITH IT.
Backed means and always has meant: the issuer of the currency is hording a physical good. And I can exchange the currency for that good at my disposal. That is back.
Fiat currencies are not backed, that is why they ar
Re: (Score:2)
"Supported" might be a better word than "backed" here. The US Dollar is vital to one of the largest economies on the planet, and the most powerful government on the planet deals in it. It isn't going away.
Re: (Score:2)
The US dollar is semi backed by oil ...
Since Nixon forced the arabic countries to sell oil only for dollars.
And you could say it is semi backed by Chinese Renminbi, because it is bound directly to the dollar.
Anyway, inside of an economy that works, it is not relevant if a currency is backed. It is actually close to impossible to back a currency in our times to anything. The economies are to big and the goods you could back it with are to scarce. That is why we only have fiat currencies in our days.
There is
Re: (Score:2)
Fees and transaction times balance each other out.
Want to pay a lower fee? Wait longer for your transaction.
Want a faster transaction? Pay a higher fee.
Fees are what will keep Bitcoin running after the 21 million BTC are all mined up. Bitcoin is intentionally designed with an automatically-adjusting difficulty that results in a targeted average delay between blocks. This delay is imperative for the operation of the network. You want all nodes to sync the latest block before a new one comes in. Waiting
Bitcoin is expensive (Score:3)
Look if frequent thefts of uninsured capital occur in a market, the attractiveness of that market is going to diminish.
Not until a lot of people endure a lot of unnecessary losses. Markets don't solve every problem and they especially don't solve unchecked greed. We have financial regulations for good reasons. Many of those reasons are to prevent people from being defrauded. It's cheaper to society to prevent a crime than to wait for a market to adapt which might take years if it happens at all.
The downfall of BTC is going to be that many people aren't sure if they can trust their wallets or the exchanges.
That's not the only problem with it though it is a big one. What's really going to kill it however is the high risk adjusted t
Re: (Score:3)
Cryptocurrencies are fundamentally different from other investments, in that cryptocurrencies have no intrinsic value.
Nor does any other kind of man made currency...
True, but I'm not betting the US Dollar will collapse and disappear any time soon.
More importantly: The printing of dollar bills is tightly controlled and when a $100 bill is printed we don't imagine there's $100 more money in the world, it's just a fancy piece of paper which is lent to banks to help them operate.
What would happen if people started making their own $100 bills at home? Could everybody in the whole world become a millionaire by doing it? This is basically what the people who think there's no
Re: (Score:1)
wrong, nationally backed currencies have a value in that you can PAY taxes or any other fee to the government with it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a very good thing for the world though.
If Cryptocurrencies were the dominant currency it would be like everyone was invested in a quickly rising investment when they were holding money.
The problem is the rich will wise up buy cryptocurrencies and become even richer.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is the volatility, and lack of control.
Investment as opposed to Gambling. When you Invest the Odds are tilted in your favor, and the money you put into the investment for the most part are used towards increasing your odds that it will succeed. While such an investment can be volatile and risky, however your money in such a venture will generally lower its risk.
The problem right now with Cryptocurrencies, is that putting money into it doesn't help its chances of being more successful. It isn't
Re: Great idea (Score:2)
and lack of control
I can't possibly imagine why that would bother the Eurocrats...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Tortoise and the Hare [wikipedia.org] explains why going fastest or full effort will not always allow you to win the race, Especially as the risk of crashing.
If a commodity price is too volatile and its price goes very high too fast, it is prepped for a big correction where people are due to loose a Lot of Money. Governments which are responsible, and are tying to protect its interests and the interests of its citizens, will try to slow down such economies, So they don't get a glut of people investing into this rapid
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If people buy cryptocurrency in the hope that it will be worth more in the future, that's investment. It may not be successful, and it may not be wise, but lots of intangibles are investments.
Re: Great idea (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know the counter argument that a bond is only valuable because of it's fiat currency. But that fiat currency has an entire nation of workers behind it. Yes, a nation can collapse (as Zimbabwe did and Venezuela look to be doing) but barring a war with a much more powerful nation that's a slow pro
Re:Backing (Score:2)
Bitcoin has the Bitcoin Network behind it. Without it, "one bitcoin" is just an entry in a database. With it, you can transfer value around the world at relatively low cost and relatively high speed. This is a useful service, and it is backed by real hardware and software. The same logic applies to other cryptocurrencies. To the extent they are *useful* they have value, just like FedEx and electric utilities are useful services.
Paternalistic government (Score:1, Troll)
Oh, the benevolent and omniscient regulators, who know all about the matter (and would've made lots of money had they bothered with such base things), will condescend to keeping their subjects from injuring themselves.
For the subjects' own good, of course...
EU parasites (Score:1)
They're trying to get as much regulating in as possible before their evil organization unravels.
