Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Bitcoin United Kingdom

Time To Regulate Bitcoin, Says UK Treasury Committee Report (theguardian.com) 111

Posted by msmash from the modest-proposal dept.
Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are "wild west" assets that expose investors to a litany of risks and are in urgent need of regulation, MPs on the Treasury select committee have said. From a report: The committee said in a report that consumers were left unprotected from an unregulated industry that aided money laundering, while the government and regulators "bumble along" and fail to take action. The Conservative MP Nicky Morgan, the chair of the committee, said the current situation was unsustainable. "Bitcoin and other crypto-assets exist in the wild west industry of crypto-assets. This unregulated industry leaves investors facing numerous risks," Morgan said. "Given the high price volatility, the hacking vulnerability of exchanges and the potential role in money laundering, the Treasury committee strongly believes that regulation should be introduced."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Time To Regulate Bitcoin, Says UK Treasury Committee Report More

Time To Regulate Bitcoin, Says UK Treasury Committee Report

Comments Filter:

  • But they wanted it that way (Score:3)

    by WoodstockJeff ( 568111 ) on Thursday September 20, 2018 @12:33PM (#57348942) Homepage

    The public wants bitcoin because it isn't regulated by any government.

    They just don't like the risk that lack of regulation entails.

    • Can't have the rewards without the risks now can we?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Unless you're a big bank, then your risks are assumed by the taxpayer.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hey! ( 33014 )

        Can't have the rewards without the risks now can we?

        You can if you're rich enough to buy politicians.

    • Haha no, clueless investors are suckered by hype. That's all.

    • That is why idology fails. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Thursday September 20, 2018 @01:28PM (#57349326)

      Normally an Ideology based on absolutism fails.
      Government Regulation is Bad! However without it there is a lot of abuse in the system without any peaceful ways to reconcile it.
      Government Regulation is Good! However too much regulation can stifle innovation and risk taking, because Regulation takes much to long to adapt.

      The thing is there needs to be a balance, and to make it worse, the balance point is never in the same spot. Sometimes the needle needs to be towards the left and other times it needs to be at the right. Fixing it in the middle is just as bad as being fixed in either direction, because in the Middle no one is happy.

      We see in history good times under a particular political direction, then we see bad times under that same direction. They switch to the other side then things are good again, then they fail.

      • People tend to assume that GOVERNMENT regulation is somehow superior to individuals making decisions on their own. But government is just made of more individuals, subject to the same ability to be corrupted and same temptations to cheat, lie or rip off their fellow man for personal gain.

        Obviously, the IDEA is that people in government were vetted and selected by the rest of the public as their preferred choices to "speak for them" by taking a stance on issues. But the result is always a compromise, where a

        • Not Superior in its decisions, but powerful enough to enforce them.
          So people are playing the game with the same set of rules. Without Government rules and enforcement there is no recourse to bad actors and encourages additional bad actors, because then different forms of Power will take over and take control.
          A democratic-republic government at least gives the the common person a chance to to control such corruption and alternate temptation.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      I don't think the public as a whole has anything to do with the creating of crypotcurrencies, only a tiny fraction of the public has anything to do with the cryptocurrency bubble, and most of them were speculating, not taking some kind of political position.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by jwhyche ( 6192 )

      Actually the public doesn't want bitcoin at all. The only people who want bitcoin is mostly people looking to get rich quick, those looking to nefarious things on the internet, and a few individuals that value their privacy. What the public wants is a regulated stable currency that they can depend on.

  • Vauge Much? (Score:3)

    by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Thursday September 20, 2018 @12:53PM (#57349068)

    What *exactly* are they proposing? They listed some issues with bitcoin that come with pretty much any other kind of investment, but investors aren't protected from, such as loosing all of your principal, forgetting passwords, and getting hacked.

    These all happen to current traditional investors with current regulation. What exactly are they proposing to prevent this from happening with Bitcoin?

    • *Vague (Score:2)

      by JBMcB ( 73720 )

      Vauge - I think I just invented a new pretentious color name.

    • I think they're proposing belling the cat.

    • What *exactly* are they proposing? They listed some issues with bitcoin that come with pretty much any other kind of investment, but investors aren't protected from, such as loosing all of your principal, forgetting passwords, and getting hacked.

      These all happen to current traditional investors with current regulation. What exactly are they proposing to prevent this from happening with Bitcoin?

      I think it's more trying to sound "in the now" than actually proposing any real legislation. What can they do?

      Public Education programs. Regulate advertising for bitcoin. They could try banning access to exchanges. Try taxing gains or taxing miners. They could make commercial sites not able to accept the coin, or give information about the person providing the coins.

      It's very difficult to know how successful they'd be with any of those options. You'd need a concentrated international effort if you REA

    • Other investment types are regulated, though, for exactly the risks you noted. It isn't the investment itself or its performance that is regulated. It's the behavior of the people working in the trade.

      I used to work at a financial company. We carried insurance policies against our own negligence or accidents, and when somebody's account did indeed get hacked, we covered their loss. In our contracts and promotional materials, we made clear that the investments were investments, not a savings account, and the

    • They're proposing a method by which the regulators can skim off the top, like the other stuff they pretend to regulate...Seems plenty of people lost their shirt in the 2007-8 crash on regulated investments, so that's a smoke screen.

      • More rent-seeking. Fabulous.

        And of course they actually say out loud that regulation is needed because of, among other things, hacking. That's funny. What regulatory act would have any real impact on any of the hacking efforts even now underway by whoever wants to try?

