So I watched them both and honestly, I'm not that impressed. Let me share some points First video with the governor. 1. She talks about too much money printing. We all know this is true, but as a governor, she needs this to run her state. If she is complaining about this, how about run your state without any deficits. I'm not up to speed with how well her state is run, but I don't think there is a single politician who is trying to operate within a budget. If politicians don't have access to this "free" money that she is saying is so horrible, I don't see how she could run the state and ever be elected again. In fact, she should practically be fired because she isn't standing along side with all the other politicians and is stepping out of line. She is biting the hand that feeds her and all those dollars that are sent to her she has no problem using, but then complains about how worthless they are. What a hypocrite. 2. She wants to stay ahead of China and for the US to remain having the world's currency. Well, China is the biggest producer of BTC thus far. Is she planning on adding farms here in the US? How does she plan to accomplish this? If nobody is control, then how the hell will US remain the world's reserve currency? 3. She talks about the need for a digital dollar. Great, we all agree the blockchain is awesome. But if the FED develops their own, is this a plus for BTC? I honestly don't think you can have both, and my hunch would be once the FED gets their FED coin, the use of BTC would be restricted. I'm sure that what everyone envisions if that you keep your wealth in BTC but just transact with the digital dollar. But I don't think it can work that way. If the digital dollar isn't itself seen as a store of value, it will be worthless. So the digital dollar cannot have competition. 4. She says its important to prevent illicit use of BTC, but then praises the anonymity. How can you accomplish both? Maybe she means that she doesn't mind if the exchange knows the customer, but just not anybody else. But she doesn't say this, and this isn't in the spirit of BTC. So I'm not sure how both can be accomplished. Its like how the police wanted Apple to crack a phone and they refused. You can't prevent illicit use if it can be tracked. 5. She calls BTC the great equalizer because even someone without a bank account can buy BTC. So if this is the future, is she really suggesting knocking out all the banks? Will this be an entire sector of the economy that she is prepared to toss to the side of the road? 6. She states "who knows how many dollars will be printed before you retire". So once again, as in point 1 above, she admits that dollars are worthless. So all her public sector workers are being paid in worthless dollars. She is a terrible ambassador for the government, and no matter how right she might be, she should not be saying this in her position. 2nd video. 1. She states are one point that the better technology always wins. But when it comes to BTC, is it really the best technology? Hardly. So is it just a matter of time until a new coin rises up? 2. The part about custody issues with regards to stocks was very interesting, and I can see why immediate settlement is absolutely necessary. But this is what many always say. Blockchain has a future, but does this mean BTC? 3. With regards to the legal issues, the discussion about BTC liens was crazy. If there is even a threat of the BTC that you own might be taken away, well, good luck for everything that BTC stands for. Imagine the judge forcing you to give up your private key or face going to jail. The fact that each coin can actually be tracked is kind of worrisome. If you accept a coin from someone, that might later be deemed criminal, can be identified and taken away, then I'm not sure where this will all lead. At least with gold, you can melt it down, and nobody can say where it came from. But if each slice of a coin has essentially a serial number and owning the wrong coins can get you in legal trouble, well, Houston, we have a problem. Suppose a mining farm in the US uses stolen electricity to mine the BTC. Then its discovered that the coin you bought is from the proceeds of a crime. Now they want to confiscate that coin and have the law on their side. How messed up is this? Am I gonna have to ask the miner I'm buying from how they operate their farm? LOL 4. When she ends with saying the officials could have killed it but didn't, I bet its because they never imagined it would get this far. They probably thought that it would die off, just like other fads. It probably is too big to kill now, but I really do not believe that the government will allow competition for their cryptocurrency once they release it. Most points were awesome, but they center around the need for blockchain technology. BTC might be it for now, but I fully believe that it might not have the lasting power that everyone thinks it has. Maybe once it gets "too expensive", the tide will turn and people will jump on something else. Its after all only backed by the willingness of people to use it and pay for it. Give people enough incentive to switch to something else, and they will.
