Individual decisions ought to be made on logic/reason and knowledge, not on blindly listening to rich people. There are plenty of billionaries that disagree with Dalio on just about anything, so that's not a robust way to make decisions. FWIW, I have been financially free since age 30 (I'm 36), so I'm doing just fine
Bitcoins roots are too deep and complex for the government to have any control over. Let's say they ban Bitcoin because of the dark markets. The U.S. has a lot of users so then the dark markets will just start accepting Ethereum. And this is worst case sanario. Members in the government probably already use crypto, and that's part of the reason it will never be globally adopted is because it would expose the corruption already happening with fiat. But to ban it would also expose the members in the government using it. Something else to think about is they are making Tax money on it. It makes no sense to ban something that is helpful to everyone. It would be like banning food
Who am I (a jabroni!) to call out Dalio but what's interesting is that when he was (generally) unknown his funds were exceptional re performance. But as soon as he started to open his trap and court the media, his performance went to pot. Probabilities therefore suggest, not to listen to him re Bitcoin.
If the US bans Bitcoin it would a) prove it works and is a real threat to the USD (and other currencies), and b) probably be the final nail in the coffin of the country's corny tagline - Land of the Free.
never NEVER NEVER bet against the government in the longer term.. whether it is the s&p 500, the DOW, or anything else which goes against the government,they all eventually...die a slow and undramatic death, longer term. i have mentioned this a lot of times here
i dont' think bitcoin will ever be a currency, it's a good case for storing value. Just like i don't think gold will ever be a currency again. Govt needs the flexibility of fiat money. they may introduce digital fiat token i suppose, but i think they always need to expand that supply; otherwise, we would've gone back to gold or digital gold long time ago. Bitcoin is just a better option to store value. What options do we have to store value that's liquid and in fixed supply? gold, real estate, land, art? they all have liquidity pain points or some fees (ongoing tax) to holding. what does it cost you to hold bitcoin in a hard wallet? nothing. I think large qty of bitcoin on your person is also unique trait you won't find in other assets. Sure you can create another fixed supply crypto. True, but bitcoin has that special title of being the FIRST of its kind of an asset utilizing the blockchain technology. that alone will give huge historic intrinsic value for all times.
Yes it is free.....free to do what is the question? whether USA India China Britain or Bangladesh , Thailand, Japan YOU ARE FREE TO DO ANYTHING except go against the government
It's too late to "ban" it per se and he's out of his depth. Oh yeah, he lost almost 20% last year so he doesn't seem like much of a pessimist to me. What good is he (his opining on bubbles) if he cant make money on his bubble pretext during the first half of 2020?
Beside you didn't define what work means, no, it would prove it can be a danger to capital controls, that is it. It already has proven itself not to work. All the original roles and features got bogged down, that is why there is this goal post moving to store of value. Plus it would be a crypto ban in general, not specific to BTC, so it would prove that some other cryptos do "work", not necessary BTC.
I was about to say something along those lines. All those who claim bitcoin and cryptos will write history and are something that was never there in the past are probably understating the experience history has to offer. In effect cryptos existed in the past many times. Just not in the exact same shape and form. History should be our guide, particularly when it comes it excesses and bubbles.