Most non-criminals avoid bitcoin too. The ratio is still leaning criminal. You don’t tend to see stories of the FBI seizing an appreciable percentage of the USD supply from criminals, you know?
Also, to some extent reality is less relevant than perception here. If the government thinks bitcoin is only used by scruffy anarchists trying to get high, they’ll come down on it whether that’s true or not.
Remember, the only people who vote are old, which means that the government is selected by people who have a poor grasp of technology and for whom “Won’t somebody please think of the children!” is a rallying cry and not a Simpsons quote. Drugs get hammered flat as best they can manage(which isn’t well, of course, but they do try).
That said, you raise a valid point too. I’ve seen the similarity drawn to bearer bonds, which were shut down for similar reasons(and shockingly easily—the government said interest paid on bearer bonds wasn’t a deductible expense any more, and they basically disappeared).
Government has agency, but only a limited amount. When it comes to things like Congressmen being allowed to insider-trade legally, I’ll totally believe that’s political agency at work. But implementing popular policies aggressively is just common sense, not a manifestation of political corruption.
But assuming that you are an enthusiast who uses bitcoin for ideological motives, what is the point of using bitcoin for anything that is not shady and/or illegal? What competitive advantage does it have over other forms of digital funds transfer? I mean practical, short-term advantages available on the margin to the parties involved in every transaction, not political things like “the government can’t regulate the supply”.
It’s cheap. You can send a large amount of bitcoins anywhere in the world with very very low transaction fees. Merchants can accept it without a ridiculous fee.
While your funds are stationary they are not subject to seizure. That’s not a political statement by the way.
It’s cheap. You can send a large amount of bitcoins anywhere in the world with very very low transaction fees. Merchants can accept it without a ridiculous fee.
If you convert it from/to cash immediately before/after each transaction, then you face exchange fees. And if I understand correctly, most exchanges have daily limits. And anyway exchanges are shady businesses: see what happened to MtGox.
If you hold significant amounts of bitcoin then you face volatility risk.
While your funds are stationary they are not subject to seizure.
Why not? I’m pretty sure that your government can force you to hand out your wallet.
Maybe? I mean probably you wouldn’t say that if you didn’t have a reliable source for it/it wasn’t probably true, but I don’t think it’s obviously true enough that you can just start off assuming everyone’s on the same page and ignore darknet markets to say “citation needed”, especially not if you’re at the same time acknowledging that the darknet markets get a lot of press.
Citation needed. The reality is that most criminals avoid bitcoin. Bitcoins can be traced, cash can’t.
Most non-criminals avoid bitcoin too. The ratio is still leaning criminal. You don’t tend to see stories of the FBI seizing an appreciable percentage of the USD supply from criminals, you know?
Also, to some extent reality is less relevant than perception here. If the government thinks bitcoin is only used by scruffy anarchists trying to get high, they’ll come down on it whether that’s true or not.
Actually, if that’s what government thinks, it will be content to leave bitcoin alone.
Now, the second someone in the government realizes that bitcoin could be used to avoid taxes...
Remember, the only people who vote are old, which means that the government is selected by people who have a poor grasp of technology and for whom “Won’t somebody please think of the children!” is a rallying cry and not a Simpsons quote. Drugs get hammered flat as best they can manage(which isn’t well, of course, but they do try).
That said, you raise a valid point too. I’ve seen the similarity drawn to bearer bonds, which were shut down for similar reasons(and shockingly easily—the government said interest paid on bearer bonds wasn’t a deductible expense any more, and they basically disappeared).
I don’t think the drug war is driven by the age of the voters. I think it’s driven by the desire for power and money.
What percentage of the population wants to legalize heroin? How much of the population gains power and money from its illegality?
(Also, the above post may have been intended with a mild spirit of sarcasm)
You don’t understand. It’s not the people who want to continue the drug war for power and money. It’s the government and its enforcement arms.
You don’t happen to think that government lacks agency and just meekly fulfills the desires of the voters, do you? X-D
Government has agency, but only a limited amount. When it comes to things like Congressmen being allowed to insider-trade legally, I’ll totally believe that’s political agency at work. But implementing popular policies aggressively is just common sense, not a manifestation of political corruption.
I think we have deep disagreements about this :-)
Did you forget about Silk Road even as the comment you responded to named it?
Silk Road may get a ton of press but it’s a really tiny part of the bitcoin ecosystem.
But assuming that you are an enthusiast who uses bitcoin for ideological motives, what is the point of using bitcoin for anything that is not shady and/or illegal?
What competitive advantage does it have over other forms of digital funds transfer? I mean practical, short-term advantages available on the margin to the parties involved in every transaction, not political things like “the government can’t regulate the supply”.
It’s cheap. You can send a large amount of bitcoins anywhere in the world with very very low transaction fees. Merchants can accept it without a ridiculous fee.
While your funds are stationary they are not subject to seizure. That’s not a political statement by the way.
If you convert it from/to cash immediately before/after each transaction, then you face exchange fees. And if I understand correctly, most exchanges have daily limits. And anyway exchanges are shady businesses: see what happened to MtGox.
If you hold significant amounts of bitcoin then you face volatility risk.
Why not? I’m pretty sure that your government can force you to hand out your wallet.
Maybe? I mean probably you wouldn’t say that if you didn’t have a reliable source for it/it wasn’t probably true, but I don’t think it’s obviously true enough that you can just start off assuming everyone’s on the same page and ignore darknet markets to say “citation needed”, especially not if you’re at the same time acknowledging that the darknet markets get a lot of press.