[reDraft] Regulation of Cryptocurrencies

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Yes, anything can be hacked. Lord knows the tragic results of the 2012 Rock Hack. That was really bad.

IC: "This merely highlights our case. If they can be hacked, this opens up potential criminal acts that can cause harmful effects to the currency. Millions of currency belonging to a vast populace all sucked up by one hacker. We can't take that risk."

So if you own a bank account, you should take all of your money out because someone could hack it? Anything online could be in danger of being hacked that's just the risk. Someone could hack into your account and do whatever they want.

"Such a hack is generally insured and the funds traceable. You yourself admitted that cryptocurrencies are not traceable. Ambassador, why are you forcing states to tolerate this when it's painfully clear that they aren't interested?"

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC: First, fix your quotes.

OOC: So Forbes journalists interpreted Goldman economists to say that crypto"currencies" could become like gold. Not like money. Furthermore, this is speculation, it doesn't follow that crypto"currencies" will become like gold. In other words, if we trust Forbes to have summarised the statements of the economists correctly, and we trust the economists to be correct, crypto"currency" may become a portfolio asset, rather than just a futures trade asset. That's another source that directly denies your central point, namely that crypto"currencies" are currencies. Once again, your own sources are where we can see that you are wrong. At this point I have to ask: Do you even know what crypto"currencies" are, what currencies are, what futures are and what the stockmarket is?

No; that is your baseless postulate, but the very article you claim to cite in support of this says a completely different thing.

The report clearly says that bitcoin could succeed as a form of money.

Not in any of the text you quoted.

I can buy something right now with bitcoin at many merchants like overstock.com. The article from Goldman wasn't saying that it does not at all act as a currency right now because people can buy goods using bitcoin. It is talking about whether in the broader marketplace it will become acceptable. Your argument that bitcoin is not a currency fails to take into account that it is already being used to buy goods - and thus is a currency. Plus, Ripple is even being tailored for small purchases through their partnership with the W3C consortium and the development of APIs for enabling crypto "one-click" purchasing on the web. (See the W3C Payment Handler API). Plus Facebook's Messenger's lead, David Marcus, just joined CoinBase's board of directors. Facebook will soon enable cryptocurrency payments via an API with Facebook Messenger. If you can tap into your CoinBase account to purchase a pair of shoes via a Facebook Messenger interaction and you can choose Bitcoin, ETher, BCash or Litecoin, these are all going to be acting as currencies. The Payment Request API is also a new API that is being developed to enable crypto currency payments. See: https://www.w3.org/blog/wpwg/2016/04/21 ... quest-api/. You stated that my assertion that it was a currency was baseless. But the World Wide Web Consortium, which is working on new payment processes across the web through their payments working group, which is very knowledgeable about payments, is working on bitcoin payments through these new APIs. I think that provides good support for my proposal.

This seems to be coming from a misunderstanding of what currencies are and how they differ from crypto"currencies". To repeat myself:

At this point I have to ask: Do you even know what crypto"currencies" are, what currencies are, what futures are and what the stockmarket is?

It's not enough to ramble on about firms looking into whether a futures bubble is worth riding, they have to be used as mediums of exchange.

So your own source states that bitcoin is a tool for bad guys and the biggest criminals in the real world, and you want to keep governments from regulating it because it may, in the future, get attention from governments that wish to regulate it?
Are you even trying to make a good case for your draft?

I know that not all cryptocurrencies are able to work this way. So I will be changing my proposal to fit only the digital tokens that act as actual currencies.

It was your source saying it. Are you now saying that we shouldn't trust your source?

[Arotania]

OOC:

Don Tapscott, the man who wrote the article which you call "meaningless marketing fluff," is an expert on the blockchain, wrote a book about it and won the worlds most influential speaker int Digital thinking by Thinkers50.

Economics background, bookwriter and "influential speaker", i.e. he is a marketing guy, a lobbyist. What exactly are his qualifications in mathematics and computer science that would qualifiy him to make any statement about software security? How is his ridiculous statement that the software category of cryptocurrencies magically heals itself against attacks founded anywhere in reality?

I know that not all cryptocurrencies are able to work this way. So I will be changing my proposal to fit only the digital tokens that act as actual currencies.

So in the real world that would be a grand total of about 0 cryptocurrencies?
Do I understand this correctly that the proposal would then essentially require actual currencies to be recognized as currencies?
Also shouldn't regulation of actual currencies be a matter of national interest? What is relevant for any international community about this? Also your new definition is bad. It doesn't even mention cryptography in the passing.

