Cryptocurrency Now Fully Legal in South Korea
thenews.asia
thenews.asia
Still even with the current ruling only spot exchanges are legal and derivates are still not allowed which means koreans exchanges are still not allowed to offer shitcoin futures with 125x leverage.
This is perceived to be the case, yes, but I have seen no evidence indicating that it is in fact the case. In fact, all measures I can find put Korea somewhere around the middle of developed countries in social mobility.
> One of the main caveats to the enactment of the amendment is that cryptocurrency exchanges will need to comply with reporting requirements. Although the larger exchanges mostly comply with the new rules already, small and medium-sized exchanges may have trouble obtaining the contracts to reach full compliance.
Even if we don't agree, cryptocurrencies are now an unstoppable force. We can say that the worst case scenario for cryptocurrencies would be to share the same destiny as the BitTorrent protocol [3] where there is a lot of usage but is not popular. Cryptocurrencies are moving beyond BitTorrent fate because there are many financial institutions, regulators, etc that are connecting these two worlds.
Ironically, it is more practical to use stable coins for global transfers than the volatile currencies in the permissionless blockchains that host these stable coins [4], and also more practical and cheaper than a wire transfer between two US accounts.
I am not saying that cryptocurrencies are not used for illicit purposes also, or that there is some magic intrinsic value behind them. Just saying the in the political context cryptocurrencies are gaining territory.
[1] Germany on chain: National Blockchain Strategy Released - https://medium.com/@philippsandner/germany-national-blockcha... & Bitcoin officially recognized as a legal financial instrument in Germany: https://www.somagnews.com/bitcoin-officially-recognized-lega...
[2] State Regulations on Virtual Currency and Blockchain Technologies: https://www.carltonfields.com/insights/publications/2018/sta...
[3] File-Sharing and VPN Traffic Grow Explosively: https://torrentfreak.com/filesharing-and-vpn-traffic-grow-ex...
[4] The Rise of Stable Coins: Beyond Facebook Libra: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rise-stable-coins-beyond-face...
I'm sorry, but this is far from obvious.
> We can say that the worst case scenario for cryptocurrencies would be to share the same destiny as the BitTorrent protocol [3] where there is a lot of usage but is not popular.
Actually, the worst case is a crash and the whole scene collapsing in a mess of criminal trials and bitter recriminations.
Just because cryptocurrencies are 'legalised' doesn't mean a whole lot for the long term. In fact I would hope to see this sort of thing result in much more active enforcement of existing legal and financial protections, something the cryptocurrency scene has been unnervingly able to dodge so far.
> gaining territory
Not in many places. They seem to be seen by most folks I encounter as both passe (that was so 2017!) and basically as crimebux.
I'm also enjoying the frantic handwaving away of power usage concerns in the wake of the current rebirth of the green movement, post Thunberg.
And if there isn't?
One of the failure states for cryptocurrencies at present seems to be a period of falling demand accompanied with a falling hashrate, at which point the blockchain can be manipulated relatviely cheaply by bad actors and all hell breaks loose.
Bisq appears to rely on bank transfer services, which are usually traceable, reversible etc, so I'm not sure it's quite the panacea one would hope.
> And if there isn't?
I feel like this question is meant for speculators and investors.
> Bisq appears to rely on bank transfer services, which are usually traceable, reversible
Bank trasnfers are of course not anonymous, but there's nothing linking them to crypto trading, because those are direct transfers from buyer to seller. The platform, Bisq, doesn't ever touch the money. Bank transfers are sometimes reversible (called chargeback), but for example for SEPA that's only in the case of theft and you're not actually obligated to return the money, but you would have to explain why you received it. The worst that I've heard happen is a bank account being frozen, because of suspect activity (unexplained transfers from many different private individuals). Bisq has effective mechanisms for dealing with the chargeback risk. If anyone reading this is at all interested in trustless system, I highly recommend taking a closer look at Bisq.
The platform does require trust, it requires trust in the banking system and in the person you're transacting with. Not sure really what it achieves apart from delegating trust from a central authority to a disparate set of individuals. I'm not convinced that's a good thing.
You don't have to trust the person you're trading with, because the platform uses an escrow system (multi-signature BTC addresses), account age signing (an old account is unlikely to have been stolen) and has mediation. That leaves negligible risk, of which you're aware.
> delegating trust from a central authority to a disparate set of individuals. I'm not convinced that's a good thing
Bisq provides very similar decentralization and privacy guarantees as Bitcoin (which is the point, because a system is as decentralized/private as its weakest link), so I'll delegate answering this to the myriad of articles about Bitcoin's trustworthiness.
But still acknowledges that some methods can result in the money being recalled after the BTC has been released.
> account age signing (an old account is unlikely to have been stolen)
Unlikely, but you still have to trust that the account hasn't simply been used to build up trust before the big score, which is something we see over and over and over again in the cryptocurrency space.
> Bisq provides very similar decentralization and privacy guarantees as Bitcoin
Which is absolutely not the same thing I pointed out to you as the problem. You can't just say "but bitcoin!" to wave away that this platform still involves trust, and not trust in a regulated actor like a bank, but trust in a number of actors, any of whom may not be trustworthy. You may not have to trust the platform itself, but it's not clear to me that that is any sort of positive.
As I said in my comment and my post[4]: [even if they crash] stable coins are one of the major drivers of cryptocurrencies/blockchains and by definition fully collateralized stable coins does not crash or if they crash it is because the underlying standard financial system crashes.
