Sorry, doesn't do it for me.
Wrong demographic?
If? $250bn market cap and she is still talking "if".
You make a good point, Dukey. Many reference the MySpace example when considering the possibilities of other contenders. However, MySpace never got anywhere close to $250bn.
She is right of course. As per Satoshi, John Kelleher et al, bitcoin will only be judged a success when it achieves meaningful adoption as a medium of exchange.
Rose tented glasses, Dukey? That's what you'd like her to say - it's not what she's saying at all.
Lyn then goes on to argue that with increasing institutional take up a ban becomes harder to enforce. I don't follow the logic at all. If the US were to ban bitcoin would Microstrategies continue to publish large holdings in its public accounts?
Every day above ground for bitcoin means every day there's further sprawl in terms of network effect. It becomes ever greater to put the genie back in the bottle (ergo, it's not possible).
Actually upon reflection, would this qualify as a CGT eligible event? I read that you don't actually pay in BTC, paypal exchange BTC to USD and pay the merchant in USD. So does this create a CGT eligible event for the customer?
Yes. It's the very same with the multitude of crypto debit cards that have hit the market over the past 12-18 months.
I don't see people ever wanting bitcoin as a medium of exchange in preference to their own fiat currency.
Why not? If you live in a country where your local fiat currency is failing or has failed, why not? Or simply one that applies capital controls or debases itself (even more than the others do). Perhaps there are controls in making overseas payments or friction/costs? That's why bitcoin is increasingly being used for payments and international transfers in W.Africa.
If it did show signs of happening it would threaten monetary policy and the more institutional involvement the easier for the authorities to control or even ban it.
If there's competition, then there's an incentive for the purveyors of fiat currency to do better. Anyone should want that scenario. More institutional involvement means more network effect ...ergo, bitcoin gets woven into financial services. It becomes more and more difficult to ban as there would be an ever increasing backlash.
I recommend that you read
@tecate's interesting link to Lyn Alden. There she discusses how Gold was banned in the mid twentieth century in America. It is in order to protect the nation's monetary system. "First I am the Lord thy Dollar and I shalt not have any sh1tcoins before me."
And she makes the distinction that there is a difference between that example and now - ergo, the dollar was gold backed back then.
Banning is as simple as passing a piece of legislation. Banning and preventing are two completely different concepts.
Precisely.
Once thing that always confuses me about the argument for bitcoin being a way to evade the state confiscating your assets is that people don't seem to realise that any government who would do that is certainly more than capable of limiting internet access or content within their borders, and travel through them. Governments, including our own, already filter internet traffic. Unless there's a major re-write of bitcoin, ISPs could easily filter out bitcoin transactions. If there were a re-write, blocking enhancements would likely follow. The BGP exploit attacks (
example) show what's possible with deep access.
Then people can transact over satellite (right now) or mesh networks (to come). How do people get round China's 'great firewall'? Why can't transactions be routed over tor?
Bitcoin isn't as anonymous as once thought, authorities have the tools to identify users. If it's banned, enforcement will follow.
Re. enforcement, Alden makes the point with the gold ownership prohibition there were serious consequences for defying that ban - yet very few prosecutions. Enforcement is possible (to an extent) but at what point does it become politcally unacceptable as network effect grows?