[HN Gopher] India proposes law to ban cryptocurrencies, create o...
___________________________________________________________________
India proposes law to ban cryptocurrencies, create official digital
currency
Author : m33k44
Score : 123 points
Date : 2021-01-30 16:03 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.thehindu.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.thehindu.com)
| ve55 wrote:
| More regulation is coming for the US as well, so it's something
| to be prepared for. There's going to be some interesting times
| ahead.
| thweor23439879 wrote:
| Hardly surprising - India has been at the forefront of this
| insane "digital cash" only agenda that is being pushed worldwide.
| Their policies are almost always set by flown-in experts from the
| US and by random NGOs and compromised bureaucrats, who almost
| always give the same advice.
|
| Little wonder that even with the pompous BJP at the helm, all
| they can manage to do is implement policies that they themselves
| had blocked the previous set of kleptocrats from implementing
| earlier.
| reactspa wrote:
| Your comment is going to be an underrated comment.
|
| However, there's also the notion of "tracking corruption".
|
| China apparently is a cashless society (according to a Chinese
| person I interacted with recently). I'd imagine that if it's
| good for China, it's good for India.
|
| (Indian here.)
| manquer wrote:
| Lot of countries are effectively going cashless by design or
| by market forces.
|
| It is convenient and cheaper for everyone.
|
| It is not necessarily better for privacy or human rights, it
| _can be_ better for taxation and other government functions.
|
| Whether anyone likes it or not, the world is moving towards
| this model. It is better to have controls and regulations on
| how the data will be used rather fighting about keeping cash.
| christiansakai wrote:
| Just wondering, I don't care much about cryptocurrency, but I do
| realize that we need cryptocurrency (as a side effect of
| blockchain) to make the blockchain secure (making it an incentive
| to run blockchain nodes).
|
| Assuming that indeed we as humanity need blockchain (and
| decentralization technology) in the future, can a blockchain or
| any other decentralization technology work without cryptocurrency
| (or any other incentive for that matter)?
|
| Any thoughts?
| me551ah wrote:
| I think this is only the beginning, as bitcoin becomes more and
| more popular, countries are going to start becoming scared of it.
| Bitcoin cannot be controlled by the government and it is almost
| impossible to trace. There are bitcoin mixers available which can
| obfuscate transactions too. Black Money is a huge problem in
| India, and bitcoin transactions pose a major challenge to law and
| tax enforcement. As it starts to become a problem in other
| countries, I'm sure they will follow suit.
| _muff1nman_ wrote:
| Bitcoin is not only possible to trace, it is arguably becoming
| easier to trace than things like cash. In addition it has
| started to degrade in some of its decrentalizing aspects which
| opens up lots of vulnerabilities to being subverted by the
| government. One example is the supply chain of mining.
| PointyFluff wrote:
| Illegal transactions are a much greater problem in fiat
| currencies.
| randomopining wrote:
| What if the government shut down all exchanges? So then you
| have people transacting OTC?
|
| I don't get it. Then there's no price discovery and nobody
| wants to take a risk.
| Entwickler wrote:
| "it is almost impossible to trace." I always struggle with this
| argument. Literally every tx is on the chain. Sure, they can
| obfuscate and make tracing more difficult, but the data is
| still there to be analyzed. At some point the user will likely
| try to receive the crptyo and cash out at an exchange, or
| purchase goods and services through a regulated entity like
| paypal. That's where the gov can scrutinize and take action,
| which is why KYC is in place at Coinbase and other US
| exchanges.
|
| To curb nefarious use across borders, seems like the problem
| may be that more exchanges need KYC laws across the globe, not
| just in USA, and there would need to be some interpol-like
| oversight.
|
| A globally public ledger seems like a tool, not a hindrance,
| against "Black Money". We just need more global cooperation and
| oversight between governments tracking the exchanges.
| me551ah wrote:
| If you use a bitcoin mixer then it cannot be traced. That's
| the whole point of mixers.
| bobbydreamer wrote:
| Nope. Not in anytime soon. India will wait and see what other
| countries do. Probably there will be a terrorist attack somewhere
| and they will find out he used crypto for everything and banning
| of crypto will stop. RBI said they are banning crypto few years
| back and people are still doing it, then found RBI didn't ban,
| they just requested people not to use it.
| naruvimama wrote:
| To all Indian and non-Indians alike, a simple exercise will tell
| you a lot about the challenges the country faces from a security
| stand point.
|
| Enumerate all the countries around india,look at the political
| systems, demography, civil wars and genocide. India is a oasis in
| the region, to keep ot safe is a herculean task.
|
| And believe me you, until very recently the US and co often
| backed unsavoury elements animical to Indian interests due to
| political and strategic compulsions.
