pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 9 replies \ @joda 22 Dec \ on: IMF and El Salvador bitcoin
Years ago I thought El Salvador would be a Bitcoin utopia by now; it's clearly not-- if anything Bitcoin may have less acceptance and interest than two years ago.
Bhutan and US States creating Bitcoin reserves is much more interesting to me now. Apparently the world really does need to go through Store of Value phase before Medium of Exchange.
Bitcoin used as SoV without any substantial use as MoE makes Bitcoin easy to capture and control- it also creates the perfect conditions for an Order 6102฿.
And Bitcoin being defined as and used as a speculative commodity SoV is precisely what is happening due to the tax rules obstruction of use as a MoE.
Many Bitcoiners including you seem unaware of the capture and control of Bitcoin that is underway and increasingly advanced...blinded by price gain greed?
reply
Are you perhaps into Monero or, by your tone I would guess BCH?
6102 may be a real threat; it's really hard to say. I'm not worried so much about direct confiscation, as it would be entirely the obligation of the government to prove that you own (and control) any. It could however be made much more illegal to accept it or transact generally.
The common argument, among others, is that this would put the United States at a disadvantage as other countries would shift to using it and de-dollarize.
I don't think you'll find a lot of NGU peeps here. The range is pretty much libertarian to anarchist, or at least those are the outspoken ones. I think most people here want to own Bitcoin, own assets, or spend Bitcoin to get assets.
reply
Not a holder of Monero or BCH.
I searched NGU on duckduckgo and all that came up was some urinary tract infection- otherwise not sure what you mean by that term.
Yes Libertarians are loud on here. Not sure what the connection is but few on here seem to understand that without Bitcoin being used much as a p2p payments protocol it is at real risk of becoming a speculative commodity plaything and easily controlled by the legacy fiat debt slavery cartel operators- in fact this is exactly what is happening.
So much for the revolution as soon as greed stepped in...
reply
"Number Go Up" (just in it for the fiat).
There is a theory that money must first be a store of value before it can be a medium of exchange. If so, and it is permissionless and decentralized, it stands to reason that more people will accumulate it. However, its value is dependent on it not being co-opted. If it loses decentralization and becomes permissioned, it is essentially worthless. So there is a catch-22 for a sovereign nation who wants to unilaterally control it: they have to pay an exorbitant amount to do so, and then it becomes worthless.
Furthermore, simply owning the money doesn't give one any special rights or privileges to the code (it does allow price manipulation, however). So I'm curious what capture and control mechanisms are you referring to?
reply
You are wrong on all three main points that you have asserted.
1- theory that money must be a SoV before it can be a MoE- there is no such theory- not a credible one based on sound reason and historical evidence at least - it is a muddled and confused understanding of the fact that good money must be both a SoV and MoE...and one that suits the speculative commodity narrative that is fundamentally undermining Bitcoins primary stated purpose of being a P2P payments protocol.
2- You seem to believe that an attack on the mining front is the only way to undermine the protocol- this is simply untrue. While if a nation state (or any other entity) wanted to apply a 51% attack your understanding is correct, this is not the only way the protocol can be attacked. There are other ways. Here is just one.
Another would be an Order 6102฿ ban on private custody.
Another would be a combination of tax rules and KYC combined with arbitrarily defining Bitcoin as a commodity while allowing its use as a speculative commodity ( and thus via ETFs and other routes enabling growing institutional custody (Coinbase now holds over 2.2 million Bitcoins)) - this is in fact exactly what has happened already and not only undermines the protocol as a P2P payments protocol but also prepares perfectly for an order 6102฿ ban on private custody in several ways which you can deduce for yourself.
3- See the link above where Andreas Antopolous explains how custody including declared right to determine which fork to accept definitively does provide considerable scope for manipulation and alteration of the protocol.
I'm curious as to how you have remained so ignorant of all these factors and/or whether you can refute any of them, or whether as I would assert, almost the entire community has been blinded by the price goes up speculative commodity narrative greed that is central to enabling the capture and control of Bitcoin by bankers and governments.
Perhaps anything that does not support the speculative commodity narrative is simply ignored.
reply
The Store of Value issue is interesting. You didn't bring it up, but I think the reason no crypto is widely used for transactions is simply that it's easier and more beneficial to the consumer to use a credit card. Zero risk, liability, or interest, works instantly with a tap of a card with no phone/computer needed. Most people, by far, care more about convenience than privacy or sovereignty.
Bitcoin may be "stuck" as a store of value--maybe-- but it is excellent at that, and that is what is most needed today, in most places. Why not spend fiat and save in Bitcoin?
One argument that I've been compelled by, is that Bitcoin is not obligatory for everyone, but it is available to everyone. Not everyone needs to run a node, but anyone can run a node. Likewise if you are using fiat primarily, but save in Bitcoin, you can transact in Bitcoin if you need to, not that you would necessarily choose to for every transaction.
reply
Bitcoin cannot be used as a P2P payments protocol without both buyer and seller breaching CG tax laws unless they perform record keeping and reporting that very few people could be reasonably expected to comply with- thus tax authorities arbitrary classification of Bitcoin as a speculative commodity has crushed any potential for its use as a MoE.
In addition businesses who accept Bitcoin will in most cases be refused banking.
If you cannot see this for what it is- a concerted almost global strategy by bankers and governments to prevent Bitcoin MoE adoption, then you are ignoring reality.
reply
Yes there are attack vectors, but that doesn't mean they will in fact be exploited, or effectively so. I just see it as one possibility, without being an inevitability.
I think we don't really know how the game theory would play out, because even under your hypothetical 6102, you don't know how countries besides the United States would act. We are moving away from a world where the US can dictate such things.
Furthermore a 6102 may just create a black market for Bitcoin. This can make a product more expensive, as the available supply is constrained. Development would move out of the United States, and focus on privacy features.
There are infinite possible futures we could imagine, but I find I have been least successful when I get paranoid about negative potentialities, and most successful when I assume everything will be fine. Living in a bunker is no way to live.
reply
There is a difference between paranoia and being realistic.
Governments and banks have already acted to prevent Bitcoin developing as a widely adopted MoE, preserving their fiat MoE hegemony. If you can see that you are being naive.
reply