3 ms·

”This goes back to my original point regarding capital controls: previously discreetly tolerated, their violation is now openly acknowledged. If you stroll thro

by irq11 9y ago

”This goes back to my original point regarding capital controls: previously discreetly tolerated, their violation is now openly acknowledged. If you stroll through Hong Kong you'll find invoicing services being openly advertised.” Like all other forms of rule enforcement, things are tolerated until they aren’t tolerated anymore. You’re trying to extrapolate a story far beyond the evidence — just because “most” laundering happens another way doesn’t mean that bitcoin isn’t significant. It’s obviously significant to the government: they’ve cracked down on it.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> It’s obviously significant to the government: they’ve cracked down on it It's significant in that ICOs have lots of fraud. The motive is important because if capital controls were the motive, the greater Bitcoin community has nothing to learn from it. If it's fraud, introspection is required. Barring that, non capital controlled countries should pay attention.
- ShabbosGoy 9y ago
  I'm a little confused by your comments. Bitcoin does not have a trusted party system, unlike Ethereum. Why does the Bitcoin community have to learn about fraud? I agree that some ICOs are clearly fraudulent in nature. But it's no different than the early days of Kickstarter. Hell, look at Juicero. I think the advent of ICOs as an alternative vehicle for fundraising is making certain entrenched interests very nervous.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > Bitcoin does not have a trusted party system, unlike Ethereum. Why does the Bitcoin community have to learn about fraud? It does have a small group of people with disproportionate influence (case in point: the adoption of segwit) and who are incentivized to perpetuate the system. It is in their interest to find a solution to the fraud. The "capital flight" excuse is cute, but it won't convince other countries' regulators. Particularly if nothing is done and a bunch of moms and pops get defrauded on a significant scale by an ICO.

by irq11 9y ago

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> It’s obviously significant to the government: they’ve cracked down on it It's significant in that ICOs have lots of fraud. The motive is important because if capital controls were the motive, the greater Bitcoin community has nothing to learn from it. If it's fraud, introspection is required. Barring that, non capital controlled countries should pay attention.

ShabbosGoy 9y ago
I'm a little confused by your comments. Bitcoin does not have a trusted party system, unlike Ethereum. Why does the Bitcoin community have to learn about fraud? I agree that some ICOs are clearly fraudulent in nature. But it's no different than the early days of Kickstarter. Hell, look at Juicero. I think the advent of ICOs as an alternative vehicle for fundraising is making certain entrenched interests very nervous.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > Bitcoin does not have a trusted party system, unlike Ethereum. Why does the Bitcoin community have to learn about fraud? It does have a small group of people with disproportionate influence (case in point: the adoption of segwit) and who are incentivized to perpetuate the system. It is in their interest to find a solution to the fraud. The "capital flight" excuse is cute, but it won't convince other countries' regulators. Particularly if nothing is done and a bunch of moms and pops get defrauded on a significant scale by an ICO.