pull down to refresh
13 sats \ 3 replies \ @justin_shocknet 5 Jun \ on: Let's Talk Solomon's Points: Has Bitcoin been captured and what is going on? bitcoin
It hasn't been "captured", it's always been a product of the national security state intended to serve as base money for institutional and global trade.
Security budget fud is always retarded, correlating it with retail MoE even moreso.
MoE is downstream of unit of account and irrelevant to chain activity.
Real chain-activity MoE is when institutions use it like they do wires today, still a decade out or more.
'It hasn't been "captured", it's always been a product of the national security state intended to serve as base money for institutional and global trade.'
I reject that assertion as the evidence seems compelling that Bitcoin was the product of lengthy and complex work by cypherpunks and designed to enable P2P payments free of intermediaries and censorship.
My argument is that the fiat powers (banks+govt) in the west have responded to Bitcoin very cleverly- by capturing and controlling it via KYC and designation of it as a taxable speculative commodity.
They have not (in the west) outright banned MoE use, but have via KYC+tax designation made convenient lawful MoE use effectively impractical.
Who is going to record cost of acquisition and then value upon disposal when buying an iced coffee and bread roll from a LN accepting cafe? Basically nobody and so retail consumer MoE is restricted to lawbreakers. Mainstream adoption is blocked. Bitcoin is defined and used almost exclusively as a (relatively harmless and largely corporate custody captured) speculative SoV commodity and Bitcoins revolutionary potential as a censorship resistant P2P MoE is prevented from gaining mass scale adoption.
reply
Existing KYC law applied to a transparent ledger. That's the design, nation-state scale transparency. Iran can't move billions in Bitcoin without the NSA knowing about it (and if they really wanted to open Pandora's box they could probably just sweep it).
Of all the reasons retail MoE isn't a thing, taxes aren't one of them. That's retarded to even think that. Cash culture exists. Hell, if capital gains rates were even higher, there would be yet more incentive to spend it in small unreported amounts than there would be at exchanges.
The sub single percentage of people that actually want to pay/receive in Bitcoin is not enough network effect to matter in the meatspace.
reply
KYC requirements were introduced and applied to Bitcoin long after Bitcoin was introduced to the world.
They were a response.
A sly and subtle but very effective preventative one.
They enable tracking and tracing of most transactions and effectively substantially reduce the ability for Bitcoin to be used pseudonymously.
Tax obligations act as a real barrier especially for retailers - a retailer asking their tax consultant will be almost always strongly advised not to accept Bitcoin because of the potential tax implications- add this to the risk of debanking and then the on the consumer side the absurdly complex tax requirements effectively discourage anyone except a very enthusiastic Bitcoiner who is prepared to break the law and risk potential prosecution.
You cannot seriously argue this is not very effective obstruction designed to prevent the development of mass scale MoE adoption.
The result is, as you note, what we have now- a very low percentage of the potential user population wanting to use Bitcoin for MoE because of the multiple layers of FUD and obstruction put in place by bankers and governments.
They have succeeded in preventing sufficient use to even get close to the network effect engaging to create any threat to fiat monopoly over MoE.
reply