Topic: Be rich sheeple or free people, what's your choice? (Read 787 times)

I’d choose the first one to be honest. I can just take my profits and dip and let the government do whatever it wants to it. The second one will not allow for any profits but you can still use it as a secret currency kind of.

Which to be honest I have really not much use of if it is not considered as a legal tender in my country. So I’d rather just have massive returns.

But the government will not stand by and watch it all. They could ask for verification of crypto users, especially if they withdraw profits from the exchange to their bank accounts. We as crypto users can find it difficult to find a decentralized platform that is truly trusted because the government will monitor it non-stop.

If a third party can provide trusted services for crypto users, especially for withdrawing money, that third party will help crypto users without any government interference. Maybe the bank will ask crypto users who have bank accounts to explain the origin of the funds entering their bank accounts.

Ok... This is funny and serious at the same time  .

Let me imagine with you. If the price of Bitcoin goes up 1000x times and it's centralized but can be seized at any moment by the government for no good reason, then that's the most annoying type of bondage ever. The truth is that even if everyone gets addresses and is forced to use Bitcoin a lot of people would go into trading to own fiat quickly. In fact, many people would lose their faith in Bitcoin very fast and in the long run, the price of Bitcoin would drop drastically.

But even if the price of Bitcoin remains at $30,000 it has more worth and freedom at that point. How much can one accumulate before being financially free, but the first option may never make you financially free.

So my option is the second.
 

Related to what you said above, not only Blackrock but there will be other large financial institutions that will follow because they have seen the potential value and other great benefits in Crypto assets besides BTC lovers themselves and  they know that BTC is the key to success and of course they are also able to feel the great potential of BTC long before they buy it where the future conditions of the global economy continue to change and can be unstable.

For financial freedom and sovereignty now it feels right to wait for the right time timing to prioritize Bitcoin accumulation as much as possible also by seeing market trends and halving are also so close in sight.

The features of this decentralization is really a blessing to this age.Decentralization provides transparency,increased security,and the ability to operate without a central authority.
Decentralization platform allows for a secure identity verification and management,this platform allows users to control their personal information and share it with trusted parties without interference from intermediaries like the bank.The approach offers privacy,security and comfortability when necessary and I enjoy every bit of it.
 

Back when I started the topic there was no option for Bitcoin spot ETF, how things rolled on was beyond my expectations.


Blackrock is not buying Bitcoin with their money, it sells promises of Bitcoin ownership to sheeple and fleecing them once more with taxes, all the coins Blackrock has are ought with investors money to dumb to own their own keys.

Blackrock has had more wins in this regard because the company has been buying Bitcoin for a long time and holding it until recently. And it is likely that these companies will also continue to buy up Bitcoin every day to achieve more extraordinary profits because they have seen and experienced for themselves the financial freedom they are getting now through Bitcoin so that everyone also deserves to see an example of what has been done. by the company in the past until now.

Plot twist: BlackRock got its bitcoin mostly from miners and GBTC. GBTC people had centralized bitcoin for years, so to them there's no choice. They started as sheeple and continue this way because most of GBTC and now BlackRock holders are institutions and people who have to declare every penny. They have assets that can be seized anyway, so even if that 1% they have in bitcoin is somehow immune to government intervention they're screwed anyway because the other 99% isn't.
You're asking us for an opinion, but I suspect nobody who posted in this thread owns bitcoin ETF shares.
I'd choose the decentralized option, but if I suddenly get the other one, so be it. It's not like I can protest.

This bring back memories, everyone got their 70k in the pocket  up from 30k and Blackrock got 300 000 coins in just 3 months, guess that means a lot choose the IOU sheeple promise rather than freedom!

I would choose option 2. I think 30k is a normal price, but the price of anonymity is much higher.

It's a fleshlight genie and one probably made in North Korea so what do you expect?


