Topic: Be rich sheeple or free people, what's your choice? - page 2. (Read 858 times)

the most relevant one for everyone to choose is indeed the second one. Decentralization provides freedom to Bitcoin users and owners. Moreover, there will be no interference from other parties. The Bitcoins we own will be in our own hands. no authority can interfere with the Bitcoin assets we own.

in reality, the price of Bitcoin will never always be at $30k. and the government also does not want them to be disadvantaged in the traditional financial system that has been maintained for so long. If the government wants to support Bitcoin regulation in their country, there will definitely be benefits and government interference for anyone who holds and uses Bitcoin.

Interesting notion that privacy-conscious persons enjoy a "higher quality of life". Bitcoin is based on decentralized trust and confidentiality. Quality of life isnt always clear and varies by person. Privacy-lovers may prioritize their belongings and safety. KYC means "Know isnt always evil. It can prevent fraud and theft on a reliable cryptocurrency market. Think carefully about where and why you share private data. You cant avoid KYC; just trust the correct sites. Everyone has the right to privacy in Bitcoin.

Your imagination is too high that it has never crossed other people's minds before. After reading the entire story of your imagination which is difficult to happen in real life, the conclusion I can draw from the story points to decentralization and centralization and we have to make a choice between the two.

So far, you have always used Twitter, Instagram and other social media, without realizing it, these applications have monopolized and collected user data in applications known as centralization. The presence of decentralized technology will renovate the centralized concept that has been implemented by the government, decentralization which carries the Blockchain technology system which does not have a central authority but can still work perfectly.

Decentralization provides many benefits for communities that have been constrained by centralization. The concept of decentralized technology allows each server to be connected to each other and have the same role. By forming a peer-to-peer network, sending Bitcoin will be the same as sending an email because there is no longer a central bank as a third party to the transaction.

I will choose the second option, even though the price will forever be at $30,000, but every transaction that takes place has no interference from the government or central authority.

The exact percentage, I'm not sure, but it is indeed true that some people don't care about their privacy, while others do. In my view (without delving too deeply into observation), those who value their privacy here seem to lead a more quality life. Whether they already have significant assets that are more secure or for whatever reason, they appear to have a higher quality of life. Individuals deeply concerned about their privacy, on the other hand, tend to pay extra attention to their own and their family's security. They still perform KYC, but only on essential platforms.

Some people who disregard privacy often come across as very needy for money and don't mind performing KYC anywhere. It's true that we all need money, but I believe there are better ways than selling our identities for unnecessary KYC procedures.

But in your opinion, is profit more important or privacy is more important? If you are a poor person, what good is your privacy if it cannot put food on the table for your family? So I would be suspicious of anyone who is using bitcoin to make a profit and say they would choose the second option. Money is still something we all prioritize more than anything, many people are even willing to harm their loved ones to get money. So it would be a lie if someone said they would choose privacy over profits when investing in bitcoin.

I think it's normal and people learn about privacy when they already quite mature, so every people must have share their identity to any site, video game etc. The point is if we already know about privacy is a big matter, we shouldn't continue our mistake to share our personal information to other site and avoid to use the site or account that we have shared our personal information.

At least your activity will be watched until at that time, not entire your life.

For those who have invested in Bitcoin and either have no profit, or are making losses, or have very little profit, they will not be happy with option 2, since for them their investment will forever remain empty. And the truth is that there are very few people who really care about their privacy, those who think about the consequences. Almost every newcomer who comes to crypto must undergo verification when registering on the exchange, and almost everyone does this without any fear.

1. I guess most would choose this option. Like look at everyone right now. Most of them invest to make profit. They all eventually sell their coins and enjoys their profit in "fiat" currencies. And we already see a lot of people using centralized exchanges or wallets. Their coins can be seized anytime. So those people won't actually notice any difference, other than some "extra" paperwork (which I also think will automatically be done by the exchanges/wallets). A quick 1000x profit for them.

2. No action taken against individual involved with bitcoin? No AML, KYC or taxes? This option will be taken by those that are actually involved in illegals stuffs. For them, the value of bitcoin won't matter. So if the price is $30,000 they are fine with it. Taxes wouldn't be a problem for someone who chooses the first problem. So like I said, most likely this option will be preferred by criminals.

Do you think that in ten years the price of Bitcoin will not change given its limited supply? Yes, this cannot be a priori. No need to worry about this. Everything has its time.
Yes, I agree with you that after such an interval of time and at such a constant price, the purchasing power of the first crypt will be significantly lost. Yet the world is still not ready to abandon the current financial system and completely switch to payments in cryptocurrencies. Something is slowing down this transition. I would like to clarify this point. These projects have been with us for too many years, but only isolated cases are known where coins and tokens are an alternative to government fiat.

