3 ms·

The regulatory nodes seem to have created quite a stir! I believe this stir is partly because it is being viewed as a central authority to control the blockchai

The regulatory nodes seem to have created quite a stir! I believe this stir is partly because it is being viewed as a central authority to control the blockchain. This is an incorrect understanding of the proposal. The top node of the hierarchy of regulation can be created by anyone. However, those who want to legitimately (within their jurisdictions) use blockchains to improve the experience of transfer of coins (not just money, could be equity as well) can use it with the regulatory framework of the country. Also, we must not forget that unregulated blockchains are being used as a bridge to transfer money between the legal and the illegal businesses. By adopting the regulatory nodes framework, the transfer of coins will happen only between (or within) "well intended" regulations.

pelasaco 9y ago
> Also, we must not forget that unregulated blockchains are being used as a bridge to transfer money between the legal and the illegal businesses. sure, without Blockchain, in the "regulated" way, there was no money washing scheme and illegal business couldn't transfer money.. right
runeks 9y ago
If adopting this technology is voluntary, it has nothing to do with regulation. It would simply be a superior protocol, that people choose to use. “Voluntary regulation” is an oxymoron. > Also, we must not forget that unregulated blockchains are being used as a bridge to transfer money between the legal and the illegal businesses. Nor must we forget that many countries, like Argentina, make it illegal for people to save up for retirement in currencies that are less inflationary than the national currency. In these countries, this makes saving up in bitcoins illegal activity. But it should be clear who’s committing a crime against whom (the government against the people). Bitcoin was built for exactly this purpose: to fight against government regulation whose purpose is only the survival of government at the expense of the people, as opposed to being a service to the people.
- alokashtikar 9y ago
  If one voluntarily chooses to trade coins of "out of jurisdictional regulation part of the blockchain", the person will not be able to get those coins into the "regulated part of the blockchain". This is how the bridge between legal and illegal businesses would be broken. I do not know about the cases you are referring to, as I am not a lawyer, nor an economist and not a statesman. Within the reasonable countries (most part of the world) one should be able to trade legally, transfer the coins without violating laws of the involved jurisdictions. This would be possible even between different countries. If you see through it, you will notice that you can create your own "Regulation" within / between a group of your counterparts. Its not taking away your freedom, its just breaking the bridge between legal and illegal businesses.
- nnbosko 9y ago
  Argentina doesn't make it illegal to save in currencies other than its own.

pelasaco 9y ago

> Also, we must not forget that unregulated blockchains are being used as a bridge to transfer money between the legal and the illegal businesses. sure, without Blockchain, in the "regulated" way, there was no money washing scheme and illegal business couldn't transfer money.. right

runeks 9y ago

If adopting this technology is voluntary, it has nothing to do with regulation. It would simply be a superior protocol, that people choose to use. “Voluntary regulation” is an oxymoron. > Also, we must not forget that unregulated blockchains are being used as a bridge to transfer money between the legal and the illegal businesses. Nor must we forget that many countries, like Argentina, make it illegal for people to save up for retirement in currencies that are less inflationary than the national currency. In these countries, this makes saving up in bitcoins illegal activity. But it should be clear who’s committing a crime against whom (the government against the people). Bitcoin was built for exactly this purpose: to fight against government regulation whose purpose is only the survival of government at the expense of the people, as opposed to being a service to the people.

alokashtikar 9y ago
If one voluntarily chooses to trade coins of "out of jurisdictional regulation part of the blockchain", the person will not be able to get those coins into the "regulated part of the blockchain". This is how the bridge between legal and illegal businesses would be broken. I do not know about the cases you are referring to, as I am not a lawyer, nor an economist and not a statesman. Within the reasonable countries (most part of the world) one should be able to trade legally, transfer the coins without violating laws of the involved jurisdictions. This would be possible even between different countries. If you see through it, you will notice that you can create your own "Regulation" within / between a group of your counterparts. Its not taking away your freedom, its just breaking the bridge between legal and illegal businesses.
nnbosko 9y ago
Argentina doesn't make it illegal to save in currencies other than its own.