×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Singapore To Regulate Virtual Currency Exchanges

timothy posted about 9 months ago | from the autocratic-state-being-one dept.

Bitcoin 51

SpankiMonki writes "Following on the heels of the Mt Gox bankruptcy, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) plans to impose new regulations on currency exchanges dealing in bitcoin and other virtual currencies. Virtual currency exchanges would need to verify their customers' identities and report any suspicious transactions under the new rules.

The MAS said its regulation of virtual currency intermediaries — which include virtual currency exchanges and vending machines — was tailored specifically to the money-laundering and terrorism financing risks they posed. However, the new regulations would do nothing to ensure the solvency of virtual currency intermediaries or the safety of their client's funds."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oh noes! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46474649)

It's the death of the free market, and the government will ruin everything we built!

Re:Oh noes! (4, Insightful)

bobbied (2522392) | about 9 months ago | (#46474865)

It's the death of the free market, and the government will ruin everything we built!

I think the BitCoin community is doing a pretty good job of ruining the currency on their own without government help.

Re:Oh noes! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46475109)

Seriously? You believe that? With exchanges evaporating, people's bitcoins going with them, rampant theft and fraud and drug trafficking and who knows what manner of crime being conducted because of the anonymity and you think that is being managed well? You seriously think that an anonymous money exchange isn't being owned by criminals?

Your paranoia regarding government has surpassed all common sense. Governments are not saints, but compared to anonymous criminals they are the lesser of two evils by a long shot.

Re:Oh noes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46475201)

Can you read? Seriously?

Re:Oh noes! (1)

jythie (914043) | about 9 months ago | (#46475755)

Well, it can not be their doing, it must be governments or corrupt bankers or regulation. The free market can adjust around everything! Well, except people.

Re:Oh noes! (1)

Lord Apathy (584315) | about 9 months ago | (#46478693)

I think the BitCoin community is doing a pretty good job of ruining the currency on their own without government help

Of course it is. You just keep right on thinking that. It's doing such a good job that you don't have scams like Mt Gox or other exchanges just vanishing in the night. Naw, nobody is out almost a half a billion dollars because of a poorly run exchange or just outright theft. Damn, skippy its doing a fine job.

Hey, how would you like to buy a bridge? It's in New York state right outside of Brooklyn. Only 400,000 bitcoins.

Re:Oh noes! (1)

flargleblarg (685368) | about 9 months ago | (#46479585)

I think the BitCoin community is doing a pretty good job of ruining the currency on their own without government help

Of course it is. You just keep right on thinking that. It's doing such a good job that you don't have scams like Mt Gox or other exchanges just vanishing in the night. Naw, nobody is out almost a half a billion dollars because of a poorly run exchange or just outright theft. Damn, skippy its doing a fine job.

Lord Apathy, I don't think you read very carefully. Bobbied said that it was doing a pretty good job of ruining the currency [on its own without government help], not that it was doing a pretty good job.

Re:Oh noes! (1)

Lord Apathy (584315) | about 9 months ago | (#46479645)

Yes he did. I really should have taken that remedial reading class in kindergartner.

Re:Oh noes! (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 9 months ago | (#46505083)

Not to worry, even though I had written the work "ruining" and knew what it was supposed to say, I had to re-read it a few times to make sure it didn't say "running" which is really similar looking. It's an interesting insight into how our minds actually do this reading task. Many times we see what our minds are expecting to see even though something else is really there.

You should see the moderation history of my post. I expected some disagreement but general agreement, but nothing like what happened. It's apparent that you where not the only one who skimmed though the post and likely saw a different word than what was there. It was dueling "Flame bait -1" and "Insightful +1" for as far as the eye could see. That post drew about 15 - 20 mod points but got nowhere in the end. Where I'm not surprised in the outcome, I was very surprised about how many people chose to use their points on this post and I'm guessing it was because many misread it.

Did Maddof own it at one point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46485673)

Maddof alone lost about 57 billion of investors money...

MtGOX used to trade magic the gathering cards. I am not sure they are on the same level as the professionals.

Then let's look at the regulated firms that caused the 2008 crash, the manipulation of the Argintinean dollar, Solyndra (Which I had hoped would succeed but yeah.)...

Approximately 22 trillion loss from the 2008 debacle? Yeah. I am sure some people that had a hand in those problems saw how much an amateur could screw up and said challenge accepted.

