Despite the fact that bitcoin is thought to be the most influential and widespread cyber assets around the globe, it remains outlawed in some countries. The governments seem to be reluctant to allow bitcoin reign at its fullest, providing more opportunities to their nations.
Countries, Which Put The Ban On Bitcoin
Cryptocurrencies started emerging only thanks to bitcoin. BTC eventually became the initial limitless and apolitical (at least it will be believed so until the revelation of who Satoshi Nakamoto is) payment method and asset ever created. Lots of crypto-bulls assume that it is the next stage in the history of money evolution and will make the world even more interconnected.
And the first signs of this can be seen already as bitcoin nodes are spread worldwide, creating a decentralized net with no central regulator on top. Therefore, globally, no government can stop bitcoin and blockchain from functioning.
However, the use of bitcoin can be restricted locally. As per Coin.dance data, only in 107 nations out of 251 BTC is unrestricted. And that is 42%. Unrestricted means that governments either consider this cyber-coin legal or they have not given any apparent ban on the use of cryptos.
Regarding the other 144 countries (which make up 57% of all nations of the world), there’s either no information provided at all or bitcoin is prohibited or restricted there.
Here’s the list of 11 countries which appear to be inimical towards bitcoin:
- Republic of Macedonia
And here are countries which restricted the turnover of bitcoin:
- American Samoa
- Saudi Arabia
Why Did They Do It?
As it can be seen, a significant part of the counties mentioned above is Muslim. In countries, where religion plays a considerable role, the attitude towards cryptos can be rigorous. Let’s remember how grand mufti of Egypt said that bitcoin as a crypto-coin is “forbidden” by Islam. So no wonder, which in states like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan, governments took a hardline stance on cryptos.
In other countries, e.g., Bangladesh, other factors have influenced the decision of policymakers to ban bitcoin. Often, among the common reasons, there are mentioned money laundering, terrorist supply (which can also go for Afghanistan, by the way), the purchase of illegal goods and so on. But it is noteworthy that in Bangladesh bitcoiners were even hunted by the local police.
Besides the last example, the illicit state of bitcoin in some countries is rather a part of the red tape than the real attempt to withstand the new fin-tech phenomenon.
LocalBitcoins can be a proof of that. Despite the fact that in some states the “king of cryptos” is illegal, people still trade it, particularly, in monarchical Morocco and socialist Vietnam.
However, not every country is scared of bitcoin the way the others are. In 2014, Ecuador was the first state in the entire world to set off its own cyber-coin. Thus, the government had to taboo bitcoin so as to wipe off all the rivalry for its national digital-currency. But the experiment, as it seems, has not succeeded.
Another reason why governments do not want bitcoin to reign is that it endangers banking systems within states. That’s the reason why Macedonia decided to outlaw bitcoin. Apparently, when funds are remitted abroad, the mediators are involved – banks. But when the transactions are made with bitcoin (even the international ones), there’s no third party needed. And this can destroy worldwide banking systems.
But Is It Possible To Shut Off Bitcoin Entirely?
Obviously, no, the same way the internet cannot be. The attempt of the gov’ts to “ban” bitcoin and blockchain is an attempt to reassure bitcoiners to stop using them. Indeed, those who are eager to use BTC will find the way to, including the one which lies through the Dark Web.
Moreover, crypto-technologies continually develop, leaving a huge gap between themselves and the developments of strict gov’ts.
However, it is interesting how wealthy nations like Switzerland, Sweden, Japan and Singapore take advantage of cryptos by not restricting them. Wise regulation may bring an influx of capital, higher tax revenues as well as create new workplaces.