Topic: [2020-06-25] Jim Rogers Warns Governments Will Have To ‘Eliminate' Bitcoin (Read 358 times)

We should erase him  . Cryptocurrencies are in the way of transferring same as cash - no one can stop you from buying something with them and if you will not tell where is that money or private key no one will have access to your money. And cash is legit. But after few years crypto will be the same and there will be no more this articles.

@Carlton Banks. On your comment about Trump, does that imply that the established leaders who might also be the kingmakers, will make it a certainty that Trump will win on November? The present crisis in America might need another 4 years of a scapegoat hehehehe.

Another shit news came from those so-called popular personalities on investment industry but this one definitely knows on whats BTC. Trying to Eliminate?

I doubt if they can and im sure that they are already doing such thing underground but they cant find a way even up to now. So i would say that it would really be pointless!

this



...but not this

I've always been more of the mind that president Trump as a phenomenon is some kind of reality-show-as-real-life power play conducted by the US elite to manage big changes to the typical way of life for people living there (and all indications thus far suggest that Trump's period in office is on track to be just that kind of presidency)

If Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul could both lose the candidacy race despite being by far the most popular candidates, there's no reason at all why Trump couldn't have been similarly prevented from acceding to the Republican candidacy. It makes far more sense that the Republican Party and the US media were largely play-acting, as Trump has been intended to play the role of a highly divisive leader who can act as a scapegoat for acts that other establishment figures (e.g. the Federal Reserve) in the US do not want to take responsibility for.

I definitely agree. Anything the government does to kill Bitcoin is self-inflicting.

But they're somehow caught in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. Bitcoin is fast rising while fiat is fast crumbling. They are certainly aware that they need to do something about Bitcoin. But they cannot seem to find neither a secret nor an open way to fatally attack Bitcoin.

And, as if to make things worse, it seems the tides of time is on Bitcoin's favor with a crisis-inducing pandemic coming after another crisis, making their whimsical financial and monetary systems' flaws, shortcomings, and abuses more vivid as ever and Bitcoin's arguments more convincing as ever. 


Well, as I've said, the state operates beyond the letters and acceptable interpretations of the law, certainly beyond the 1st amendment or even the most basic and sacred right as the right to life.

They cannot directly attack Bitcoin because there is nothing to attack in the first place. Well, at least there is the name. And they've been labeling and smearing it for a long time. There's the BTC owners and users whom they could imposed all kinds of taxes on. There's the Bitcoin or crypto businesses which they may not allow to operate. And so forth.

But, for sure, they've been also closely studying Bitcoin itself. We can recall how Gavin was even invited by the CIA as early as 2011 to present Bitcoin to them in details. So, their intelligence radar must have already caught the infant technology early on and might have recognized there and then the potential threat this revolutionary invention could bring to them and their system of control. So I guess they're really acting on it for several years now but all to no avail.

Similar to what you said, what will they act on? Outside the law, bomb mining farms, murder miners and assasinate developers?

Also, within the law, Bitcoin is protected by the 1st amendment.

I wish the author of this Forbes article built around the statement of Jim Rogers about Bitcoin being eliminated by the government since the main body doesn't really talk about anything near that. They didn't talked about the government of any country is headed towards that direction but instead said things about China is headed towards being a digitalized country which isn't really supporting the statement of Jim Rogers. One thing is for sure though that this will still be an unclear statement and cannot be use as basis to anything as we don't see any kind of plans from the government eliminating Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

All true. They will definitely talk their book.  Look at McAfee as an example who admitted it. 

These guys want money and power and are willing to do practically anything to get it.

This group wants (and has currently) power over the money supply via the Fed in the US and similar institutions around the world.  They can surreptitiously steal a few percent of everyone's wealth every year forever and most people don't notice the hidden tax of inflation.  When you are talking about trillions in assets, that adds up quite quickly.  Not to mention, they have the power to create money at will and lend it to favored groups, politicians etc.  Anyone that can be bought and then control a huge government.

This is why bitcoin is critical, it prevents the power-hungry politicians from controlling people and stealing from them.