Oh noes! (1)

mapkon (2792089) | about 9 months ago | (#46474977)

The currency was ruined in design and philosophy. Don't blame the gov't

Re: Oh noes! (1)

invictusvoyd (3546069) | about 9 months ago | (#46475515)

What's needed is ,
1 Truly anonymous
2 Eco friendly ( at least relatively )
3 Sensible and sustainable ( agnostic of governments )
4 scam proof ( at least to a large extent )

You did a good job Satoshi (whoever you are ) but not good enough.

Re: Oh noes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46476043)

It already exists -- it's called Glory Coin. Go to your nearest glory hole to find out more.

Anonymous: you don't know who's on the other side of the wall!

Eco Friendly: Sure, I guess. Boners are a renewable resource.

Sensible and sustainable: What's more sensible than sticking your cock into a hole in the wall and having no idea who or what is on the other side?

scam proof: Yeah, you can use protocol 69 to ensure that you both get a blowjob.

Re: Oh noes! (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 9 months ago | (#46478225)

What's needed is , 1 Truly anonymous 2 Eco friendly ( at least relatively ) 3 Sensible and sustainable ( agnostic of governments ) 4 scam proof ( at least to a large extent ) You did a good job Satoshi (whoever you are ) but not good enough.

5. Fixed value - something as constant as a meter, a gram or a second

Re:Oh noes! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46475749)

The real problem here is the knee-jerk reaction the government always has when it's unleashed upon a new frontier. TFA mentions regulations that require exchanges to properly identify themselves, and other good bureaucratic record keeping nonsense. However, TFA does not mention ONE WORD about security audits on the source code, proper firewall configuration, and other technical assurances that would solve the actual problems and prevent thieves (CEOs and otherwise) from causing a repeat of Mt. Gox.

So no, dumb-ass, it's not the death of the free market. It's more security theater that will drive potential customers away, fail to solve the problems, reduce customer service, raise prices, charge government fees to fund the "regulators", and generally make everything worse. Of course, these things are what the government is best at doing, so there are no surprises here.

What makes me raise my eyebrows is people like you who keep cheering while governments destroy or confiscate the best things in life, like freedom.

Remember (3, Insightful)

ADRA (37398) | about 9 months ago | (#46474733)

This is Singapore, the country continually rated as one of the world's greatest countries for economic freedoms... soo

Re:Remember (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46474843)

You are free to receive a caning.

You are free to be charged with the importation of chewing gum

The Falsification of Evolution (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46475029)

Any theory that does not provide a method to falsify and validate its claims is a useless theory.

Example; if someone said a watermelon is blue on the inside, but turns red when you cut it open, how could you prove them wrong? How could they prove they're right?

You couldn't and they can't. There is no method available to confirm or disprove what was said about the watermelon. Therefore we can dismiss the theory of the blue interior of watermelons as being pure speculation and guess work, not science. You can not say something is true without demonstrating how it is not false, and you can not say something is not true without demonstrating how it is false. Any theory that can not explain how to both validate and falsify its claims in this manner can not be taken seriously. If one could demonstrate clearly that the watermelon appears to indeed be blue inside, without being able to demonstrate what colors it is not, we still have no absolute confirmation of its color. That is to say asserting something is the way it is, without being able to assert what it is not, is a useless claim. Therefore, in order for any theory to be confirmed to be true, it must be shown how to both validate and falsify its claims. It is circular reasoning to be able to validate something, without saying how to falsify it, or vice versa. This is the nature of verification and falsification. Both must be clearly demonstrated in order for a theory to be confirmed to be true or false. Something can not be proven to be true without showing that it is not false, and something can not be proven to be not true, unless it can be proven to be false.

Unfortunately, Darwin never properly demonstrated how to falsify his theory, which means evolution has not properly been proven, since it has never been demonstrated what the evidence does not suggest. In the event that evolution is not true, there should be a clear and defined method of reasoning to prove such by demonstrating through evidence that one could not possibly make any alternative conclussions based on said evidence. It is for this reason we must be extremely skeptical of how the evidence has been used to support evolution for lack of proper method of falsification, especially when the actual evidence directly contradicts the theory. If it can be demonstrated how to properly falsify evolution, regardless if evolution is true or not, only then can evolution ever be proven or disproved.

