<p>Countries which have strict AML (anti-money laundering) laws are less likely to freely allow Bitcoin use and exchange.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-11-10T08:53:31.287Z
I suppose on a Bitcoin forum we are supposed to know what AML stands for ;-) Comes with the territory.
Thilo
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-11-10T11:47:20.493Z
@Thilo - sorry, expanded now.
Meni Rosenfeld
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-11-10T05:10:01.497Z
2011-11-10T11:46:09.293Z
2011-11-10T11:46:09.293Z
Meni Rosenfeld
<p>I believe the Swedish government would be less likely to crack down on Bitcoins. I believe they have a political party called the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party_%28Sweden%29" rel="nofollow">Pirate Party</a>", which as far as I know, got elected as a reaction to the crackdown on Pirate Bay. I would love for someone to comment, in order to confirm this.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-03T15:18:15.013Z
Currently the Swedish Pirate Party holds seats in the EU parliament, not on the Swedish one. It is spreading to many countries anyway, most notably Germany.
o0'.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-11-13T13:18:39.397Z
2012-08-03T16:39:47.713Z
2012-08-03T16:39:47.713Z
David
<p>I think whatever views comes up will always be views - why? Because decisions come from groups of people unless its a dictatorship!</p>

<p>What we are seeing is a East - West divide. More eastern countries are portraying Bitcoin in a negative light whereas the west is embracing it more and more.</p>

<p>Ultimately governments represent their people. If this was 2009 and Bitcoin just started and governments were aware, then I don't think Bitcoin would be here.</p>

<p>But because it had room to grow, it is at a stage where people are starting to have needs for it, so governments have to consider that view - is it positive for its citizens or not.</p>

<p>Not the hopes and wishes or wants, but practically. Today Bitcoin has a good appearance. Many people interested, so it has a chance to become something big like Facebook.</p>

<p>Ultimately though its all our actions with these technologies. If too many people abuse it, then it will be more restricted.</p>

<p>It's easy to see. If too many services close and coins disappear (MtGox anyone), then it will bring regulation which will stifle the Bitcoin world.</p>

<p>If too many people use it for grey/shady/black market use, then it will cause certain things.</p>

<p>Overall the best thing for Bitcoin or any of these related technologies is for those responsible to act responsibly and for the consideration for humanity rather then self.</p>

<p>Then Bitcoin will thrive like the internet thrives.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-25T08:20:17.070Z
Thanks for the answer. Not sure I agree with regulation stifling the Bitcoin world though; it was deregulation that is thought to have caused the GFC (though dollars have hardly been stifled because of it!).
Highly Irregular
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-25T09:58:09.527Z
I think that regulation of Bitcoin related businesses will ultimately make it safer to use Bitcoin as a store of money and thus will be essential for a breakthrough to the mainstream. I don't think that Bitcoin transactions will be regulated much in the future beyond tax demands on the value gain between purchase and sale – simply because laws that can't be enforced only serve arbitrariness.
Murch
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-26T15:03:15.387Z
@HighlyIrregular I did not say anything about regulation stifling bitcoin. GFC... not sure what that is. Perhaps you was answering another answer?
Thoth
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-27T03:20:25.663Z
GFC = Global Financial Crisis (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%9308 ). Your words were "...it will bring regulation which will stifle the Bitcoin world". Speaking of which, I'm still surprised about the lack of a market response (ie a drop) to the US IRS announcement to treat bitcoins as property when it comes to capital gains tax. Maybe it just hasn't been publicised enough yet?
Highly Irregular
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-25T06:03:22.700Z
2014-03-25T08:18:43.297Z
2014-03-25T08:18:43.297Z
Thoth
<p>As some examples which seem logical to me, but should only be taken as examples:</p>

<p>A government that is susceptible to commercial lobbying is probably more likely to be pressured by banks to disallow competition with their services.</p>

<p>Governments that have a corruption problem might also be quietly bribed to legislate against a currency that competes with the official one.</p>

<p>Countries that support open source software might tend to have a "for the good of the community attitude" that matches the philosophy of Bitcoins.</p>

<p>For this question, it's probably important to provide references/examples (such as information about who is trying to stop use of bitcoins and why). </p>

