Russia want completely ban Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies
Ministry of Finance of Russia drafted a bill to ban cryptocurrencies with administrative or criminal penalty for mining and other operation. Also they want to censor bitcoin-related websites. This will come into force in 2015. http://top.rbc.ru/economics/01/08/2014/940521.shtml (in Russian)
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 08:10:55PM +0000, Anton Nesterov wrote:
Ministry of Finance of Russia drafted a bill to ban cryptocurrencies with administrative or criminal penalty for mining and other operation. Also they want to censor bitcoin-related websites.
This will come into force in 2015.
http://top.rbc.ru/economics/01/08/2014/940521.shtml (in Russian)
I don't know anything about russian politics, but US politicians draft idiotic rules/legislation all the time that get dramatically changed. (exhibit a: http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/07/17/ny-financial-regulator-releases-dr... ) If Russia wishes to exclude themselves from the world economy, that is their choice, but I suspect their oligarchs will still want to hide money in New York http://nymag.com/news/features/foreigners-hiding-money-new-york-real-estate-... and they'll have to get a Bitlicense to properly launder the transaction. My prediction is that Bitlicense will evolve into being the much vaunted 'anonymous digital cash', and you'll just need to pay the proper protection fee to the state of New York or they will get a bank to hold your funds for ransom like they are doing to Argentina's on-time debt payments. I also fully expect other states and nations will get into the licensed cryptocoin protection racket in ways that reflect their local culture and values. Don't mess with flyover land if you want to get insurance. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/tech/2014/05/16/des-moines-area-insur...
But when they say "criminal penalty for mining and other operation", what they mean? I say, how can Russia know who are using Bitcoin, how can Russia know who are trading or mining Bitcoin? I think this image can describe the idea I want pass: http://news.insidebitcoins.com/sites/default/files/government-banning-bitcoi... Am I wrong about that? I miss the Soviet Union, at least they respected the personal and social freedom (but, yes, I know Stalin was a lunatic). 2014-08-01 20:29 GMT-03:00 Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org>:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 08:10:55PM +0000, Anton Nesterov wrote:
Ministry of Finance of Russia drafted a bill to ban cryptocurrencies with administrative or criminal penalty for mining and other operation. Also they want to censor bitcoin-related websites.
This will come into force in 2015.
http://top.rbc.ru/economics/01/08/2014/940521.shtml (in Russian)
I don't know anything about russian politics, but US politicians draft idiotic rules/legislation all the time that get dramatically changed.
(exhibit a:
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/07/17/ny-financial-regulator-releases-dr... )
If Russia wishes to exclude themselves from the world economy, that is their choice, but I suspect their oligarchs will still want to hide money in New York
http://nymag.com/news/features/foreigners-hiding-money-new-york-real-estate-... and they'll have to get a Bitlicense to properly launder the transaction.
My prediction is that Bitlicense will evolve into being the much vaunted 'anonymous digital cash', and you'll just need to pay the proper protection fee to the state of New York or they will get a bank to hold your funds for ransom like they are doing to Argentina's on-time debt payments.
I also fully expect other states and nations will get into the licensed cryptocoin protection racket in ways that reflect their local culture and values.
Don't mess with flyover land if you want to get insurance.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/tech/2014/05/16/des-moines-area-insur...
-- Fernando Paladini
"I miss the Soviet Union, at least they respected the personal and social freedom (but, yes, I know Stalin was a lunatic). " I hope you don't really believe that. On 2 August 2014 17:11, Fernando Paladini <fnpaladini@gmail.com> wrote:
But when they say "criminal penalty for mining and other operation", what they mean? I say, how can Russia know who are using Bitcoin, how can Russia know who are trading or mining Bitcoin?
I think this image can describe the idea I want pass: http://news.insidebitcoins.com/sites/default/files/government-banning-bitcoi... Am I wrong about that?
I miss the Soviet Union, at least they respected the personal and social freedom (but, yes, I know Stalin was a lunatic).
2014-08-01 20:29 GMT-03:00 Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org>:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 08:10:55PM +0000, Anton Nesterov wrote:
Ministry of Finance of Russia drafted a bill to ban cryptocurrencies with administrative or criminal penalty for mining and other operation. Also they want to censor bitcoin-related websites.
