pull down to refresh
7 sats \ 5 replies \ @xz 21 Nov \ parent \ on: China Court Declares Bitcoin Private Property news
I was thinking about this. I don't think it's so much of a faux pas for a change in policy. People pay for their electricity and their hardware, and so long as they're not siphoning someone else's electricity to do these things, there should be no problem with it.
But as there is no moral highground in using electricity for hosting a generative ai service or gaming, as opposed to using an ASIC to participate in a global technology network, it's something that governments need to come to term with, if they don't want to find that they are increasingly isolated.
They literally kicked everyone out. Some came back and I remember hearing it's still quite significant like 10-20% of the hash rate.
It depends on their CBDC. If it's successful they might continue to ignore Bitcoin. They still have the 200k odd BTC seized from that Plus token scam.
reply
True.
The government is leapfrogging from an already ubiquitously accepted mobile payments platform to another. I think this is also part of the problem, not just that Bitcoin was already there, and was soon likely to be everywhere.
I think this idea that governments want to migrate payments to central banks is meeting opposition and indifference everywhere because there is no government able to delineate real advantages for the average end-user.
I don't get when international transactions are cited as being the advantage of CBDC. For global trade, sure, if there's a willingness to co-adopt a new system. This is very different to international transfers and foreign exhange for retail.
IMO, if any, the embarrassment should be the 10-20% hash rate, not lifting restrictions.
reply