It will now be demonstrated that Darwin never told us how to properly falsify evolution, which will also show why no one can claim to have disproved or proven the theory, until now. It must be able to be demonstrated that if evolution were false, how to go about proving that, and while Darwin indeed made a few statements on this issue, his statements were not adequate or honest. In order to show Darwin's own falsification ideas are inadequate, rather than discussing them and disproving them individually, all that needs to be done is demonstrate a proper falsification argument for evolution theory. That is to say if the following falsification is valid, and can not show evolution to be false, then evolution theory would be proven true by way of deductive reasoning. That is the essence of falsification; if it can be shown that something is not false, it must therefore be true.

So the following falsification method must be the perfect counter to Darwin's validation method, and would therefore prove evolution to be true in the event this falsification method can not show evolution to be false. As said before; if something is not false, it must therefore be true. This would confirm the accuracy of this falsification method, which all theories must have, and show that Darwin did not properly show how evolution could be falsified, in the event that evolution was not true. In order to show evolution is not false (thereby proving it to be true), we must be able to show how it would be false, if it were. Without being able to falsify evolution in this manner, you can not validate it either. If something can not be shown to be false, yet it is said to be true, this is circular reasoning, since you have no way of confirming this conclusion. Example; If we told a blind person our car is red, and they agreed we were telling the truth, the blind person could not tell another blind person accurate information regarding the true color of the car. While he has evidence that the car is red by way of personal testimony, he has no way of confirming if this is true or false, since he might have been lied to, regardless if he was or not.

So one must demonstrate a method to prove beyond any doubt that in the event that evolution is not true, it can be shown to be such. To say evolution is true, without a way to show it is false, means evolution has never been proven to be true. If evolution be true, and this method of falsification be valid, then by demonstrating the falsification method to be unable to disprove evolution, we would confirm evolution to be right. Alternatively, if the falsification method is valid and demonstrates that Darwin's validation method does not prove evolution, then evolution is false indeed.

Firstly, the hypothesis. If evolution is incorrect, then it can be demonstrated to be so by using both living and dead plants and animals. The following is the way to do so and the logical alternative to the theory. The fossil record can be used as well, but not as evolution theory would have us believe. In order to properly falsify something, all biases must be removed, since assuming something is correct without knowing how to prove its false is akin to the blind person who can not confirm the color of someones car. Since evolution has not correctly been shown how to be falsified, as will be demonstrated, we must be open to other possibilities by way of logic, and ultimately reject evolution by way of evidence, should the evidence lead us in such a direction.

If evolution be not true, the only explanation for the appearance of varied life on the planet is intelligent design. This would predict that all life since the initial creation has been in a state of entropy since their initial creation, which is the opposite of evolution. If this be true, then animals and plants are not increasing in genetic complexity or new traits as evolution theory would have us believe, but are in fact losing information. This would explain why humans no longer have room for their wisdom teeth and why the human appendix is decreasing in functionality. The only objection to this claim that evolution theory would propose is that evolution does not always increase the genetic complexity and traits of an organism, but rather, sometimes decreases them as well. This objection is only made because we have only ever actually observed entropy in living creatures, which suits the creation model far better than evolution, which shall be demonstrated.

If the creation model is true, we can make verifiable predictions that disprove evolution. For example; the creation model states that life was created diversified to begin with, with distinct "kinds" of animals, by a supernatural Creator that did not evolve Himself, but rather always existed. Without going into the debate on how such a being is possible to exist, it must be said that either everything came from nothing, or something always existed. To those who say the universe always existed; the claim of this hypothesis is that the Creator always existed, which is equally as viable for the previous logic.

In order to demonstrate that the Creator is responsible for life and created life diversified to begin with, the word "kind" must be defined. A kind is the original prototype of any ancestral line; that is to say if God created two lions, and two cheetahs, these are distinct kinds. In this scenario, these two cats do not share a common ancestor, as they were created separately, and therefore are not the same kind despite similar appearance and design. If this is the case, evolution theory is guilty of using homogeneous structures as evidence of common ancestry, and then using homogeneous structures to prove common ancestry; this is circular reasoning!

The idea of kinds is in direct contrast to evolution theory which says all cats share a common ancestor, which the creation model does not hold to be true. If evolution theory is true, the word kind is a superficial label that does not exist, because beyond our classifications, there would be no clear identifiable division among animals or plants, since all plants and animals would therefore share a common ancestor. The word kind can only be applied in the context of the creation model, but can not be dismissed as impossible due to the evolutionary bias, simply because evolution has not been properly validated nor can it be held to be true until it can correctly be shown to be impossible to falsify.