I respect that you took the time and gave an elaborate response to the videos but as I mentioned and another poster mentioned, you're creating too many hypotheticals and there's no way to argue or discuss those to a resolution Just to clarify, the judge will not force you to give up your private key(s), but rather to return or send the amount of bitcoin that can be traced to the case. It gets a bit technical but a way to think about it is that if you have $1000 in your wallet composed of different bills/denominations, maybe a single $100 bill and two $50's are part of a legal battle (theft) and you needed to return those three bills but not the whole wallet nor the all $1000 worth of bills In bitcoin it has to do with inputs/outputs, I may have 3 whole bitcoins in my wallet, but they may have come from 20 different inputs, and each of those inputs break up to a bunch of inputs and so forth until all inputs are traced to the original bitcoin reward from a miner that mined the block. Somewhere along those chains of inputs/outputs, the one input and amount that has a lien per the case judgement would be the one that would need to be returned IANAL, but what you're describing with melting of the gold seems tampering with evidence and could get you in bigger trouble if caught And I know you watched the 2nd video but you seem to have missed that Wyoming is the state that is putting laws to protect from those legal cases if they are custodied win an entity based in Wyoming and other states are doing a copy-pasta of Wyoming state laws Those legal concerns will be moot, which brings us back to your original post and my reply to you basically showing the US lawmakers are supportive of bitcoin as opposed to the fud that they will ban bitcoin. And you can see this in the adoption and acceptance of bitcoin from Bank of New York, Fidelity, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Visa, PayPal, Coinbase listing in the stock market, CME futures, ICE Bakkt futures and so forth and so forth, Tesla, Square and Microstrategy buying bitcoin for their treasury. They have all done this publicly in full view of the regulators The bitcoin banning fud is a monster that is preventing retail from investing in bitcoin while the institutions and uhnw are going in to bitcoin
Yes please copy and paste it so we know exactly what we are referring to. You have not provided any facts and evidence for your store of money and payment claims.
Yes, I understood this part. Its just crazy to think that its even possible. Imagine also your BTC having gone through a drug trade (even though I realize that drug money is perhaps a very small portion of transactions). But just imagine this, and now I come along and buy some and cash out, and its shown that I have a slice of this coin. It means that I would much rather buy pristine coins that were just mined, and the more transactions that a coin has had, the more dirty it might be. At least with a bank, if they for example give me a counterfeit $100 bill, its their problem. (and they might even have caught it). Likewise, if they take a deposit from a drug dealer (if that dealer was stupid enough to deposit money), and the bank turns around and gives that bill to me when I withdraw some cash, I doubt the bank will go after me, even if I have the exact same bill. Yes, I did catch this as it was a huge portion of the video. But just the very fact that this needs to be done is absolutely scary. Honestly, it completely takes away the whole idea being anonymity. With melting gold at least, you can say you're a jeweler, and recycle scrap gold. Once its melted, there is no way to prove if you had stolen rings in that batch. But with BTC, there is always a way to follow the money trail. I remember a documentary I watched years ago about one of the biggest gold heists in the UK I think it was, and most gold was never recovered, and they suspect that most of the bars were melted down. Nobody is stupid enough to sell a stolen bar with originals marks and numbers. With BTC, I guess you can never do this, to "clean" it. As for all the adoption, I think for most companies, its a tiny portion of their operations. True, they don't want to be left out, but if it fails, they only lose a few percent. So I'm all for all of us having 5% or so in BTC just as an insurance hedge so to speak. I really like BTC from a philosophical standpoint, and I love that it will perhaps be a positive change to the money printing central banks, but I just don't believe that BTC will take over the world and have mass adoption. Blockchain yes, but BTC not too sure, especially at these levels. And of course it can double, triple, or more, but I do believe if some don't time it right, it will end ugly. Who knows what is around the corner that the government will introduce that will drastically change the game for BTC.