This will come into force in 2015.
http://top.rbc.ru/economics/01/08/2014/940521.shtml (in Russian)
I don't know anything about russian politics, but US politicians draft idiotic rules/legislation all the time that get dramatically changed.
(exhibit a:
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/07/17/ny-financial-regulator-releases-dr... )
If Russia wishes to exclude themselves from the world economy, that is their choice, but I suspect their oligarchs will still want to hide money in New York
http://nymag.com/news/features/foreigners-hiding-money-new-york-real-estate-... and they'll have to get a Bitlicense to properly launder the transaction.
My prediction is that Bitlicense will evolve into being the much vaunted 'anonymous digital cash', and you'll just need to pay the proper protection fee to the state of New York or they will get a bank to hold your funds for ransom like they are doing to Argentina's on-time debt payments.
I also fully expect other states and nations will get into the licensed cryptocoin protection racket in ways that reflect their local culture and values.
Don't mess with flyover land if you want to get insurance.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/tech/2014/05/16/des-moines-area-insur...
-- Fernando Paladini
-- Pozdrawiam, Paweł Zegartowski
It's a joke, keep calm :P ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Paweł Zegartowski <pzegar@gmail.com> Date: 2014-08-02 12:42 GMT-03:00 Subject: Re: Russia want completely ban Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies To: Fernando Paladini <fnpaladini@gmail.com> Cc: cpunks <cypherpunks@cpunks.org> "I miss the Soviet Union, at least they respected the personal and social freedom (but, yes, I know Stalin was a lunatic). " I hope you don't really believe that. On 2 August 2014 17:11, Fernando Paladini <fnpaladini@gmail.com> wrote:
But when they say "criminal penalty for mining and other operation", what they mean? I say, how can Russia know who are using Bitcoin, how can Russia know who are trading or mining Bitcoin?
I think this image can describe the idea I want pass: http://news.insidebitcoins.com/sites/default/files/government-banning-bitcoi... Am I wrong about that?
I miss the Soviet Union, at least they respected the personal and social freedom (but, yes, I know Stalin was a lunatic).
2014-08-01 20:29 GMT-03:00 Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org>:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 08:10:55PM +0000, Anton Nesterov wrote:
Ministry of Finance of Russia drafted a bill to ban cryptocurrencies with administrative or criminal penalty for mining and other operation. Also they want to censor bitcoin-related websites.
This will come into force in 2015.
http://top.rbc.ru/economics/01/08/2014/940521.shtml (in Russian)
I don't know anything about russian politics, but US politicians draft idiotic rules/legislation all the time that get dramatically changed.
(exhibit a:
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/07/17/ny-financial-regulator-releases-dr... )
If Russia wishes to exclude themselves from the world economy, that is their choice, but I suspect their oligarchs will still want to hide money in New York
http://nymag.com/news/features/foreigners-hiding-money-new-york-real-estate-... and they'll have to get a Bitlicense to properly launder the transaction.
My prediction is that Bitlicense will evolve into being the much vaunted 'anonymous digital cash', and you'll just need to pay the proper protection fee to the state of New York or they will get a bank to hold your funds for ransom like they are doing to Argentina's on-time debt payments.
I also fully expect other states and nations will get into the licensed cryptocoin protection racket in ways that reflect their local culture and values.
Don't mess with flyover land if you want to get insurance.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/tech/2014/05/16/des-moines-area-insur...
-- Fernando Paladini
-- Pozdrawiam, Paweł Zegartowski -- Fernando Paladini
Well, we still do have museums like Belarus / North Corea, I would recommend a one-year survival there ;-) On 2 August 2014 19:47, Lodewijk andré de la porte <l@odewijk.nl> wrote:
2014-08-02 19:28 GMT+02:00 Fernando Paladini <fnpaladini@gmail.com>:
It's a joke, keep calm :P
What if they actually did give that respect, but it's all been propaganda'ed into oblivion?
-- Pozdrawiam, Paweł Zegartowski
On Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 07:47:39PM +0200, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:
2014-08-02 19:28 GMT+02:00 Fernando Paladini <fnpaladini@gmail.com>:
It's a joke, keep calm :P
What if they actually did give that respect, but it's all been propaganda'ed into oblivion?