One must look at the evidence without bias and conclude based on contemporary evidence (not speculation) if indeed evolution is the cause of the diversity of species, or not. It must also been demonstrated if the clear and distinct species do or do not share a common ancestor with each other, regardless that they may appear to be of the same family or design. In order to verify this, all that needs to be done is to demonstrate that a lion and cheetah do or do not have a common ancestor; if it can be demonstrated that any animal or plant within a family (cats in this case) do not share a common ancestor with each other, this would disprove evolution immediately and prove supernatural creation of kinds.

However, since lions and cheetahs are both clearly of the same family or design, and can potentially interbreed, we must be careful not to overlook the possibility of a very recent common ancestor If such is the case, this does not exclude the possibility that the two are originally from two separate kinds that do not share a common ancestor previous to them having one. It is therefore necessary to build an ancestral history based on verifiable evidence (not homogeneous structures in the fossil record) that can clearly demonstrate where exactly the cheetah and the lion had a common ancestor. If no such common ancestor can be found and confirmed without bias, and this test is performed between two or more of any plant or animal life without ever finding anything to the contrary, we can confirm with certainty evolution did not happen, and that kinds do exist.

In the event that fossils are too elusive (compounded with the fact that they can not be used as evidence of common descent due to circular reasoning e.g. homogeneous structures), then there is a superior and far more effective way to falsify evolution. Evolution states by addition of new traits (new organs, new anatomy) that the first lifeforms increased in complexity and size by introduction of new traits, slowly increasing step by step to more complex life forms. Notice that the addition of such traits can not be attributed to the alteration of old ones, for obvious reasons, since detrimental or beneficial mutations are only alterations of already existing traits, and can not account for an increase in the number of traits any given life form possesses.

That means a bacteria becoming able to digest nylon is a mere mutation of already existing digestive capabilities, and can not be classified as an increase in traits. Evolution theory would predict that the process of gradual change and increase in traits is an ongoing process, and therefore should be observable in todays living animals and plants through new emerging traits that any given plant or animal did not possess in its ancestry. Those who say such changes take millions of years and can not be observed today only say so because no such trait has ever been observed to emerge or be in the process of emerging in contemporary history, which is what the creation model predicts. If evolution theory be true, we would expect that at least one animal or plant would contain a new trait or be in the process of growing such a triat over its known common ancestors (that is not simply a multiplication or alteration of a trait it already had).

At this point, the fossil record can not be used as evidence to prove that evolution can produce new traits due to the fact that two animals that appear to be of the same family (T-rex and Brontosaurus, dinosaurs), while they do indeed exhibit distinct trait differences, may not have a common ancestor, but rather were created differently with all their different traits. It is therefore of paramount importance to show a single instance of such an increase of traits exists within a provable ancestry (stress provable) in contemporary times, and not assume anything concerning where the traits in the fossil record owe their origin. If it can not be shown that any animal or plant living today (or very recently deceased) exhibits any trait variance that can clearly and thoroughly be proven to be a new addition over its (stress) provable ancestors, compounded with the reasoning that two similar animals (such as a penguin and a woodpecker) do not necessarily or provably share a common ancestor, then evolution is clearly absent entirely, and supernatural intelligent design and creation is thereby proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

In conclusion, should any two animals or plants within a family (a palm tree and a coconut tree) be proven to not share a common ancestor, or if no provable increase of traits can be demonstrated to be in its beginnings or actively present in the animals and plants living today over their provable ancestry, then The Bible is correct when it says God created all the animals and plants as distinct kinds with their traits to begin with. This is the only way to falsify evolution, and it is amazing (and convenient) that Darwin never encouraged people to attempt to falsify his theory in this manner.

Re:Remember (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 9 months ago | (#46475937)

It seems like they've brought it full circle too.

Virtual currency exchanges would need to verify their customers' identities and report any suspicious transactions under the new rules. ... tailored specifically to the money-laundering and terrorism financing risks they posed

Step 1: create an anonymous currency to allay the paranoid fears that governments are tracking everything you do with your own money.
Step 2: create rules that anyone using the currency has to be identified to the government to allay the paranoid fears that anyone could send money to anyone else anonymously.

