The ignorance stems from some sort of belief structure that allows one to believe that it would even be possible to outlaw bitcoin. Either bitcoin is valuable, or it is not. If it is, one should question why it is, and more importantly, why it is more valuable to people than the alternative. But rather than admit the problems of the alternative, he suggests something that is completely impractical (and downright sinister) because he would prefer not to discuss the reasons for its value in the first place.
So to state your hypothesis as a testable bet, your claim is that a government could not outlaw the possession, sale or purchase of Bitcoin. His claim is they could. If any government does this you’re the ignorant one? And if they try and fail he is?
The only thing it did was increase the value of gold. And our world is far far far more able to circumvent any order like this, as any wealthy person storing their money in panama will tell you.
Bitcoin is the reckoning for that belief. Rather than discuss the reason for the failure of their fiat system, which is what they're discussing right now, they want to restrict your freedom of exchanging the fruits of your labor for tokens in a system outside of their control.
Freedom isn't about you asking the the government what you can do. Freedom is about the government asking your permission to govern in the interests of their constituents. If they can't convince you to use their token, they should start working now to come to a resolution that respects the rights of the people who choose not to buy their token for anything other than taxes.
That isn't really a counter to any argument I'm making. If anything, it supports my argument. The government that supported that fiat ceased to exist, therefore the fiat ceased to exist. Sounds like a pretty good example of the dangers of fiat, and the advantages of a decentralized store of wealth.
Owning a particular currency was made illegal by a government. That government enforced that policy by force of arms. That currency ceased to exist. Ergo it is not ignorant to claim that s government can eliminate a currency & quite the opposite it’s ignorant to say its impossible.
They could eliminate it because it had a central point of control. There are over two hundred other countries and a black market that can't be stopped even if the US outlaws Bitcoin.
Making it illegal didn't make people not have it, just like the gold executive order, so that hasn't proven your case. Making the government cease to exist and therefore ceasing to be redeemable only proves my case.
Yes. I expect at some point the wealth stored of bitcoin on exchanges will be too great a temptation for some governments. All the more reason to ensure you don't store your bitcoin on an exchange.
It's funny, what the US did there isn't all that different from what the various Sovbloc countries did when they forced people to exchange their 'hard' currencies to the local currency at some ridiculously low exchange rate.
See I view it on the other side. Someone who has studied currencies that weren’t backed by nation states (or worse were actively worked against) would pretty easily find reason to take that bet.
His entire position is that currencies are the domain of nation states. It’s a reasoned position, based on his long distinguished career.
Oh I get it. He doesn't understand how bitcoin works, and why would he? It is a very complex subject. Bitcoin is something very new, and all it took to make it work was the genius solution to the Byzantine Generals Problem unsolvability proof. Without that solution, decentralized crypto-currencies don't work. It is pure genius.
