Like I said.......the powers that be, agree with me......who.....just the US Treasury.....i.e. the White House......the CCP & China's leadership......next move is European regulatory authorities / commission to do something BTC hostile in response to Colonial/Ireland bitcoin denominated attack.......Europe is a little slower to get things done my guess is next week or week after something drops.......as I've said previously this all occurring a couple of weeks after Colonial....weird, so weird.....
Thoughts on this
@tecate @WolfeTone
One of these everyday at this stage - it’s as if the bear has been awoken
My thoughts on this remain unchanged. Lets recap on what my thoughts were....i.e. that over the course of the next few years there will be plenty of twists and turns with regard to regulation. On the bits you put in supersize font, we've covered that already. Everyone acknowledges that inherent in the decentralised nature of bitcoin is the ability to move funds around more freely. This is what we're here for - and the facility can be used for good and for bad. Therefore, the guy that wrote the report isn't necessarily wrong. In the same way as he wouldn't be wrong in saying cars facilitate bank robbers to execute a bank robbery. The difference is that your claim is that there isn't sufficient upside with bitcoin/crypto for society and government to tolerate it. I vehemently disagree - so rather than go round in circles, we'll have to accept that disagreement and see how things develop.
The measure you identify suggests that Uncle Sam wants his share of the $ (tax). Surprise surprise. This is what regulation will focus on - governments making sure they get their cut. Not an outright ban. Flipping back to the ransomware stuff, you seem to be fixated on that for some reason. I'll grant you that the Colonial affair was infrastructural so there's that. As regards the HSE, that's a complete nothing burger. In as much as you want an outright ban on crypto on the back of that alone - today - when I think of this - I would want people to realise where the issue lies and go after that i.e. an organisation that is totally mismanaged and incompetent.
You believe that a couple of measures are a knee jerk response to that. That's not an opinion I share.
The news out of China was a reiteration of measures that were in place a couple of years ago already. And this coming out of the US - is a small piece in a regulatory jigsaw that is being put together. Regulation didn't become a theme because of ransomware. If you don't believe me, then do an advanced google search on "regulation" + "crypto" OR "bitcoin" and only include results to a timeframe before these two ransomware attacks. I can assure you there's been all sorts of noise in that regard. It's an ongoing consideration - as it always is when it comes to innovation which moves much faster than regulators.
Isn’t that stance a bit close minded, ironic from a “community” imploring people to be open minded?
I'm having difficulty in understanding what your grievance is here. You bemoaned the fact that a thread that specifically discusses bitcoin (see thread title) specifically discusses bitcoin? Beyond that, I suggested that if it was a project related to a money or store of value use case, have at it - introduce it to the discussion.
Explain to me how that is close minded???
presidentttt said:
The ultimate leader may not even be widely known or created yet.
I don't know at what point you started to follow these discussions but it's something that has been considered many times - and as recently as the last few days. If you are suggesting that bitcoin may be usurped, then my position (which I've stated a gazillion times over the course of 4 years here) is that yes it could. I'm open to the potential of bitcoin failing on the basis of that and other rationale.
On the flipside, whenever anyone has suggested that bitcoin could be upended by another project, naturally enough I ask by what project and we get crickets. I also liken it to Facebook/Google/Twitter, etc. they can all be upended too - but it will have to be by something that is 10x better.
This is flat out wrong. The code is public, open source and licensed in a way that anyone is free to change it and redistribute it. This means anyone can make *their own* changes to the code, they can decide to run the code with those changes and they can release it for other people to run.
Many misunderstand the dynamic with regard to the various stakeholder groups relative to bitcoin. In the blocksize war, miners tried to impose their will over and above other stakeholder groups. Users disagreed and on that basis, miners never got their way. This is something which is also misunderstood when the degree of decentralisation (or otherwise) of bitcoin mining is considered.
China-based miners want to take control of the network? Firstly, it remains to be seen that they can be rounded up so easily but lets assume that they can. Billions are spent on that attack and the net result is that users fork the network away. Would there have been disruption to the network? Definitely. Would bitcoin have been taken out as a consequence? No way - and in fact, the project would end up being much stronger for the experience. In which case, why would anyone go there in the first instance and be shown up as idiots (not to mention all the time, money and resources expended).
The same applies re. any perceived belief that a group of developers have control of the project. I can't imagine a scenario where anyone would ever dare touch the 21 million BTC hardcap. Doing so is akin to committing suicide. But even in some bizarre twist where that somehow plays out, users can fork away. It's the peoples network - not the miners or that of an elite band of developers, etc.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8937279/acastro_170726_1777_0007_v3.jpg)
www.theverge.com