The problem is that this won't be possible either.
For other issues such as KYC or Taxes maybe I will rule it out but when it comes to the price it is clearly not going to be possible even if we suppose in this case but of course we have to be more rational in supposing that something like this is a hope that maybe I will have something like that.
The price of bitcoin will not stagnate at a certain price, this is not a stable coin where they will only remain stable at a price that does not have much change. Moreover, what makes bitcoin up to this point is fluctuations and when they no longer have fluctuations and the price is stable then it could be that interest is also lost in this case because one of the uniqueness of bitcoin is with their fluctuations and volatility that occurs.

Inflation will kill Bitcoin, if the price stay at $30 000..... 

In 10 years from now, $30 000 will buy you much less than what it is buying you now.... because Inflation kills Fiat currencies over time. So even if you are FREE ... you will lose in the end, because your Bitcoin's buying power will decrease into something that will almost be worthless.

We want to be FREE but Supply & Demand must work for the Bitcoins to be worth something and to use it as a currency. (It does not need to be valued against Fiat currencies.. but markets for Supply & Demand.. must still be there) 

Do you know what's most interesting? To this day, I do not know of a single case where they were able to identify the beneficiaries of transactions in crypto transfers. Therefore, Satoshi’s efforts were not in vain.
Decentralization is also important to me, since my country has a harsh dictatorship, which is incredibly dangerous for all those who support opposition movements. At least I can make donations without fear and they won’t threaten me with violence or physical elimination. It is very important today to use crypto transfers.

Bitcoin isn't a stable coin, there's no way the price will stay forever at $30K especially the government didn't fully control and the market is free. It's better to say the price might be not so high as the #1, maybe it could be higher for 10-100x times.

I will choose #2 because profit isn't the only a reason why I invest most of my money in Bitcoin, I really like the decentralization, transparency, security and the privacy.

The thing is that we are moving more and more towards option A, in what is going to be a hybrid of A and B, but with a preponderance of A, which is a long way from Satoshi's dream.

But at the end of the day the real world is not a matter of choice, it is a matter of adapting to circumstances. Today we can still have and use bitcoin with privacy, although most people do not, and the blacklists, the concept of tainted coins, the increasing KYC everywhere make us think that we are heading towards A, but I think that the OP's version is too radical and if it were to end up happening it would take many years.

It would be a choice for everyone who values family over anything else.
Privacy and decentralization will be secondary, the important thing is that our families are well-fed and we can invest well.

We can see today that rich people still have enough privacy even though they are under the shadow of the government because their privacy is already in the hands of the government.
The same goes for those of us who use conventional banks for transactions.

So there is no problem with privacy, if told to choose privacy or a lot of money, then the choice is clear, having a lot of money and being rich is necessary because it will get a lot of benefits and only a little loss about privacy issues. this is a more realistic thought.

I must say you have yet a good hypothetical way of throwing question to the flow, and not even looking at it as a question but using this to justify what happening with Bitcoin, I must say that if Bitcoin was to be under the control of governments their could be a possibility of we seeing a 100 times in price as they will have to manipulate the price every-time when ever they feel like and when they are in need to means to steal funds from the general pubic.

Going back to your question, we should first look at the true purpose of bitcoin before rushing into answering the question, Bitcoin is decentralized in nature and that’s part of its true vision, so choosing to be part of a centralized movement, you have failed as a bitcoinner to start with, without even using any price change as justification. One thing that I know that makes people to truly believe and want to hold bitcoin for long not thinking about how the price is moving up and down is on how they have full control of all their bitcoins and are happy to be able to access it when ever they need it, without the fear of their bitcoin being seized or them being invited in for questioning regarding why they have this amount and why they don’t.

We know that there's the good and bad side effects of it in the entire ecosystem of Bitcoin when the government is there. The adoption could be wider and faster but the features of it might not be ideal at all.

It's all about your priority and there is no doubt that one will choose to feed his family over decentralization and privacy as these won't matter when you've got no food in the table.

And even how fanatic you are with these things when your stomach growls, you'll only think of what's important.

I think there is still freedom in option 1.  We can have freedom after we convert Bitcoin to fiat currency and then to other cryptocurrencies.  I would say I'll choose No. 1 since the situation where the government imposed control is limited to only  Bitcoin and not to other cryptocurrencies.  .  Sometimes we have to think outside the box in order to have the same experience as the other option while choosing the no. 1 option.

Don't know if the stroll got you thinking outside the box or you are just creative, but I like the crypto fantasy going on here and you should take more walks   

Now, coming to the two tough questions at hand, this is like choosing between being a slave or enjoying your freedom without any interferance, and to be honest any sane person will prefer their freedom though when it comes to money matters..seems like the narrative usually changes and from the two options I would rather go with the first option of having the money because I know money is as good as power and I can buy my freedom with it!

Agreed, as much as we love our government being involved in our crypto business, the is a line that they can not cross as this interferes with the decentralized ecosystem of bitcoin.

The problem with the choice of mining being centralized is that it doesn't portray anymore bitcoin as a wholly decentralized cryptocurrency.

We do want to have a support from the government but if it's going to take even mining to become centralized, how is that going to go? Like everyone has to register every time we get some transactions?

I don't think that many are going to stay with that type of setup.