pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 7 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 4h \ parent \ on: On relative earliness bitcoin
Clearly in the short term it can be as the process of institutional capture and control relies upon acquisition of market share.
But longer term can Bitcoin which was built to provide an independent censorship resistant alternative to the fiat monetary system, hold value when its custody has been captured by legacy financial institutions?
That's my question to you.
reply
It is your question but my interest is not so focused upon future price as you are, but rather future functionality.
My point is Bitcoin appears to be likely to fail as a censorship resistant alternative to the fiat monetary system given the growing capture and control by legacy fiat operators.
reply
You ignore the premise of my argument and then get lost in future price speculation...exactly as they have engineered.
'The idea that the legacy fiat powers would just sit by and allow Bitcoin to invade and takeover their hegemony is common but misguided.
Faced with an asymmetric new competitor standard practice for existing monopolies and cartels is to capture and control them.
This is what the bankers have done to Bitcoin...and nobody even realises.'
reply
You don't actually have an argument, you have a bunch of vaguely conspiratorial statements about what "they" are doing that I have tried to assemble into an argument for you by getting you to clarify one of the mechanisms you're waving at.
But now I'm bored of this and no longer care.
reply
What they are doing is perfectly in view and public knowledge and achieves the market capture and control I have described which achieves their logical objective of retaining fiat MoE hegemony - the fact that you don't see it is testament to their brilliance.
But perhaps, you deny there even is a fiat debt slavery bankers cartel...
reply
The two are related. If the price is high, then perhaps it will be captured as you say.
If the price is de minimus, then nobody will give a shit, there will not be giant institutional demand, and I can't see how how the scenario you describe is possible.
As best I can tell, your entire argument depends on how you answer the question, unless you can present logic where a bunch of institutions have conspired to control a worthless asset.
I don't see it, personally, unless you think the institutions also control ... Dash, for instance.
reply
You ignore the premise of my argument and then get lost in future price speculation...exactly as they have engineered.
'The idea that the legacy fiat powers would just sit by and allow Bitcoin to invade and takeover their hegemony is common but misguided.
Faced with an asymmetric new competitor standard practice for existing monopolies and cartels is to capture and control them.
This is what the bankers have done to Bitcoin...and nobody even realises.'
reply