pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @elvismercury OP 30 Dec 2023 \ parent \ on: On how to effectively end [bitcoin] bitcoin
What does 'go down with the ship' mean to you? If they sent you a form saying sell your btc or go to jail, you'd pick jail? Or leave the country?
The "pricing in" idea is interesting, though. I'm curious what it would look like if btc migrated to stronger hands; and who the stronger hands are.
How would they know if I sold or still possessed any Bitcoin?
reply
The same way they know when you don't report your capital gains or make other errors at tax time.
reply
You do realise, many people purchase via DEXs right? I've never done a single CEX and/or KYC purchase and have been in the Bitcoin game for many years.
What you'd see, a clear division between who cared for their privacy from the get-go, who saw the issues with CEXs before they became apparent, and who heeded warnings from other like-minded bitcoiners, hold their sats. The rest would be reported due to linking their fiat identity.
I've been warning about this for years, linking one's fiat identity and believing in bitcoin as a unit of account do not go hand in hand.
reply
I know that some certainly have, and those people will be feeling pretty smart. Although given that I suspect that the price will have cratered, there will be a limit to their self-satisfaction, at least in the medium-term.
reply
Again, it'll largely depend on why they got into Bitcoin in the first place, and if their reasoning changed, whether they took the appropriate precautions or not.
Example, and this obviously generalist, if you see Bitcoin as a tool you'll use it as a tool.
If you see it as a specupative asset ripe for trading, you'll not worry about KYC and will likely be looking to fiat-out in the end, for better or worse.
Also brings up the interesting question of how many bitcoiners might be lying to themselves.
Bitcoin has done more for many countries in less than a decade than fiat has, mostly regardless of price - And I only say mostly because if price continued to be low, the utility of it wouldn't have propagated as fast.
It's successfully withstood nation-wide attacks. It's helped thousands lift themselves from extreme poverty and escape countries without losing life-savings kind of wealth. And has offered alternative routes around CBDCs. Price increases are THE bonus. They're part of the mechanics of Bitcoin no doubt, but a bonus nonetheless.
Unconfiscatabe wealth was its reasoning for being created.
reply
Also brings up the interesting question of how many bitcoiners might be lying to themselves.
I'd love to know the answer to this, but I suspect it's unanswerable. A related question might be: who holds btc, and how much? My sense is that, at this point, most bitcoin is held by non-idealists, speculators of various stripes, the group you describe this way:
If you see it as a specupative asset ripe for trading, you'll not worry about KYC and will likely be looking to fiat-out in the end, for better or worse.
Most of the people I personally know are not waiting for the revolution, they're looking to make some money, or, at best, protect themselves vs losing money. If that's the general template, then perturbations from state-level actors will be impactful. If it's mostly Adam Back-types, then state opposition will mean something different.
Price increases are THE bonus. They're part of the mechanics of Bitcoin no doubt, but a bonus nonetheless.
I mostly agree -- btc could be unconfiscateable wealth and be hugely useful to many, so long as it was more or less stable in price -- that works at $100 just as well as at $100k, provided the people who wanted their wealth to be un-confiscatable didn't purchase it at $100k and then watch it fall two orders of magnitude. The two camps are conjoined twins for that reason.
reply