Big jump in Bitcoin...

tecate

Frequent Poster
Messages
568
Yes I was in error in describing hash as hashtag but I think you knew what I meant.
Not until your subsequent posts I didn't.
As I have explained in another post there is no rational reason why halving should have any effect on the price but I take your word for it that this has been past experience. That is an empirical observation but I presume you have no rational explanation as to why it should be so.
Why isn't it rational? The amount of Bitcoin in circulation will drop. Bitcoin mining farms have real world expenses in FIAT. They have to sell the 'reward' that they receive for mining. Half of that reward is going to disappear yet they have the same expenses.

Why would I expect crypto pricing to be rational, silly Duke:oops:
There is plenty of market irrationality but I don't think that specific point is an example. Furthermore, there can be all manner of irrationality on the market end of things and yet still be something tangible at the core of the technology. There can still be a utility in terms of electronic money.
 

Leo

Moderator
Messages
10,415
Well we've already touched on it so I don't see what the confusion is. I believe that people should have the financial freedom to use unconfiscatable, borderless money anonymously.
That's your belief and you're entitled to it. But you are clearly in a minority, and so you need to realise that the banking system will never dilute regulation to allow those who share your beliefs bypass controls put in place for the protection of consumers.

I believe that AML/KYC are an unnecessary evil - that cause regular people a lot of grief and don't stop the cartels in moving money.
Again, if the cartels can move money so easily, why are they so invested in physical assets and engaging in elaborate money laundering schemes that see them lose a significant percentage of funds? Apart from people who want to interact with exchanges that can't prove compliance, what issues are you referring to here? Surely AAM would be flooded with threads on the issue if there was such 'a lot of grief'.

And again, just because a rule or regulation doesn't stop 100% of fraud is a very poor reason to row back on those rules. Indeed, the only case it makes is for the strengthening of those rules. We should aspire to a system that gets as close to the elimination of fraud as possible. To suggest throwing the doors open because we haven't yet gotten to 100% elimination makes no sense whatsoever.

As I said before, government agencies need to make a decision - either ban it or embrace it.
They really don't. It's the crypto world that needs to mature and figure out what it wants to be if it's to thrive. If it wants to be linked into the regular financial system, it needs to figure out how to play by the rules, if it wants to remain a wild west of anonymity, then it needs to understand why it will always face restrictions.

Yes, there has been market manipulation and wash trading. It's a new market and its a small market so much easier to manipulate.
That is actually a very good argument as to why established banks should protect themselves and their customers and have nothing to do with it.

If you're saying that Bitcion as a protocol has to change in some way so that institutions can use it to fulfill some regulatory demand or other, well that simply won't be happening. The regulator or any government agency won't be walking in to the offices of Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency - because there is no such office or central point.
You're misunderstanding me there. So Fidelity are offering intra-institution trading. It is Fidelity and those other institutions that will be audited on these transactions just as all of their existing institutional and retail trading activities are. The fact that Bitcoin doesn't have an office in no way diminishes their regulatory responsibility regarding such trading.

Do the original cipher punks who were behind efforts to get Bitcoin off the ground have any time for this aspect of things? Absolutely not.
Fully agree with that, but it's clear they had such mistrust of the financial institutions that they would not be getting hung up on those very institutions refusing to play by their rules. I'd imagine they would be pretty disappointed if their vision's success or failure hinged on whether people could escape the crypto world back to the banks they so loathed.

Bitcoin is already what it is - it cant be changed.
Indeed, just as the heavily regulated financial systems are what they are and can't be changed to facilitate the flouting of the very regulations they run under.
 

Leo

Moderator
Messages
10,415
Not until your subsequent posts I didn't.
In fairness to the Duke, he did put in the effort in the early days of this particular forum to tease out the workings of Bitcoin with fpalb and others.
 

Duke of Marmalade

Frequent Poster
Messages
2,457
Not until your subsequent posts I didn't.

Why isn't it rational? The amount of Bitcoin in circulation will drop. Bitcoin mining farms have real world expenses in FIAT. They have to sell the 'reward' that they receive for mining. Half of that reward is going to disappear yet they have the same expenses.
Clearly I misunderstand bitcoin - fpalb please help. I was led to believe that bitcoin supply would continue to grow until 2040 (or is it 2140) when it reached its max of 21m. But you explain that this halving will cause the amount of bitcoin in circulation to drop.
 

