Home » Articles » Regulating the Unregulated: The Future of Bitcoin?
Click Here To Hide Tor

Regulating the Unregulated: The Future of Bitcoin?

Bitcoin, though not completely anonymous, has been prized in our society as a stepping-stone for a privacy-minded and anonymous currency. Irregardless of the depreciating value of the Bitcoin, its creation will still be remembered for generations to come. However, there has recently been oncoming pressure from various organizations to regulate cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Dogecoin. Why this pressure? Well, businesses are attracted by the concept of a virtual currency and the Blockchain and its potential for monetary gain, but are still leery of the anonymity portion of most existing cryptocurrencies. They want something which is ensured to protect their businesses and revenue.

Not to ruin the party, but this idea is not a bad idea. Again, we are all entitled to our own opinions, but objectively speaking, some amount of control is necessary to keep things running smoothly. The major problem that I have with regulating cryptocoins is that this completely defies the creation of cryptocurrencies in the first place. They were created to value autonomy, not to be fettered to a central institution. Furthermore, the passing of a bill that makes major cryptocurrencies regulated by the government paves the way for more extreme measures bent on outlawing all unregulated cryptocurrencies. Before I receive a wave of criticism, look at the punishments in most countries for being found with the possession of counterfeit bills. For all you Americans, how does 20 years of prison and a $250k fine sound?

Still, many of you may be thinking that the government would never try to regulate cryptocurrencies, as they have been in circulation unmoderated for many years now. Well, think again. The Uniform Law Commission (ULC) has drafted a bill called the “Regulation of Virtual Currencies Act.” It aims to keep Bitcoins under the jurisdiction of national governments and states that this will ensure security and greater productivity for cryptocurrencies and businesses. In addition, the board in charge of the bill has introduced plans to make altcoin driven businesses obtain official licenses in order to continue financial operations in altcoins. In the same light, Bank of America is vying for a patent that will give it ownership of wire transfer technology and methods pertaining to cryptocurrencies. Bank of America (BofA) backs-up its claim by asserting that Bitcoin transfers would become quicker and more efficient because they would not need to go through a third-party organization. BofA has set its eye on burgeoning currencies such as Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin, and Ripple. Though it has only specifically named these couple currencies, they will no doubt go after other altcoins too. In addition, BofA has explicitly stated its plans to partner with major cryptocoins-trading websites such as OKCoin, Bitstamp, and Cryptsy in an attempt to control the market.

These claims above may seem good to the uninitiated, but as a cryptocoin fan, I am taken aback by the possible repercussions if the ULC can pass the bill and if BofA can achieve its patent. Of course the central problem is that these regulations and patents will detract from the original message of cryptocurrencies. What good is an altcoin if it’s subjected to the whims of a central government or business? But more importantly, the ULC’s bill closes the door on a free-market. A market regulated by any central power is bound to be stifled of new inventions. I am not saying that this new market will be a flop, but people with unique and/or strange ideas will be discouraged from entering the Bitcoin market due to the fact that they know that they are being watched in their every move and must compete with already successful ideas. Secondly, Bank of America’s patent is covertly a plea for a monopoly. If they are able to partner with major Cryptocoin-trading sites, they can have a major influence over the altcoin industry. They will control the basic premise for the transfer of Bitcoin (wire-transfers) and may push smaller startups into the dust. Coupled with the ULC’s bill, Bank of America, or any other large bank supported by the government, will virtually have complete control over the cryptocoin market. Then, this brings into light an almost Marxist sounding question: Is Bank of America doing this to help “make cryptocoin more efficient,” or is this solely for monetary gain? I would argue that BofA is trying to take advantage of this new concept of regulation to create a monopoly for itself and increase its own revenue. From the American Revolution to the French Revolution, economic gain is the fundamental motivator. In my opinion, BofA, along with the ULC, is trying to stifle our individual freedom by instituting measures that secure its position as the main benefactor of the altcoin market. Businesses partnering with governments to take financial control of the market…what else is new. But then again, each to his own.

10 comments

  1. irregardless – adverb ir·re·gard·less \ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs\.

    Definition of IRREGARDLESS:

    Used by people who ignorantly mean to say regardless. According to webster, it is a word, but since the prefix “ir” and the suffx “less” both mean “not or with” they cancel each other out, so what you end up with is regard. When you use this to try to say you don’t care about something, you end up saying that you do. Of course everyone knows what you mean to say and only a pompous,rude asshole will correct you.

    Wife: “Irregardless is not a word, dummy”
    Husband: “Kiss my ass bitch! I’m still going to the strip club tonight!”

  2. Hello Kalyan,

    Your use of irregardless gives away the fact that you come from a native-english speaking background. Each group of people commits the same mistakes, it is possible to know your nationality just by following your language mistakes. A spellchecker would come handy if you wish to remain anonymaus.

