What would they have done if the ban did not occur and they raked in lots of cash?
Would they have donated it to the Kosovan public?
Of course not.
So they should not expect bailouts from the Kosovan public now.
Would they have donated it to the Kosovan public?
Of course not.
So they should not expect bailouts from the Kosovan public now.
Even if a company wouldn't donate any of their profits, if they make an investment based on laws, and the government then changes those laws to make what they are doing illegal, that's still an outcome that we should avoid; both out of a sense of fairness, but also out of self-interest, otherwise people will make fewer investments, which is a bad thing.
(Though no idea on the details in this specific case - I just dislike this question and its invalid assumption.)
But, I was answering the conclusion of parent's post:
> So they should not expect bailouts from the Kosovan public now.
Bailouts might make sense if the government broke an implicit or explicit promise to the company about what kind of business can be done.
The thing will out generate money, until the government recognizes bitcoins as an asset and requires moving those assets to be centralized, tracked, you can't do anything about. So prior taxation, it has to be regulated.
Then warrants can be served equipment can be confiscated and people be put in front of a judge
Taxing it is easy, tax the transaction which is public on the blockchain.
Institute KYC rules and enforce them, punishing anyone who holds an anonymous wallet.
Bitcoin isn’t some magical thing; the old crowbars reverse engineering works even better on it since all transactions are public on the blockchain forever.
Isn't it about as difficult as asking someone for their cash? People aren't happy to part with it, but the $5 xkcd wrench usually does it.
You can hide a paper wallet or storage medium in a sock at a friend's house, but that's no different from cash. Cash is also easy to spend anonymously; try hiding a bitcoin transaction from others or make its traces vanish to avoid problems later.
I don't foresee many issues with banning bitcoin at all, it's more of a political problem.
Now the detainee gets to choose between remaining in prison or giving up their assets.
This is too much a TV show story. Since the state doesn't really know how much bitcoins they have, the key owner can share only a fraction of their wallets (and they can have as many wallets as they please).
Without crypto currency being regulated, state can seize the physical assets but getting all the bitcoins is highly unlikely.
In the real world refusal to pay a fine or surrender an item is itself a crime and punishable with state power. You're right that the government can't extract crypto assets without the consent of those controlling the relevant keys. You're forgetting the depth of ability of a government to compel consent.
No, you, can't exist outside of society and its influence, even if your "money" is digital.
These are just bullshit libertarian feel good narratives that are as realistic as people declaring themselves sovereign citizens
They need to eat, buy cars, houses.
If they have more money they buy more -> more tax income.