EmmDee

Registered User
Messages
226
Clearly I misunderstand bitcoin - fpalb please help. I was led to believe that bitcoin supply would continue to grow until 2040 (or is it 2140) when it reached its max of 21m. But you explain that this halving will cause the amount of bitcoin in circulation to drop.
I believe it is the rate of creation which will drop.
 

tecate

Frequent Poster
Messages
568
When it comes to bitcoin there is no mystery about the supply side. It is more or less cast in stone and has already achieved 83% of its ultimate destiny. So forget the supply side or any of this halving stuff.
I think you are still misunderstanding the dynamic. See my post above. Miners won't be putting as much BTC onto the market to sell - to pay for their hefty FIAT based expenses.

Nerds 1%
Anti establishment zealots 1%
Eh, :D, crypto is nerd central - I think I'd be demanding a recount in yer sophisticated polling there, Duke. And if we are to have 'anti establishment 'zealots', lets have a column for pro authoritarian government zealots too (you can stick them in at 0% - I just want to balance out the 'zealot' part as that definitely cuts both ways).

This huge share of the pie taken by this last is a surprise even to me:rolleyes:
Shocking! :cool:
Joking aside, just in case anyone thinks otherwise, I'm not for one second suggesting that any of this isn't speculative. My own current involvement is speculative.

tecate developments on the futures exchanges
Leo market manipulation
I believe I offered a longer list of triggers. You've decided to discount them from your pinpoint accurate breakdown.I also omitted a couple.
- E-Trade, one of the U.S.'s biggest retail investment platforms intend to add cryptocurrency trading shortly.
- OTC trading has increased significantly in recent months.

Other than that, I'm quite happy to include market manipulation on my list. I'm quite satisfied that its a thing in this market and it was and is a concern of mine in this recent uptick. I just couldn't find a way of determining it as the root cause.

The former is reminiscent of the 2017 surge to 20$ which quickly reversed
The latter must also reverse quickly
Perhaps time for the Duke to renew his short position. Ironically the price is now roughly where it was when I closed out my 14k short position in early 2018
This market has proven to be cyclical. What happened in 2017 had happened on four previous occasions. As regards shorting, good to see someone have conviction in their beliefs - go for it. Personally (in my completely unqualified opinion) I believe that this recent surge will retrace but I'm relatively confident that the market will move upwards and revisit the ATH price between now and Dec 2021.
 

Duke of Marmalade

Frequent Poster
Messages
2,457
Ahhh! You meant the amount on offer will drop. But you said the amount in circulation will drop. I see the point though a rational market would have already priced this in; it is not new information.

ATH?
 

tecate

Frequent Poster
Messages
568
That's your belief and you're entitled to it. But you are clearly in a minority, and so you need to realise that the banking system will never dilute regulation to allow those who share your beliefs bypass controls put in place for the protection of consumers.
No problem - but understand that anyone who had a genuine interest in Bitcoin originally (aside from the speculative pricing sideshow) bought into the concept on precisely this basis. This in effect is what Bitcoin is about. To change those fundamentals (if it were possible) is to kill it.

Again, if the cartels can move money so easily, why are they so invested in physical assets and engaging in elaborate money laundering schemes that see them lose a significant percentage of funds? Apart from people who want to interact with exchanges that can't prove compliance, what issues are you referring to here? Surely AAM would be flooded with threads on the issue if there was such 'a lot of grief'.
I didn't say that the cartels can do it easily. However, they have the resources to do it. I see it every day - where i'm located these days, I see 'businesses' that are simply washing money. That's 99.9% of what they do.
As regards issues, have you ever had a bank account closed? Have you ever had YOUR money locked up until some jobsworth somewhere gets whatever documentation they demand? You seem to see this as a non issue yet its central to the development of Bitcoin. That accounts for more than a few people. It causes considerable friction. That's before you get into other jurisdictions. There are places where you can only bring money into a country in a certain way and have it registered with the central bank.

And again, just because a rule or regulation doesn't stop 100% of fraud is a very poor reason to row back on those rules. Indeed, the only case it makes is for the strengthening of those rules. We should aspire to a system that gets as close to the elimination of fraud as possible. To suggest throwing the doors open because we haven't yet gotten to 100% elimination makes no sense whatsoever.
We are locked in diametrically opposing views on this one and nothing it seems will change that. Crime can be fought in the traditional sense. That's the way it was not so long ago before all this AML/KYC nonsense. We disagree on it - so lets park it up.