| akhilkg wrote:
| I assume the thought process was something like this: Indian
| government looks at cryptocurrency and think "Ok so this is like
| UPI (digital money) - but I can't trace it and that's bad" - so
| boom - make an official cryptocurrency which they can trace back
| to and restrict all others. I don't know how good of a solution
| this is, but, defeats the point of crypto nonetheless.
| [deleted]
| jackfoxy wrote:
| Consider this:
|
| Every Satoshi can be traced back to when it was mined. The IRS
| now requires Americans and resident aliens filing income tax
| returns to report on their crypto holdings. Lots (maybe most?)
| people use exchanges like CoinBase. (Remember, not your keys, not
| your coins.)
|
| If the government believes (they do not even have to prove) your
| Satoshis were ever used for illicit transactions, they can
| legally seize those assets. (Sorry, we don't think you were
| involved, but these coins are criminals.) To simplify things they
| just need to show a judge reasonable cause of _structuring_
| sometime in the coin 's history. That has to be super easy to do.
| https://www.goldinglawyers.com/structuring-cash-transactions
| paxys wrote:
| Saying "the government can technically do XYZ" is pointless
| when there is no precedent and it has never been challenged in
| court. What would the reaction be if the government bust into
| your home and took your wallet because one of the dollar notes
| in it was used for a robbery 10 years and hundreds of owners
| ago?
| me551ah wrote:
| Bitcoin mixers do a pretty good job of obsfucating transaction
| history and maintaining anonymity.
| jackfoxy wrote:
| Smells like money laundering.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Most non-techies I know simply buy and sell from an exchange,
| never touching the real chain. For them, bitcoin is the number
| on the screen they see when they log in.
|
| Unless the USA imposes the strict FATCA and AML to all global
| exchanges , forcing countries to act as if exchanges are banks
| and comply,It would be easy to just use non-American exchanges
| stay out of trouble.
| jackfoxy wrote:
| Sure, your coins are where the government can's touch them.
| But if you do not comply with the IRS reporting rules and
| your body is where the government can touch you, watch out.
|
| But you're right. If USG does go down this path of crypto
| suppression (and this is pure speculation at this point) US
| based exchanges are vulnerable first.
|
| I imagine nothing like this would unfold without coordination
| with the EU and five eyes.
| andrewjl wrote:
| Tax enforcement prioritization roughly follows the shape of
| wealth/income distribution. Focusing on the long-tail isn't
| impactful, as far as fiscal concerns go.
|
| You'd achieve about the same result tax wise w/ muscular
| KYC/AML requirements for crypto exchanges/custodians in the
| US as you would w/ a ban.
| vmception wrote:
| Structuring doesn't apply to cryptocurrencies and there is no
| reporting threshold to be avoided yet. There are some proposals
| to make thresholds. Structuring currently only applies to
| physical cash passing a boarder or physical cash entering or
| exiting a financial institution. It does not apply to
| institution to institution transfers of any type and it doesn't
| apply to cryptocurrencies at the moment. I've had this
| discussion before, FinCEN is trying to change that.
|
| Because structuring is a criminal law, they would need to show
| a court a bit more to convict. But before a conviction they
| could make your life complicated with dumb rationale to a judge
| for a warrant or seizure notice, and that has nothing to do
| with cryptocurrency, everyone relies on the government and
| private persons not making their life complicated.
| jackfoxy wrote:
| Yes. This would be new legal territory, but not radically new
| (IANAL). USG would certainly pick the case and the court to
| try it in carefully in order to establish the precedent.
| vmception wrote:
| Structuring regulations are very clear about physical cash
| in and out of a licensed financial institution (or avoiding
| declarations to customs). Most agencies and representatives
| have made it clear they aren't trying to debilitate bitcoin
| or bitcoin use. This fanfiction of the government not
| letting bitcoin be useful as a competitor is a weak
| argument mostly because the ship has sailed, about a decade
| ago.
| SerLava wrote:
| Damn, you're probably right, even though it would never work
| that way for a greenback.
| y04nn wrote:
| This this a known issue, not all coins are the same, but I read
| recently that there is work in progress to use Schnorr
| signatures that would fix this problem by mixing multiple
| signatures into a single one.
| rrll22 wrote:
| > Every Satoshi can be traced back to when it was mined
|
| This is blatantly wrong, do you have a source for that?
| Transactions can have multiple inputs and multiple outputs;
| "which satoshi comes from which input" is not a valid question;
| transactions are about value sums of inputs and outputs.
| ripvanwinkle wrote:
| I am trying to understand what new scenarios a digital currency
| from India or any government unlock that are not possible today.
|
| Is it that if i wanted to pay someone I could just skip the
| intermediate credit card / google pay/ bank account and just send
| money p2p.
|
| love to learn more here.
| dschnurr wrote:
| Gov-supported digital currencies would mostly streamline things
| and replace existing bloated and slow programs. Imagine the
| current stimulus situation - instead of sending checks to
| people they could just press a button and immediately send
| credit to all citizens that have a certain account threshold or
| income rate. Currency units could be earmarked for certain
| retailers (i.e. food stamps, education, etc).
