pull down to refresh

249 sats \ 3 replies \ @SimpleStacker 29 Dec 2023 \ on: On how to effectively end [bitcoin] bitcoin
I think he needs to define what he means by end bitcoin. (He said crypto, but let's focus on bitcoin).
If by end he means collapse the exchange-quoted last-traded-price, then he's right.
If by end he means massively reduce the amount of holdings and usage for mainstream commerce, then he's right.
If by end he means ending the chain so that no more valid blocks are being produced, then he's wrong. Bitcoin will continue to operate and those who want to use it will continue to find a way, even in the U.S. In fact, I can see a scenario where the black-market price of bitcoin continues to go up after some initial shock, because all this scenario does is reinforce the need for a monetary system outside nation-state control
write
preview
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @elvismercury OP 29 Dec 2023
I think you and he are in agreement. He says explicitly that btc will keep chugging along, even if it's at $100. A lot of people claim to be fine with that outcome, but I don't think almost anybody in the space would really be fine with it.
It might make the network more resilient 50 years from now, though.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 29 Dec 2023
One point of disagreement is that I think the price of bitcoin could recover fairly quickly after the initial shock. There are still many countries besides the US where bitcoin can be used, and such an action by the US govt only highlights the need to have assets resistant to capital controls. Although US customers won't be able to purchase bitcoin easily, I think there will still be a demand for it and the black market price could rebound fairly quick. I don't know if it will come back to $42k, but I also don't think it would stay at $100 for a decade either.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury OP 30 Dec 2023
Given that all functional governments (who have monetary sovereignty, rule of law, functional tax systems, etc) have reason to fear btc for the same reason the US govt does, the "safe haven" / competition argument has always seemed dubious to me, as 6529 points out. Which leaves the governments with nothing to lose -- maybe the ones who don't control their own currency anyway could be friendly to btc even in the face of US opposition?
Although it remains to be seen how friendly they'd be when the thumb screws started tightening -- look at who fell in line leading up to Desert Storm. I think a lot of bulls have a super false sense of security about this. On a scale of 1 to 100, I think that, to date, we've seen state opposition at about ten.
I hope we never see it get any higher, but if it goes to 85, I guess the silver lining is that we'll have answers to these questions.
reply