Between us to, and take no offense, how many exchanges have a mug shot of you and how many times have you sent all your docs including your address, the brand of snacks your dog eats and how high your metropormil level is to every single exchange that demanded it?
If you want freedom there are 500000 square miles of outback but everyone is eager on the dough, 30k and freedom, give me a rest!

Yes, comparing him to Satoshi is a bit of an exaggeration. Still, it wouldn't be bad to get some examples from Satoshi. Many of us embrace the understanding revealed by Satoshi and want it to be adopted all over the world.

Investment becomes more meaningful when it is made for a purpose. It is still necessary to be careful and invest wisely, just in case. We all believe in Bitcoin and know that the price will be much higher than it is now. It takes time for this to happen, and as time passes, the world will begin to keep up with this change.

It looks like someone read a bit, right? Allow me to explain further. You're exactly right that there is a difference between a stable coin and one whose price doesn't change much. But keep in mind that BTC is more than just fluctuation. Such a trend is not controlled by any one government, even though policies can have an effect on it. But your comparison to Satoshi? Let's not put everyone so high up, please. Satoshi had a vision, sure, but BTC isn't just about countering fiat. It's a revolution. You are only seeing the very beginning 

People just for conversation will say that they're much attracted by the technology, decentralised functioning, privacy and other features. The reality is the growth and the profit it can provide in comparison to other forms of investment. Rather than volatility it is the increasing price that attracts people. Volatility will be known later when people have made their involvement into the market and leanrs to profit out of the volatile market. It is true, if bitcoin stay stable automatically the usage will decrease drastically.

Being stable and stable coin is different. Stable coin has a 1 dollar fixed value while being stable means the price can remain in one direction. But anyway you are right that there is no way BTC can stay on that price since it is still a volatile coin. Government don't or can't fully control it but they can influence the price through their decisions if they will allow BTC or not. Then there are big institutions and whales which can also do the same.

It's indeed better to be humble but it's funny that this is where the price can rise more, and not if when we are very confident or expects too much. I like your initiative there mate. You are like Satoshi because he created BTC not for the money but for our sake and as a counter to fiats.

Many people also choose the second option like you, but I want to know if that is everyone's honest answer? As far as I can see, people love bitcoin and invest in it because of its volatility. Volatility gives us the opportunity to make profits and many people also admit that if bitcoin becomes stable. Bitcoin will be boring and maybe they will find an alternative investment. That shows people are more interested in bitcoin profits than any other utility. But in this topic, people choose freedom and privacy over profit, this really confuses me.

I agree with you in terms of privacy because Bitcoin can provide an estimate of privacy rather than controversial assets. Besides that, Bitcoin is an essential step toward financial freedom. While centralized assets are fully under the control of the government at any time, they can easily assess you. In addition, you say that privacy is a priceless asset. Based on the same topic, I accept your point that the first is financial freedom and the second is privacy, which are very necessary for a person of a certain financial status. That is what made Bitcoin more prone to adoption than other controversial assets.
At the end of the conclusion, I picked up your plan B because it gives me a separate point of view on secure assets.

It's a shame that you limit it so that there is no middle way between the two options. Even though genies usually give 3 wishes, not two. But this seems like a different genie 

Of the two choices you gave, maybe I prefer the second. After all, bitcoin is freedom, even though its value has increased 1000x from the current price but suddenly my bitcoin was confiscated by the government which is very serious because a 1000x price increase is meaningless if the bitcoin we have is confiscated. And after all, freedom has a price that is more expensive than anything else

KYC cannot completely prevent money laundering or fraud. If your account receives money from addresses that are considered stolen, after receiving notice they will lock your assets or you will even be questioned by the police immediately afterwards. Just like many airdrop participants, one person can use 1000 wallets and KYC will minimize the damage to the project and be more fair to real participants. KYC is very effective in preventing fraud and money laundering. If KYC has no effect, why do criminals prefer to use decentralized exchanges rather than centralized exchanges?

KYC can't prevent from fraud or theft, let's say I'm a hacker and I get your personal information, I will create an account in a centralized site using your personal information to receive the money that come from the site I've hack before. Now if the centralized exchange report my account to authority, which one will get jailed? you or me? remember I use your KYC in my account and I had never write any single information related to myself.