The Soviets had some damned good engineers and scientists, and their designs (soyuz) are still flying. The space program of the leader of the free world keeps giving more money to defense contractors. Now tell me again who won the space race? War is peace, freedom is slavery, and Carl Marx was right about from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. This is proven by the market penetration of the GPLv2 linux kernel. Capitalists need high quality softare, and they cannot afford the capital to own something that actually works. I do not expect copyright will get any weaker until long after a viral copyright cryptocurrency has proven more reliable and stable than any fiat or other currency that can be co-opted like the BSD/MIT licensed Satoshi Bitcoin client.
I may be responding to a troll posting, but it's a fun one, so... On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 07:47:39PM +0200, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:
2014-08-02 19:28 GMT+02:00 Fernando Paladini <fnpaladini@gmail.com>:
It's a joke, keep calm :P
What if they actually did give that respect, but it's all been propaganda'ed into oblivion?
The Soviets had some damned good engineers and scientists, and their designs
(soyuz) are still flying. The space program of the leader of the free world keeps giving more money to defense contractors. Now tell me again who won the space race? The Soviets also had some damned bad engineers and scientists. Someone in an ivory tower decides soaking seeds before planting them will make them grow better, the state requires it, seeds mold in the ground. How many die because Soviet science didn't come as an option? How foreign was the concept of a flush toilet to Soviet troops who ripped them off the walls when invading westward? They baffled that the toilets ceased working when leaned against a tree or a tent. Basic conveniences were utterly foreign to any but the heads of state and their chosen pets. Even where they had advances that compared to what was available in the west, it hardly mattered to most of the population. As to the space program, at their pinnacle they end up copying the Space Shuttle and other US projects, right down to the placement of left-handed screws. What lesson were we meant to draw here?
War is peace, freedom is slavery, and Carl Marx was right about from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. This is proven by the market penetration of the GPLv2 linux kernel. Capitalists need high quality softare, and they cannot afford the capital to own something that actually works.
GPL has little to nothing to do with Marx. GPL relies entirely on private ownership of intellectual property for its enforcement. Private property is GPL's very foundation. And nobody is compelled to use GPL licensed software, or to agree to a GPL license. Those who do enter into an agreement aren't even required to redistribute their changes unless they redistribute the derivative product. There's no compulsory communal property here, no Marx. Observe that generally, one can set up GPL and various other forms of voluntary communal contracts under capitalism. But that doesn't make capitalism communist/Marxist. It does make capitalism the more flexible system. One in which the GPL linux kernel is indeed doing well, along with countless privately owned projects.
On Sun, Aug 03, 2014 at 10:02:44AM -0700, Reed Black wrote:
I may be responding to a troll posting, but it's a fun one, so...
I should probably not read Thomas Piketty's Capital and then post on the internet in the same week timespan. But it's been quite an amusing digression.
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 07:47:39PM +0200, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:
2014-08-02 19:28 GMT+02:00 Fernando Paladini <fnpaladini@gmail.com>:
It's a joke, keep calm :P
What if they actually did give that respect, but it's all been propaganda'ed into oblivion?
The Soviets had some damned good engineers and scientists, and their designs
(soyuz) are still flying. The space program of the leader of the free world
keeps giving more money to defense contractors. Now tell me again who won
the space race?
The Soviets also had some damned bad engineers and scientists. Someone in an ivory tower decides soaking seeds before planting them will make them grow better, the state requires it, seeds mold in the ground. How many die because Soviet science didn't come as an option?
How foreign was the concept of a flush toilet to Soviet troops who ripped them off the walls when invading westward? They baffled that the toilets ceased working when leaned against a tree or a tent. Basic conveniences were utterly foreign to any but the heads of state and their chosen pets. Even where they had advances that compared to what was available in the west, it hardly mattered to most of the population.
As to the space program, at their pinnacle they end up copying the Space Shuttle and other US projects, right down to the placement of left-handed screws. What lesson were we meant to draw here?
Don't copy that floppy? I'd argue the Soyuz was and is the pinnacle of human manned flight, because it (as far as I know) was not a copy, and it's still flying.