They really don't. It's the crypto world that needs to mature and figure out what it wants to be if it's to thrive. If it wants to be linked into the regular financial system, it needs to figure out how to play by the rules, if it wants to remain a wild west of anonymity, then it needs to understand why it will always face restrictions.
I disagree. You can't make such changes to a decentralised currency - much less changes that are fundamental to it. You can't ask for what's not available to be provided in terms of info. Are we saying then that there can't be any transfer from any cryptocurrency exchange? In which case, can there be sufficient maturity from the regulators to say so - as that's NOT what they're saying right now.

That is actually a very good argument as to why established banks should protect themselves and their customers and have nothing to do with it.
Nonsense. Look, what has that got to do with me as an ordinary joe transacting wealth in the form of Bitcoin? Centralised exchanges need to be properly regulated. The irony is that everyone in the industry wants them properly regulated - but regulators are sitting on their hands.

You're misunderstanding me there. So Fidelity are offering intra-institution trading. It is Fidelity and those other institutions that will be audited on these transactions just as all of their existing institutional and retail trading activities are. The fact that Bitcoin doesn't have an office in no way diminishes their regulatory responsibility regarding such trading.
I'm not misunderstanding you at all. I'm well aware they have fiduciary obligations. The fact is that they want to invest in crypto but have been reluctant to do so up until now for this very reason. I didn't suggest that Bitcoin not being centrally controlled diminishes their fiduciary responsibility. However, you seem to be suggesting that the cryptocurrency itself needs to be changed when it can't (nor is there a desire to do so even if it was possible).

Fully agree with that, but it's clear they had such mistrust of the financial institutions that they would not be getting hung up on those very institutions refusing to play by their rules. I'd imagine they would be pretty disappointed if their vision's success or failure hinged on whether people could escape the crypto world back to the banks they so loathed.
Lets be realistic here. I don't think I'm going out on a limb in saying that 99.99% of those very same people had bank accounts and did everyday banking like everyone else. How would they have gotten paid? How would they have paid their mortgages?

Bitcoin and crypto has been borne into an established financial system. If you are suggesting that I and them should only be operating in that economy - well, something like this doesn't just unpack itself in a short period of time. Of course there is a need for those in the crypto space to have a foot in both. I don't see where the mystery is here.

Indeed, just as the heavily regulated financial systems are what they are and can't be changed to facilitate the flouting of the very regulations they run under.
The regulations can be changed. Or if you're saying the decision is that Bitcoin be banned - then go ahead and ban it. You're saying that we can't have it both ways. I'm saying the very same for governments (which by the way are supposed to represent all of us). But let them ban it and see what happens.
 
Last edited:

tecate

Frequent Poster
Messages
568
I see the point though a rational market would have already priced this in; it is not new information.
Yeah, fair point - but I never disagreed that there wasn't large helpings of irrational behaviour in the market. :)
That said, the market simply isn't anywhere near maturity yet. On the previous occurrence, the price started to build a year out from the halving. Remember, there are lots of retail investors in this market. Many of them don't even understand the halving or the implications of it...and maybe some of them learn about it nearer the time.
 

tecate

Frequent Poster
Messages
568
I think I’ll buy this “halving” thing being a significant if somewhat irrational factor in the uptick.
I'm still on the fence as regards all reasons provided but nice to be able to almost agree with someone on this thread occasionally. :D


ATH = 'All time high'.
 
Last edited:

Leo

Moderator
Messages
10,415
This in effect is what Bitcoin is about. To change those fundamentals (if it were possible) is to kill it.
I think we both know they are not going to change those fundamentals, those behind Bitcoin have no reason to make it easy for people to cash out, that's not what their vision is.

I didn't say that the cartels can do it easily. However, they have the resources to do it. I see it every day - where i'm located these days, I see 'businesses' that are simply washing money. That's 99.9% of what they do.
You should probably report that to the ODCE.

As regards issues, have you ever had a bank account closed? Have you ever had YOUR money locked up until some jobsworth somewhere gets whatever documentation they demand?
I haven't, but then I have been careful in my financial dealings not to trade with companies or platforms that are widely acknowledged to harbour widespread criminal activity.