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.

First off, I find OP's post very entertaining especially with the choice of words and the wild imagination this post has. Anyway, the choices are basically easy to explain here. The first is a choice that leaves little to no room for freedom but a lot more money (but also every transaction needs payment). The other choice, on the other hand, gives you freedom but not so much with money. Now the answer will be different depending on what is more important for an individual, is it more money or is it freedom? Personally, I'd go for freedom as it gives me more opportunity to do whatever I want hence allowing me to do more transactions that will surely bring more profits to me, and also because I like doing things on my own accord without any restrictions blocking me.

I guess most people who understand the need for freedom will choose the 2nd option. If I have no freedom with my money, it's not really my money. What does owning money mean if I cannot use it for whatever purposes? Bitcoin is not a legal tender here, and I can still use it. I don't want a 3rd party to control my money. No matter how significant or how tiny the amount is.

Option one will destroy the vision of Satoshi, and we will need another Satoshi for a better invention. But why? We already have bitcoin and we don't want some genie to control the Bitcoin. It's a manipulation as well.

You are very straightforward, I like that. I just saw a thread on this forum about how we benefit from lying. So, to be honest, I really don't believe that anyone claims that they need privacy and not money, except for those who have actually become rich. For those of us who are still working hard to earn a few dollars a day and saying we need privacy more than money are lying to ourselves, to everyone. But I really don't know why they lied, .

People always talk about privacy but actually what's happening is that people care more about profits and money than privacy. What benefit will privacy bring or will someone pay attention to us if we don't have money? So I'm skeptical of people who say they would choose freedom and privacy over money. We are involved in investing in bitcoin, we are regularly active on the forum, is it for privacy or money? Just answering those 2 questions, I think everyone knows what they chose.

For me, I will choose money because privacy cannot feed my family, cannot help my children have delicious meals on the table and the best learning environment.

The option that resonates more with me is the second one. While it may not offer the possibility of a x1000 profit, financial freedom is more than sufficient. I choose not to be overly greedy because, indeed, humans will always need money, but not as much as one might imagine. We require money to meet our needs, and income sources can come from anywhere.

When we purchase something private, and Bitcoin can serve as a payment support solution, it's one of the things that brings me more joy than constantly accumulating wealth and being treated unfairly by centralized institutions.

Option 1, where Bitcoin becomes global but gains centralized control and government meddling, undermines its founding vision. Decentralization and middlemen are emphasized in Satoshi's white paper. An enticing 1000x price growth, yet the conditions are far from the Bitcoin ethos. It's like our centralized banking system and might lead to financial manipulation, making richness an illusion

Bitcoin's soul is preserved in Option 2. Bitcoin's freedom from outside intervention, government overreach, and liberty are its foundation. Despite its unchanging value at $30,000, it empowers and controls finances, which many value more than money

Option 2 aligns more with Bitcoin's core values. Are we seeking spirit or gold?

I would choose the second option, personally to me, it doesn't matter what the price is. Decentralization is much more important for Bitcoin, this means no single entity has complete control, making it highly resistant to censorship and interference. It's this decentralization that ensures that transactions are transparent, tamper-proof, and trustless, allowing users to send and receive value without relying on intermediaries. This feature is vital for financial inclusivity, privacy, and maintaining the integrity of the Bitcoin network

I'd choose the second option because nobody wants to have their money seized by the government. What would I do if I were to agree to have a thousand times more value in my coins and the coins were taken away, or the government would be there to tell me if I can or cannot spend it. All I know they could tax it 80% and I'd be left with scraps.

30k bitcoin is a really bad thing if you look at it from the perspective of fiat money. USD is losing value due to inflation. If we take the average 5% a year and the bitcoin stays at 30k, after 10 years it's going to be devalued 50% along the USD.
For the second choice to be fair you'd have to say that bitcoin would stay at the value represented by 30k USD today. Otherwise it would eventually go to 0 because in 50 years 30k USD will only buy you a bicycle, if you're lucky


A single letter makes all the difference

A great envisionment of what a financiay free bitcoin holder does every evening. Are we talking about half rack of ribs, or?