War is peace, freedom is slavery, and Carl Marx was right about from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. This is proven by the market penetration of the GPLv2 linux kernel. Capitalists need high quality softare, and they cannot afford the capital to own something that actually works.
GPL has little to nothing to do with Marx.
GPL relies entirely on private ownership of intellectual property for its enforcement. Private property is GPL's very foundation. And nobody is compelled to use GPL licensed software, or to agree to a GPL license. Those who do enter into an agreement aren't even required to redistribute their changes unless they redistribute the derivative product. There's no compulsory communal property here, no Marx.
Observe that generally, one can set up GPL and various other forms of voluntary communal contracts under capitalism. But that doesn't make capitalism communist/Marxist. It does make capitalism the more flexible system. One in which the GPL linux kernel is indeed doing well, along with countless privately owned projects.
Marx was worried about endless accumulation of capital by industrialists. I find it rather hilariously amusing that for Marx's commons to work, it has to be in the capitalist framework of intellectual property ownership. The brilliance of the GPL(v2) is the 'compulsory communal' aspect only kicks in when you sell something. No sale, no compulsion to share with your customers. It will be interesting to see how the AGPLv3 plays out long-term. I see a lot of code getting released under that license, and I expect at some point it will start eating the market share of closed-source cloud 'service' providers, because no capital owner can afford to pay engineers when the competition is doing the work for free. I guess Marx got trolled by Richard Stallman.
Observe that generally, one can set up GPL and various other forms of voluntary communal contracts under capitalism. But that doesn't make capitalism communist/Marxist. It does make capitalism the more flexible system. One in which the GPL linux kernel is indeed doing well, along with countless privately owned projects.
I think you should start seeing human beings working for something they believe they need, money or otherwise. Marx just saw (afaik) people working hard for short term gains they didn't enjoy, their daily bread, knowing their works' true fruits were not their property but their bosses'. The core appeal of communism is that a man should enjoy the fruits of his labor. Interestingly, that's the core appeal of capitalism too!
Marx was worried about endless accumulation of capital by industrialists. I find it rather hilariously amusing that for Marx's commons to work, it has to be in the capitalist framework of intellectual property ownership.
The brilliance of the GPL(v2) is the 'compulsory communal' aspect only kicks in when you sell something. No sale, no compulsion to share with your customers.
It will be interesting to see how the AGPLv3 plays out long-term. I see a lot of code getting released under that license, and I expect at some point it will start eating the market share of closed-source cloud 'service'
?? People don't want to share?? From popularity to appreciation there's reasons aplenty! providers,
because no capital owner can afford to pay engineers when the competition is doing the work for free.
This is definitely affecting some markets. It lowers the barrier for entry, driving competition. But the collaboration between companies outcompetes any private effort, so there is no choice. It's a neat effect, but hardly of relevance to Marx or even the GPL. The GPL is just what made the effect happen "in the wild" so strongly that the MBA's couldn't deny it anymore. The GPL was for people to know what a computer does on their behalves. To own what they depend upon. The ability to alter what they dislike. And most importantly, to saveguard against madness. No arbitrary ristrictions will exist in a open source program for long. For example: Sumatra PDF and respecting PDF DRM rules are an interesting discussion, to say the least.
I guess Marx got trolled by Richard Stallman.
I think everyones trolling himself, first and foremost. Note to all: "give what you can, take what you need" is in no way fair, nor even noble. It's economic suicide.
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org> wrote:
On Sun, Aug 03, 2014 at 10:02:44AM -0700, Reed Black wrote:
I may be responding to a troll posting, but it's a fun one, so...
I should probably not read Thomas Piketty's Capital and then post on the internet in the same week timespan. But it's been quite an amusing digression.
It's basically Das Kapital, with charts and new predictions and suggested remedies. Nearly a hundred mentions of Marx, and the same blindness about what happens to capital that's accumulated, but reinvested as all major accumulations are. One need only look at any ten years interval where the wealth gap expanded, and then examine the quantity and quality of goods affordable by the poorest in that time. It gives question to his predictions and his radical plans for 80% tax rates and the like. Trying to pull up the wage earners by pulling down the wage payers hasn't worked yet. But it does have an interesting parallel to the below...
according to his ability, to each according to his need. This is proven by the market penetration of the GPLv2 linux kernel. Capitalists need high quality softare, and they cannot afford the capital to own something
War is peace, freedom is slavery, and Carl Marx was right about from each that
actually works.
