Technical feasibility of regulating public Blockchain explored
1–10 of 55 posts
Re: Technical feasibility of regulating public Blockchain explored
#2I am not sure how this could possibly work. To govern and regulate a public block-chain is fundamentally against what they stand for. A public block-chain-based cryptocurrency is meant to be resistant to government forces. They shouldn't be allowed to enforce rules on who or what you trade.
A better approach would be to regulate the exchanges, which is probably not too far off. However, even in this case decentralised exchanges like BISQ could most likely completely avoid any regulation.
Re: Technical feasibility of regulating public Blockchain explored
#3If this is the financial world you want, you just need a government database (ledger) of who has what currency and an API. Would be a lot simpler than blockchain which is designed to be de-centralized. Using blockchain for this is putting a square peg in a round hole.
Re: Technical feasibility of regulating public Blockchain explored
#4The technical feasibility isn't really explored here - and the 'regulatory node' aspect is essentially a 'trusted 3rd party' that power over the mutability of the blockchain.
It would seem like this layer would be fighting the very nature of systems like Bitcoin, or Ethereum.
Re: Technical feasibility of regulating public Blockchain explored
#5I am not sure how this could possibly work. To govern and regulate a public block-chain is fundamentally against what they stand for. A public block-chain-based cryptocurrency is meant to be resistant to government forces. They shouldn't be allowed to enforce rules on who or what you trade. A better approach would be to regulate the exchanges, which is probably not too far off. However, even in this case decentralise…
The approach is really to regulate anyone who puts themselves in a vulnerable position with the law. Any company that wants to be “legitimate” (raise money, hire employees, file taxes, distribute shares, etc.) puts itself in a subjugative position toward the government. Legitimacy requires legal exposure; you cannot reap its benefits while playing outside its rules.
If a company or market segment is organized in a way that makes regulation enforceable, then the government will find a way to regulate it. The only way for a company to avoid such regulation is to operate outside the bounds of the corporocracy, foregoing the benefits of legitimacy in hopes that the strengths of decentralization will ultimately prevail.
Re: Technical feasibility of regulating public Blockchain explored
#6I am not sure how this could possibly work. To govern and regulate a public block-chain is fundamentally against what they stand for. A public block-chain-based cryptocurrency is meant to be resistant to government forces. They shouldn't be allowed to enforce rules on who or what you trade. A better approach would be to regulate the exchanges, which is probably not too far off. However, even in this case decentralise…
Blockchain is simply a technology; it does not "stand for" anything. You could, perhaps argue, that it is technology that is not useful in the presence of regulatory authority; but that seems like a very broad statement to make. You would have to show that any level of regulatory would allow for a solution to all the problems that blockchains solve that is no worse than using a blockchain. In fact, they would probably have to solve those problems substantially better to overcome the network effects of using the more established technology.
Re: Technical feasibility of regulating public Blockchain explored
#7I am not sure how this could possibly work. To govern and regulate a public block-chain is fundamentally against what they stand for. A public block-chain-based cryptocurrency is meant to be resistant to government forces. They shouldn't be allowed to enforce rules on who or what you trade. A better approach would be to regulate the exchanges, which is probably not too far off. However, even in this case decentralise…
> To govern and regulate a public block-chain is fundamentally against what they stand for.
A block-chain has no stance for or against anything. Saying that a block-chain could be for or against governance is similar to saying that b*trees are pro-life.
Re: Technical feasibility of regulating public Blockchain explored
#8If this is the financial world you want, you just need a government database (ledger) of who has what currency and an API. Would be a lot simpler than blockchain which is designed to be de-centralized. Using blockchain for this is putting a square peg in a round hole.
Indeed. That, and you'd be able to process a lot more than 7 transactions a second!
Re: Technical feasibility of regulating public Blockchain explored
#9By all means, write that software, add KYC tokens, and release it on Github as a more trusted, regulated Bitcoin. See how many miners and users adopt your nonsense.
This article shows a deep misunderstanding of why crypto currencies took off.
Re: Technical feasibility of regulating public Blockchain explored
#10If this is the financial world you want, you just need a government database (ledger) of who has what currency and an API. Would be a lot simpler than blockchain which is designed to be de-centralized. Using blockchain for this is putting a square peg in a round hole.
There is an arguement to be made for starting with a secure system and adding in regulatory features. For instance, if we adopt the articles proposed regulatory node idea, where the only role of the trusted nodes is to approve transactions, then a complete compromise of the trusted systems would only allow an attacker to perform a DOS attack or bypass the regulatory checks. In contrast, in a traditional system, compromising the central party gives you the keys to the kingdom.