You seem to see this as a non issue yet its central to the development of Bitcoin.
Given the scale of the financial industry, it absolutely is a non-issue. If the future development of Bitcoin is dependent on the financial system it rails against setting aside their rules to accommodate it, and turn a blind eye to the illegal activity that goes along with it, then Bitcoin is doomed. Most crypto advocates don't see this as an issue, it's mainly those who are purely in it for speculation have a problem.

There are places where you can only bring money into a country in a certain way and have it registered with the central bank.
That was one of the key topics of Antonopulos' talk in UCD last year. It is in such jurisdictions that he sees crypto having function. The last think anyone in such a place is likely to want to do is cash out to a back account though.

We are locked in diametrically opposing views on this one and nothing it seems will change that. Crime can be fought in the traditional sense. That's the way it was not so long ago before all this AML/KYC nonsense. We disagree on it - so lets park it up.
Fair enough, I can't understand how a rational person would see AML/KYC as nonsense.

Are we saying then that there can't be any transfer from any cryptocurrency exchange? In which case, can there be sufficient maturity from the regulators to say so - as that's NOT what they're saying right now.
There's no reason why the exchanges can't implement systems that would allow them become compliant, most of them aren't mature enough to do so yet, some are, others will likely get there. The challenge they have is much of the crypto world doesn't want compliance. They don't want that regulation and availability of audit trail, proof of identities, etc..

Nonsense. Look, what has that got to do with me as an ordinary joe transacting wealth in the form of Bitcoin?
Nothing, you're free to transact Bitcoin as you see fit. Banks are obliged to block transactions where the source of funds can not be proven, the majority of people see this as a very good thing.

I'm not misunderstanding you at all. I'm well aware they have fiduciary obligations. The fact is that they want to invest in crypto but have been reluctant to do so up until now for this very reason.
You're quite a few years behind the times if you think they're only investing now, there's even been a lot of the work carried out in Ireland.

Bitcoin and crypto has been borne into an established financial system.
Satoshi's vision was to eliminate the banking system entirely. Not link the two together in any way.

The regulations can be changed. Or if you're saying the decision is that Bitcoin be banned - then go ahead and ban it. You're saying that we can't have it both ways. I'm saying the very same for governments (which by the way are supposed to represent all of us). But let them ban it and see what happens.
I've never said Bitcoin should be banned, I've often said it's flawed, but never said it should be banned. Again, I don't see why a government would ban Bitcoin. It comes down to two choices:
1. Facilitate the development of Bitcoin/ crypto, scrap AML / fraud prevention rules and let the criminals have an easy life
2. Continue to make life as difficult as possible for the criminals, with some inconvenience to the development of Bitcoin/ crypto

Which option do you think the majority of citizens would choose? Exactly to your point, governments represent us all, that doesn't mean they implement legislation for us each individually.

What great value does crypto have that would outweigh the negatives of rolling back regulations?
 

tecate

Frequent Poster
Messages
568
I think we both know they are not going to change those fundamentals, those behind Bitcoin have no reason to make it easy for people to cash out, that's not what their vision is.
Of course - we are in complete agreement. Changes can only be made by consensus. There is no earthly way such a consensus would be reached as its core to what Bitcoin is all about.

You should probably report that to the ODCE.
I'm not in Ireland. I'm overseas in the home of the cartels. I don't think that they'd appreciate me having a word. lol

I haven't, but then I have been careful in my financial dealings not to trade with companies or platforms that are widely acknowledged to harbour widespread criminal activity.
Ok, is there a list of approved cryptocurrency exchanges and non-approved exchanges? And if you're saying that none of them are and no funds can be accepted from a cryptocurrency exchange, let the regulators come out and say exactly that (because they're not saying that).

Given the scale of the financial industry, it absolutely is a non-issue. If the future development of Bitcoin is dependent on the financial system it rails against setting aside their rules to accommodate it, and turn a blind eye to the illegal activity that goes along with it, then Bitcoin is doomed. Most crypto advocates don't see this as an issue, it's mainly those who are purely in it for speculation have a problem.
This cuts both ways. Why has there not been a complete blanket ban on crypto?
Other than that, once I'm enabled to go about my business (all of it) on a daily basis and custody my own funds in crypto, I will. Until then, there are real world issues to cut through.

