India bans cryptocurrency
In my previous posts I discussed the topic of a coming global crypto crackdown. I think now it's in full swing. India recently banned cryptocurrency. Russia and China banned cryptocurrency to some extent as well. South Korea and the United States do not ban cryptocurrency but instead take the approach of actively suppressing the growth of unfavored cryptocurrencies.
Bitcoin is unlikely to ever receive mainstream adoption. This is because the IRS has a policy of capital gains taxes which make using Bitcoin (or any crypto) as a currency very financially inefficient. In addition the developers of Bitcoin itself have actually seemingly helped the IRS by avoiding scaling solutions and bickering over the soul of Bitcoin. For this reason the transaction fees make Bitcoin pretty much useless for the main and most important use case cryptocurrency has to offer (micropayments). So Bitcoin cannot do micropayments and cannot scale. Ethereum is blocked indirectly because ICO ads are pretty much banned. In the case of ICO ads I can understand that some of them may be securities so there could be legal reasons to ban these ads but of course the ban includes exchanges and crypto wallets which have nothing to do with ICOs specifically.
Banks have also been blocking transactions directly. Initially they said it would only be for credit cards but of course now debit card transactions are being blocked as well. There are even rumors of bank accounts being shut down. Why is this happening? It's all predictable, coordinated, and will likely keep happening until the community matures itself and makes critical decisions about whether crypto should be for the masses or not. Mass adoption will not be allowed without compromise of some sort with regulators and power brokers who have absolute control over who can access their local or national markets (whether it be China, India, Russia or the US).
I always been saying - big battles ahead. Banksters will not give up so easy. But, whatever they do - they are all doomed (in a long run)
You may a sound hypothesis. If your prediction is fully - or even partially - true then I see the most feasible solution being to focus more on building our network and social capital on a forum like Steemit, where we have more direct control over our activity and the results of such activity. This is my strategy for the long term at this point. I don't have the time/energy to watch prices go up and down. I want to build something more sustainable - both online and offline - in the LONG-TERM scale.
I really like the it's over, a good time before they know it's too late strategy. I agree @transcript-junky it'a about keeping the social hub alive. The fact that Facebook is going through the turmoil of conflict with public interest is a sign of their fake weakness, hey? The world is playing the game so we can get to say, pay me! too
Yup! I propelling my "Steemit -Twitter Promo Campaign" on the JUICY downfall of twitter right now. #DeleteFacebook is music to my ears. We need to get the folks coming off "the Facebook rebound" over here to Steemit : https://steemit.com/promo-steem/@transcript-junky/steemit-twitter-marketing-campaign-update-8
The problem is this, if Bitcoin is designed for global adoption then it must evolve according to global sentiment. Bitcoin developers ignore global sentiment and are motivated for their own personal or political reasons. These political reasons are very narrow and so the potential for growth is very limited.
It is true Bitcoin threatens the banks but not every potential user of Bitcoin is going to be libertarian, or anarchist, or anti-government, or against their local fiat. If these become requirements for use of cryptocurrency then the growth of cryptocurrency is limited by the growth of the sentiment backing the movers and shakers. That sentiment does not appear to be capable of spreading around the world and the evidence is in the fact that Bitcoin is being banned.
Obvious to me, predictable to me, but what I see isn't necessary what the more ideologically driven members of the community see.
Agreed, and of course there is the whole issue of human nature TENDING towards conformity and/or conservatism. I remember Dr. Michael Crichton (author of "Jurassic Park") talking (in an interview) about how humans have an innate desire for tyranny. I think it was this interview on C-span : https://www.c-span.org/video/?195629-1/next He also talks about using genomics to eradicate "bad behavior", which is a subject you recently wrote about @dana-edwards (if my memory serves me correctly). I think you will enjoy this...
I disagreed with @dan on precisely this point. Transparency does encourage a trend toward conformity. This is problematic if you are trying to build a global platform where it's all different cultures, different history, different views, I just don't see how you can force everyone into a small digital village scenario because not everyone comes from small town culture.
What I do suggest is to have multiple communities. Let everyone find their own place. On the topic of privacy, I don't think absolute secrecy is necessary. There are levels and it is a spectrum. I think Steemit is too far on the transparent side of the spectrum so I consider it "dangerously transparent". I do think you can find a balance though where you can make a platform just transparent enough to keep everyone safe but not so transparent that it encourages persecution, possible genocide, etc.