Three cheers for Brexit!
Regulations ARE needed (Score:4, Insightful)
will condescend to keeping their subjects from injuring themselves.
Actually yes you can turn off the sarcasm machine. We DO need regulation surrounding cryptocurrencies to protect people. We do have laws and police and regulations for very good reasons. Many of those reasons are to protect those who aren't able to protect themselves both from financial predators and sometimes from themselves. Why? Because A) it's the right thing to do morally and B) nobody exists in a financial vacuum so one person's bad decisions tends to affect others. Are you seriously arguing that we should have no regulations of financial systems? Or are you one of the more foolish varieties of libertarian who suffers from the delusion that unfettered capitalism with no rules is somehow a good thing?
Re: Regulations ARE needed (Score:4, Insightful)
We DO need regulation surrounding cryptocurrencies to protect people.
Or perhaps stupidity should still be painful.
Re: (Score:1)
Good Reasons (Score:1)
Yes, we shouldn't let people have any freedom of any sort, as they might make the wrong decision.
I for one embrace our benevolent dictators, as they have only my best interests at heart.
To quote CS Lewis
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good
of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live
under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may
at some point be satiated, but those who torment us f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I do.
Ah, personal insults. How convincing.
"With no rules" is a strawman of your own creation. You can practice knocking it down in your own backyard.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Paternalistic government (Score:3)
we, as modern societies, have agreed on.
Speak for yourself, schmuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
we, as modern societies, have agreed on.
Speak for yourself, schmuck.
If you don't like it, move somewhere else. That's the correct free-market capitalist response, right?
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like it, move somewhere else. That's the correct free-market capitalist response, right?
That depends entirely on who the aggressor is. A reply of "if you don't like it, leave" when one objects to others violating one's property rights has nothing to do with the free market; that would be the authoritarian/socialist response. In a free market one has no obligation to walk away and permit others to violate one's property rights. It is the correct free-market response when you are offended by others doing something with their own property, without violating your rights. The principle is simple: Y
Re: (Score:2)
You are assuming that regulation violates your property rights. In fact, you can't use your properly freely, since you're not allowed to kill someone with it directly. At that point, it's a question of how much regulation. Property rights mean that stuff can't be taken away from you without consent or due process, not that you have the right to do everything.
I don't think the EU .... (Score:1)
... *quite* understand how a distributed cryptocurrency system works. The whole point of it is that it CAN'T be centrally regulated. Beaurocrats and politicians should really attempt to educate themselves about a subject before pontificating about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? If they don't, the whole regulation is about as efficient as the rest of the EU and business can continue as usual.
The very LAST thing anyone not interested in actually regulating Cryptocurrency could want is them having a clue about it.
Re: (Score:1)
And yet the old ignorant dinosaurs of government can still throw your young pimply ass in jail for refusing to pay your taxes which you owe on cryptocurrency gains.
Grow up, kid.
Many kinds of regulation (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They can quite easily regulate businesses that wish to trade in bitcoin, including setting rules for what does (or does not) constitute legal trade using bitcoin. Since the blockchain is a public record, it would be hard for legitimate businesses to avoid government scrutiny.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is happening in the US. I know of at least one bank who was mentioned on Reddit for kicking people out if they are doing any buying/selling to cryptocurrency exchanges, where someone who did a transaction with Coinbase was told to go elsewhere and that all their accounts would be closed due to that.
If you block the endpoints, where cryptocurrency can't be cashed in and used for buying stuff, then there are no real reasons for people to invest in it.
Re: (Score:1)
And I don't think people who say stupid things like "yarg, teh cryptocurrencies are beyond teh regulations" understand that governments don't give a fuck, have laws in places for financial systems, and if it is a financial system which refuses to be regulated,
Re: (Score:2)
"You don't get to decree yourself outside of the authority of a government, it simply doesn't work that way."
I was just stating a fact. Feel free to enlighten us on how anonymous transactions across secured p2p links can be traced by a government tax office - remember, this isn't GCHQ or the CIA we're talking about here who might be able to do that, but Joe Smith working in a local tax office.
Re: (Score:2)
Tracing has been done, but, really, the authorities aren't really interested in the movement of Bitcoin. They're interested in the value when you buy something with it or cash it in.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it can't be managed, but it sure can be regulated, such as taxed.
It might be hard to catch those who profit from bitcoin but do not report their gain, but it doesn't mean regulating it won't have any effect.
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds like a plan!
Translation (Score:1)
The European Union has warned that it will regulate cryptocurrencies if the risks exposed by the meteoric rise of bitcoin and its ilk are not addressed.
Translation: We will regulated cryptocurrencies since there is no one else in a position to address the risks involved even if they wanted to.