GPL has little to nothing to do with Marx.
GPL relies entirely on private ownership of intellectual property for its enforcement. Private property is GPL's very foundation. And nobody is compelled to use GPL licensed software, or to agree to a GPL license. Those who do enter into an agreement aren't even required to redistribute their changes unless they redistribute the derivative product. There's no compulsory communal property here, no Marx.
Observe that generally, one can set up GPL and various other forms of voluntary communal contracts under capitalism. But that doesn't make capitalism communist/Marxist. It does make capitalism the more flexible system. One in which the GPL linux kernel is indeed doing well, along with countless privately owned projects.
Marx was worried about endless accumulation of capital by industrialists. I find it rather hilariously amusing that for Marx's commons to work, it has to be in the capitalist framework of intellectual property ownership.
The brilliance of the GPL(v2) is the 'compulsory communal' aspect only kicks in when you sell something. No sale, no compulsion to share with your customers. It will be interesting to see how the AGPLv3 plays out long-term. I see a lot of code getting released under that license, and I expect at some point it will start eating the market share of closed-source cloud 'service' providers, because no capital owner can afford to pay engineers when the competition is doing the work for free.
A car maker is at a competitive disadvantage if it wastes time trying to perfect sheet metal screws and socket wrenches. The other car makers use commodity parts for anything that isn't a unique selling point and differentiate by building the last, non-standard parts. Most businesses and other competitive constructive ventures are like this. Expect open source software to eat into the platform of just about every vertical, but expect that to happen with proprietary software developers' full cooperation. At some point, printer drivers stop being a value added differentiator and capitalists see the best returns in integrating and building on top of CUPS. Font engines become uninteresting and FreeType makes sense. Filesystems, network protocols, web development frameworks, etc... It's why they'll cooperate to help open source projects develop best of breed implementations from the bottom up, but stop where proprietary projects still differentiate themselves in interesting ways. When it gets close to the consumer, we'll always have gaps the size of the space between an xtank and a Diablo III. I'd expect open source projects to subsume more and more things covered by proprietary software and services today, but I'd also expect closed source software and walled gardens to continue to be the points of competitive innovation. By the time there are open source solutions commoditizing today's cloud services, tomorrow's cloud services will be doing appealing new things the public thinks it can't live without. That's not a blind prediction, but an extrapolation of what's already happened. Free WebDAV implementations are here, but now the public wants built in media transcoding for mobile, syncing, and other features as part of their web filesystems. Virtualization systems exist with virtually zero overhead, but now CTOs expect automatic scaling, monitoring and security as push-button add ons. Most every well-established cloud service one can name has a lightweight open source alternative that looks like that cloud service only a few years ago. In a way, capitalists need to keep ceding to the commons to control their costs as they build atop the old in order to afford to stay relevant, or they need to seek other revenue channels while nearly giving the actual service away to all comers. It's a bizarre but wonderful generative system.
I guess Marx got trolled by Richard Stallman.
It's cute, but I never saw anything where Stallman himself seemed to believe free software was socialist in nature. (Anyone have pointers on that?) I know socialists/Marxists love to embrace it and him, but I suspect the movement and Stallman could at best be called fellow travelers of Marxism at best. There may be some common activities, but not goals or ideologies.
Well I'm calm...at least I'm not the Ukrainian fortunately :P On 2 August 2014 19:28, Fernando Paladini <fnpaladini@gmail.com> wrote:
It's a joke, keep calm :P
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Paweł Zegartowski <pzegar@gmail.com> Date: 2014-08-02 12:42 GMT-03:00 Subject: Re: Russia want completely ban Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies To: Fernando Paladini <fnpaladini@gmail.com> Cc: cpunks <cypherpunks@cpunks.org>
"I miss the Soviet Union, at least they respected the personal and social freedom (but, yes, I know Stalin was a lunatic). "
I hope you don't really believe that.
On 2 August 2014 17:11, Fernando Paladini <fnpaladini@gmail.com> wrote:
But when they say "criminal penalty for mining and other operation", what they mean? I say, how can Russia know who are using Bitcoin, how can Russia know who are trading or mining Bitcoin?