| gus_massa wrote:
| It's just a mandatory account in a National Bank[1] for
| everyone. With a debit card or an app in the phone, it's
| almost as good. The real question is why they need a new
| currency instead of using the current one?
|
| [1] I don't know the name. Here in Argentina we have a
| "National Bank", and also the "Central Bank" that is somewhat
| like the Federal Reserve, and a few other national banks that
| are privatized and nationalized back from time to time. Also
| each Province has it's own bank. (And there are also private
| banks.)
| whiddershins wrote:
| Press a button and instantly deduct a new tax from my bank
| account as well.
| wtmt wrote:
| There is no need to send checks to people unless it's
| required for keeping records or purposes beyond money
| transfer. India has quite an advanced banking system where
| quite a large sum of money can be transferred in mere seconds
| or in several minutes round the clock anytime of the year
| from any bank to any other bank.
| sub7 wrote:
| They've already built BHIM and UPI. People think the government
| are a bunch of dumb babus but they're sharp as fuck and realized
| bitcoin is a virus and total lockdown early is best.
|
| If Indians want to go hold + transact cash in random BTC wallets
| then by all means they are welcome to do so illegally and subject
| themselves to scrutiny down the road.
| wtmt wrote:
| Firstly, consider that the Indian government believes every
| citizen and resident to be a crook and a tax evader unless proven
| otherwise. That's why it has been pushing for "cashless" (even
| after the callous and disastrous demonetization exercise in 2016
| that outlawed some currency bill denominations), linking
| taxpayers with a poorly designed and implemented non-revocable
| biometric based number (called Aadhaar), pushing for this flawed
| system to be used everywhere, etc.
|
| Next consider that the current regime has a charismatic leader
| who gets a lot of vociferous support for anything that can be
| spun into the "anti-terrorism" and "national security" angles.
|
| Since cryptocurrencies are only used by terrorists and tax
| evaders dealing in drugs and such (this is a sarcastic take here,
| but is believed so completely by the supporters of the
| government), they must be banned.
| option_greek wrote:
| Its quite clear why they want to do this at this point of time.
| The problem is the floating rate of USD/INR as seen by BTC/INR or
| any stable currency/INR is slipping like crazy since they started
| providing stimulus to economy last year. Its so bad, that there
| is a hair cut of around 8% regardless of the platform. This is
| only going to become worse as more money is going to be printed
| this year to get the economy back on track.
|
| No one can call out that the emperor is losing his clothes if
| they are terminated :)
| billfruit wrote:
| Possibly more urgent policy reforms/legislation required in India
| than this:
|
| 1. Codification of the law of Torts.
|
| 2. No-fault divorce.
|
| 3. More devolution of powers and policy making to states.
|
| 4. Ending the practice of Unelected Governers.
|
| 5. Remove power of the central government to dismiss elected
| state governments.
|
| 6. Dismantle the British Era civil service designed to preserve
| undemocratic control over the population to a modern federal
| system where all decision making authority lies with elected
| representatives only.
|
| 7. Repeal of colonial era police and criminal codes, and moving
| to a more humane police and criminal justice system as in other
| democratic countries, including the establishment of jury system.
|
| 8. Give equal representation all states in the upper house as in
| the US senate(2 senator s from each state).
| op03 wrote:
| 9. Free dosas
| umeshunni wrote:
| DosaCoin for everyone
| danans wrote:
| > 8. Give equal representation all states in the upper house as
| in the US senate(2 senator s from each state).
|
| This is a terribly unfair system in the US, resulting in a
| voter from Texas (population 29 million) having 2% of the
| representation in the Senate as a voter from Wyoming
| (population 579000) or 5% of the representation in the Senate
| as a voter from Hawaii (population 1.4 million)
|
| The system has its origins at a time when only land owning
| white men (by definition a minority at the time) had the right
| to vote, and senators were chosen by state legislators, not
| residents.
|
| Only under that backward system could the _current_ Senate seat
| allocation be seen as remotely rational, although it can in no
| way be viewed as just.
| paganel wrote:
| > The system has its origins at a time when only land owning
| white men (by definition a minority at the time)
|
| And even then, it was highly debated against, if I remember
| correctly even James Madison himself was against it, to say
| nothing of the anti-federalists.
|
| In the end Madison saw it as a compromise towards the States,
| but after 200+ years I think the anti-federalists were right
| on this, it ended up like an aristocracy-like thing with too
| much power vested in its members.
| lou1306 wrote:
| The Senate is intentionally designed to give more power to
| smaller states. Otherwise, the 10-15 biggest states could
| routinely gang up and pass federal legislation. Not a really
| nice outlook for a federal government.
| katbyte wrote:
| so instead the small states get to gang up and impose their
| will on the rest with only a fraction of the population?