Unlikely, very unlikely, but I'll indulge.


Great two options for discussion. Both have their pros and cons. Option one pretty much means tax, with no limitation (but maybe targeting by elites, government operatives or criminals, since you are richer than satoshi after all. So really, it's a suicide option, unless you're prepared to head butt with forces that are 1000x+ stronger than you alone.

Realistically, the second option might make you worry above elites, government, criminals etc. Though at least, according to your terms, that doesn't seem to be too much of a worry. So, option 2 is my answer. If you have more than satoshi, you're happy with 30k. It does however mean that the ecosystem is permanently stifled....Until fork

This is a rhetorical question to choose between. Looking at both options is enticing in a way but it is somehow taking us away from the main reason bitcoin was created. Which is freedom, legal tender, store of value, no government control, and anonymous trading.

Instead of option A, I'll pick option B due to these factors. The only reason Satoshi created bitcoin was to provide "Freedom, legal tender, no government control, and no taxes," according to Option B. While Option A has limitations and will be governed by the government. Which was not Satoshi's intention when he created bitcoin.

 

In all this, the sacrificial lamb becomes the price, and value of Bitcoin which is in direct proportion to what choice we make according to our imagination.
But if i am left to choose, i will go for the decentralized version of Bitcoin even though Bitcoin value may be low due to unacceptability by the government since decentralization birth freedom, I would rather be free than make my assets vulnerable in the hands of third party control.

Since the second option is what you choose I will like to emphasize on that, if Bitcoin stays at 30k do you know that people won't see much reasons to buy Bitcoin? And those who bought at 1000$, I mean the early buyers who still holds till date will just start selling, I mean the price isn't going up anymore, that's enough to make people to start selling.

Many whales are holding and buying Bitcoin because 1 million dollars per coin is possible since half of the world populations isn't even in Bitcoin yet, but becoming forever stable at 30k will kill the adventurous journey for holders, they will lose interest and new buyers won't want to buy anyway

The only thing left is storing of funds with Bitcoin since many people still want their money off the centralized banks and the government, Bitcoin will be less interesting, the part that it could add more value is the most interesting side of investing in Bitcoin.

This is a flashlight:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashlight

This is a fleshlight:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleshlight


I don't even remember what I took before writing this but you my guy and trustful partner in delusions, you have one hell of a nurse taking care of your prescription, what's the price for one shot of this stuff ?


Denied!

I would choose the first option, certainly sir! Bring forth the value of thirty large ones, even if the government is involved. Consequently, as Bitcoin's value skyrockets, our wealth increases. And here's the kicker: the system already monitors us; this is simply a different pirate ship combat game. So what if everything is monitored and centralized? The gold coins are available for pillage.

Certainly, freedom is desirable, but at the expense of stagnation? Hmm. With value, there is motion, growth, and exploration of the unknown

I did think of that -- but while I'm certain fiat will only accelerate its value-losing trend, I'm still certain it'll hang on to a bit. Two decades I'm ready to say dollar numbers quadruple to today's figures (in effect, $7500 per coin of today's purchasing power) so still okay.

It's all fantasy guesstimates of course, but the other thing is in 20 years I am, sadly, close to my national shelf life. I suppose I'll be, if still around, rather too old to worry by then heh.

the second is currently more common in some countries. they do not make Bitcoin legal tender. but still does not prohibit Bitcoin ownership. after all there's really nothing that can push the price of Bitcoin to stay at $30k. Bitcoin will still go up and down. all depends on market demand. the government with their regulations that legalize Bitcoin also cannot control the price of Bitcoin will remain on top. no one really controls the price of Bitcoin.

I think there are no "real" choice here..... How can you accept the 1000x price increase and then the government can raid it and you are stuck with zero coins. 