Also, using a cryptocurrency such as bitcoin would benefit the merchant and the buyer.

A quote from Investopedia, "Bitcoin merchants also save on credit card fees that can range anywhere from 0.5% to 5%, plus 20 to 30 cents for each transaction made. Bitcoin payments can be sent and received at a very low cost or none at all, as bitcoin fees are based on the amount of data sent.

For merchants, the advantages of receiving bitcoin are obvious. Payments made using the virtual currency save substantially on processing fees and eliminate the risk of charge-backs. For shoppers the advantages of paying with bitcoin include greater simplicity in placing the transaction, user anonymity, no interruptions from intermediaries (for example your account being frozen as a result of a fraud alert), and very low transaction fees."

Reality completely destroys this illusion:
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bi ... nfees.html
There's a reason why companies at the moment stop accepting Bitcoins as a payment method. 30$ per transaction on average is not 'a very low cost or none at all'. For a real laugh have a look at this: A bitcoin conference has stopped taking bitcoin payments because they don't work well enough (10 Jan 2018)
Bitcoin has a gigantic scalability problem. SegWit and Lightning are not going to magically fix this. Your proposal is not based in reality and none of the edits makes it better. You consistently fail to show that you really understand the subject matter at hand.

Cryptocurrencies at the moment are a fad with a slew of problems. They exhibit all signs of a bubble. Actual applications that could work on a sustainable basis are close to nonexistent. The most popular application that runs on Ethereum smart contracts is a game that sells virtual cats. Let that sink in!
Trying to force cryptocurrencies on everyone now is equivalent to trying to force Second Life and Linden Dollars on everyone in 2007. Perhaps it will be big in the future. But many signs point to the contrary. In any case there is no point trying to legislate it like this inside a game.

[Masurbia]

So if you own a bank account, you should take all of your money out because someone could hack it? Anything online could be in danger of being hacked that's just the risk. Someone could hack into your account and do whatever they want.

"Such a hack is generally insured and the funds traceable. You yourself admitted that cryptocurrencies are not traceable. Ambassador, why are you forcing states to tolerate this when it's painfully clear that they aren't interested?"

Only a handful of states have actually commented on this proposal, you being one of the main.

[Masurbia]

Not in any of the text you quoted.

Can bitcoin succeed as a form of money?

"In theory, yes,"

Did you forget this?

[Masurbia]

I know that not all cryptocurrencies are able to work this way. So I will be changing my proposal to fit only the digital tokens that act as actual currencies.

It was your source saying it. Are you now saying that we shouldn't trust your source?

Where in my source does it say that all cryptocurrencies are actual currencies? Also, what is your definition of currency?

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC:

Can bitcoin succeed as a form of money?

"In theory, yes,"

Did you forget this?

They're being honest. "In theory yes" means it's not impossible. Not impossible ≠ currently or likely currency. Your inability to understand or desire to reinterpret your sources is not my problem.

It was your source saying it. Are you now saying that we shouldn't trust your source?

Where in my source does it say that all cryptocurrencies are actual currencies?

... Your own source said that crypto"currencies" are tools for bad guys and the biggest criminals in the real world. This tangent is unintelligible.

Also, what is your definition of currency?

I'd define currency as an agreed-upon medium in an economic system of exchange. In modern times currencies have evolved a lot, with notes and digitalisation of money, central banks and the like, but we can stick to a basic definition. That is distinct from e.g. commodities, stock, bonds, futures (The category that crypto"currencies" fall under, alongside tulip-bulb futures) etc.

But you don't need me to define it. 10 seconds of honest google searching would show why your notions of crypto"currencies" is fundamentally flawed, and why you should shelve it. I'm sure you can mangle some quote until you think it supports your position, but I'm not interested in debating someone who is so full of their preconceived notions that they won't even take their own sources into account.
I don't expect you to change track, or listen to reason, so this will likely be my last post.

[Masurbia]

OOC:

Can bitcoin succeed as a form of money?

"In theory, yes,"

Did you forget this?

They're being honest. "In theory yes" means it's not impossible. Not impossible ≠ currently or likely currency. Your inability to understand or desire to reinterpret your sources is not my problem.

Where in my source does it say that all cryptocurrencies are actual currencies?

... Your own source said that crypto"currencies" are tools for bad guys and the biggest criminals in the real world. This tangent is unintelligible.

Also, what is your definition of currency?

I'd define currency as an agreed-upon medium in an economic system of exchange. In modern times currencies have evolved a lot, with notes and digitalisation of money, central banks and the like, but we can stick to a basic definition. That is distinct from e.g. commodities, stock, bonds, futures (The category that crypto"currencies" fall under, alongside tulip-bulb futures) etc.

