- Joined
- Nov 26, 2018
- Messages
- 6,815
- Reaction score
- 11,877
- Age
- 40
- Country
Here's the thing - BTC is and always has been skating on thin ice. Yes, miners are a target. But that would have to be handled on a state by state (state as in country) basis. Mining USED to be decentralized, but as you point out China is the big player. Some suspect nothing is happening in China in of any scale (and mining is an every larger energy sink) so the CCP in some form may already be profiting off of mining operations (for example, payoffs).
Nevertheless, the true issue is what the US decides to do, which so far is mostly apathy - though the tax law keeps getting revised retroactively to have to report gainz from BTC, so lol good luck not reporting profits. However, keeping on the up-and-up with paying your fair share of capital gains is a small price to pay for the appreciation in value the digital currency has.
The biggest liability BTC has (among others, and as with many other altcoins), is where the rubber meets the road for usage (think - buying that pizza with BTC). Tax issues aside, the US govt could issue laws against the usage of BTC as tender since it is being used as a competition to the FRNs. Legally, it has full authority to do so. Dominos, for instance, won't want to go against the govt to accept your BTC as payment.
But that's only domestically (in the US). A huge hit to the value of BTC, but not always a death knell. Although, if swings from mere Musk tweets get 10-15% losses or more than this would be damn near catastrophic.
STILL, one could offshore money from the US like a siphon (some think TPTB are 'allowing' digital currencies to run rampant to take pressure off elsewhere, for instance the PM markets). One could practice smart moves like using dark wallets (only once, never online again from any device), laundering accounts at whatever exchanges are popular and thought to be secure (lol), watching their 'investment' 'gain' in 'value' etc, but what about USING IT? It's only useful when you sell or use it - that's the ONLY time profit is able to be taken from the otherwise completely digital gains on a screen.
So then the BIGGEST threat is then if the US decides to leverage the SWIFT banking system, which it and the BOE pretty much run (in effect - although ownership is considered to be collaborative by CB's and other mega-institutions). We've seen the US do this before to attempt to enforce sanctions (Russia and Iran come to mind).
And SWIFT does comply with sanctions and financial crimes laws. Particularly US-based. As with most things (like NATO) the US runs the show. And almost any banking institution worldwide with few exceptions would not allow for BTC to be transacted - largely by proxy of the businesses that settle their accounts at those banks. No company that banks in the Western world (and mostly beyond, very little actual SWIFT competition) would risk accepting BTC as payment.
BTC value would irreparably fall to 0.
But for some reason the US has been accepting by silence of what is an obvious competition to their ability to issue (control) currency.
Which is why, combined with the fact that transaction history (tied to wallets) is never truly anonymous (and wallets are easily enough tied to individuals - from a Big Brother perspective, or so the thought goes...), many are highly suspicious of what the US govt is thinking in allowing the continued use of cryptos. A honeypot operation (many think the origins of BTC is CIA-based)? A banking system pressure-release valve (from the bubble of all things, or PM or bond markets?)? A way to profit internally until they've made enough to pull the plug?
Other altcoins seek to 'fix' BTC shortcomings (privacy being a large one like Dash and Monero) but face shortcomings of their own (even greater volatility, delisting due to law enforcement pressure, instamining - another sign of a a TYPE of pyramid scheme, etc).
But none of that can bypass SWIFT enforcements.
Then, there's also the increasingly high cost of 'mining' and proving blockchain transactions. It becomes so energy-intensive (toward the end-use/last coins mined) - and some would say we're their already - that to actually transfer or use BTC in a purchase transaction is unsustainable energy-consumption-wise. I've seen nothing, personally, that solves for the increasing need for energy (at an exponential rate greater than our ability to squeeze out more energy production from limited sources) for BTC to realistically be adopted widespread as a alternative way to purchase good and services. (let alone merchants wanting price stability and to stay compliant). BTC proponents largely bury their heads in the sands at the thought of future energy usage to continue to support value appreciation (lol, it's going to 500k!). Many 'investors' of the most recent generation have been spoiled with CB-backed currency inflation-based bull runs in the markets, and speculation-based price increases in cryptos. They can't see past any investment only going up (to tha moon). Musk kind of touched on the energy perspective (only from a so-called 'clean' energy source virtue-signal when he walked back the energy sink problem with BTC) and many an 'investors' head near exploded.