Seriously folks, cryptocurrencies are a criminal's wet dream. Anyone expecting governments to sit on the sidelines and do nothing to regulate them is delusional.
Re: (Score:3)
They aren't in a position to address the risks either. They just think they are.
Actually they are very much in a position to address a great number of the risks. Among the options they have is to make dealing in cryptocurrencies illegal. While criminals will still be criminals, governments and law enforcement agencies are in a strong position to mitigate a lot of the damage that could be done just like they do for other types of financial crime and misbehavior.
So is Medicare/Medicaid. Government fosters that cesspit.
That "cesspit" as you call it is the only way our senior citizens would be able to get health care and insurance. No private
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It really doesn't matter what those governments do because criminals will merely find another get rich quick scheme to use in order to separate fools from their money.
It very much does matter what governments do. The fact that dealing with criminals is an eternal game of whack-a-mole is irrelevant. Yes they will try something else but that does not excuse doing nothing about their scams when we know about them. Should we allow check kiting or pyramid schemes just because "criminals will merely find another get rich quick scheme"? Spare me.
I think that most of this is pointless saber rattling as no one in government has any better understanding of cryptocurrency than your average person on the street, but I expect we'll see plenty of comments from representatives with a "series of tubes" level of understanding.
They don't have to understand them better though. They just have to understand how they are used to defraud people and take actio
How? (Score:2)
Serious question; how do they plan on regulating it?
Re:How? (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Politician/regulator will suggest something outlandish that will clearly cripple the industry
2) Well-heeled members of he industry direct cash payments to politician/regulator and/or their families/interests
3) Politician/regulator comes back with a different proposal that locks in dominance of top 2-3 players in industry and squashes everyone else
4) Top 2-3 industry players and politicians/regulators PROFIT; everyone else heads over to Slashdot and Reddit to complain
Re: (Score:2)
Subjecting exchanges to audit, investigation and subpoena by law. Actually working well with more traditional means of laundering money and evading taxes, regulating the same thing really.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you regulate it, though? (Score:2)
We coincidentally happen to agree to the use of legal tender for purposes of exchange because we generally agree its value to ourselves. How can you regulate other mechanisms that have any perceived value without also trying to regulate something as basic as haggling or barter, however? For any private transaction, two parties can agree to whatever exchange is amenable to both of them.
How the fucking hell do they expect to regulate bitcoin if they can't also simultaneously regulate what people are and
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
By making it illegal to transfer the legal tender to or from a cryptocurrency ... essentially decree any such transaction is effectively money laundering or a drug deal. Cut out the entire banking system as a venue for exchange. Take a large amount of cash and go someplace where you can buy Bitcoin? Same as if you bought drugs.
Re: (Score:2)
From a legal point of view, yes you are right, any government can regulate anything if they want to. If there is not a law in place already, they'll happily pass a new one to make the regulation legal.
However, from a moral point of view, the drugs and CP analogy is absurd, and you know it. So the question is rather, will regulation of crypto-currencies be seen as generally legitimized by protecting people from themselves. Or have we soon reached a tipping-point where further government interference is seen
Who do you regulate? (Score:2)
Oh, you don't mean the currencies, you mean the exchanges. Well many currencies now allow swaps between currencies, so exchanges aren't always needed.
Oh, but we will regulate when the money moves between fiat and crypto. Yeah, because the regulators have had so much success regulation money going to of
Re: (Score:2)
The cracking down on *illegal* use of tax havens and laundering through foreign bank accounts has been very successful, billions of dollars recouped
Must regulate because ... (Score:2)
In order to make sure that retail investors do not fall prey to market manipulation and fraud
Between the manipulation, fraud and the government's incessant need to continually probe my financial orifices, I'll take the fraud. Thanks anyway.
Why not just let the market decide? Yeah, Bitcoin is risky. But you bastards are snoopy.
Re: (Score:2)
they're not worried about you, they are worried about institutions big enough to affect economy and power structure.
Re: (Score:2)
they are worried about institutions big enough
The beauty of Bitcoin (and one of it's design goals) is that it doesn't depend on institutions. Big or otherwise.
That might be who they are actually trying to protect (like buggy-whip manufacturers). But they said "retail investors". No thanks. Don't use me as an excuse. I'm fine on my own.
Re: (Score:2)
talking about financial institutions not buggy whip makers
yes it does depends on institutions. Telecom infrastructure which is under government regulation already in a number of ways. the government has a right to kick in your door if you use bitcoin for illegal activity.
That's the only problem? (Score:2)
The same body that sees the problem with 500-Euro notes doesn't see any other problem with cryptocurrencies?
This statment is almost laughable (Score:2)
If the price were stable and flat for long periods of time then they would only buy it if it paid back dividends. But cryptocurrencies are not stocks, and they don'
Risk (Score:1)