The real value of Bitcoin is in the financial freedom that it offers you.... not the 1000x price increase that you get from mass adoption. It will be nice to have both, but governments will do anything in their power to prevent that. 

I would definitely choose the second option, what benefit would we get if the price of bitcoin rose to a million dollars but became centralized under the control of the government?

I never want to be under the control of the central government that monitors everything, and imposes heavy taxes on every transaction and also KYC and AML. This is madness.

I would prefer the price of Bitcoin to remain forever at 30,000$ and enjoy the freedom and privacy away from the control of the central government. So simply I would rather be free than rich.

Wow this is a high level of imagination lol.

The first option sounds so sweet and attractive with the bitcoin price amount that's a lot of profits to be made but what's the use when it's under strict control by a centralized authority making it of no difference with fiat money system. All of the conditions rules out the beauty of bitcoin and so I think I will go for the second option.

The second option gives me my privacy and freedom with it's decentralization so the price shouldn't allure me to jettison the uniqueness of BTC. The government are never reliable  and satisfied with taxes amount it will keep on increasing to an extent that the 1000x BTC price might look impasse and of no profitable value anymore just like it is with fiat under their control.
Better a valuable 30k than a miserable 1000y amount.

I couldn't even stop laughing  and there is a popular saying in my local community "Imaginationwants kill you"
His Imaginations are just too high  and @op, I think you've slept for more than enough hours and it's time to wake up and face your reality because firstly there is no genie any were and your options are very strict and difficult  to choose from since I wouldn't want the government take control of bitcoin,  I still wouldn't also want the price of bitcoin to be fixed because the joy and benefits  associated  with bitcoin  lies in the price volatility and if that's taken  off, then I'm sure alot of persons wouldn't want to get involved with it.

If the genie let's you make a wish then you should wish that everyone accepts bitcoin by so doing, the government wouldn't have any much hand and choice but to let the holders be

I am not sure about this as the forex and stock markets are also centralized but there are still millions of participants and the number is constantly growing as it is still profitable for them. So in the event that bitcoin becomes centralized but continues to be volatile, people will still invest in bitcoin, IMO.

But that will never happen because the government cannot control bitcoin, it will remain a decentralized asset for us to use. This is just a hypothesis but it's interesting to see many people are willing to give up their wealth for decentralization, but I hope all of those answers are the true.

I prefer to be a free person who can provide for my family, guarantee my children's school fees and can provide simplicity and coolness for my family. Therefore I try to set aside a little of the income I get from work to invest independently and this particular plot aims to pay for my children's education up to college later. In my opinion, there are no options that we can choose if there are no opportunities and this is where we need to prepare everything in a structured and gradual manner according to the finances we have.

We live in the real world and many stories start with a long process, so many things need to be arranged and executed to reach the desired stage of life. Real life depends on how we prepare for it and bitcoin can be a medium for someone to reach the stage of independence and can also generate decent returns if invested properly.

How rich do you even think Satoshi is? Well, he may be worth nothing if we go by the logic that the name is even a pseudonym. Satoshi hasn't revealed himself and those wallets suspected to be his haven't moved since. So, his Bitcoin are only worth what they were at inception which was virtually nothing.

Now, this is the part where you've to wake up and smell the coffee because that's not going to happen. I've yet to see a single currency that's accepted everywhere globally, not even the British pounds and the American dollar. I don't expect the entire world to stand still for Bitcoin. Nope, that isn't going to happen. Again, make Bitcoin centralized and it will destroy its credibility.

I choose to be rich and be a free man

It will be more interesting to achieve in this life because to achieve or get wealth is not easy, and only a few people can afford to pay the price. The point of paying the price here is taking the time to learn more, try more, and find more sources of income.

And we can't blame circumstances that don't go our way because of the many things around them. Bitcoin is present among us from many countries, and each has its government where not all governments approve of bitcoin. We must accept it and try to benefit from what happened. Do what you think is right and keep going, and don't give up if you haven't achieved what you want. One day, you will surely be rich and free if you wish.