In other words, I fall on the side of human rights. Transparency which leads to abuse in my opinion is the dangerous kind. Just as secrecy which leads to abuse is the dangerous kind. The example being, do I need to know what is in your wallet to know which of us is richer? No, I actually do not.
I never need to know exactly how much you have to know you have more than me. This is Yao's millionaires problem and it was solved already. So you can use mathematics to determine who between two parties has the bigger number. Because of that you can maintain the necessary privacy of both parties while also having enough practical transparency.
Just as people don't put their money into a bank in hopes that the banks will sell their spending habits to anyone who is willing to pay, it is also the case that people probably will not want to put their money into the Steem bank or crypto bank which is wide open.
"On the topic of privacy, I don't think absolute secrecy is necessary. There are levels and it is a spectrum. I think Steemit is too far on the transparent side of the spectrum so I consider it "dangerously transparent". I do think you can find a balance though where you can make a platform just transparent enough to keep everyone safe but not so transparent that it encourages persecution, possible genocide, etc."...
This is something which has been bothering me since I shortly after I got onto the platform last year. I totally agree. The number of times I have wished I could click my heels and make one (or more) people on the platform just "go away" has been significant. Then you look at the new revelations about DiscraceBook, and so many "icky" aspects of that platform (ex. being able to add "friends"/people to groups without their permission, etc.) and I think we all have a BASELINE sense of your "ideal" sweet spot on the transparency/privacy continuum. So, another great point. ...
"Transparency does encourage a trend toward conformity. This is problematic if you are trying to build a global platform where it's all different cultures, different history, different views, I just don't see how you can force everyone into a small digital village scenario because not everyone comes from small town culture. What I do suggest is to have multiple communities. Let everyone find their own place."
Yup! This is one of the PRIMARY premises of our entire global community of @mixedmentalarts (sorry for the shameless plug, but it IS relevant, and I AM trying to build momentum of the recent migration of this community onto Steemit ;-> Hunter Maats, one of the founders/cohosts (and a buddy) gives the anecdote that the global community is like a family holiday get-together with all of those relatives who disagree with each other.
I always enjoy your analysis (and generally agree with you on ~ 85% of your thoughts. We think similarly on many issues...
Humans have an innate design to be authoritarian and control other humans. I do agree with this. I think humans will use both secrecy and transparency to consume power and take authoritarian control. It is actually possible to control people with information in a transparent society. Yes it is possible in a society with secrecy as well but the approaches change.
When there are secrets then people have to worry about being coerced, blackmailed, extorted, exposed, etc. In a society with total transparency then people have to worry about people who will abuse the information and knowledge, bullying, persecution, possible genocide.
So yes it is not the case that extreme secrecy or extreme transparency are ideal. I just don't think a culture of exposing (or trying to expose everyone) is any better than what we have now and I see more transparency as only fueling that culture. It's not like if we make little transparent glass houses that people who don't have homes will not throw stones.
Totally concur. Trust me, I have lived (and/or deeply traveled) in five (and counting) Asian countries (two full-on communist, and one post-autogenocidal). In fact, I just spent a LOVELY 72+ hours in a Laos "jail" (Oops! I mean, torture chamber) where I witnessed FIRST-HAND the reason why we fought MORE THAN ONE war to prevent communism from spreading - and that's not considering the current process of attempting to thwart "the Chinese" (commies), which those of us smart people know has been the REAL war all along, AND which may NOT succeed in the grand scheme of things. You raise a very PROFOUND subject here, and one which has hit VERY close to home for me for a while now. Thanks for your insight on this. I have been in a real RUT lately (trust me, I mean a "REAL" real rut), and knowing that there are people "out there" who are SERIOUSLY deliberating these important issue provides me with a reason to even bother waking up in the morning ;-> ...
I'm okay with the dollar bitcoin. We live in a paranoid society that tries to deny any alternative. If there is an ouside society that persists towards the good than I'm all in even down to the $1 bitcoin.
I really started feeling bad about crypto
If the option to buy crypto with fiat is taken away; the best way to acquire crypto will be by blogging, here :)
That is true and then they'll just block access to the domains.
m0loN L4b3
Are now convinced that decentralised exchanges have value? Governments hate freedom and love to steal your money...
Now, when I asked why would government go after "normal exchanges" I'm talking about the exchanges which follow all the laws, rules, guidelines, social norms, and which adjust to meet the current public sentiment of the nation they operate in. If you're doing things right and running the business right then the exchange will be as regulated as any other financial institution and will become part of the local/national banking system.