I think this image can describe the idea I want pass: http://news.insidebitcoins.com/sites/default/files/government-banning-bitcoi... Am I wrong about that?
I miss the Soviet Union, at least they respected the personal and social freedom (but, yes, I know Stalin was a lunatic).
2014-08-01 20:29 GMT-03:00 Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org>:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 08:10:55PM +0000, Anton Nesterov wrote:
Ministry of Finance of Russia drafted a bill to ban cryptocurrencies with administrative or criminal penalty for mining and other operation. Also they want to censor bitcoin-related websites.
This will come into force in 2015.
http://top.rbc.ru/economics/01/08/2014/940521.shtml (in Russian)
I don't know anything about russian politics, but US politicians draft idiotic rules/legislation all the time that get dramatically changed.
(exhibit a:
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/07/17/ny-financial-regulator-releases-dr... )
If Russia wishes to exclude themselves from the world economy, that is their choice, but I suspect their oligarchs will still want to hide money in New York
http://nymag.com/news/features/foreigners-hiding-money-new-york-real-estate-... and they'll have to get a Bitlicense to properly launder the transaction.
My prediction is that Bitlicense will evolve into being the much vaunted 'anonymous digital cash', and you'll just need to pay the proper protection fee to the state of New York or they will get a bank to hold your funds for ransom like they are doing to Argentina's on-time debt payments.
I also fully expect other states and nations will get into the licensed cryptocoin protection racket in ways that reflect their local culture and values.
Don't mess with flyover land if you want to get insurance.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/tech/2014/05/16/des-moines-area-insur...
-- Fernando Paladini
-- Pozdrawiam, Paweł Zegartowski
-- Fernando Paladini
-- Pozdrawiam, Paweł Zegartowski
Dnia sobota, 2 sierpnia 2014 12:11:09 Fernando Paladini pisze:
But when they say "criminal penalty for mining and other operation", what they mean? I say, how can Russia know who are using Bitcoin, how can Russia know who are trading or mining Bitcoin?
This guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Vyshinsky ...once said: "give me a man and I will find a paragraph" (meaning an article of law to hang/imprison them). The proposed Bitcoin ban is just that: a law that is not going to be enforced for the general population (as there is no way in hell to do that en masse!), but will definitely be used against selected few individuals that Russian government has beefs with.
I think this image can describe the idea I want pass: http://news.insidebitcoins.com/sites/default/files/government-banning-bitcoi n.jpg Am I wrong about that?
I miss the Soviet Union, at least they respected the personal and social freedom (but, yes, I know Stalin was a lunatic).
Instead of asking how much personal or close family experience with the Soviet Union you have, or suggesting you read the article I linked above and educate yourself a bit, I guess I'll just ignore that statement. -- Pozdr rysiek
Anton Nesterov wrote:
Ministry of Finance of Russia drafted a bill to ban cryptocurrencies with administrative or criminal penalty for mining and other operation. Also they want to censor bitcoin-related websites.
This will come into force in 2015.
http://top.rbc.ru/economics/01/08/2014/940521.shtml (in Russian)
OK, draft is available now: http://regulation.gov.ru/project/17205.html?point=view_project&stage=2&stage_id=13089 Draft bans surrogate money and defines this as currency, including the electronic, used for payments or/and exchange, beside the ones described in federal law (definitely this includes bitcoins). Emission, creating and distribution software for emission of money surrogates, distribution of information which can be used to emission money surrogates and/or operation with them, operation with money surrogates: 30-50k rubles ($750-1.25k) for citizens, 60-100k ($1.5k-2.5k) for govt officials, 500k-1m ($12.5k-25k) for legal entities. Also it gives power to the Bank of Russia to censor websites related to the emission and operations with money surrogates. If any Russians read this: you can add proxy=127.0.0.1:9050 to your bitcoin.conf/litecoin.conf/dogecoin.conf/etc., and this will proxy all your connection via Tor network (of course you need also to run Tor for that). -- https://komachi.github.io GPG key: 0CE8 65F1 9043 2B11 25A5 74A7 1187 6869 67AA 56E4 https://keybase.io/komachi/key.asc
That would be a first! Wonder what exactly pushes their buttons. Perhaps just that it's a surrogate? Wouldn't surprise me. Giving the Bank of Russia censorship rights regarding alternatives is pretty pushy, but, soon, "in Russia legal tender is only tender". Shame for them they won't be able to actually prevent Bitcoin use, and soon only criminals will use Bitcoin. Might have a bad ripple effect on Bitcoin in the rest of the world. We'll see the price jump up soon.
Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:
That would be a first! Wonder what exactly pushes their buttons. Perhaps just that it's a surrogate? Wouldn't surprise me. Surrogates actually banned since 90s, but nobody knows what money surrogates is, there was no lawful definition, and as far I remember, first time it was used in a letters from Bank of Russia and Prosecutor General which says Bitcoin is surrogates http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/09/us-russia-bitcoin-idUSBREA18066201...
Giving the Bank of Russia censorship rights regarding alternatives is pretty pushy, but, soon, "in Russia legal tender is only tender". That probably will work like "we google bitcoin and ban first 20 or more
Funny thing that with such definition they ban anything except ruble, including money in computer games, some payment systems, etc. Russian Duma acts crazy last time, they voted for many crazy bills, and this one will just continue the trend, so there probably no real reason for ban. Bitcoin is not so popular in Russia, it take a really little part in drug deals or anything other, but probably they will attempt to justify the ban with drugs, there is some talks on drugs started last time, which very overestimated the problem. links, repeat every day/week/month", that way it works with drugs or suicides, they banned many doorways, jokes or even slang terms not related to any crime (like an article on boosters from EVE Online, in Russian community it's called "drugs", or latest GitHub ban for an article which recommends you to commit a suicide with starting WWIII, using nanomachines from science fiction, making a nuclear bomb from your own body, etc.) because of that. -- https://komachi.github.io GPG key: 0CE8 65F1 9043 2B11 25A5 74A7 1187 6869 67AA 56E4 https://keybase.io/komachi/key.asc
According to regulations, the Ministry of Finance can either re-submit
So Ministry of Economic Development reacts negatively on that draft, says definition of "money surrogate" is too broad, in current redaction that can lead to ban on almost everything (gift cards, loyalty programs, etc.). It's not like they vote for Bitcoin, as RT says in title, seems like they just want more realistic definition. the revised bill to the Ministry of Economic Development, or submit it to the government without changes, enclosing a table of differences on the project. http://rt.com/news/218019-bill-ban-bitcoin-russia/ (English) http://top.rbc.ru/technology_and_media/26/12/2014/549d7fe89a7947847db1c19b (Russian) Anton Nesterov:
Anton Nesterov wrote:
Ministry of Finance of Russia drafted a bill to ban cryptocurrencies with administrative or criminal penalty for mining and other operation. Also they want to censor bitcoin-related websites.
This will come into force in 2015.
http://top.rbc.ru/economics/01/08/2014/940521.shtml (in Russian)
OK, draft is available now: http://regulation.gov.ru/project/17205.html?point=view_project&stage=2&stage_id=13089
Draft bans surrogate money and defines this as currency, including the electronic, used for payments or/and exchange, beside the ones described in federal law (definitely this includes bitcoins).
Emission, creating and distribution software for emission of money surrogates, distribution of information which can be used to emission money surrogates and/or operation with them, operation with money surrogates: 30-50k rubles ($750-1.25k) for citizens, 60-100k ($1.5k-2.5k) for govt officials, 500k-1m ($12.5k-25k) for legal entities.
Also it gives power to the Bank of Russia to censor websites related to the emission and operations with money surrogates.
If any Russians read this: you can add proxy=127.0.0.1:9050 to your bitcoin.conf/litecoin.conf/dogecoin.conf/etc., and this will proxy all your connection via Tor network (of course you need also to run Tor for that).
-- https://nesterov.pw GPG key: 0CE8 65F1 9043 2B11 25A5 74A7 1187 6869 67AA 56E4 https://keybase.io/komachi/key.asc
participants (7)
-
Anton Nesterov -
Fernando Paladini -
Lodewijk andré de la porte -
Paweł Zegartowski -
Reed Black -
rysiek -
Troy Benjegerdes