But you don't need me to define it. 10 seconds of honest google searching would show why your notions of crypto"currencies" is fundamentally flawed, and why you should shelve it. I'm sure you can mangle some quote until you think it supports your position, but I'm not interested in debating someone who is so full of their preconceived notions that they won't even take their own sources into account.
I don't expect you to change track, or listen to reason, so this will likely be my last post.

I’ll finally be able to hear some good arguments then

[Araraukar]

So if you own a bank account, you should take all of your money out because someone could hack it?

OOC: Accounts can't be hacked, only servers can. Accounts can be cracked (password guessed) and hijacked instead. Also, just because you can access your bank account online does not mean your actual bank account was a digital-only thing.

OOC: I don't expect you to change track, or listen to reason, so this will likely be my last post.

I’ll finally be able to hear some good arguments then

Pot, meet kettle.

[Masurbia]

OOC:

Can bitcoin succeed as a form of money?

"In theory, yes,"

Did you forget this?

They're being honest. "In theory yes" means it's not impossible. Not impossible ≠ currently or likely currency. Your inability to understand or desire to reinterpret your sources is not my problem.

Where in my source does it say that all cryptocurrencies are actual currencies?

... Your own source said that crypto"currencies" are tools for bad guys and the biggest criminals in the real world. This tangent is unintelligible.

Also, what is your definition of currency?

I'd define currency as an agreed-upon medium in an economic system of exchange. In modern times currencies have evolved a lot, with notes and digitalisation of money, central banks and the like, but we can stick to a basic definition. That is distinct from e.g. commodities, stock, bonds, futures (The category that crypto"currencies" fall under, alongside tulip-bulb futures) etc.

But you don't need me to define it. 10 seconds of honest google searching would show why your notions of crypto"currencies" is fundamentally flawed, and why you should shelve it. I'm sure you can mangle some quote until you think it supports your position, but I'm not interested in debating someone who is so full of their preconceived notions that they won't even take their own sources into account.
I don't expect you to change track, or listen to reason, so this will likely be my last post.

And I did that 10 second google search and came up with this, " circulation as a medium of exchange." Like I said before, I could go to Overstock.com and buy something with bitcoin. Wouldn't that be a medium of exchange? And if you do another 10 second google search for medium of exchange you get this, In modern economies, the medium of exchange is currency."

[Masurbia]

OOC:

Economics background, bookwriter and "influential speaker", i.e. he is a marketing guy, a lobbyist. What exactly are his qualifications in mathematics and computer science that would qualifiy him to make any statement about software security? How is his ridiculous statement that the software category of cryptocurrencies magically heals itself against attacks founded anywhere in reality?

He's literally wrote a book called, "Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Underlying Bitcoin is Changing Business, Money and the World." And started the Blockchain Research Institute to investigate blockchain strategy and organizational transformations.

So in the real world that would be a grand total of about 0 cryptocurrencies?
Do I understand this correctly that the proposal would then essentially require actual currencies to be recognized as currencies?
Also shouldn't regulation of actual currencies be a matter of national interest? What is relevant for any international community about this? Also your new definition is bad. It doesn't even mention cryptography in the passing.

And I just said you can buy on Overstock with Bitcoin which is more than 0.

[Masurbia]

Category: Free trade

Giving a definition of Cryptocurrency: A digital token, using cryptography, that can be used to make real world purchases.

Acknowledging that the rise of cryptocurrencies has happened within the last decade and is still growing.

Knowing that virtual money is extremely popular and has created numerous amounts of jobs.

Recognizing that the trading of cryptocurrencies is very lucrative but still risky.

Knowing that cryptocurrencies can grow a nation's economy.

The WA declares:

i. All member-nations recognize that cryptocurrencies are real assets that can be traded.

ii. Allow the trading of cryptocurrencies between member-nations.

iii. Allow the creation of different cryptocurrencies.

iiii. Allow member-nations to regulate any cryptocurrencies in their jurisdiction.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Nations were permitted to use cryptocurrency without being given permissive opportunity by the World Assembly. What does this accomplish?"

[Araraukar]

Giving a definition of Cryptocurrency: A digital token, using cryptography, that can be used to make real world purchases.