I don't want to beat this topic to death, but in creating your hypotheticals, you're portraying all legal cases against a bitcoin as the same The illustration in the video talks about if bitcoin goes to a much higher price, say $1M/btc and if pursuing a case is worth all the legal costs (lawyers, trials, etc) to get it declared in a US court Think of the magnitude of going after even 10 bitcoins spread all over the world for a measly $10M And if I happen to have an input 0.005 btc that is related to the case and whether knowingly or unknowingly spend or trade on an exchange, I no longer have it in my wallet and if that fraction of a bitcoin could end up in Costa Rica, is the US owner gonna pursue in other countries? Hence, a local DEA will not have the resources to build a case and go after 10 or even 100 bitcoins scattered in the 10 or 100 thousand wallets worldwide But maybe if bitcoin hits $10M/btc some of these bitcoin cases will be worth pursuing in legal cases which brings us back to Wyoming, custody all your bitcoin holdings at Avanti Bank or any state that has copied the Wyoming law or it may become a federal law in the future
Ok, now I get it. You're just an idiot, who can't even read properly. Again, go back to the first comment you quoted me on, re-read it and try to understand it. If you do not understand it, can't help you. Attaching an image, as you probably have hard time to even figure out which was the first comment you were responding to. So now, look at what I've said, look what you have replied with and look again what you're claiming that I've said. Not sure how I ended up here, spending my time with a moron. That's my last message on this topic to you. https://i.ibb.co/g7BQZmn/Screenshot-20210418.jpg
This is what you said:. "zenlot said: Governments doesn't provide you peace of mind in fiat value retention, at least not now, arguably never. BTC doesn't need government backing and can work across the world. No government can offer you what BTC offers by default." Aside multiple spelling errors and grammatical errors (you are excused you don't seem to be a native speaker) you have not addressed the issue of payments nor store of value. Governments have for decades provided a store of value via fiat currencies. If you are suggesting that inflation only affects fiat currencies then this is nonsense. Every non-inflation linked asset is impacted by inflation, so is each and every single crypto currency. If the speculative value of bitcoin would neither increase nor decrease then you would be able to buy more today with 1 bitcoin than tomorrow.
You made a wonderful and fantastic case why anonymous transfer of money should be immediately regulated/prohibited. India did so today. Ouch. China will be next because they are now releasing their own domestic centralized crypto currency and all others will be prohibited. US is probably next. The dominos started falling. Just a matter of time. Monday should be interesting when certain players attempt to offload larger blocks in private transactions. Of course those will never hit the blockchain. It's just private keys that will be passed to interested parties. I am not saying it will go straight down, we will see a big of a wiggle, potentially another all time high or two but the writing is on the wall now, more and more countries will ban crypto currencies altogether.
So you're trying everything you can, 1st you've mentioned that I have BTC capital of 0.0001, next point you have is about English language intricacies. What you're actually doing is trying to shift the point of discussion, which you've lost from the beginning, due to your knowledge gap in the financial and crypto ecosystem. Actually, you're just proven yourself, that knowing English language at the level of native speaker, doesn't give you an advantage in financial/crypto ecosystem(or any other discipline, apart, wait for it - English language). Next time my only suggestion would be, that if you do not know how something really works (crypto in this case), use your native language skills to educate yourself on a matter, otherwise you're just making a bigger fool of yourself.
I never shifted the discussion by even a single inch. It was my point from the very beginning that bitcoin does not constitute a good store of value nor a suitable approach to payment and money transfer. Never shifted nor changed the topic. I provided evidence why that is the case. Your only counter argument, on the other hand, not just towards me but anyone who disagrees with you, is that we possess a knowledge gap. You never exactly point out what that gap exactly is. You know, at some point, two parties, who disagree over something, generally are able to pinpoint exact what they disagree over. Not you, however, you love to keep it nice and generic so that one can never really dissect the details and get to the bottom of where the disagreement originates from. And that completely deflates the credibility of your original point and argument. Edit: I am not a native English speaker, either.