Comparing a nation's fiat to bitcoin is hilarious.
Here's what the USD is backed by. The nation's assets. And more importantly the nation's power to enforce their will upon you legally (via courts, police, military, etc.).
The Federal Reserve has been a fair steward of the dollar, with only a 96% devaluation since 1913. The curious can check the official numbers here:
It is backed by the obligation to pay your taxes in that currency. I.e. every citizen with tax obligation (i.e. basically everybody) needs to collect Dollars to pay his tax bill. So everybody is willing to accept payments in that currency or in a currency which can be reasonably easy converted to Dollars.
As a topper sales tax creates a tax obligation on virtually all transactions within the society, so the need to own Dollars is directly bound to economic activity.
If it's a reserve currency, as the U.S. is, it is also backed by the demand of other states to hold U.S. dollars to stabilize their non-reserve currency.
Indeed, some argue that a reserve currency is not subject to ordinary balance of payments criteria. This is sometimes called exorbitant privilege.
All to say, the U.S. currency is not just backed by assets of the nation, but by demand that other states have for local-currency stability.
Somewhat aside, some argue that this creates a perverted incentive to destabilize the world because unstable states and regions have a higher demand for a reserve currency.
For a reference point, gold is another sovereign asset and it has held up pretty well over the years.
...As written by two Blockchain sites. Ya got me.
> Most people don’t study history (or don’t learn its lessons) and as the saying goes, are doomed to repeat it.
Have a nice day.
Do you accept the Nano cryptocurrency?
Welcome to the new world, were fiat will be an old dinosaur living in a digital world (and yes, I said world, not nation)
Do we shut down the open source project? Do we make the algorithms illegal and have a repeat of the fight of whether or not mathematics and programming is free speech?
Without saying anything to support or not support bitcoin, the cat's out of the bag. There will now always be bitcoin as long as there are anonymous miners willing to keep the network running and it will always have value even if it's not optimized perfectly. Even if that value can only be found on the black market.
What I'm saying is bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are here to stay because the knowledge of how to make them and run them is becoming saturated and anyone can just fork the code. So even if it doesn't play by the rules we've come to know, we better get used to it...
Actually, it's quite simple. The SEC and IRS could go after the exchanges. If BTC can't be converted to US Dollars BTC is worthless on its face.
BTC only has value if it can be exchanged to another currency.
Of course cryptocurrency can always go underground and hid their traffic. Technically you could even run a cryptocurrency network through email. Technology has and will always move faster than governments.
On another front, it might be hard to galvanize support to ban cryptocurrency when many of the movers and shakers have embraced it. IBM is the largest tech provider to the financial sector and is working on more than 400 blockchain projects and runs its own cross border payment system that may already process 60% of all cross-border payments in the South Pacific using the Lumen crypto. Word is also going around the JPMorgan might start up bitcoin futures trading soon.
It seems like to me that the old world and gatekeepers have already decided that this is the way the world is moving.
So your argument is "You can make it illegal all you want, but we'll just move it underground and it will never die."
Arguments like that do little to win over regulators. The last time I checked in the US, cryptocurrency fell within the jurisdiction of the CFTC, IRS, SEC, and FinCEN agencies. Three of those agencies have already made policies regarding cryptocurrencies without needing an act of congress.
> On another front, it might be hard to galvanize support to ban cryptocurrency when many of the movers and shakers have embraced it.
Again, this argument is not compelling enough. Popular things once done by people or companies have been made illegal time and time again. Any argument that allows companies to profit off illegal activities (money laundering comes to mind) in a legal way without regulation, is DOA.
The BTC ban in China needs to be nuanced: 'While private parties can hold and trade bitcoins in China, regulation prohibits financial firms like banks from doing the same.' see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_bitcoin_by_country...
India also doesn't seem to have a law in place to really ban it.
Wikipedia has a nice map that shows only a few small states really banned bitcoin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_bitcoin_by_country...
I support the current stance of the US government on cryptocurrencies, because I think it's a sane way to approach this new technology, although there is a lot of speculation going on. I assume EU is going to have the same point of view more or less.
"With the announcement that it plans to block all websites related to cryptocurrency trading and initial coin offerings – including foreign platforms – Beijing has left no one in any doubt of its position on the highly volatile commodity."
The Economic Times of India talks about banking regulations surrounding bitcoin :
"RBI, while announcing its first bi-monthly monetary policy for the FY 2018-19, has announced that any entity regulated by them such as banks, wallets etc. shall not deal with or provide services to any individual or business entities for buying or selling of cryptocurrency such as bitcoins."
If you're going to invest in BTC, you're most likely going to do it through your bank account. Banning banks from working with crytocurrency exchanges is a big step in that direction because it severely impacts your ability to participate in those exchanges.
And that gets me back to the original point. A country just needs to attack the exchanges. BTC is only worth something if you can exchange it for something else.
This is not what you are claiming. You are claiming that BTC is only worth something if it can be exchanged for a local currency through financial institutions.
If I can earn cryptocurrencies with my Twitch stream donations, and I can buy my drugs online, why wouldn't it have any value? That's what a currency is all about, isn't it? There is no (central) bank or financial institution involved, which is exactly what we are aiming at.
> If you're going to invest in BTC, you're most likely going to do it through your bank account.
The main idea of BTC is not as an investment. It's like saying companies are all about stocks and not about the value they produce.
Nope. Look at the top of thread. I made it clear there.
> If I can earn cryptocurrencies with my Twitch stream donations, and I can buy my drugs online, why wouldn't it have any value?
When a casino changes out its chips, the old ones lose their value after a certain date. The casino will not exchange them for cash anymore, making the face value worthless.
BTC is very much like a casino chip. It only has value because someone is willing to exchange it for currency. If the exchange goes away, the face value goes away.
This is not a new idea. And it ignores the fact that most criminals still use cash for transactions anyway.
Sad if we must bow to the various central banks that will rise, fall, and inflate their currencies to nothing until the heat death of the universe.
There are cryptos with inflation built in, probably in whatever most ideal form you or anyone thinks is correct.
Or, I might say: You have a narrow view of bitcoin if you think stopping inflation is the problem that it's solving.