If I am going to have this wish and bitcoin is gonna turn into the Centralised nature then I am more than happy with the current version and current acceptance level of the Bitcoin. I mean what we experiencing today is the result of decentralised nature of Bitcoin and without that it would have never evolved to such great extent. If centralised workflow is in nature then there is government or other authority that will literally control the prices of Bitcoin. Forget about 1000x mark because in that case it would plot a straight graph with only few ups and downs whenever government will think that it’s time to scoop some profits. So whoever this genie is, he should not interfere with this wish. May be just ask him to make you billionaire and be happy.

If it's just a wish then let's make everyone accept Bitcoin so that there will be no problems with the government. But I just don't like the twist that everyone is subject to listing their addresses and they can seize it. Well, I'd still choose that if the value goes that much and I'll just take the money, sell them anyway and will have my own exit. But yes, this is highly unlikely so these situations are good to think of but if we go in reality, hopefully that the best for Bitcoin and us will actually happen without the need to sacrifice those good attributes that it has got even before.

I prefer a decentralized approach for Bitcoin. Governments shouldn't control everything; they can allow Bitcoin usage and impose taxes when dealing with centralized organizations. I value my financial freedom and wouldn't want a centralized cryptocurrency under government control. It's more likely they would create their own cryptocurrency instead of centralizing Bitcoin, which would be technically challenging.

I don't think that bitcoin is legalized in every country but in those countries in which bitcoin is acceptable a tax is deducted when one person send its digital money to the other person same is the case with the transfer of digital money into other currency tax is deducted from it.

If bitcoin become centralized then I think there will be less individuals enter into bitcoin investment because everyone wants bitcoin due to its decentralized nature as it is not under the control of anyone the price regularly changes to give benefits to its holders.

I'll choose the first option, dump all BTC, use that wealth to buy a wide variety of assets - real estate, stocks, gold, cash and so on. Some of the assets will be dispersed to serve as a safety net in case this dystopian government will try to rob me. Or maybe it's just better to take all that wealth and immigrate to a freer country.

I have so many questions and so little desire to hear the answers! Of course, I don't believe for a second you're doing that but even thinking of ...gently used fleshlight. Although one could go for 2000 on ebay
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88pu3n3UFlQ


I don't know if OP thought of that, but this one is actually a trap!

He said that the price will be forever 30 000$ , and since the dollar value in purchasing power will continue to go down this actually means you're basically stuck with fiat, in 20 years those 30 000 might be rent money for a few months.
So, if it's indeed a trick question the second option is way worse than the first!


In South Korea most exchanges require that you provide an address that is hosted on a platform that enforces KYC.
So if everyone would do that you won't be able to withdraw money out of a closed KYC circuit, as more Bitcoin enter this scheme fewer are left outside the loop and keep being sucked into this closed system.
As more and more cash is accepted by stores and deposited to bank accounts while less gets withdrawn from ATM, we have the same scenario happening RL even now

And anyhow, we're talking about a mentally challenged genie, everything is possible with this scenario

LE:
I know I'm going to regret it but here is 1 merit, thinking about it, talking about fleshlights and genies is better than the usual how to succeed in life garbage. Not by much, but still!

This is the reason why Satoshi invested Bitcoin at first place. Decentralization.

Now in this one, you want the government "AGAIN" to have a full control over your coins? What's the use of Bitcoin for? Very unrealistic one TBH. Bitcoin will not get accepted anywhere because there are already some governments who are banning their people to use crypto in their own country which is kind of unfortunate if you will ask me. Overall, I don't see this happening especially the part where government will have full control again because for sure many Bitcoin users will be against it.

The fact that Bitcoin can't stay at $30,000 is already a proof that this will like the first one, very unrealistic.
Bitcoin isn't like other stable coins out there that is pegged to a dollar.