        Sorry, that is obvious.

    • Not like they are spending time working on brexit. I imagine they want to prevent capital flight.
    • If I could, I would upvote this..

  • It's not FOR investing (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    cryptocurrencies are "wild west" assets that expose investors to a litany of risks

    So don't invest in it!

    If people decided to invest in tulips, would you regulate tulips? Or would you just say "Hey, don't do that, numbnuts. And if you do it despite everyone's advice, don't complain about the results!"?

    • Ignorant of history, tulip market did come under regulation in 17th century, look it up.

  • ... the potential role in money laundering ...

    Do they mean "money laundering" as in spending your money in ways they don't approve of, or "money laundering" as in receiving money for selling stuff they don't approve of?

    • "Money laundering" has a very specific definition. It's any effort to hide the source of an illegal income.

      Being completely unregulated (by design) makes it extremely easy to simply transfer Bitcoin from a tainted source to a variety of wallets, then back to a clean wallet. With no way to prove ownership of the intermediate wallets (or worse, exchanges that keep centralized wallets without ownership records), there's effectively no way to track where illicit income is going.

      Yes, cash has the same issue, whi

    • I think they mean "money laundering" as in receive money for selling stuff/services society doesn't approve of, then with that money buying something that people do approve of, then flipping that product again. So on paper it seems like that money in your hand was from a legit service.

      It is called "money laundering" because they convert dirty money to clean money.

  • How would the UK government, on it's own, regulate the BitCoin market? It's not UK based, it's distributed globally, and it has users all over the world. Even if they COULD, WTH would give the UK the legal authority to even try? They might as well decide to regulate the Dollar, the Yuan, or International gold prices. Am I just fundamentally misunderstanding something?

    • Points of entry and egress can be monitored, records subpoenaed, traffic blocked to those and to chain servers, use made illegal, etc.

      Sure that can all be circumvented but market cap would take massive hit

    • Yes, you are. What people under the jurisdiction of the UK legislature can or canâ(TM)t do can and is legislated by... *drumroll* UK lawmakers. Goverments generally do not give two shits about âbut in this other country!!!1â. They have jurisdiction, they have the mandate, they make the rules. Apparently itâ(TM)s news to some people that many western goverments already legislate precisely the type of thing being discussed here: in some circumstances, companies are forbidden by law to offe

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      A UK person sets up a bank account in a distant nation.
      The "bank" in that nation has a new law to report any UK banking activity back to the UK.
      UK person fills that far away bank account with their online cyber cash conversion.
      UK gov expects the UK person to report that new bank account. The new wealth and then pay tax.
      No tax paid? Time for the UK gov to start asking questions.

      Too many nations now have new banking tax evasion/avoidance and deep terrorism financing laws that open their entire bankin
    • Probably using the same legal apparatus that is used to constraint other human interactions?
  • No, no, no, no, no....

    Now fuck off or I shall No you again.
  • The banks hold the master ledger of all the accounts they have. You regulate a bank saying what transactions are allowed, safeguards they must make, insurance etc.
    There is no such entity in crypto currencies. The ledger is what everyone agrees the ledger is.
    The UK can regulate the exchanges where the exchanges interact with existing banks, that's really about it.

    Finally, other than Monero, all crypto currencies suck for money laundering. Every transaction is public for everyone to see. If the UK gov
  • Nobody in crypto wants regulation except for people who already have money since it might bring institutional money. The point of the system was to work around regulations and countries that try to block it. People who even mention regulation do not understand it or just want to make it all illegal.

  • Crypto in general is a highly centralised waste of electricity. It's rather pointless. Regulating it is like regulating drugs, the wrong direction to go.

  • Regulate bitcoin exchanges in your own country, sure. But feel small. There is no way to regulate bitcoin worldwide from the small corner you reside in. I and others will always be able buy items for bitcoin, without regard to the unenforceable restrictions of either the countries on either end of the transaction. I will be able to meet someone in a cafe, receive cash, and transfer bitcoin. The governments involved will just have to trust their citizens. In America at least, in theory, the people ARE the go

    • I will be able to meet someone in a cafe, receive cash, and transfer bitcoin.

      This is yet another of the many motivations for governments pushing "cashless" currency/exchange systems; to eliminate side-channels for moving/holding wealth/capital outside of government regulatory & enforcement infrastructure control.

      Strat

  • Translation (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Bitcoin is in urgent need of taxing.

  • The action to regulate bitcoin will make it more difficult for both North Korea and Russia to launder dirty money, other than at "golf courses" run by their cronies.

  • "regulate" (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    You mean eradicate. Cant have that anonymous stuff going on now can we?

  • Ha ha sure. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Thursday September 20, 2018 @04:10PM (#57350612) Journal

    "You know, I don't really think we need to regulate this, do we?"

    -Said no government body, ever.

    • There are plenty of things that governments haven't the slightest interest in regulating. You just never find them listed anywhere or hitting the news. You do get some of that if you ever despressed and bored enough to watch CSPAN.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Actually the current UK government, the Conservative Party, favours de-regulation and has been criticised for removing important protections against things like financial irresponsibility. They have failed to regulate corporation tax properly, despite sustained calls for it.

      Similarly in the US I see that the Trump administration is busy ripping up rules and trying to down-size. Wasn't one of Sean Spicer's famous claims that Trumpcare was only a fraction of the size of Obamacare, implying that less regulatio

  • "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." --Reagan

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close