| yumraj wrote:
| But what are states, artificial boundaries within a country
| for administration purposes.
|
| Why should 5 million people in a particular boundary have
| the same say as 50 million people living in another
| boundary. It makes no logical sense..
|
| In fact it is anti-democracy as all citizens' votes are not
| equal. In fact this applies to the electoral vote system
| also.
| nitrogen wrote:
| Indeed. This is a problem that happens anyway. Getting rid
| of the Senate would make it worse. Just look what
| percentage of the western states is federal land, and what
| percentage of the Colorado river is claimed by California,
| both at the expense of people who actually live in those
| states.
| danans wrote:
| The Senate was designed that way when the distribution of
| "Free white males 16 years and upward" - the only people
| who could vote at that time - was far more uniform across
| the states [1].
|
| There was only 1 order of magnitude difference between the
| voting eligible population of the smallest state (Delaware)
| and the largest state (Virginia).
|
| Today, that difference is 2 orders of magnitude, which is
| massive in comparison to what it was when the Senate seat
| allocation was designed.
|
| Arguments for the preservation of that system are nothing
| more than shallowly disguised arguments for the continued
| selective erosion of voting power of individuals in high
| population states.
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1790_United_States_census
| ac29 wrote:
| The US system isnt perfect, but arguments against the
| current allocation of Senators is effectively arguing
| that the Senate should be abolished (which would take a
| constitutional amendment). I think small states suddenly
| finding themselves largely powerless would consider
| secession if that were the case.
| danans wrote:
| > I think small states suddenly finding themselves
| largely powerless would consider secession if that were
| the case.
|
| I have little doubt they would, and in doing so start a
| war. After all, it's happened before, and many people are
| plainly agitating for it now.
|
| It's the "my enhanced privilege or your destruction,
| choose one" argument, which is a clear demonstration of
| one way the system codifies structural inequality and is
| transparently anti democratic. In a similar way,
| corporate lobbying distorts democratic representation,
| and by all appearances, they overlap quite a bit,
| differentiated only by the industry sector and which
| Senator they support.
| [deleted]
| fhrow4484 wrote:
| > The Senate was designed that way when the distribution
| [...] was far more uniform across the states
|
| Doesn't this goes against your argument then?
|
| At a time where most of the voting population was at its
| peak uniformity, the 2-senator-per-state model was
| invented to ensure that the bigger states could not bully
| their way in federal legislation.
|
| It was invented at the time where it was the least
| needed, since as you said, voting population was very
| uniform, so they mostly want the same things.
| danans wrote:
| > Doesn't this goes against your argument then?
|
| No. It was also anti-democratic at that time, but because
| the distribution of the vote was an order of magnitude
| less divergent, and the only people who could vote were
| landowning white men, it was able to succeed politically
| as a compromise.
|
| Since then, its anti-democratic effects have magnified as
| the population divergence between states has magnified.
| austhrow743 wrote:
| There are a billion ways you can split a democratic body in
| to a majority and minority. We don't give the left handed,
| orphans, or people whose name starts with F extra voting
| power because the righties, parent havers, and all the
| other name start letters could gang up on them. So if being
| a minority isn't an obvious reason on its own to be given
| more voting power, then there needs to be more reason to do
| so for the states, and every time I see this brought up the
| only defence is that the small states would have a minority
| of votes.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| The bicameral congress lets small states join and maintain
| membership in a union safely. It is a net increase in the
| people's representation and this has only become moreso in
| the era of popularly elected senators. India, with its
| historically fraught relations between ethnicities,
| religions, languages and social ranks, would benefit greatly
| from such representation.
| danans wrote:
| > It is a net increase in the people's representation and
| this has only become moreso in the era of popularly elected
| senators.
|
| It's a net zero increase in the people's representation. It
| is a redistribution of representation toward smaller
| states, which has accelerated as state populations have
| diverged.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| A multi-cameral legislature is a net increase in
| representation because it forces national considerations
| to be examined multiple ways. The increased attention and
| varied perspective represents the beliefs and desires of
| more people than just a majority as measured one way
| (e.g., by political party.)
|
| By contrast, a single-house legislature fulfills the
| desires of a national majority population the most
| quickly, which is what you are advocating for. This is at
| the expense of more careful consideration.
|
| In other words, we do not agree on the definition of
| representation as you see it as maximizing activity and I
| see it as maximizing consideration.
| danans wrote:
| > In other words, we do not agree on the definition of
| representation as you see it as maximizing activity and I
| see it as maximizing consideration
|
| The only thing it maximizes today is the continuation of
| hereditary and tribal concentrations of political power.
| It's a hostage situation, as the secessionists honestly
| will tell you.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| While I appreciate your zeal, I suspect we will not
| proceed to real discussion. Setting aside that countries
| with histories different than that of the United States
| use bicameral legislature, consider how multi-cameral
| legislature might benefit a country even when one,
| relatively uniform, political party controls all houses.