Well done, Singapore.

Re:Remember (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46477845)

So you can see that rating systems have a weakness. Characterizations that we use can mean different things. A tax haven can be freedom for one yet a ball and chain for those who have to provide for the government services. Singapore has a strong police presence and has public canings. The warping of expression where a tax haven thrown on top of an authoritarian police state suddenly makes a country a place of freedom is something I reject. It is an abuse of reason.

KYC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46474833)

Great so more identities can be stolen. just like when mtgox sold off the personal info to the highest bidder

With regulations goes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46474835)

... the fetish dream of anonymity. Once these silly currencies are regulated and exchanges required to get details of their customers, what is the difference (and/or benefit) of using crypto currencies over fiat chedda?

Re:With regulations goes... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46474909)

The main benefits are: the government is not allowed to print money (devaluing what you own), and there is no centralized middleman that is able to block your transactions or freeze your assets (as Visa, MasterCard, and PayPal usually do).

Re:With regulations goes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46474961)

... and the ledger is public, everyone can check for possible corruption schemes. And the cost per transaction is much lower.

Re:With regulations goes... (3, Insightful)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 9 months ago | (#46474987)

... and the ledger is public, everyone can check for possible corruption schemes.

How is that working out in the Mt. Gox investigation? It seems like nobody knows shit.

Re:With regulations goes... (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 9 months ago | (#46475069)

MtGox would be a footnote if people had not been using them as a online wallet. With bitcoin you are supposed to be using a local wallet.

Re:With regulations goes... (1)

Cro Magnon (467622) | about 9 months ago | (#46475131)

Yes, you're supposed to cut out the middleman. Let the hackers steal directly from you instead of going through a third party.

Re:With regulations goes... (1)

Connie_Lingus (317691) | about 9 months ago | (#46475531)

it would be pretty hard to steal from my BC wallet if it was on a thumb drive in my pocket all the time...

Re:With regulations goes... (1)

AuMatar (183847) | about 9 months ago | (#46476323)

Yes, it takes a brand new invention called a pickpocket. Or a weapon. True, that happens with cash too- but it happens to a fraction of what you own, because the rest is in a bank. With the wallet on a USB stick, its your life savings.

Re:With regulations goes... (1)

TsuruchiBrian (2731979) | about 9 months ago | (#46477325)

You are supposed to encrypt your wallet. In fact you should be able to leave your encrypted wallet in a public place it doesn't need to be on a thumb drive. You can have it freely available on a website.

Re:With regulations goes... (1)

_merlin (160982) | about 9 months ago | (#46477461)

Then you have the same problem with the encryption keys. Someone will compromise your keys or the encryption and you'll be fucked.

Re:With regulations goes... (1)

TsuruchiBrian (2731979) | about 9 months ago | (#46477981)

Encryption is harder to crack than other ways of stealing from people. We use encryption for almost all e-commerce and banking right now. It's not impossible to circumvent it, but it's hard enough that it happens only rarely.

The best you can do is make the human the weakest link in the chain (i.e. everything else is stronger), and mitigate the number of things that a human must do correctly to achieve proper security.

Re:With regulations goes... (1)

Connie_Lingus (317691) | about 9 months ago | (#46479729)

of yeah...becuz of course most junkie pickpockets are looking for nerdy thumb drives and not cold hard cash and credit cards.

and on top of it, of course my thumb drive..in the pocket...with my bitcoin wallet...is going to be nicely encrypted with a 1024-bit key

Re:With regulations goes... (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 9 months ago | (#46475283)

That's irrelevant. 6% of the total bitcoins were involved in a "possible corruption scheme". In theory, the public blockchain in supposed to shed light on the situation. But that does not seem to be happening.

Re:With regulations goes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46476745)

In theory, the public blockchain in supposed to shed light on the situation. But that does not seem to be happening.

"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." (unknown)

Re:With regulations goes... (1)

unimacs (597299) | about 9 months ago | (#46475313)

... and the ledger is public, everyone can check for possible corruption schemes. And the cost per transaction is much lower.

I thought that verifying the transactions took a lot longer and that currently there's a cap on the number of transactions that the Bitcoin network can handle. So while the fees charged today might be lower, the real costs of handling Bitcoin transactions is high and it may not be scalable enough.

