If this legislation passes, any computer scientist, mathematician, programmer who is working with crypto tokens & block chain can technically be held liable for possessing a crypto currency when they run their program?
Yes, the plan to jail those who hold cryptocurrency in a democratic country is preposterous; but this shows how sensitive a developing economy could be when it comes to its money. It's not like the data of their citizens which these countries give a free run to the hoarders, money is totally different ball game.
I wonder if Facebook decides to give a free crypto to everyone who holds a FB account, anyone in India with a FB account will go to jail including those who proposing such legislations?
P.S I don't hold any cryptocurrency due to its impact on energy and thereby planet (Also, I'm including this just in case the legislation passes in my country!).
No it isn’t. We jail people who hold child pornography in democratic countries as well. The core of a democratic country is that it’s governed by democratically elected representatives, not that it’s citizens be allowed access to whatever they want independent of criminal consequences.
I get you and others are calling to the sentiment of “how can we be free if we aren’t free to x” but the value of that sentiment isn’t independent of what X is. You aren’t free to rob banks and you aren’t free to print you own paper currency. Just because crypto is digital and “difficult to stop”(it isn’t though) does not mean that it has to be freely available to business and individuals. It’s still up to our democratically elected representatives to decide if they feel private institutions printing money without control will damage the economy significantly enough to not allow it.
As far as I know, in the U.S. you are free to print your own paper currency, just so long as it doesn't conterfeit that which is produced by the Federal Reserve Bank. Also, there's nothing illegal about conducting transactions with it either, provided you can find willing trade partners.
This is not the case, when a 'private' currency gains traction or seemingly encroaches a territory, which is traditionally assigned to government ─ it gets shutdown.
Or if they had been owned by Disney for that matter...
It's been around for a long time.
The other caveat is that if someone owes you a debt you can't require them to pay in your own "funny money" currency. You have to accept US dollars if offered, otherwise the debt won't be legally enforceable.
Indeed, this is currently done. For example:
Please appropriate your logic on that.
I don't see the issue. When a democratic society thinks something isn't good, they can outlaw it. There are all sorts of regulations on financial transactions and investments already.
I'm not trying to imply that cryptocurrencies are ponzi schemes, just that when something is illegal, doing it on your computer doesn't make it not illegal.
I hope cops understand the difference. When I was in school, computer science teachers asked us to remove the shoes, because 'virus from it' would infect the computers at the lab.
> I call authoritarian someone who thinks that they can circumvent an individual's freedoms arbitrarily by finding enough people to agree with him/her.
I suspect there are a lot of people who agree that counterfeiting money isn't something that should be allowed. Are they all authoritarian as well?
If following the principles leads to a degradation of the rule of law what would you do?
Do you propose an objective criteria by which a state can legitimately dictate behavior on one set of Xs and not another set of Xs? If not, then you are by omission saying that every totalitarian state is legitimate. I suspect you might want to say, if the 51% wants something, that makes it legitimate. In that case you are're saying a murderous state is legitimate. (I won't go full Godwyn here, but suffice to say that many democratically elected regimes have committed legal murder on a massive scale and continued to enjoy majority support.)
Hey, here's an idea for an objective criteria: Does X invade any other particular person's life, liberty or property? Banning crypto fails that test.
India is even less ready for relaxing capital controls. They will tell Facebook to block libra for their citizens or be firewalled. No one is going to jail, but libra will not succeed there.
At-least 3 months in SA sounds reasonable incase we have to process any refund, though I'm not trying to belittle the discomfort faced by your mother.
Since there is no centralized government, they lost their money.
Source: wrote some articles on my own "media" website to try out SEO.
Most popular article, how to recover Bitcoin password
I noticed that you expanded a bit on the "cryptocurrency" angle. May I invite you to a different perspective for a second. I don't think Facebook cares whether or not their Libra is crypto or otherwise. Despite appearances this is not a discussion about crypto anything. Facebook is not out to revolutionize money. Facebook has an ecosystem, a walled garden. It also has first mover advantage in many economies with a quasi monopoly. So in essence it has a huge potential market that's just sitting out there waiting. But what Facebook doesn't have (yet) is a tap to suck at the delicious nectar. That's where the Libra comes in.
Facebook is willing to play ball with whoever will allow them to install the tap. They will do all that is necessary for the tap to be legitimized. If it means pinning it to the Euro, the Dollar, the Yuan, it'll be so. Just as long as it's recognized. Once that happens, it's more advertisement revenue and a slew of new paid services through the walled garden. Meanwhile out of the walled garden, revenue from transaction fees to an unprecedented level.
This is not a cryptocurrency conversation.
Crypto or not, it is still a digital currency which is not being controlled by the central bank of the country i.e. India in my example. Especially when the country is trying to roll out a digital currency of its own.
For the sake of argument, let's assume Facebook has no compliance trouble with any of the countries; will Libra be successful? It most definitely will, because Facebook has the capacity diminish friction and users would use Libra like any other coins found in a mobile game like candy crush.
zuckcoin isn't cryptocurrency, it's digital currency, like gold in WoW
Anything which is not official digital currency will be liable for action.
Just to note, the impact of Libra on energy is very very light compared to the current banking system. It does not use proof of work.
I have a strong hunch it just wouldn't let Libra be legal currency.
Besides, given that currently government is run by a ulta right wing party, so it might be possible they wouldn't agree to Facebook plans.
It's not about censorship, it's about taxation.