| brobdingnagians wrote:
| Like the internet, government used to be more decentralized.
| States were the dominant law givers, and it meant that power
| centers were more decentralized and local to the people being
| governed. Instead of most laws that directly impact your life
| coming from far away in Washington DC from politicians you
| will never meet and can't influence, you had laws from more
| local government that you had more of a chance of
| participating in and influencing (e.g. for the things that
| mattered you had much more _meaningful_ representation). When
| states could elect senators, it had more of a chance of
| keeping that power decentralized. Now government power, like
| the internet, is increasingly centralized which makes it a
| battle of the federal government to make the entire country
| do what "our side" wants. It would be better if most laws
| were decided locally in your state or city-- and other states
| or cities could do things differently. That would be good for
| everybody.
| dantheman wrote:
| No it balances the power between the states. The federal
| government should not be involved in day to day affairs of
| the general populace. As it was originally conceived it was a
| government of enumerated powers.
|
| The house represents the people, the senate the states. In
| fact, allowing the direct election of senators was one of the
| worst decisions ever made.
| enchiridion wrote:
| That's an interesting view of electing senators. Is there
| somewhere I can read more about it? Never thought of it as
| a very important change.
| dantheman wrote:
| Here's a link: https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/histo
| ry/common/briefing...
| asimpletune wrote:
| Yeah, it's called "the great compromise". During the days
| when the founders were debating majority rule vs minority
| rights, they couldn't decide what to do. So they created
| two houses that both have to coordinate to pass law, but
| provided a few escape hatches.
|
| Random, but this is also why adding Puerto Rico as a
| state is extremely threatening to the political paradigm
| today. It would add 2 extra senators, who would most
| likely be democratic.
| danans wrote:
| > The federal government should not be involved in day to
| day affairs of the general populace.
|
| This is an argument that the Senate - a part of the federal
| government - should have _less_ power than it does today,
| much as the House of Lords ' power has diminished in the
| UK.
| ac29 wrote:
| I'd argue the opposite - currently, the Senate is where
| legislation goes to die after being passed in the house
| (which arguably represents the will of the people, at
| least in theory). The government would be more involved
| in the day to day affairs of people if the Senate was
| weakened or eliminated.
| SmokyBourbon wrote:
| 9. Give the people an alternative to defecating outdoors into
| the water supply
| princevegeta89 wrote:
| How about even more serious problems like road traffic
| discipline, dowry, child marriages and public toilets?
| umeshunni wrote:
| Those aren't problems that can be legislated away
| manquer wrote:
| 8. There is no reason to give equal votes to all states. Why
| should citizes have unequal voting power ?. It is undemocratic
| in the U.S, The amount of power conservatives is
| disproportionate to the actual percentage of the population
| that wants them.
|
| 7. Jury system is not without its flaws. You talk about
| colonial era policy reformation. Juries are a commonwealth
| tradition! Mostly colonial countries have them. india had them
| till the 50-60s, it was intentionally removed as part of
| justice reformation.
|
| 5. In a federal or union government the state should have this
| power. The integrity of the state requires this power. This
| excerise of this power needs strong checks and balances in
| place , but lack of adequate controls is not a reason not to
| remove it entirely.
|
| 6. Elected officials always have final decision making power.
| Civil servants are career professionals sure have the ability
| to influence the decision making in what and how they present
| information to elected officials, abolishing civil service is
| basically like having a company with only senior management and
| no middle management. Who will execute the policy decisions?
|
| 4. Governor's power in states (not union territories or ncr) is
| actually pretty limited and largely ceremonial. The president
| and governors are artefacts of transforming from a colony. They
| don't have much power constitutionally by design. Electing them
| won't solve the problems of the office, they will just
| influenced by corruption by needing votes as before .
| nullc wrote:
| > Why should citizes have unequal voting power ?
|
| Unequal voting power doesn't just arise from unequal votes,
| it also arises from correlated/block votes.
|
| Making votes unequal can counteract unequal voting power.
|
| Unequal voting is one of the reasons that e.g. people in
| urban centres can't just capriciously turn the far away state
| of Wyoming into a poorly managed nuclear waste dump.
| 3np wrote:
| As much as I think this proposal is unneeded, harmful,
| draconian and problematic in other ways, I disagree with this
| apple-to-oranges what-aboutisms in legislation.
|
| You can absolutely attempt improvements in one dimension while
| othe r more important ones are sorely neglected.
|
| The article is unclear abot the panel, buit I guess they have
| little impact on the issues you mentioned.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _You can absolutely attempt improvements in one dimension
| while othe r more important ones are sorely neglected._
|
| Yes. And you will be harming yourself and your country by
| doing so, by prioritizing the wrong things.
