No matter how bard they attack, Bitcoin has the strength to respond with much more force.

I'll take a look.

The abstract sure makes this draft look like a target rich environment. Good thing you gave us that previous homework, because they're making claims that are actually counter to the broad view in the literature (i.e. most economists believe Bitcoin is a speculative bubble).

Also, refuting that bitcoin has no potential to increase the productive capacity of the economy warrants a post all by itself.

Also, I've recommended Josh Hendrickson's take on bitcoin on SN before (#726129) but I'll put it here again.

It's a pretty useful read and gives good overview of how economics proper thinks about money and assets and value across time https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4744828

IMO first steps will be higher taxation of btc gains like Italy is implementing now with a rise of cap gain taxes from 26 to 42%. Keep in mind that the members of the Eurozone are fighting against their fiscal destruction, a recession and capital flight that is concentrated on the EUR/ USD pair. I still think that Brussels/Frankfurt/Davos don't get the power BTC will be setting free when we see real adoption in Europe. Until now it really doesn't play any important role.

Thanks for sharing! I guess we’ve reached the then they fight us stage. It will be interesting to see what other countries do and who helps to step up to fight the Bitcoin battles

It's not an assault, it's capitulation.

What is the motivation for such a paper? It's not going to persuade anyone, you're either already for Bitcoin, or you drink the blood go along with deep-state narratives already. Given that, does anyone really think they wrote this for the fence-sitters?

Because there's no other scenario left. This is meant to be read between the lines, its a manual for the blood-drinkers to understand what's coming, and how to survive to fight another day.

This is what Bitcoin's gametheory playing out looks like, our enemies capitulating without admitting it.

To quote the abstract- The original promise of Nakamoto (2008) to provide the world with a better global means of payment has not materialized. Instead, the focus has increasingly shifted to Bitcoin as an investment asset promising high capital gains. Promoters of this investment vision put little effort relating Bitcoin to an economic function which would justify its valuation. While most economists argue that the Bitcoin boom is a speculative bubble that will eventually burst, we analyse in this paper the impact of a Bitcoin-positive scenario in which its price continues to rise in the foreseeable future. What sounds intuitively promising or at least not harmful is problematic: Since Bitcoin does not increase the productive potential of the economy, the consequences of the assumed continued increase in value are essentially redistributive, i.e. the wealth effects on consumption of early Bitcoin holders can only come at the expense of consumption of the rest of society. If the price of Bitcoin rises for good, the existence of Bitcoin impoverishes both non-holders and latecomers. While previous discussions on the redistributive effects of Bitcoin assumed that badly timed trading was a necessary condition for losses, this paper shows that neither poor timing of trades nor holding Bitcoin at all are necessary for impoverishment under a Bitcoin-positive scenario.

Several glaring problems with this - The shift in use from a P2P MoE to a speculative commodity has been hugely pushed by the arbitrary designation of Bitcoin as a commodity thus liable for CGT assessment and payment. This designation flies in the face of the very explicit description in the white paper of Bitcoin as a P2P payment protocol. But by governments and bankers designating Bitcoin as a speculative commodity has the precise and predictable effect of it being used for that as use as a P2P MoE creates a fucking nightmare for any citizen wishing to comply with their tax obligations- the exact same applies to merchants who might otherwise wish to accept Bitcoin payments...not to mention the frequent threats from banks that if you accept Bitcoin your banking access may be closed. In most 'liberal western democracies' any business admitting they deal with Bitcoin in almost any way will be refused banking. Only a very few IMO selected CEXes have been provided with banking access and IMO that has been in order to channel trading via those CEXes where KYC can be enforced and to prevent the development of a stronger more viable p2p trading market- and they have largely succeeded in this- perhaps only 5% or less of Bitcoin is now held KYC free- certainly most trading is done via KYCing CEXes. So Bitcoin has been slyly obstructed and repurposed by the banks and governments into a role predominantly as a speculative commodity- and then they say its failed as a MoE- huh! As a consequence of this obstruction of Bitcojn as a MoE the productive potential has been considerably obstructed as well- to achieve the maximum contribution to the economy Bitcoin would need to be allowed to be used, without obstruction, as a MoE- and it is not. The paper claims Bitcoin as a redistributive protocol and it has been already ion a massive scale but this was Never its primary purpose- its primary purpose was as a decentralised censorship resistant payments protocol and as mentioned already that has been effectively, slyly and hugely obstructed. As a redistributive mechanism Bitcoin has delivered considerable liquid capital to those who first adopted it. These are frequently individuals prepared to question the fiat status quo and to see the rentseeking inequitable nature of fiat issuance and debasement- these individuals are people who are inclined to invest in a potential alternative to a fiatr system that is obviously flawed to anyone who takes the time to study it- and the redistribution of wealth that has occurred has been in near exact proportion to the willingness of early adopters to take the chance on a new inherently fairer monetary system. The paper is written by hacks who are locked into a mindset incapable of questioning the status quo that pays their salaries and compare it to Bitcoin in a fair and balanced fashion.

"through the order #675/18.06.1956 of the Military Tribunal of the 2nd Military Region as confirmed by the order #311/13.09.1956 issued by the Supreme Tribunal of the Military Collegium, Gheorghe Flondor was sentenced to 10 years' heavy detentionviii and complete confiscation of all assets, for the crime of intense activity against the working class and the revolutionary movement as stipulated in article 193(1) para 1 and corroborated with article 157 of the Penal Code."

these two authors are just massively butthurt after claiming it was dead couple years ago https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/blog/date/2022/html/ecb.blog221130~5301eecd19.en.html

I don't know much. But I sure like Bitcoin.

working on it, sir. Stay tuned