If it's a club then the regulated exchanges are part of the traditional finance club. In order to access the traditional fiat there has to be these regulated exchanges. Otherwise you cannot expect high net worth individuals to ever get involved with crypto if they have to use some shady decentralized exchange which could be run by North Korea.
I don't think they'll be valuable because no one is going to use them. If only criminals, money launderers, terrorists, spies, (insert bad association), are using the platform then they'll just accuse anyone who uses them to be involved in money laundering, terrorism or something else which renders decentralized exchanges useless to all by the fringes.
In my opinion we require regulated centralized exchanges which can connect to the legitimate fiat markets. I do not think these crypto to crypto exchanges are ever going to be used by billions of people and I doubt you believe that either. There is a reason why Coinbase and Gemini are necessary.
True, but if cryptocurrencies become harder to acquire ( they are quite easy to spend, even with legitimate companies 😉) people will move to more irregular platforms. I expect to see growth in decentralised exchanges, but hey, I might be wrong. I don't think regulations will solve any real problems, as the "solutions" might be worse than the risks I have now with unregulated exchanges.
It's just a matter of time for crypto to go mainstream, we just need to wait... my bank banned me and some other users from buying stuff from coinbase, what i did was use an online bank like revolut to funnel money from my bank account to coinbase, it's easy and has no fees... if there is a will there is a way
The ban didn't last long since that what they were doing was basically illegal, the gov allowed the buying of cryptos but the bank banned it...
It's not a matter of time. It's a matter of active effort to bring it mainstream. It's not going to "just happen".
time * effort = mainstream, if we make much effort we won't need time, if we make little effort we will need more time, we are seeing HUGE amounts of effort in legalizing cryptocurrencies and exchanges, the problem, in my opinion, is that banks want to make ripple the "master coin" since they are behind it, my bank stopped transfers for coinbase but was "in bed" with ripple, but i guess that it's just banks doing their thing
But don't quote me on this, i might be wrong and banks actually have the user's "interests" in mind
They wouldn't be trying to ban cryptos if they weren't frightened of their potential, let's see how this approach works out.
So instead of trying to be as scary as possible why not invite them to join in on the benefits of crypto? Obviously trying to scare the banks and traditional societies doesn't seem to work.
My opinion as always is take the approach which shows signs of success. That doesn't mean become like Ripple, but to figure out a way to negotiate with banks to achieve solutions which every side can get wins (with compromises of course).
They want KYC AML? Fine. The SEC and similar regulators want to enforce their laws? Fine. But in exchange for this they have to make some concessions (which to some extent they have).
The SEC for example doesn't currently label Steem, Ethereum and a majority of cryptocurrencies "securities". This indicates that the SEC and crypto are attempting to co-exist. The IRS labels crypto "property" which indicates that the IRS does not want crypto to be used as currency. Various different agencies all have their own view of crypto based on internal sentiment of the people who are in those agencies.
So you can see it's a matter of dealing with public sentiment above all else, and political sentiment, and not something solved by mere technology. How do you for example change public sentiment? First you have to make crypto safer than credit cards (or at least perceived as safer), and then you have to show how crypto makes the world safer which honestly is a lot harder.
If a person is anti-cash they'll for sure be anti-cryptocurrency. If people see cash as supporting evil, because only criminals like cash, well how exactly are you going to ever be on the winning side of public sentiment in that? On the other hand ICOs, or digital property, or tokens, this isn't merely "cash" anymore and it's a lot easier in my opinion to be on the winning side when you show that anyone can have the opportunity to raise money, start a business, get rich.
Opportunity attracts everyone. Why did ICOs become a thing? It gave access to opportunities. Where are ICOs going wrong? ICO technology is far ahead of where the regulators are. So long term I think if crypto is to go mainstream it will be off ICOs and more exotic use cases which simply are not possible outside of the digital realm. Crypto cash as very limited use cases in comparison.
A very interesting perspective - and possibly the reality in the near future..
Where would you put steemit in this scenario?
(My understanding of crypto is marginally higher than a rock. A pretty stupid rock, at that)
The success or failure of Steem will be determined by the reaction to and utility of SMTs. SMTs have me more excited about the future of Steem. SMTs = opportunities.
....something, something, something,.... smt's = opportunities...cool!
😂
(I really wasn't joking about zero knowledge of anything crypto)