|
| Ending up "better than now" (by prioritizing the wrong
| things, but still improving some dimension)
|
| is worse than
|
| Enging up "much better than now" (by prioritizing the most
| important dimension to improve)
| loceng wrote:
| I think a global, decentralized pyramid scheme is fairly
| harmful - at least to the later adopters left holding the
| bag, and then the growing "army of HODLers" who are aligned
| financially to further adoption to realize gains or try to
| break even again; including the danger of regulatory
| capture.
| codegeek wrote:
| Or you don't get anything done by trying to be "much better
| than now" vs "better than now". It goes both ways.
| coldtea wrote:
| Perhaps you shouldn't random walk to being better?
|
| "House is on fire? Let's throw out the trash first! That
| would be a better than now house, a cleaner, better
| smelling, burning house!"
| mushbino wrote:
| How is the state taking a monopoly on crypto "better than
| now"?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _How is the state taking a monopoly on crypto "better
| than now"?_
|
| India has a functioning payments system. It has a
| dysfunctional tax system and a massive black market.
| Banning cryptocurrencies doesn't really do any practical
| harm. It does take away, or at least make more difficult,
| a major route for illicit payments.
| redpillor wrote:
| this reform is good. it should stop black money and make market
| more lucrative
| specialist wrote:
| I'll support the Clean-up Technical (Legal) Debt political
| coalition.
| screye wrote:
| > 4. Ending the practice of Unelected Governers.
|
| > 8. Give equal representation all states in the upper house as
| in the US senate(2 senator s from each state).
|
| I am sorry, but we certainly do not need the worst parts of the
| US system. It is not just bad. It is catastrophic.
|
| Having 2 elected houses is monumentally stupid idea that allows
| politicians to trap the system in blockages, while pointing
| fingers at each other for no repercussions.
|
| > Codification of the law of Torts.
|
| I hope this never happens. The super litigious part of America
| through civic laws leads to a lot of services getting
| needlessly expensive.
|
| ________
|
| India has big problems, but almost none of them are the ones
| you mention.
| lou1306 wrote:
| > Having 2 elected houses is monumentally stupid idea that
| allows politicians to trap the system in blockages, while
| pointing fingers at each other for no repercussions.
|
| A democratic system's main concern is not efficiency, but
| rather robustness of the democratic process. Authoritarian
| states are _much_ more efficient in passing legislation, but
| at what cost?
| screye wrote:
| Democracy is about allowing people's representatives to
| effectively pass bills for which they put them in place.
|
| Building structures at actively make that difficult are not
| democratic. They are just bad.
| candiodari wrote:
| It is _also_ about protecting minorities from the
| majority.
| reactspa wrote:
| Re: No fault divorce:
|
| The concept of marriage in a tradition-based society like India
| has a completely different meaning than "let's voluntarily have
| a contract, and we can break it off any time we feel like it."
|
| In order to protect the sanctity of marriage (straight or gay,
| I support both), the government must resist calls to make it
| easy to divorce. Divorce must be a painful, punishing process
| if society is to continue to take marriage seriously. (It must
| nevertheless be possible for either party in the marriage to
| initiate a divorce to completion. That's non-negotiable.)
|
| Just my view on this subject. And I accept that others with
| different experiences than mine may have different views.
| thih9 wrote:
| > Divorce must be a painful, punishing process if society is
| to continue to take marriage seriously.
|
| This might increase unhappy people stuck in a marriage, which
| likely won't make the society take marriage seriously; the
| opposite seems true.
| austhrow743 wrote:
| Can't a tradition based society just use tradition to keep
| divorce painful and punish those that do it? Like the core
| aspect of a wedding is to bring everyone you know together so
| you can tell them all at the same time "I promise to stick to
| this person". If you want that to have weight then just treat
| it like it has weight. Shame your friends in to staying
| married if they talk about considering divorce, and shun
| those that go through with it anyway.
|
| I understand the concept of having different views of how
| serious of a commitment marriage should be, but I don't
| understand why "I want things to be this way" automatically
| means "the government should make things this way". They're
| the scariest institution that exists because of the
| overwhelming power they wield. Hell, they're largely defined
| by it. Bringing the government in to play for every little
| thing seems to me like buttering your bread with a scimitar.
| qart wrote:
| There are so many horror stories of people committing suicide
| because of the anguish caused by husband/wife. If you're
| married, it's up to you to maintain its sanctity. Don't
| expect anyone else to care about your marriage. Least of all,
| our incredibly corrupt government machinery. "No fault
| divorce" spares the suffering spouse from having to legally
| prove a lot of things that happen in private.
| danbolt wrote:
| How about make marriage harder to get and divorce easy? That
| way people don't get married without earnestly wanting it and
| don't get trapped in agonizing mistakes.
| ergocoder wrote:
| At least, make them equally easy.
|
| It's just so strange that marriage is super easy. Divorce
| is like several months of processes (even both sides are
| amicable).