OOC: Ooh, finally RuneScape gold is recognized as a real currency! (You can use it ingame to buy Bonds (which are originally bought by people with RL money from the RS website and are thus a "real world purchase") which in turn can be used to buy physical RL things like tickets to the RuneFest... )

[Arotania]

OOC:

And I did that 10 second google search and came up with this, " circulation as a medium of exchange." Like I said before, I could go to Overstock.com and buy something with bitcoin. Wouldn't that be a medium of exchange? And if you do another 10 second google search for medium of exchange you get this, In modern economies, the medium of exchange is currency."

2 seconds of Google search for 'medium of exchange' yields:

Their most important and essential function is to provide a 'measure of value'.[..] the market measures or sets the real value of various goods and services using the medium of exchange as unit of measure i.e., standard or the yard stick of measurement of wealth. There is no other alternative to the mechanism used by the market to set, determine, or measure the value of various goods and services. Determination of price is an essential condition for justice in exchange, efficient allocation of resources, economic growth, welfare and justice. The most important and essential function of a medium of exchange is to be widely acceptable and have relatively stable purchasing power (real value).

Cryptopcurrencies completely fail in this regard. They would completely upset the markets and make life worse for countless people.

OOC:

Economics background, bookwriter and "influential speaker", i.e. he is a marketing guy, a lobbyist. What exactly are his qualifications in mathematics and computer science that would qualifiy him to make any statement about software security? How is his ridiculous statement that the software category of cryptocurrencies magically heals itself against attacks founded anywhere in reality?

He's literally wrote a book called, "Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Underlying Bitcoin is Changing Business, Money and the World." And started the Blockchain Research Institute to investigate blockchain strategy and organizational transformations.

Exactly, he's a marketing guy, a lobbyist. I already said that. No need to repeat my argument. So I assume you concede that he is not qualified to talk about software and cryptocurrency security. Therefore his initial statement you quoted is indeed marketing fluff and nonsense. Glad that we could agree on this.

And I just said you can buy on Overstock with Bitcoin which is more than 0.

So because you can pay for things on a website with a certain asset means that that asset is a real currency? So all gift cards are actual currencies in your eyes? Total non sequitur.

Any reason why you didn't address my other objections?

Also cryptocurrencies still are not and will never be real assets. Words have meanings. You constantly misusing them does not help your proposal.

"Such a hack is generally insured and the funds traceable. You yourself admitted that cryptocurrencies are not traceable. Ambassador, why are you forcing states to tolerate this when it's painfully clear that they aren't interested?"

Only a handful of states have actually commented on this proposal, you being one of the main.

And yet not a single nation out of the thousands in the WA has come out in support of this. The attempted repeal of "Ban on Slavery and Trafficking" has had more support. Have you ever considered that you are doing something fundamentally wrong?

[United Massachusetts]

"Crypto-"currencies" are commodities."

[Masurbia]

And yet not a single nation out of the thousands in the WA has come out in support of this. The attempted repeal of "Ban on Slavery and Trafficking" has had more support. Have you ever considered that you are doing something fundamentally wrong?

Due to the fact that the Nations of NationStates feel that slavery is better than cryptocurrencies, Masurbia will be dropping this proposal as well as the game itself.

[Willania Imperium]

And yet not a single nation out of the thousands in the WA has come out in support of this. The attempted repeal of "Ban on Slavery and Trafficking" has had more support. Have you ever considered that you are doing something fundamentally wrong?

Due to the fact that the Nations of NationStates feel that slavery is better than cryptocurrencies, Masurbia will be dropping this proposal as well as the game itself.

OOC: Listen, writing GA proposals is hard. It takes skill and time. Especially skill. You're new here. Just look around and learn. There's no rush.

[Araraukar]

Due to the fact that the Nations of NationStates feel that slavery is better than cryptocurrencies, Masurbia will be dropping this proposal as well as the game itself.

OOC: Listen, writing GA proposals is hard. It takes skill and time. Especially skill. You're new here. Just look around and learn. There's no rush.

OOC: ^What he said. And also, I don't get the slavery reference. Nobody seriously thinks it's a good idea. Just because some people say their RP likes slavery doesn't mean a repeal would actually have a snowball's chance in a furnace.

[Dirty Americans]

Like I said before, I could go to Overstock.com and buy something with bitcoin. Wouldn't that be a medium of exchange? And if you do another 10 second google search for medium of exchange you get this, In modern economies, the medium of exchange is currency.

Yes you could, but that would be the exception, rather than the rule. The problem is similar to the old evolution of credit cards. Originally credit cards were issued by the stores themselves and limited to that particular store. Then when more generic cards were introduced, some were more wildly accepted among the merchants than others. (Diner's Club springs to mind.) The use of a currency demands that, like credit cards, a significant number of merchants have to accept it in order for it to be effective.

