BoE Governor says that Bitcoin should not be anonymous

TheBigShort said:
They sure are interested in blockchain technology. My guess as to why it has not been adopted wide scale by banking industry is that they cannot manipulate it in the way they can the current fiat system.
From my reading of Tether, it is exactly the type of crypto the banks would love to adopt, but as its underlying structure is fundamentally flawed, it will be exposed and return to zero.

The problem the banks have with bitcoin is that, if they were ever to adopt it, is that they would no longer be able to manipulate markets they way they can now. Hence, no uniform agreement in that sector to blockchain.
Click to expand...

Even that statement shows how bizarre this whole thing is. Why on earth would banks want something like Tether?? It is a company based in the British Virgin Islands that print money they claim is backed by actual USD cash reserves. It is nothing. Absolutely nothing. They won't even show where their reserves are held. They sacked their auditor. The printing of tether seems to be strongly correlated to the price of Bitcoin. More seems to be printed when the price falls so it appears as if it being used to prop up the price of Bitcoin which just happens to benefit Bitfinex who just happen to have a number of the same people in charge of both companies. That's if you can find out who is really in charge. And we are not talking about few million of USD here. We are talking hundreds of million. And people think Bitcoin can't be manipulated.

Bitcoin and other crypto currencies could turn out to be the most amazing things ever invented. Blockchain technology might change the world like the internet has. But they could also turn out to be the latest version of the mini disk. Good luck to people who believe and put their money where their mouth but I think I would rather be sitting here in the future wishing I invested rather than wishing I didn't invest.
 
tecate said:
LINK . That statement above is pure gold. You should keep that for reference in years to come.
Click to expand...
Followed the link.

Go into the offices of all those industries and every other industry and I'll bet you will find a raft of arch lever files. Arch lever files are very useful things. Blockchain seems to have the potential usefulness of ALFs, I am not dismissing it. But let's get some perspective here. Being able to validate land ownership without wasteful document searches is hardly on a par with being able to travel anywhere in the world within a matter of hours.

It was you yourself who characterised (rightly in my opinion) "blockchain good, crypto bad" as a nonsense. My summary would be "blockchain modest, crypto irrelevant". I think yours is "blockchain unbelievably marvelous, crypto a brilliant example". Let's agree to disagree.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
As to the potential utility of blockchain the examples I have read about would put it on a par, say, with the invention of the arch lever file. To compare it with the internet is like comparing the paper darts I used to throw with a modern passenger airliner.
Click to expand...

Hi Duke

That is brilliant. I have to say that I have a lot of Lever Arch files. I love them.

History
German Friedrich Soennecken invented ring binders in 1886 in Bonn, Germany. He also registered a patent on November 14, 1886, for his Papierlocher für Sammelmappen ("paper hole maker for folders", or hole punch). German Louis Leitz, founder of Leitz later made some important changes in development of ring binders in Stuttgart-Feuerbach. Leitz introduced the "finger hole" on the side of the binder to aid removal from crowded shelves.


The ISO standard two holes are 80 millimetres (3.1 in) apart, according to ISO 838. The four-hole version has no ISO standard. The distances between holes are 80 millimetres (3.1 in) (3×8).

It's a pity that the internet was not available then to see how they were reviewed.

Brendan
 
Sunny said:
Why on earth would banks want something like Tether?? It is a company based in the British Virgin Islands that print money they claim is backed by actual USD cash reserves. It is nothing. Absolutely nothing. They won't even show where their reserves are held.
Click to expand...

They have the Federal Reserve, they don't need tether, that's the point - the Federal reserve prints money out of nothing. Banks don't have the USD reserves to support their lending practices.

Sunny said:
Bitcoin and other crypto currencies could turn out to be the most amazing things ever invented. Blockchain technology might change the world like the internet has. But they could also turn out to be the latest version of the mini disk. Good luck to people who believe and put their money where their mouth but I think I would rather be sitting here in the future wishing I invested rather than wishing I didn't invest.
Click to expand...

You could be right, I would be of the view that I would rather live with the disappointment of losing money than live with the regret of not of having put my money up.

Having said that, to declare, my position in bitcoin is small, I have cashed out my stake with a small profit and reduced my holding to 60% of what I held before. I'm comfortable that if it all goes pop tomorrow, it will not adversely affect my standard of living nor if goes to $100,000 will be I be retiring anytime soon.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
Blockchain seems to have the potential usefulness of ALFs, I am not dismissing it. But let's get some perspective here. Being able to validate land ownership without wasteful document searches is hardly on a par with being able to travel anywhere in the world within a matter of hours.
Click to expand...
It's a strange analogy but I think you're misunderstanding that one specific example of the application of this technology. Using public ledger technology for land registry is not just about doing away with 'wasteful document searches'. If you think land registry is no big deal, tell that to those who have been the victims of Land Ownership Fraud and had to deal with title disputes. It's a global issue.

Otherwise, I'll leave you both to rearrange your Lever Arch files. :-D
 
TheBigShort said:
I would be of the view that I would rather live with the disappointment of losing money than live with the regret of not of having put my money up.
Click to expand...

That strikes me as odd. I don't like losing money. I don't really worry about what might have been.

If I buy $100k worth of Bitcoin today and it crashes to zero, then I would be more than disappointed. I would be hurt.

If I do nothing, and Bitcoin doubles from its current price and stays up, then I wouldn't worry too long about what might have been.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
That strikes me as odd. I don't like losing money. I don't really worry about what might have been.

If I buy $100k worth of Bitcoin today and it crashes to zero, then I would be more than disappointed. I would be hurt.