    I must congratulate you now by the fact that you are finally realizing what will happen to cryptocurrencies.

    The financial system will create its own, stripping away the features that makes them independent and inserting features that makes them depend from the current actors.

    Bitcoin and altcoins will not cease to exist even if declared illegal. They have proven too useful already in the shady world for being abandoned. How about an American granny that wishes to buy her medicine from Europe for 1/10 of the price she is paying at home?

    Bitcoin in its current form is more like a barter token over which we agreed on the value, like gold, think about that.

    We haven’t even started to explore these possibilities. Give it time, control your anxiousness and do your little part to make it happen.

    One thing the world is missing is a transport network that is independent from post offices, DHL and things like that. Brazilians have created something called “muamber” to solved that, it is like the couriers they use to transport drugs in their cities. Think about that.

    Soon enough gray and black markets will be so big that many governments will be reduced to irrelevancy. See Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador as prime examples. As the first world dives in decadence, that trend will catch up with you guys in the anglosphere too.

  3. I think you’re spot on, Anonymous Coward.
    Bitcoin, being surrounded by an aura of scams and illegal services, needs some form of security for the world to feel they should change the way they pay. Let’s face it, it’s not for the average user.
    I don’t see Bitcoin as the ultimate CryptoCurrency… It is just the current cryptocoin of choice. It will one day be succeeded by another form, whether it be created by a Government, a Bank or even another Talented Individual/Group.

    Bitcoin would live along-side such a Government-created-insult-to-CryptoCurrency, I’d say… just another Altcoin, which could evolve into a national currency?

    Considering you can use a Bitcoin Credit Card anywhere; If 70% of a country’s population adopted Bitcoin and converted every wage into Bitcoins, would their currency not become almost worthless, and Bitcoin’s value sky-rocket? …or am I way out of my league?

    • Anonymous Coward

      A friendly economist has made some estimates of what would happen for a very positive scenario for Bitcoin:

      http://deepdot35wvmeyd5.onion.top/2015/09/21/bitcoin-medium-term-price-outlook/

      I think the biggest threat to Bitcoin now is not regulation but inertia that results from infighting. Bitcoin should move to quantum-proof crypto, it should move to proof-of-stake, it should make the header of the winning blocks to be shared instead of the entire block, it should demand that every bitcoin client becomes a miner with at least a 10% of a CPU core just to spread dangers out, it should consider limiting the size of the mining pools, it should consolidate balances at some point back in time and not demand that all clients run the full blockchain all the time, etc.

      So, you see, if one or two of those items are done in a year from now we are lucky. Those that hate Bitcoin will work day and night to sow discord while they also work in their mammon-pleasing version to keep the masses enslaved.

      • RE: The Big Picture

        Thanks for the reply!
        I can see All of that becoming evermore necessary, as Bitcoin grows… It’s good to see that people are building onto Bitcoin, rather than just creating Alternatives (Project Code-named, Liquid).

  4. >winning blocks to be shared instead of the entire block
    winning blocks to be shared immediately instead of the entire block

    sorry

    • Anonymous Coward

      the header of the winning blocks to be shared immediately instead of the entire block

      Jesus, this weed is the killer one, feels like overdosing here, lol.

      Another solution would be to block a mining pool from winning two blocks in a row. Or why not limit the mining to 1% max total network capacity for each pool? Let get wasted the overcapacity and cap at that, we will never have to worry about malicious manipulation, ever.

  5. I just don’t see a cryptocurrency like bitcoin becoming mainstream anywhere in the near future. There are 2 little problems. One is the irreversibility of transactions and the other is the vulnerability of wallets that the general public would be using.

    And Coward the South American countries you speak of have notoriously corrupt governments / LE that can be bought. Do you seriously think a grey black market delivery company catering to the dark web will manifest in a country like the U.S. ? Youu really are delusional.

    • Anonymous Coward

      Short answer: look at the demographic trends and you will see the US becoming another Mexico in a few decades.

      Long answer: corruption is endemic in the first world. Corruption can take the form of lobby, ie. officially sanctioned bribes, or ideological, ie. promote faggot marriage because that will show how conservatives are wrong. Both things destroy trust, corruption is the destruction of trust among peers.

      I don’t know where to quote/unquote the irony in the second paragraph, given how obvious such things are. Filling your mouth to tell us how certain countries are corrupt without looking at yourself, that’s kind of ridiculous.

      You don’t need a properly established company to create a system like muamber. Bitcoin doesn’t need a company to exist. It exists because it exists. Same will happen with such a transport “company”.

      I’m looking forward to participate in any that pops up. lol

  6. I like that transport idea

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Captcha: *