pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @elvismercury OP 23 Feb \ parent \ on: Bitcoin 'unstoppability' as tea party bitcoin
This is a good way to put it, I think. But here's a better way:
When people wanted something, and powerful others didn't want them to have it, how long did it take before everyone had what they wanted, and what carnage came along the way?
Btc will always exist in some form. If you'd be perfectly happy if it were to be exchangeable at a (current) fiat price of $1 dollar and then hovered around that value for a decade, then I am fully in your camp that everything will be fine.
But that's not my definition of 'fine.'
A lot of people (including me) would be sad if it lost so much of its current value; it would constitute a drastic collapse of savings and is contrary to the usual store-of-value narrative. That's the kind of outcome that is very much within the reach of a concerted and powerful countervailing multi-governmental effort, imo.
Only some failure of the technology itself would result in the entire network value of BTC being less than the wealth of one well-off person.
Government action will not have this result…if anything it will make BTC even more valuable.
They demonetized gold, but were never able to destroy it. People who have gold have been well protected.
Bitcoin is anti fragile. Whatever the attack makes it stronger: we will continue to print books on how to make printing presses, until they can no longer burn enough to matter.
Governments that embrace it will create a brain drain on the ones that fight it.
It is self defeating: The EU against fossil fuels? Let’s see how that plays out. If there are some people that want to starve and freeze to death, there are plenty more that aren’t going to just lay down and die.
Look at Nigeria: let’s see how many stop using BTC there.
reply