| Larrikin wrote:
| This promotes a system where the only reason anyone would get
| married is for a minor tax break or protection in a law suit
| manquer wrote:
| You have to remember the enormous social pressure to get
| married in India.
|
| I don't necessarily agree with OP on it should be
| complicated , however there won't be any danger of
| reduction in legal marriages
| a1369209993 wrote:
| > In order to protect the sanctity of marriage (straight or
| gay, I support both), the government must resist calls to
| make it easy to divorce. Divorce must be a painful, punishing
| process if society is to continue to take marriage seriously.
|
| Yes, that's why it needs to be easy to divorce.
| azifali wrote:
| Divorce should be easy. Marriage is not which needs
| protection and government meddling. Two consenting adults
| should choose to live together or apart as they feel fit. I
| would resist any call to make the government a part of our
| personal lives. Dangerous proposition to say the list with no
| limit to when we can draw the line.
| [deleted]
| dvdkon wrote:
| I don't see why marriage should be a legal process "provided"
| by the state. People from different cultural and personal
| backgrounds have differing views on marriage. You think
| divorce should be difficult so that people take marriage
| seriously, but there are likely many others in your country
| that would vehemently disagree. Even the choice of words,
| "sanctity", suggests to me that marriage would be better
| served as a purely religious ceremony. The government can
| then provide the legal aspects of today's marriage in some
| kind of "registered partnership", which would have none of
| the cultural baggage and be purely functional.
| specialist wrote:
| Has India banned other religions?
|
| Cue pearl clutching about slippery slopes.
| azifali wrote:
| I think this is a needless and draconian proposal.
|
| If the government stops meddling with the constitutional rights
| of its citizen subjects, restore Right to Information (RTI),
| remove election fraud and fundraising which is tremendously
| boosting the currently elected government - they would have
| bestowed a huge favor to its citizens and the future generations.
| Abishek_Muthian wrote:
| My views on the ban on cryptocurrencies are same as an average HN
| user although I don't have any. But my views on official digital
| currency in India could be different i.e. I would welcome it.
|
| Just because if it enables in the distant future the ability to
| monitor where _every paisa of my tax was spent on down to the
| lowest level_ e.g. It was used to buy the tiles for the
| construction of a public toilet in X village; it 's certainly
| possible with blockchain.
| PointyFluff wrote:
| Bitcoin is more of a holding; last-mile transactions are better
| made with different cryptocurrencies, such as Monero. With Doge
| being great for tossing around on the internet for the more
| trivial things.
| jmsflknr wrote:
| Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25968328
| divs1210 wrote:
| Indian here.
|
| THIS is why India has been enslaved by foreign powers again and
| again. This is why Indians rarely innovate in India but
| outperform others abroad.
|
| Indian leadership SUCKS, and India will remain a third world
| shithole for the foreseeable future.
|
| I had some hopes from Modi, but now I don't.
|
| Not sure what kind of bad karma makes you reincarnate as an
| Indian, but my past lives must have been full of hedonism and
| debauchery. I hope.
| eschulz wrote:
| I can't argue with you. However, I'm often unsettled when
| people envision such a gulf between them and the political
| leaders in their nation. I fear that this makes people say, "oh
| well, the government are idiots, but there's nothing I can do".
| I wish I knew the formula to improve state leadership, but I
| hope you never quit applying pressure to those in high office
| in India.
| rakejake wrote:
| The real reason India is behind is because people like you and
| me are content dissing the country at every opportunity sitting
| in America.
| 02020202 wrote:
| that is the beauty of cryptocurrency - you cannot steal it away
| from people. haha.
| motohagiography wrote:
| By ban, do they mean "create a massive grey/black market full of
| billionaire criminals," because that's literally what they're
| doing.
| coldtea wrote:
| No, it just means of being one of the first goverments to take
| control of the cryptocurrencies, which will end up making these
| "billionaires" worth $0 (or "come clean" by paying big taxes
| for their money to transfer them to the official currency), and
| others who continue trading or offer support for it, go to
| jail.
| suyash wrote:
| Yes, think this is very innovative approach the Indian Govt,
| I support it.
| TT3351 wrote:
| Very optimistic outlook for you to take towards a government
| which has taken even more drastic steps in the past aimed at
| corruption to (from what I can tell) limited effect and great
| disruption to non-corrupt citizens -- thinking specifically
| of demonetization. This seems like "big stick" policy to me,
| a hammer looking for a nail.
| coldtea wrote:
| Well, I never said this will make corruption more
| difficult, or even that it's aimed towards reducing it.
|
| Just that it will make cryptocurrency use/facilitation
| illegal, and thus prone to fines/jail time.
| teawrecks wrote:
| So basically, "We think it's time to steal the tech, ban any
| further innovation, and implement our own version that subverts
| the entire point of it to begin with"?
| bitxbitxbitcoin wrote:
| I would actually like to see a nation state try to ban private
| cryptocurrency use. How would they do it?
