4 ms·

How exactly can you ban it without shutting down the interwebz?

marsrover 5y ago
If I had to guess: leftist death squads.
Afforess 5y ago
Preventing legitimate institutions from allowing transactions involved with the purchase of the coin effectively bans it. It doesn't matter if consumers can still use it, if businesses can not.
- beiller 5y ago
  How will they prevent transmitting it to brother Pichai in another country who can convert it to cash and send it back? Or how will they prevent exchanging it for goods, or even exchanging it directly for cash? They will have to ban cash.
  - lumost 5y ago
    This moves it into a niche for criminal activity, rampant speculators, and gamblers. The purpose of banning a type of financial transaction is to avoid stories where a retiree, or other vulnerable person loses their life savings because they got hooked into a get rich quick scheme. These bans only make sense when it's deemed utterly irrational to participate in the transaction for either all buyers or all sellers. It's pretty easy to understand why someone who has a modest nest egg/retirement portfolio could be pushed into a bet the house situation if they don't understand what they are buying and aren't particularly financially literate.
    - beiller 5y ago
      Yeah I totally understand where you are coming from. But to be fair, there is a little uncertainty everywhere today wouldn't you say? Who is to say that the stock market / housing / bond market is the only "allowed investments"? The government of Thailand I guess! But isn't there a bit of a conflicted interest? If you ban everything except for stocks, guess what happens to stocks? They go up cause a bunch of people are now forced to switch over. I am actually all for what they have done, but it still looks a bit like kicking it while its down. DOGE ain't so hot today and this isn't the reason.
rasz 5y ago
Easily, you start seizing assets.
- rawtxapp 5y ago
  How exactly do you do that?
  - brazzy 5y ago
    This is an SEC policy decision that affects only "digital asset exchanges", i.e. companies that already fulfill a buttload of compliance and auditing requirements. If push comes to shove, law enforcement knows exactly who is involved and what bank accounts hold the company's liquid assets.
  - delecti 5y ago
    If a person can meaningfully be said to own cryptocurrency, then why would it be impossible to size those possessions?
- randomopining 5y ago
  How do you seize a string of text like this one: asdf78as6df7sda67f6das7f6dafdfads7fdafd6sa7
  - echelon 5y ago
    They don't have to. They can just throw the owner in jail if they ever let on that they have it.
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
    - randomopining 5y ago
      This is literally impossible to implement in practice. People can store it in their brain, they can use multisig to distribute the partial keys, etc.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
snarf21 5y ago
Can't they just enforce the blocking at the ISP level? They could do the same for VPNs in the country. If someone tries a VPN in another jurisdiction, that can be blocked from a more legal perspective. Local LE can try to access these NFT sites or w/e via different VPNs and then shut them down legally. It seems like it is mostly a question of legislative desires.
brazzy 5y ago
Read TFA and the press release linked therein. If you're a "digital asset exchange" operating in Thailand, offering your customers to trade the banned items will lose you your license, and if you continue operating I imagine at some point the police will show up at whatever physical presence you have and arrest people, and your assets (including bank accounts) will be seized. No, that is not 100% effective in stopping people from trading these coins, but it doesn't have to be, and it' not even necessarily the intention - note that it's not even a law but an SEC decision.

If I had to guess: leftist death squads.

Preventing legitimate institutions from allowing transactions involved with the purchase of the coin effectively bans it. It doesn't matter if consumers can still use it, if businesses can not.

beiller 5y ago
How will they prevent transmitting it to brother Pichai in another country who can convert it to cash and send it back? Or how will they prevent exchanging it for goods, or even exchanging it directly for cash? They will have to ban cash.
- lumost 5y ago
  This moves it into a niche for criminal activity, rampant speculators, and gamblers. The purpose of banning a type of financial transaction is to avoid stories where a retiree, or other vulnerable person loses their life savings because they got hooked into a get rich quick scheme. These bans only make sense when it's deemed utterly irrational to participate in the transaction for either all buyers or all sellers. It's pretty easy to understand why someone who has a modest nest egg/retirement portfolio could be pushed into a bet the house situation if they don't understand what they are buying and aren't particularly financially literate.
  - beiller 5y ago
    Yeah I totally understand where you are coming from. But to be fair, there is a little uncertainty everywhere today wouldn't you say? Who is to say that the stock market / housing / bond market is the only "allowed investments"? The government of Thailand I guess! But isn't there a bit of a conflicted interest? If you ban everything except for stocks, guess what happens to stocks? They go up cause a bunch of people are now forced to switch over. I am actually all for what they have done, but it still looks a bit like kicking it while its down. DOGE ain't so hot today and this isn't the reason.

rasz 5y ago

Easily, you start seizing assets.

rawtxapp 5y ago
How exactly do you do that?
- brazzy 5y ago
  This is an SEC policy decision that affects only "digital asset exchanges", i.e. companies that already fulfill a buttload of compliance and auditing requirements. If push comes to shove, law enforcement knows exactly who is involved and what bank accounts hold the company's liquid assets.
- delecti 5y ago
  If a person can meaningfully be said to own cryptocurrency, then why would it be impossible to size those possessions?
randomopining 5y ago
How do you seize a string of text like this one: asdf78as6df7sda67f6das7f6dafdfads7fdafd6sa7
- echelon 5y ago
  They don't have to. They can just throw the owner in jail if they ever let on that they have it.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
  - randomopining 5y ago
    This is literally impossible to implement in practice. People can store it in their brain, they can use multisig to distribute the partial keys, etc.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

snarf21 5y ago

Can't they just enforce the blocking at the ISP level? They could do the same for VPNs in the country. If someone tries a VPN in another jurisdiction, that can be blocked from a more legal perspective. Local LE can try to access these NFT sites or w/e via different VPNs and then shut them down legally. It seems like it is mostly a question of legislative desires.

brazzy 5y ago

Read TFA and the press release linked therein. If you're a "digital asset exchange" operating in Thailand, offering your customers to trade the banned items will lose you your license, and if you continue operating I imagine at some point the police will show up at whatever physical presence you have and arrest people, and your assets (including bank accounts) will be seized. No, that is not 100% effective in stopping people from trading these coins, but it doesn't have to be, and it' not even necessarily the intention - note that it's not even a law but an SEC decision.