---

TBH, it's hard to pick which of the 2 will I choose not because it really is hard to choose, but it's hard to think that neither of the 2 will happen in real life . Sometimes, imagination let us come up with situations that can't happen in real life. Imagination really is very creative . Will not pick between the 2 because both are unrealistic.

Let's consider the U.S. Constitution - First Amendment: "Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

As you all know, the US Congress has shown some unfriendly attitude towards Bitcoin and cryptocurrency exchanges. Well, the issue lies in the fact that legal firms engaged by cryptocurrency projects and exchanges in the USA employ ordinary swindlers who collect hundreds of millions of US dollars from these ignorant fools, offering no specific solution to legalize Bitcoin and establish regulations for this market for US citizens. Well then, the lawyers of Order 2.625 (whom many of you might laugh at or not take seriously enough) have proposed a practical solution for the legalization of Bitcoin in the USA, citing the first amendment to the US Constitution. After all, Order 2.625, as the Decentralized Religious Organization Order 2.625 (DROO 2.625) in the person of the North American Diocese (Eparchy) and plebeians of the Order, is nothing but a religious movement, consequently, according to the Constitution, the US Congress has no right to prohibit the plebeians of the Order from using Bitcoin, as Bitcoin is the ceremonial monetary unit of the Order and serves as our religious symbol (similarly to the Kirpan for Sikhs) BTC

In this sense, Order 2.625 is grateful to all the preceding religious movements in the USA (especially Protestants and Catholics) for creating this convenient loophole for us in the fundamental law of the state.

And if anyone has questions about our religious rituals of Liquidation on Cryptocurrency exchanges, each of which will be subject to tribute and governed by the Great Liquidator appointed from among the influential plebeians of Order 2.625, then the special division within the Order - "The Hounds of Bitcoin" can remind such ignoramuses about the second amendment to the US Constitution. After all, there will always be a few religious fanatics-loners in any Order, always ready to challenge any unpleasant words directed towards the Order.

Indeed, it's decentralized nature what makes Bitcoin more valuable since the government couldn't even control it or put a tax in any transactions. Just imagine how fiat money works today then most likely that would also be the case of Bitcoin but wouldn't increase over time and in the end would settle in a stable price. It's volatility makes Bitcoin good as it changes it's value time to time, many people taking advantage of this situation by just simply buy the bear and sell at the bull. And you could also make an anonymously transaction in Bitcoin so if it's centralized maybe it would be good for them to trace any illegal transactions as they have the data of the user. And also I think government would take a lot of time figuring how to handle Bitcoin with unstable price.

Hahaha, the OP will not kill me with laughs here, just saying it as if it's gonna happen that way. Well, Bitcoin is an opportunity, but it's an opportunity that comes with its own risk and caution, it's not always totally what people say of it, which is why I advise the OP to wake up from the fantasy world.

The OP talked about many things but I will reply to a few, and one of them is that tax is good for any nation, if your country's tax is stopped today, what will become of the governance, those subsidies, infrastructural developments and the status of your country? We should not be selfish, Bitcoin is good but also has its flaws, and it also aids in abating your contribution to an economy, but some of you rather appraise it which is bad.

None of the scenario seems so realistic. How would the price go 1000x if the government can take anyone Bitcoin as they pleased, people wouldn't buy bitcoin if those happened why would they use a currency where the government could take it whenever they want, this thing will make bitcoin even worse then fiat. And it also the reason I wouldn't want to take the 1st option, doesn't matter if I got 1M BTC worth of 30B USD when the government can take it from me whenever they want, I would choose the 30K/Bitcoin but all of my Bitcoin is save and I can use it however I pleased. And that's why people will want to buy bitcoin and so the price will go up.

What I see we have to pay taxes from centralized exchanges every time we engage in a transaction and even those taxes are automatically deducted when we try to convert to fiat. The first point you are trying to narrate is not in line with the concept of bitcoin and that is not how decentralized it works. Until now bitcoin is not legal tender in my country and it is best to control it myself rather than giving access to the government.