I also highlight that in this context the most interesting thing about blockchains is that "Openness and interoperability have become more important than decentralization".
[4] The Rise of Stable Coins: Beyond Facebook Libra: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rise-stable-coins-beyond-face...
Which ones are those?
The biggest (Tether) have admitted that they are not fully collateralised and withrawn their claims to such. In a court filing last year they announced they had around 73% of the funds available in 'cash or cash-like instruments', but even that hasn't really been verified, nor is it apparent whether "cash-like instruments" includes other cryptocurrencies.
>I also highlight that in this context the most interesting thing about blockchains is that "Openness and interoperability have become more important than decentralization".
The most interesting thing to me about "blockchains" is how the hype train is still limping on, after almost zero actual delivery of anything useful or world-changing. I expect it to continue to lose steam, as all the pupported use-cases turn out (as they all have so far) either to be some sort of impractical techno-utopian dream, an unnecessary complication where a database works just fine (better in fact), or an outright scam.
That just doesn't make any damn sense, whatsoever.
Stablecoins may not be practically subject to these restrictions (they may have other very serious risks and limitations, but not the same ones as USD).
So choose whatever currency is best for you. Isn't it nice to have a choice?
Presumably they are subject to these restrictions in law, it's just that right now they fly under the radar.
So ... you're advising people that stablecoins are a good way to break the law?
So ... you're in favor of innocent people having their money confiscated on the spot without due process?
Your imagination beyond that is up to you.
Because headlines focus on the amount of power used and not the source of power used, which is overwhelmingly renewable and wasted energy that had no prior economic use which undermines the whole reductive argument about power used, and is an outcome resolved purely by market forces.
Let me know if you would like examples for your independent corroboration.
And here's the handwaving.
Here's a counter-example:
https://www.coindesk.com/a-new-york-power-plant-is-mining-50...
What's the point of starting your comment by unnecessarily painting this entire community with such a broad brush and dismissing the nuanced opinions on cryptocurrencies found here? What does it add? It just makes me more skeptical of whatever you're about to say, to the point where I barely feel like it's worth reading.
The problem is more the social and economic aspects of cryptocurrencies. The community is filled with scammers, get rich quick schemes, and self-appointed blockchain experts who have no idea what a Merkle tree is. All these people who see cryptocurrencies as this profitable investment creates a roller coaster market that undermines their usefulness as an actual currency. What you want in a currency is stability, you don't want to suddenly not be able to afford rent because the market collapsed over the last week.
Is it? A few people got super rich, a few others did alright, and there have been several notable failures or downright frauds.
The huge amount of obvious marketing pitches also did (and does) make it sound super sketchy.
But I agree it's here to stay.
[4] The Rise of Stable Coins: Beyond Facebook Libra: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rise-stable-coins-beyond-face...
> average annual return of 350%
That's misleading. The price is currently at the ~35-40% retrace from the high of 20k. What happened so far (for example the rally to 20k) is not an indicator that Bitcoin's value will grow or even be sustained.
I'm not saying Bitcoin doesn't have speculative value, but you have to be already an experienced analyst and trader (in case of day trading) to have a chance at profiting from it. "If it were easy everyone would be doing it" proverb is true. Crypto is much harder than forex for example. Again, unless you really know what you're doing, trading will hardly be more profitable than going to the casino.
If you buy and hold for multiple years, on average you will make 350% a year, very similarly to how you would see a certain level of average annual returns from buying and holding on the conventional stock market. The growth is being fueled by the adoption of a new technology.
Bitcoin is well known and widely used at this point, even if it hasn’t reached its maximum audience it’s approaching that. Contrast the stock market who’s potential is capped by a combination of fossil fuels and the solar radiation flowing into the earth, which we’re no where near using efficiently, and you can see why they’re not at all in the same category.
Where you see governments 'stealing value', the rest of us see sensible monetary policy.
God save us from idiots who would hand said policy to a handful of software engineers and a self-interested mining cartel.
And the credit crisis was good because it flooded the market with cheap credit... That did what, exactly?
God saves us from the real idiots - those that think they have all the answers, instead of humbly accepting how little they know, about what they imagine they can design
(Those idiots are unfortunately those that seem to be good at the game of: "heads i win, tails others lose"
What adoption? Adoption appears to have stalled and fallen back, with multiple companies having announced that attempting to accept bitcoin had been a waste of time or even a net negative.
When actively trading, profitably is calculated a bit differently, but I presume we're talking about a one off trade.
Speculating on a volatile asset, as an admitted layman, based on non-news is gambling, period.
>bitcoin still has an average annual return of 350%
Utterly irrelevant to all of the buyers in at $15,000+.
It ain’t gambling if you win
Option 1: I offer you 99,999/100,000 chance to lose everything you have, And a 1/100,000 chance to get 100,001 times more. Expected value is net positive. And yet, you’d be pretty dumb to do it. Gambling.
Option 2: I offer you 9/10 chance to get 1.01x more. 1/10 chance to get 0x. Expected loss. Better than 50% odds of gain. Gambling.
Option 3: Coin toss. Triple your lifespan on heads. Die on tails. Definitely gambling.
The point in option 1 and 3 is to illustrate that betting 10 times isn’t an option in many systems. You can’t say you should always do something because the risk reward is favorable. That’s still gambling, and sometimes a stupid decision.
The average outcome of a gamble is not the likely outcome of taking it. And even ignoring that, it’s still a gamble unless you can confidently run it at sufficient scale to hit the theoretical distribution.
Sure anyone can lose money and it's a gamble, but it's an educated one, roulette is not