That was one of the key topics of Antonopulos' talk in UCD last year. It is in such jurisdictions that he sees crypto having function. The last think anyone in such a place is likely to want to do is cash out to a back account though.
Yes, A.A. has said that crypto has far more potential in developing countries. Exactly to that point - what I mentioned. There are FIAT based systems that are supposed to be about AML/KYC that are unreal in their bureaucracy and demands. It's not just about your experience in Ireland. As regards cashing out, I wasn't necessarily talking about cashing out crypto in that instance. That's any money that comes into the country. I'm not going into the finer points of it but it's a complete bureaucratic nightmare.

Fair enough, I can't understand how a rational person would see AML/KYC as nonsense.
Well, as I said - we simply don't agree on it - so lets leave it be. And by the way, that's Antonopoulos' view on the matter also.


There's no reason why the exchanges can't implement systems that would allow them become compliant, most of them aren't mature enough to do so yet, some are, others will likely get there. The challenge they have is much of the crypto world doesn't want compliance. They don't want that regulation and availability of audit trail, proof of identities, etc..
I'm not sure what it is you're looking for. Crypto exchanges do implement KYC/AML. I can't use a crypto exchange without doing the same identity verification as with a bank. What are we even doing it for if I still can't move my funds?

You're quite a few years behind the times if you think they're only investing now, there's even been a lot of the work carried out in Ireland.
There has been limited investment from such circles globally. I can't talk about Ireland specifically but I can't imagine how that's any further on. I've spoken to someone who operates an exchange in lreland and he lamented the lack of regulation in relation to crypto - and the need for regulatory clarity.

Satoshi's vision was to eliminate the banking system entirely. Not link the two together in any way.
I can't say I know the Bitcoin whitepaper from memory. Did he/she/they actually state 'eliminate the banking system'? My understanding is that it was definitely in response to mismanagement and wrong doing in the conventional system. I'd imagine it was with a view of 'offering an alternative'. I don't recall it being so militant as to replace it. If you've got a link to that tract of text, I'd be interested in reading it.
As regards 'linking the two together' - lets inject some realism. Bitcoin came from nothing - so how would you encourage someone to be part of it if they can't on-ramp? Yes, they can offer goods/services but that's not the only way and nor should there be an expectation of it being the only way. Now, 'link' sounds a bit formal. All I ask is the ability to be allowed to change money from one to the other. There are services that are quite happy to do that for me. But it seems there are establishment jobsworths that want to stand in the way of that.

I've never said Bitcoin should be banned, I've often said it's flawed, but never said it should be banned. Again, I don't see why a government would ban Bitcoin. It comes down to two choices:
1. Facilitate the development of Bitcoin/ crypto, scrap AML / fraud prevention rules and let the criminals have an easy life
2. Continue to make life as difficult as possible for the criminals, with some inconvenience to the development of Bitcoin/ crypto
Which option do you think the majority of citizens would choose? Exactly to your point, governments represent us all, that doesn't mean they implement legislation for us each individually.
Eh, when you WORD it like that, then no rational person would say boo to you. However, there is more than one way to look at it. If I was to tell you that criminals and paedo's are using the internet to carry on their illicit activity (as was bandied about when the web first emerged), based on your logic it should be shut down.

I don't feel that citizens should be deprived of something that can advance society on some hyped up agenda of 'you can't because its the tool of criminals'. Crypto does offer the potential to improve on aspects of current systems. And again, you'd have heard Antonopoulos take this stance...and I whole heartedly agree with him.

What great value does crypto have that would outweigh the negatives of rolling back regulations?
Regulations have to keep up to pace with technology. It's normal to have them updated to account for that. That's why the industry in the U.S. - and progressive politicians in the U.S. are calling for new legislation to deal with crypto. It's why some of the more progressive states in the U.S. (Wyoming) have passed a whole raft of laws in recent months to facilitate innovation.
 
Last edited:

tecate

Frequent Poster
Messages
568
And just to add -> this. <-

These guys are the standard bearers of the conventional financial world, right?
 

EmmDee

Registered User
Messages
226
I'm not sure what it is you're looking for. Crypto exchanges do implement KYC/AML. I can't use a crypto exchange without doing the same identity verification as with a bank. What are we even doing it for if I still can't move my funds?
Having seen the level of KYC expertise at a crypto broker and knowing someone who worked as a KYC person there - I can tell you they are not. They are playing at it - going through the motions. There is no expertise. It's usually the job of a junior person. It's box ticking with no oversight.

