I can shave a gold bar.... make a few slivers that would buy me a cow.... but what if the whole cyber thing crashes? You can't (physically) shave a Bitcoin.
Russia has 10's or 100's of billions that can be frozen electronically. I had an off the wall thought on this last month regarding China/Taiwan/ and the out of the blue rise in gold: https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/which-way-metals.353582/page-28#post-5953455 Now think about this... if you were an enemy of the US that had your sights set on bad intentions going forward... would you really want your country's sovereign wealth in some kind of vehicle that your (future) enemies have the power to freeze at the push of a button? I wouldn't. There's only one hardcore asset, and I'm certainly not a gold bug... but it is in fact gold. If Xi is buying BTC... no disrespect... but he's a an idiot. And rest assured, he's not--> an idiot... or buying BTC. Digital wealth, and/or wealth that is controlled digitally---> uh-uh, it can evaporate in the blink of an eye. All things being equal, I'm sure this type of attitude on my part will most certainly miss the near term returns when BTC goes to $250K or beyond. But just in case, I'd still rather have those gold bars. ~jmho
Hahahaha... you're something else if you think the government banning bitcoin is because they want to save you.
And you tell me how much work goes into the US making sure everyone is stuck using USD that only they can print up? (Its a very high percentage of the defence budget.) How much energy is wasted by banks to be an intermediary to every single transaction? How many PhD's does the Fed employ in order to decided what interest rate they should charge? Its all a fucking waste of energy, time, resources, and especially taxpayer money.
Nobody cares what the US does...Bitcoin is global. The US will probably end up suffering hyper inflation one day and be forced to adopt Bitcoin like Velzuela.
We can see the signs on the regulatory trends for Bitcoin and crypto assets in the US and other western countries like Canada and the EU... The Travel rule, or some KYC to non-custodial bitcoin as part of the next Bitcoin fork war There is opportunity... anyone who owns bitcoins before the fork will get both versions after the fork, or I can see even several forks, similar in the past, BSV, BCH, BTC... My opinion is that Saylor will not be on the side that I will end up in
It's not about being friends, (and to be clear, we do not know how Blackrock and others will choose) Bitcoin the "asset has become mainstream", and the Western countries want to remove the decentralized features As it is, Blackrock, Fidelity and MSTR, have centralized the bitcoin assets they hold If there is a change in the Bitcoin software code to force certain "features"... I would not presume how Blackrock would choose the versions they would hold and support. The interviews with the Blackrock ceo shows he's a Bitcoiner
I tend to agree. The whole identity thing built into Bitcoin was shocking to me, even though I haven't even yet learned exactly what it does. In my opinion, Bitcoin should only be the best ledger ever. It should only be about sending UTXO's from one address to another. Everyone wants Bitcoin to do more, and this is misguided. This is partly why I went on my rant a few weeks ago about building a better Bitcoin, and perhaps what it will be is a fork. I am not sympathetic to the idea that any transaction which follows consensus is valid because there should be nothing stored in the block outside of addresses and signatures. Watching the new WBD podcast today with Gloria Zhou who is one of the devs made me learn something even new, that all those transactions coming in require compute power. Nodes should not be forced to compute stupid transactions, and nodes should not be forced to store stupid data. I tend to agree as well. I think he gets it more than Saylor. When Saylor talks about bitcoin being digital energy, I think he is going too far. Yes, bitcoin miners can turn off which means the grid gets instant access to that energy not being used, but you can't store this energy which I think he goes on and on about. For me, Bitcoin is really just a ledger. This is all that money ever was, and the only reason money failed was because it was too easy to print up and hence dilute everyone else.
Yea, this is why I think Saylor will be a statist and support the ID version. He also opposes funding the devs in any way But I cannot assume Blackrock will choose this version, which is super weird to say... but Blackrock operates on a much higher level The recent private presentation was to an audience of Sovereign wealth funds and Blackock ceo has mentioned the Bitcoin asset is to protect the wealth... A major value proposition of Bitcoin is that it is censorship-resistant and cannot be confiscated, think ____'s $ holdings that have been distributed to ____ Blackrock is not stupid and the clients they are dealing with are not dumb, I would not assume they will choose the version that is detrimental to both... We're not there yet. I wish it would happen as there's an opportunity for the ones involved There is room for both versions or even multiple versions to exist in the market. We've learned this from the previous fork wars The value did not get diluted as it happens with traditional finance markets when a stock splits, the price gets cut in half The value multiplied... something that somehow disappointed Pek... at that time