And that's the key and the problem here. It's not recognition that is key but usage. If only a few merchants accept Bitcoin it remains a very limited form of currency "legal tender for all debts, public and private" amounting to nothing more than glorified Green Stamps. In the real world, Bitcoin still fluctuates too wildly in order to be a stable currency, but that's a question of time. Unstable currencies, unfortunately, are common throughout history.

Nobody seriously thinks it's a good idea.

Please don't speak for Nobody.

[Araraukar]

Please don't speak for Nobody.

OOC: Please don't use double negatives.

[Dirty Americans]

OOC: Please don't use double negatives.

OOC: Who said I did? I thought you were talking about the pseudonym of Odysseus to Polyphemus the Cyclops.

[Great Cannovia]

This is my first input on a debate in the WA, so excuse any inconsistencies in procedure or other matters.

I would just like to express my concern in adopting cryptocurrencies, in whatever form they may take. Whilst it makes sense that, as they are becoming more and more popular, and thus we should adopt them in the name of modernisation, there are a plethora of issues that accompany the adoption of cryptocurrencies, to which I don't see any problem-solving guarantees.

One of these problems is usage, which is being discussed a lot; even though cryptocurrencies are becoming more popular, businesses are not wholly using them as a standard transaction method, and therefore, the idea of switching to something which hasn't been means tested or widely recognised as a viable option is one which many, including myself, are uncomfortable with.

Secondly, "hard" currencies, e.g. coins and notes are much more secure, and they are much easier to regulate, secure, and monitor. With the introduction of the card, currency has been able to be gathered into one item, making transactions easier, and with the introduction of contactless payments, the facility of card payments has been increased measurably. However, cryptocurrency is a stage too far, and there are no guarantees that transactions are secure, not intercepted, regulated in a secure way. In my opinion, we simply don't need cryptocurrencies.

Great Cannovia

[Masurbia]

This is my first input on a debate in the WA, so excuse any inconsistencies in procedure or other matters.

I would just like to express my concern in adopting cryptocurrencies, in whatever form they may take. Whilst it makes sense that, as they are becoming more and more popular, and thus we should adopt them in the name of modernisation, there are a plethora of issues that accompany the adoption of cryptocurrencies, to which I don't see any problem-solving guarantees.

One of these problems is usage, which is being discussed a lot; even though cryptocurrencies are becoming more popular, businesses are not wholly using them as a standard transaction method, and therefore, the idea of switching to something which hasn't been means tested or widely recognised as a viable option is one which many, including myself, are uncomfortable with.

Secondly, "hard" currencies, e.g. coins and notes are much more secure, and they are much easier to regulate, secure, and monitor. With the introduction of the card, currency has been able to be gathered into one item, making transactions easier, and with the introduction of contactless payments, the facility of card payments has been increased measurably. However, cryptocurrency is a stage too far, and there are no guarantees that transactions are secure, not intercepted, regulated in a secure way. In my opinion, we simply don't need cryptocurrencies.

Great Cannovia

What I've seen a lot is that cryptocurrency is either A. not secure enough and can be easily hacked (false) or B. Since cryptocurrency is so protected, it can't be regulated.
Maybe I jumped the gun on this proposal, because cryptocurrency is still fairly new.

[Dirty Americans]

This is my first input on a debate in the WA, so excuse any inconsistencies in procedure or other matters.

No problem. You're doing great. Keep it up.

Secondly, "hard" currencies, e.g. coins and notes are much more secure, and they are much easier to regulate, secure, and monitor. With the introduction of the card, currency has been able to be gathered into one item, making transactions easier, and with the introduction of contactless payments, the facility of card payments has been increased measurably. However, cryptocurrency is a stage too far, and there are no guarantees that transactions are secure, not intercepted, regulated in a secure way. In my opinion, we simply don't need cryptocurrencies.

Let's start off from the start of the statement. "Hard" currencies are often "pegged" to digital currencies. Neither are particularly secure (why do people rob banks ... because that's where the money is). People can be robbed and digital accounts can be hacked. Governments are free to "inflate" the supply of their currency, either physically or through digital means, effectively devaluing the currency to some degree. It's not often easy to see the the cost of fraud (in the case of hard currency counterfeiting) that is baked into that nation's economic pie.

Thus we get to the notion of a digital, distributed monetary system with a hard and fixed expansion rate. No "Central Bank" to double the supply at the whim of the current administration. From a WA point of view there is a good reason to have such a system as the basis of international trade. But as nations still use their central bank based hard/digital currencies, the Nat Sov group has nothing to fear by such a system.