Just as a very simple example - they had concluded they needed reduced documentation from people from Costa Rica because it was a US territory and therefore could be treated as onshore US. So when basic geography is not understood, the complexities of multi-layered offshore trust vehicles are definitely not getting looked at
 

EmmDee

Registered User
Messages
226
Having seen the level of KYC expertise at a crypto broker and knowing someone who worked as a KYC person there - I can tell you they are not. They are playing at it - going through the motions. There is no expertise. It's usually the job of a junior person. It's box ticking with no oversight.

Just as a very simple example - they had concluded they needed reduced documentation from people from Costa Rica because it was a US territory and therefore could be treated as onshore US. So when basic geography is not understood, the complexities of multi-layered offshore trust vehicles are definitely not getting looked at
Just in case I wasn't clear - they didn't know the difference between Costa Rica and Puerto Rico
 

EmmDee

Registered User
Messages
226
Eh, when you WORD it like that, then no rational person would say boo to you. However, there is more than one way to look at it. If I was to tell you that criminals and paedo's are using the internet to carry on their illicit activity (as was bandied about when the web first emerged), based on your logic it should be shut down.

I don't feel that citizens should be deprived of something that can advance society on some hyped up agenda of 'you can't because its the tool of criminals'. Crypto does offer the potential to improve on aspects of current systems. And again, you'd have heard Antonopoulos take this stance...and I whole heartedly agree with him.
This is a straw man - nobody is saying "shut it down". The only thing being said is that if you want to bridge from one platform into the another, the rules of the platform have to be respected. Just as illegal activity on the internet is open to investigation and prosecution. You are creating a false binary argument that either it is a free-for-all or it is shut down. I could equally twist your position to be "internet regulation is bad so let paedos be paedos"

The position I am arguing is that crypto benefits from the checks and balances (and infrastructure) of the traditional banking industry inwards but doesn't want to play by the rules outwards (a "heads I win, tails you lose" scenario). So there is a risk (not absolute) that the outbound gets blocked (Different banks may take different approaches).
 

tecate

Frequent Poster
Messages
568
@EmmDee : The bottom line here is that by its inherent nature, crypto cannot provide a complete audit trail. One of it's key features is anonymity (and granted in the case of Bitcoin that may be psuedo anonymity but that's a debate for another day). Exchanges can't provide information they simply don't have.
There's no point taking this discussion further in terms of second hand info you have from someone that once worked in the trade. What I will say is that I know a lot of people who have delved in the crypto world. It doesn't matter who I talk to, every single one of them has the same experience in terms of banks shutting down accounts. It doesn't matter what exchange they use.
Now, it's a nascent industry. Centralised exchanges have had a bad reputation (rightly) - but then they started off as informal traders. However, I've seen them improve dramatically (even though I can't comment on the mechanics behind the scenes in terms of kyc/aml).

Notwithstanding that - lets take the biggest exchanges. If you have $1 billion + companies - the chances are theyre going to take an increasing professional approach to business right? What agenda do they have in not complying with regulation? It's in their interests to comply. Why wouldnt they?

Unless of course the regulator simply isn't doing its job in terms of determining the actions of the bank or the actions of the exchange. And lest you wonder why anyone associated with crypto wants regulation in this respect - exchanges are centralised - so they're no different to banks. It makes complete sense that they be regulated.

And by the way, it has been identified by some states and some countries and some anti-competitive practice authorities that the banks are often simply discriminating against funds coming from that sector above and beyond regulations. That's not coming from me - google it. Multiple instances exist. Governments and regulators act (or are supposed to act) in the interests of all of us. If I - as a consumer - can't fully use a crypto exchange in relation to banking, then there should be a duty for them to disclose as much. Put the information out there. Which exchange can we use. If you say that they're not complying with kyc/aml, then why are they not shutting them down then?

My guess is that the more professional and larger exchanges certainly are complying with these regulations. However, someone somewhere is not satisifed with the way in which Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies work at a fundamental level. The exchanges are not responsible for that. So.....that's why its not a straw man argument from me as regards my call for them to either ban it or embrace it. They have to make up their own minds,

And just as a final point, as regards rules having to be respected - in principal sure. However, be aware that many times rules, laws etc have been enacted that have been ill conceived. It seems many will just accept everything without ever once questioning anything.

Furthermore, it's quite common to have to update regulations to account for new technology. This is no different.
 
Top