7 ms·
At some point, you'll have to make a payment to someone who doesn't accept Bitcoin, which is the point of failure. While cash may be anonymous and Bitcoin may b
by drivingmenuts 13y ago
At some point, you'll have to make a payment to someone who doesn't accept Bitcoin, which is the point of failure. While cash may be anonymous and Bitcoin may be anonymous (the second one is dangerous, in and of itself), you will have to make a conversion to real-world currency and that transaction can be as heavily regulated, including the requirement for non-anonymity.
And if you stick to Bitcoin transactions only, it would be very easy for authorities to declare tax-evasion, for starters, which opens up a whole different can of worms, as transactions are occurring in a non-regulated space.
On the whole, it seems like Bitcoin-enthusiasts would be far safer in a more regulated environment.
- kbradero 13y agomoney as we know it today had the same problem i guess...
- Guvante 13y agoHaving banks involved has allowed the current regulations. By getting them to follow rules it gets everyone else to do the same. Now, you can still get around it if you are small enough, but it is the same with nearly anything else.
- betterunix 13y agoYou know, each year in April, many millions of Americans send a pile of paperwork to the government detailing their tax obligations. Often this paperwork is accompanied by a payment owed to the government. People also have money taken from their paychecks as tax payments. Yes, regulations and laws are applied at the entry and exit points of the money system, and people who try to avoid those regulations run the risk of being arrested.
- ferdo 13y ago> On the whole, it seems like Bitcoin-enthusiasts would be far safer in a more regulated environment. Speaking as a longtime Bitcoin user, I'd disagree. My bitcoins were easier to trade before the government started taking Bitcoin seriously. They were also safer before the government declared the power to confiscate bitcoins.