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.