Many politicians, particularly the ones who are in it for money and power over other people, will do anything within the law or without the law to defeat the people who want liberty.  Look at how far some of the politicians went to defeat Trump in 2016 and then again to delegitimize him after he won.  They were willing to break the law to "unmask" people, attempt to entrap people, lie to the people in public (e.g. Clapper and Brennan - based on the congressional testimony which was opposite what they were saying on CNN/MSNBC etc).  

Agreed. Ignoring for a moment the impossibility of the task, the US "eliminating" bitcoin would be an act of self harm. The government would be cutting the entire country off from a global market, and you can guarantee that countries like China and Russia would try to use that to their advantage to gain power and leverage over the dollar.

Having said all that, I do expect an attack to come from governments and law makers at some point. Traditional banking pays the salaries of our politicians. Banks bankroll their campaigns, lobby them, bribe them, grant them meaningless executive rolls with substantial paychecks, and so forth. Banks aren't going to passively accept the growth of bitcoin, which threatens their control over the government and the people, and so they will bribe politicians to act against it.

This could actually be good publicity though:


He also said this:


...which implies he was doing less warning and more fearmongering. He probably agrees with it.

I've always speculated that this is at least part of the reason why no serious attempt has ever been made to target the Bitcoin network. The biggest risk of failure in such an endeavour is that of drawing attention to the failure; that Bitcoin is too resilient for governments to disrupt.

Also, governments who wish for more influence in international trade/finance have alot to gain for using Bitcoin as a weapon to destabilize both the USD and the SWIFT network, but simultaneously threatens a new financial center of dominance from being assumed by those governments who wish to do so. The tolerance of Bitcoin mining farms in China is the most clear example; it's quite likely that the PRC party leadership didn't fully appreciate the power of Satoshi's cryptocurrency network design, and saw it as a costless and convenient avenue to threaten the USD system. When they realized it was an equal threat to their own control of China's banking system (and their partitioned currency system), they put miners under their yoke on notice to dial down the pressure, but notably continued to permit the mining hardware firms to operate.

China is the perfect distillation of government Bitcoin policy; they cannot quite decide whether they ought to issue an outright & comprehensive ban, or fight for a stake in the system



Let's not forget that wealthy investors with a public persona are very likely using their influential status to try to move market sentiment when they make public statements (in interviews such as in the OP), and for any number of reasons. Maybe Rogers wants to help support the fiat currency market, in which he is no doubt at least somewhat invested. Maybe he simply wants in to the Bitcoin market at a good price.

They can act on it all they want - this is what bitcoin was designed for. No third parties, decentralized, censorship resistant. I might even go so far as to say the US government trying to "shut down bitcoin" could give it a huge boost. A government like the US' trying and failing to shut down bitcoin does two things. First, it shows that bitcoin does what it claims - that it really is decentralized and can't be controlled by governments. Secondly, it demonstrates why bitcoin is necessary in the first place - because governments don't like their citizens having freedom.

If a government tries to shut down bitcoin, all they will end up doing is justifying its existence.

It's the government's uncertainty is the reason why they are not willing to embrace the idea of decentralization. Not being in control means not going to be accepted. Classic move right? If they can't control it then just rule it out. Maybe if they started ruling out that people need this kind of decentralization and the mindset in which it's impossible to print money out of thin air just because you need it, it would change their mindset or something. I doubt this could happen though.

For so long a time, these people or the government itself do things within and without the bounds of law. While they're preaching that no one is above the law, they are actually playing on rules that apply to them alone, or on lack of it. They're simply beyond the law. They arrest people selling and using cocaine but they traffic it. They prosecute and jail people for murder but they sure eliminate others freely. And the list goes on.

Here comes Bitcoin. There is no one to kill. There is no switch to turn off. There is no headquarter to put on fire. There is no neighborhood to bomb. And so forth. But if only there was, they must have already accomplished the mission.

And now they're having a hard time killing this son of a bitch. But it doesn't mean they not acting on it.   

I reckon the politicians behind the government would have done anything or eliminate what they wanted if they knew how it can be done within the law.