| [deleted]
| ripvanwinkle wrote:
| They would essentially drive it underground so that if you
| bought or sold or transacted in crypto you would have to do it
| through the equivalent of dark alleys or obscure smoke filled
| venues.
|
| Something like the contrast between trying to procure cocaine
| vs aspirin
| PointyFluff wrote:
| Woooo! spooky VPNs....
| thysultan wrote:
| It will be easier than you think: You could just send crypto
| to a friend and they wire me the equivalent in $ with india
| being non-the-wiser.
| randomopining wrote:
| But how do you know the price? Much less price discovery.
|
| Would it be easy to transact OTC like that?
| lazypenguin wrote:
| I love when you get little glimpses like these into the mindset
| of leadership and realize they are just ordinary people who don't
| know what they're doing either. I'm not a crypto enthusiast but
| even I have to chuckle and shake my head at situations like this.
| An official cryptocurrency run by the Reserve Bank of India
| defeats one of the main selling points of a decentralized
| cryptocurrency...
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Digital currency can different than crypto currencies. The
| point is they want centralization.
| omk wrote:
| Digital currency is no different that what already exists in
| terms of digital representation of one's holding. Really
| curious to see how the tax payer is going to pay for a
| glorified database and what value is derived from it.
| [deleted]
| louloulou wrote:
| It's just a round-a-bout way of getting rid of cash so they
| can surveil all transactions
| ampdepolymerase wrote:
| How fast is clearing and settlement in traditional Indian
| banking?
| geektips wrote:
| It depends on the system used for transaction[0]. For
| transaction under $1300 settlements are instant, while
| for amount more than that it ranges from 30 minutes to 24
| hours.
|
| [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_and_settlemen
| t_syste...
| manquer wrote:
| During working hours on week days for largers amounts
| RTGS is real time and minimum amount is $2500 and is few
| seconds fast.
| analog31 wrote:
| If they are anything like the US, then they already have a
| sophisticated database of financial transactions in support
| of their tax system and national security apparatus.
| dabbledash wrote:
| I think it's likely that defeating those main selling points is
| not accidental
| analog31 wrote:
| In my view, money is a technology, meaning that a money
| system does not have an inherent purpose, but is designed to
| serve specific purposes. For instance I think that the US
| money system is "designed" to serve as a medium of exchange,
| a temporary store of value, and a tool of government economic
| policy.
|
| Bitcoin might have been designed with some other purposes in
| mind. It could also be co-opted by a government. For
| instance, I suspect that subsidized energy for bitcoin mining
| represents a government monetary policy, but I don't know the
| extent of the influence or its real purpose.
|
| Moreover, like a technology, people will use money if it's
| useful to them. For instance people in countries with "bad"
| money will often use it for daily expenses, but move the bulk
| of their assets into instruments based on the currencies of
| the US, Europe, etc.
| dabbledash wrote:
| I'm far from an expert in these things, but to me the
| benefits of bitcoin are: 1) giving individuals a way to
| exchange money digitally without it being tied to their
| offline identity directly (cash) and 2) providing a
| currency that can't be manipulated directly by government
| monetary policy. I assume banning it and replacing it with
| something from the government is intended to avoid those
| things intentionally, and isn't some accident they stumbled
| into.
| analog31 wrote:
| Indeed, I'd separate the two policies. On the one hand,
| providing a digital currency that works like their
| existing money system, is just an extension of their
| existing policy, perhaps a minor technological upgrade.
|
| Banning crypto is another policy altogether.
| bilater wrote:
| A centralized Digital currency has its place and is coming to
| all countries eventually. There are benefits such as easy
| disbursement of money to the masses (UBI) by depositing it
| directly into their wallets, efficient taxation and more. Look
| into CBDCs.
| PoignardAzur wrote:
| I don't think the primary objection to UBI is "But how can we
| solve the logistic challenge transferring money to all these
| people?"
| meowkit wrote:
| > An official cryptocurrency run by the Reserve Bank of India
| defeats one of the main selling points of a decentralized
| cryptocurrency...
|
| You can still have a centralized token asset as your currency.
| It defeats the purpose of open source and public blockchain
| utility, but gives a government massive control over its
| currency.
| teawrecks wrote:
| But then what's the point? You can already achieve the same
| outcome way more efficiently using existing centralized
| methods.
| doovd wrote:
| Ye idk what the guy above you was trying to say TBH
| gogopuppygogo wrote:
| Better tools to government surveillance of citizens is the
| goal
| mythrwy wrote:
| If they pull both of these things off it may be bullish for
| precious metals.
|
| People will always want stores of value outside of monitored and
| adulterable (is that a word? hope the meaning is clear)
| centralized currencies. And the more trust is broken by the
| powers controlling the centralized currencies the more people
| will seek options to preserve and transfer wealth.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-30 23:02 UTC)