If I do nothing, and Bitcoin doubles from its current price and stays up, then I wouldn't worry too long about what might have been.
Click to expand...

Fair point Brendan. I should clarify.

I don't like losing money either. But I am prepared to invest/speculate/gamble on a number of things, like stocks, bitcoin and sports betting.

While I don't like losing money, I accept that the possibility is there and in turn I measure my stakes accordingly. I do this by acting on information that persuades me to consider the potential outcome and I place my stake accordingly on that outcome coming into fruition. Of course, I am wrong many times, but the only times I regret having put my money up is when I lose money following the advice/notions/tips of others rather than my own gut instinct.

My own gut instinct, based on lots of information, opinion (including your own) is that bitcoin is here to stay. Therefore, if I didn't have a stake in it and it does hang around, I would regret not having done so.
 
tecate said:
So if they have regulation at the on-ramp and off-ramp (via the exchanges), where's the problem? I'm guessing that one cryptocurrency will operate outside of regulation and will cater for illicit activity in the future. However, it's still going to be difficult for the stakeholders in that crypto to operate because of the point of weakness - where it's traded into and out of FIAT.
Click to expand...

If someone accepts Bitcoin for payment, they could presumably (I'm not an export) transfer these Bitcoins between a number of exchanges that they use (probably under different names) and eventually cash out to FIAT. There would want to be a LOT of money at stake for Revenue to feasibly get warrants for each and every exchange and do all the trawling.
 
Which is why the regulations are likely going to require exchanges to do KYC and only allow people to withdraw to bank accounts in their own names. In anticipation of such regulations the exchange I use already made me verify my ID and only allows me to withdraw cash to my own bank account.
 
If someone is concerned about KYC regarding exchanges, they can always use LocalBitcoins.
LocalBitcoins would be the same method as using things like Craigslist, DoneDeal or BuyAndSell and do in-person exchanges from one set of goods to Fiat.
 
@Sunny: NOBODY wants Tether if what we suspect they've done turns out to be true. However, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

@Firefly: There's a digital footprint left in the aftermath of what you describe (in the case of BTC).
 
Say I agree to pay a builder 30k for a job and we agree to pay in Monero. I pay the builder and my end is complete as I am in no way responsible for the builder's tax affairs. The builder then transfers the coins between 6 different exchanges where he has accounts, all in different countries around the globe, in places like Panama, the Caymen Islands, Russia and the Phillipines. and finally back to the initial exchange (say Coinbase). The funds are then cashed for FIAT. If the builder is audited he can then say the funds FIAT came from his Coinbase account. If Revenue then want to trace the origin of these funds, how can they? And how would it be worth their while?
 
tecate said:
It's a strange analogy...
Click to expand...
Yes, but to read that link of yours you would think blockchain is the greatest invention since the wheel. The fact is that it is a very low level technology on a par with Lever/Arch/Lever. Nobody would be talking about it at all if it was not for its extremely flamboyant and controversial offspring, bitcoin. So I was seeking to set in the light of really spectacular and life changing technologies like air travel, telecommunications, satellite TV, computers, the internet etc.

So in future when I assert that bitcoin is a complete illusion I am not going to add in the apologetic "but blockchain could be useful".
 
Firefly said:
If the builder is audited he can then say the funds FIAT came from his Coinbase account. If Revenue then want to trace the origin of these funds, how can they? And how would it be worth their while?
Click to expand...

Seems like the Revenue cant go further back than Coinbase.
Revenue can ask the builder for his Coinbase statement. There you can see Monero deposits and selling of Monero for Euros. You cant see if they came from you mobile wallet or from Panama, no need for many hops around the globe.

Now the builder can say:
  • it was a gift? :D CGT on full euro amount gained from the sale?
  • it was Monero he was holding for years? No buying receipt, so again CGT on the whole amount.
  • the truth? Income tax etc on the whole amount.
Its less tax (assuming high rate bands?) if the builder lies and tries to get away with CTG.
In the builder's case, surely a Revenue audit has a good chance to find out the truth, following the builder's business logs, supplier purchase receipts etc.
 
ant dee said:
Seems like the Revenue cant go further back than Coinbase.
Revenue can ask the builder for his Coinbase statement. There you can see Monero deposits and selling of Monero for Euros. You cant see if they came from you mobile wallet or from Panama, no need for many hops around the globe.

Now the builder can say:
  • it was a gift? :D CGT on full euro amount gained from the sale?
  • it was Monero he was holding for years? No buying receipt, so again CGT on the whole amount.
  • the truth? Income tax etc on the whole amount.
Its less tax (assuming high rate bands?) if the builder lies and tries to get away with CTG.
In the builder's case, surely a Revenue audit has a good chance to find out the truth, following the builder's business logs, supplier purchase receipts etc.
Click to expand...

But what if the crypto becomes more widely used and the builder, instead of cashing out, goes ahead and buys things himself with these cryptos, like going on holidays. The money is thus never converted to FIAT by him at all. How is Revenue ever going to figure it all out?
 
Firefly said:
But what if the crypto becomes more widely used and the builder, instead of cashing out, goes ahead and buys things himself with these cryptos, like going on holidays. The money is thus never converted to FIAT by him at all. How is Revenue ever going to figure it all out?
Click to expand...
Tax evasion?
Easier with cash is it not?
 
ant dee said:
Tax evasion?
Easier with cash is it not?
Click to expand...

For small amounts it is. But if someone wanted to evade tax with a larger amount, it could look attractive. Could someone use a web of exchanges in far flung jurisdictions and simply leave the crypto there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top