<p>I see the need to ask this question to help provide a foundation for this one: <a href="https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1952/is-there-a-list-of-countries-that-are-not-likely-to-persecute-bitcoin-businesses">Is there a list of countries that are not likely to persecute bitcoin businesses?</a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-12-12T00:40:56.473Z
I think this question isn't really a good fit for the SE model, as the answer should be a list of things, and is unlikely to be contributed by a single author. People might like to add to it over time, but for now I will just accept an answer.
Highly Irregular
<currencies><legal><banks><politics>
What are the qualities of a country that might make it more or less likely to freely allow Bitcoins or crypto-currencies?
Highly Irregular
# What are the qualities of a country that might make it more or less likely to freely allow Bitcoins or crypto-currencies?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2011-11-10)

As some examples which seem logical to me, but should only be taken as examples:

A government that is susceptible to commercial lobbying is probably more likely to be pressured by banks to disallow competition with their services.

Governments that have a corruption problem might also be quietly bribed to legislate against a currency that competes with the official one.

Countries that support open source software might tend to have a "for the good of the community attitude" that matches the philosophy of Bitcoins.

For this question, it's probably important to provide references/examples (such as information about who is trying to stop use of bitcoins and why).

I see the need to ask this question to help provide a foundation for this one: [Is there a list of countries that are not likely to persecute bitcoin businesses?](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1952/is-there-a-list-of-countries-that-are-not-likely-to-persecute-bitcoin-businesses)

**Tags:** currencies, legal, banks, politics

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I think this question isn't really a good fit for the SE model, as the answer should be a list of things, and is unlikely to be contributed by a single author. People might like to add to it over time, but for now I will just accept an answer.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2011-11-10. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

Countries which have strict AML (anti-money laundering) laws are less likely to freely allow Bitcoin use and exchange.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: I suppose on a Bitcoin forum we are supposed to know what AML stands for ;-) Comes with the territory.  
> **username_1**: @username_2 - sorry, expanded now.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2011-11-13. Score: 4

I believe the Swedish government would be less likely to crack down on Bitcoins. I believe they have a political party called the "[Pirate Party](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party_%28Sweden%29)", which as far as I know, got elected as a reaction to the crackdown on Pirate Bay. I would love for someone to comment, in order to confirm this.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: Currently the Swedish Pirate Party holds seats in the EU parliament, not on the Swedish one. It is spreading to many countries anyway, most notably Germany.  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2014-03-25. Score: 1

I think whatever views comes up will always be views - why? Because decisions come from groups of people unless its a dictatorship!

What we are seeing is a East - West divide. More eastern countries are portraying Bitcoin in a negative light whereas the west is embracing it more and more.

Ultimately governments represent their people. If this was 2009 and Bitcoin just started and governments were aware, then I don't think Bitcoin would be here.

But because it had room to grow, it is at a stage where people are starting to have needs for it, so governments have to consider that view - is it positive for its citizens or not.

Not the hopes and wishes or wants, but practically. Today Bitcoin has a good appearance. Many people interested, so it has a chance to become something big like Facebook.

Ultimately though its all our actions with these technologies. If too many people abuse it, then it will be more restricted.

It's easy to see. If too many services close and coins disappear (MtGox anyone), then it will bring regulation which will stifle the Bitcoin world.

If too many people use it for grey/shady/black market use, then it will cause certain things.

Overall the best thing for Bitcoin or any of these related technologies is for those responsible to act responsibly and for the consideration for humanity rather then self.

Then Bitcoin will thrive like the internet thrives.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks for the answer. Not sure I agree with regulation stifling the Bitcoin world though; it was deregulation that is thought to have caused the GFC (though dollars have hardly been stifled because of it!).  
> **username_6**: I think that regulation of Bitcoin related businesses will ultimately make it safer to use Bitcoin as a store of money and thus will be essential for a breakthrough to the mainstream. I don't think that Bitcoin transactions will be regulated much in the future beyond tax demands on the value gain between purchase and sale – simply because laws that can't be enforced only serve arbitrariness.  
> **username_5**: @username_0 I did not say anything about regulation stifling bitcoin. GFC... not sure what that is. Perhaps you was answering another answer?  
> **username_0**: GFC = Global Financial Crisis (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%9308 ). Your words were "...it will bring regulation which will stifle the Bitcoin world". Speaking of which, I'm still surprised about the lack of a market response (ie a drop) to the US IRS announcement to treat bitcoins as property when it comes to capital gains tax. Maybe it just hasn't been publicised enough yet?  

---