Perhaps I misread it, but I didn't see him advocating elimination bitcoin, merely stating he thinks some governments will (attempt) to do that. Merely because you see something as a potential event, doesn't mean you necessarily agree with it.    Eg, suppose you saw that because the US Congress legislated that mortgage borrowers could borrow money with a lower credit score there would be a financial crisis.  That wouldn't imply you thought interference was a good thing.

Maybe there was more to the interview showing whether he thought that was a positive or negative.

it's not a sprint, it's a marathon.

the dinosaurs will eventually die out. we just need to wait and let bitcoin do its thing. superior money is superior.

we should be thankful traditional/mainstream investors are still pushing these sorts of opinions. it means there is still so much upside left. we're clearly still in the early adoption phase.


governments hate looking impotent. trying to "eliminate" bitcoin does exactly that.

Lots of people don't understand the internet or computing, like, at all. Keep in mind that we have elected representatives in countries around the world who want to ban all encryption, completely failing to understand that doing so would completely break the internet. This is despite the fact that these representatives have advisors and committees with actual experts on them telling them that such a thing is both impossible and ridiculous, but they still try to pass laws to do it anyway. If they turn round to the population and talk about banning encryption in the name of anti-terrorism or "won't you think of the children!", then huge numbers of people will believe it to be a good idea and vote for it.

If you turn round to these same people and tell them bitcoin funds terrorism and is used to buy drugs and the government is going to ban it, then again many will agree, regardless of how ridiculous or impossible such a statement is.

From the article:
Right. Because we all know that bitcoin isn't being used in countries which have made it illegal.

Love how these guys keep exposing their ignorance and lack of initiative to give even 15 minutes of due diligence to look up something they're about to go to town on. Even I take 5 minutes to Google a shitcoin before I do the royal smackdown.

@gentlemand: Bet the writer thoroughly enjoyed quoting the guy. Reminds me of the days I was allowed, even encouraged, to interview morons for a newspaper.

I reckon someone should irritate Jim Rogers on social media and show him Monero. Ask him how the government might stop this hehehe.

ISIS has begun accepting Monero for anonymous donations and has removed bitcoin.



The infamous terrorist group has reportedly chucked Bitcoin in favor of its “privacy focused” cousin, Monero. According to Israeli blockchain analytics firm Whitestream, the syndicate has updated one of its onion address websites to indicate that it will now exclusively accept Monero for cryptocurrency donations. (Whitesteam is the same firm that told the New York Times last year that terrorist groups were increasingly turning to crypto for funding.)

Source https://decrypt.co/33562/isis-shuns-bitcoin-privacy-coin-monero

If I were a legacy fan I'd say it wasn't for me and I'd wait to see what would happen, but these people have profiles they want to embellish and this is something that's obviously spawned more chatter than most things in recent years. They must get asked about it constantly.

Most of those who come out with this stuff will be in nappies soon enough so they get a nice wee attention boost in the short term and it's probably what their own followers want to hear.

There is just something about these old guys and new tech, why dont they just say time is up for them to try new technologies

or simply say they have no use for bitcoin and leave all this to the younger generation...everyone walks away happy  

But he is still a legendary investor whose opinion is respected by millions of people around the world, just as is the case with Warren Buffett, Bill Gates or Carlos Slim. From them actually speaks their money which represents their power to shape public opinion. But it is a species in extinction whose words are worth less and less, and I personally have no doubt that Bitcoin will exist even when they are no longer present among the living.

But still, anyone who thinks a little with their head should not pay attention to such news, then they only serve to fill the media columns on a daily basis. Definitely toilet material, but not for reading but as toilet paper if it exists in paper form

https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2020/06/25/legendary-investor-jim-rogers-warns-governments-will-have-to-eliminate-bitcoin/#31e92da5584a

Classic old school doom mixed with profound misunderstanding for your morning wank on the toilet.

I enjoy this line particularly - "Controllable electronic money will survive, and virtual currencies beyond the influence of the government will be erased."

So they will erase something beyond their influence. Coolio.