And all this is coming from an early, early adopter. I don't even want to say when I first read the whitepaper, it's embarrassing as I'm not a super-millionaire right now. Though, I've done alright moving in and out at times.
Nevertheless, the true issue is what the US decides to do, which so far is mostly apathy - though the tax law keeps getting revised retroactively to have to report gainz from BTC, so lol good luck not reporting profits. However, keeping on the up-and-up with paying your fair share of capital gains is a small price to pay for the appreciation in value the digital currency has.
The biggest liability BTC has (among others, and as with many other altcoins), is where the rubber meets the road for usage (think - buying that pizza with BTC). Tax issues aside, the US govt could issue laws against the usage of BTC as tender since it is being used as a competition to the FRNs. Legally, it has full authority to do so. Dominos, for instance, won't want to go against the govt to accept your BTC as payment.
But that's only domestically (in the US). A huge hit to the value of BTC, but not always a death knell. Although, if swings from mere Musk tweets get 10-15% losses or more than this would be damn near catastrophic.
STILL, one could offshore money from the US like a siphon (some think TPTB are 'allowing' digital currencies to run rampant to take pressure off elsewhere, for instance the PM markets). One could practice smart moves like using dark wallets (only once, never online again from any device), laundering accounts at whatever exchanges are popular and thought to be secure (lol), watching their 'investment' 'gain' in 'value' etc, but what about USING IT? It's only useful when you sell or use it - that's the ONLY time profit is able to be taken from the otherwise completely digital gains on a screen.
So then the BIGGEST threat is then if the US decides to leverage the SWIFT banking system, which it and the BOE pretty much run (in effect - although ownership is considered to be collaborative by CB's and other mega-institutions). We've seen the US do this before to attempt to enforce sanctions (Russia and Iran come to mind).
And SWIFT does comply with sanctions and financial crimes laws. Particularly US-based. As with most things (like NATO) the US runs the show. And almost any banking institution worldwide with few exceptions would not allow for BTC to be transacted - largely by proxy of the businesses that settle their accounts at those banks. No company that banks in the Western world (and mostly beyond, very little actual SWIFT competition) would risk accepting BTC as payment.
BTC value would irreparably fall to 0.
But for some reason the US has been accepting by silence of what is an obvious competition to their ability to issue (control) currency.
Which is why, combined with the fact that transaction history (tied to wallets) is never truly anonymous (and wallets are easily enough tied to individuals - from a Big Brother perspective, or so the thought goes...), many are highly suspicious of what the US govt is thinking in allowing the continued use of cryptos. A honeypot operation (many think the origins of BTC is CIA-based)? A banking system pressure-release valve (from the bubble of all things, or PM or bond markets?)? A way to profit internally until they've made enough to pull the plug?
Other altcoins seek to 'fix' BTC shortcomings (privacy being a large one like Dash and Monero) but face shortcomings of their own (even greater volatility, delisting due to law enforcement pressure, instamining - another sign of a a TYPE of pyramid scheme, etc).
But none of that can bypass SWIFT enforcements.
Then, there's also the increasingly high cost of 'mining' and proving blockchain transactions. It becomes so energy-intensive (toward the end-use/last coins mined) - and some would say we're their already - that to actually transfer or use BTC in a purchase transaction is unsustainable energy-consumption-wise. I've seen nothing, personally, that solves for the increasing need for energy (at an exponential rate greater than our ability to squeeze out more energy production from limited sources) for BTC to realistically be adopted widespread as a alternative way to purchase good and services. (let alone merchants wanting price stability and to stay compliant). BTC proponents largely bury their heads in the sands at the thought of future energy usage to continue to support value appreciation (lol, it's going to 500k!). Many 'investors' of the most recent generation have been spoiled with CB-backed currency inflation-based bull runs in the markets, and speculation-based price increases in cryptos. They can't see past any investment only going up (to tha moon). Musk kind of touched on the energy perspective (only from a so-called 'clean' energy source virtue-signal when he walked back the energy sink problem with BTC) and many an 'investors' head near exploded.
And all this is coming from an early, early adopter. I don't even want to say when I first read the whitepaper, it's embarrassing as I'm not a super-millionaire right now. Though, I've done alright moving in and out at times.