6

As some examples which seem logical to me, but should only be taken as examples:

A government that is susceptible to commercial lobbying is probably more likely to be pressured by banks to disallow competition with their services.

Governments that have a corruption problem might also be quietly bribed to legislate against a currency that competes with the official one.

Countries that support open source software might tend to have a "for the good of the community attitude" that matches the philosophy of Bitcoins.

For this question, it's probably important to provide references/examples (such as information about who is trying to stop use of bitcoins and why).

I see the need to ask this question to help provide a foundation for this one: Is there a list of countries that are not likely to persecute bitcoin businesses?

| improve this question | |
  • I think this question isn't really a good fit for the SE model, as the answer should be a list of things, and is unlikely to be contributed by a single author. People might like to add to it over time, but for now I will just accept an answer. – Highly Irregular Dec 12 '11 at 0:40
2

Countries which have strict AML (anti-money laundering) laws are less likely to freely allow Bitcoin use and exchange.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    I suppose on a Bitcoin forum we are supposed to know what AML stands for ;-) Comes with the territory. – Thilo Nov 10 '11 at 8:53
  • 1
    @Thilo - sorry, expanded now. – Meni Rosenfeld Nov 10 '11 at 11:47
4

I believe the Swedish government would be less likely to crack down on Bitcoins. I believe they have a political party called the "Pirate Party", which as far as I know, got elected as a reaction to the crackdown on Pirate Bay. I would love for someone to comment, in order to confirm this.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Currently the Swedish Pirate Party holds seats in the EU parliament, not on the Swedish one. It is spreading to many countries anyway, most notably Germany. – o0'. Aug 3 '12 at 15:18
1

I think whatever views comes up will always be views - why? Because decisions come from groups of people unless its a dictatorship!

What we are seeing is a East - West divide. More eastern countries are portraying Bitcoin in a negative light whereas the west is embracing it more and more.

Ultimately governments represent their people. If this was 2009 and Bitcoin just started and governments were aware, then I don't think Bitcoin would be here.

But because it had room to grow, it is at a stage where people are starting to have needs for it, so governments have to consider that view - is it positive for its citizens or not.

Not the hopes and wishes or wants, but practically. Today Bitcoin has a good appearance. Many people interested, so it has a chance to become something big like Facebook.

Ultimately though its all our actions with these technologies. If too many people abuse it, then it will be more restricted.

It's easy to see. If too many services close and coins disappear (MtGox anyone), then it will bring regulation which will stifle the Bitcoin world.

If too many people use it for grey/shady/black market use, then it will cause certain things.

Overall the best thing for Bitcoin or any of these related technologies is for those responsible to act responsibly and for the consideration for humanity rather then self.

Then Bitcoin will thrive like the internet thrives.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Thanks for the answer. Not sure I agree with regulation stifling the Bitcoin world though; it was deregulation that is thought to have caused the GFC (though dollars have hardly been stifled because of it!). – Highly Irregular Mar 25 '14 at 8:20
  • I think that regulation of Bitcoin related businesses will ultimately make it safer to use Bitcoin as a store of money and thus will be essential for a breakthrough to the mainstream. I don't think that Bitcoin transactions will be regulated much in the future beyond tax demands on the value gain between purchase and sale – simply because laws that can't be enforced only serve arbitrariness. – Murch♦ Mar 25 '14 at 9:58
  • @HighlyIrregular I did not say anything about regulation stifling bitcoin. GFC... not sure what that is. Perhaps you was answering another answer? – Thoth Mar 26 '14 at 15:03
  • GFC = Global Financial Crisis (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%9308 ). Your words were "...it will bring regulation which will stifle the Bitcoin world". Speaking of which, I'm still surprised about the lack of a market response (ie a drop) to the US IRS announcement to treat bitcoins as property when it comes to capital gains tax. Maybe it just hasn't been publicised enough yet? – Highly Irregular Mar 27 '14 at 3:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.