Re:With regulations goes... (3, Insightful)

unimacs (597299) | about 9 months ago | (#46475149)

A bigger problem in my mind than government controlling money, is money controlling governments.

Anyway it seems that you are far more at risk of not being able to access your wallet with Bitcoin than you are to having your assets frozen with traditional currencies, - assuming that you aren't actively engaged in some illegal activity. And it would also seem that Bitcoin has found a number of very effective ways of getting devalued in spite of the fact that you can't print more of it.

There are a lot more things that a currency needs to be protected from than just the government.

Re:With regulations goes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46475889)

Inflation devalues your money without even trying; Bitcoin is like a (presently very small) foreign currency or foreign company stock.

The true insanity was treating an exchange like a bank when your self being the bank is the single major point of Bitcoins.

Re:With regulations goes... (1)

unimacs (597299) | about 9 months ago | (#46476023)

Inflation devalues your money in a predictable way. While that may not be optimal, it is much better than not knowing how much your currency can buy you from one minute to the next.

Having people be their own bank is fraught with problems and is not a realistic approach to storing currency. How many people do you know that even have adequate backups for their personal data? Why do you think banks exist in the first place?

Re:With regulations goes... (1)

ed1park (100777) | about 9 months ago | (#46481603)

Money controlling governments can be used to control money controlling people.

Re:With regulations goes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46475295)

Don't forget the downsides... if someone compromises the exchange, the wallet, your machine, or just coerces you into handing over wallets, you are hosed, period.

I wouldn't be surprised, if BitCoin got popular, for home invasions to be a lot more common. A thief could just hold someone at knife/gunpoint and demand a copy of the wallet + the unlock passphrase. Then, the thief can create a few wallets, transfer the coins, then sell the wallets as a way to launder coins.

Currently, yes, Visa can block my transactions, but if someone swipes my card, charges get reversed.

Re:With regulations goes... (1)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 9 months ago | (#46476341)

of course they can and do, steal real wallets at knifepoint. also, knife wielding home invaders aren't the most technologically adept demographic, and are more likely to just steal your laptop and pawn it.

Not anonymity (1)

morgauxo (974071) | about 9 months ago | (#46475423)

Lower transaction fees.

Ripple effects (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46474889)

Virtual currency includes that stuff they use in video games... so watch out.

Re:Ripple effects (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46475667)

Virtual currency includes that stuff they use in video games... so watch out.

Watch out for what? I don't trade real currency for game currency. I don't like people who do. So, I guess it's only good things I need to watch out for fewer gold farmers? Fewer pay to win newbies? One could only hope.

Re:Ripple effects (1)

Lennie (16154) | about 9 months ago | (#46478893)

I forgot which one, but there is a country where game currency earned needs to be mentioned when doing taxes because the government see this as income and wants to get income taxes on it (even if you don't get real money from it).

MtGOX (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46474991)

it's an acronym, you morons.

slashdot = stagnated

Keeping it regular (4, Funny)

korbulon (2792438) | about 9 months ago | (#46475175)

I made a similar currency: I call it '$hitcoin'. It's not the first one I made, but version number two.

It's a craptocurrency, but one based on alimentary, time-tested economic principles, real old-stool. IANAL, but it rests on a strong fecal foundation, with minimal risk of law sewage.

Predicted This A While Back (0)

TheNarrator (200498) | about 9 months ago | (#46475373)

See my comments a couple months back: https://news.ycombinator.com/i... [ycombinator.com]

You bitcoin guys think you can push buttons on your computer and code around the system. So naive.
Sorry to be a pessimist, but they can just say anyone transferring bitcoin to another party without going through a KYC compliant intermediary is money laundering and then send the swat team out to whatever ip they can track down via NSA whatever. Game. Set. Match. Banks win as usual, all done. They'll take it down just like Pirate Bay, etc.
Can someone tell me how people think the cryptonerds can win here? I'll be over here munching on my popcorn thank you.

Re:Predicted This A While Back (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46475641)

*yawn* Pirate Bay is still up. And thanks to namecoin, it always will be.

Conquer the heart of your dear mother on Mother&rs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46480437)

The people of India have mind blowing opportunity to make stunning surprise to their loving mother. Send same day cakes to India [indiagiftsnetwork.com]
  and pamper your dear mother. Your mother will be highly delighted after getting such a beautiful gift.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?