Regarding KYC it's up to each person whether they want to use it or not because there are still exchanges that don't need it. Honestly, I just want it to be as simple as possible to get involved in bitcoin and that anonymous nature is what keeps us safe from all the possibilities that will happen.

Although OP's idea is a bit unrealistic as there's no way bitcoin becoming centralized and controlled by the government can go up 1000x in price.
But I want to ask all of you who are confidently choosing option b, are you telling the truth? Because the majority of people are looking for wealth from bitcoin, even they are willing to use centralized exchanges for their convenience. Not to mention transaction fees are a small part of the transaction, but they also complain that the transaction fees of DEXs are too high compared to CEX. They don't want to spend a lot of money on transaction fees and they accept the loss of privacy to use CEX. How could they choose to trade their wealth just for decentralization?

I really doubt these answers because what a lot of people are looking for is profit, money, and privacy not being the top priority when it comes to bitcoin. Many people talk about decentralization, anonymity, but they still use banks, social networks…and they come here just to lie that they love decentralization more than money.

We don't have to lie, let's be honest.

Register addresses is like KYC. How do governments control what addresses you own. One person can own many addresses with non custodial wallets and governments can only know what is your address if you KYC on centralized exchange. They only give you one deposit address to use and you have to KYC on their exchange so it can be leaked to governments.

With non custodial wallets, it is impossible except if governments prohibit all non custodial wallet softwares. But how will they succeed to do that? I believe they won't.

If things go well like this, how will price not go up?

Your two scenarios are purely non sense and unlogical. The first one is bad and price goes up 1000x times while the second scenario is good and price stuck. Impossible.

It's a good ethical dilemma. I think that in practice, we won't have any of these options but something in the middle. However, if there was a choice like that, I would choose the second option, where Bitcoin stays at $30k, but people have freedom of using it without having to pay taxes, go through KYC etc. I don't really focus on the prospect of growth of the price, I'm okay with the current one. And this way, Bitcoin fulfils its purpose better, being a currency that gives financial freedom rather than another investment asset that is fully integrated into mainstream economy.

Option A looks enticing because I expect my small Bitcoin holding to make me rich. But the consequence of having more is loss of freedom. And financial freedom is better than having all the money. If Bitcoin's price grows but it is highly regulated, it is like having more and owning nothing. Centralization gives the government total access and control over your coin. Just like a savings account in the bank, you can't claim ownership of funds in the bank. The government can decide to enact a law and confiscate all the funds in banks.

So I will gladly choose option B that gives me total ownership of my money. I might not have much from my Bitcoin investment, but I own and have full control over my coin. Privacy is a priceless asset. I don't want people to cheaply know how much I own because living a private life has many advantages.

That intro, bro... 

Anyways, I think the very idea of Bitcoin and Satoshi's vision was to be free of any limitations. Both options you offered have limits, very serious limits I should say. Total government control is unacceptable for Bitcoin it kind of defeats the whole idea of Bitcoin, but so is the price limit, because Bitcoin was designed to be deflationary and only be worth more So, what I'd do in this case? Most probably I'd quit Bitcoin, cash out etc. Bitcoin won't be so fun and exciting for me anymore...

As for me, I would be choosing the B Option where Bitcoin remains to be under the very vision of Satoshi Nakamoto where the government has limited interference and the people are more empowered away from the control of many financial institutions. Why? All because I am sure that in that scenario nobody can control its price not even the intelligent genie so there is no way of fixing it at $30K level. Of course, things can really be easy when we are looking them at black and while, in the real world we are dealing with harsh realities and conditions that are not so ideal.

Well, there are some platform that are not decentralized but the platform isn't owned by the government so the coins won't be link with the government therefore you wouldn't have to worry about it. For the choice if someone will ask me is I do the same as you but if I didn't know any trusted decentralized platform then the centralized one is what I have to use for the moment untill I found a trusted decentralized exchange.

Registering a Bitcoin address at the local IRS? Do you mean registering a Bitcoin/crypto cold wallet at the local IRS? Registering a BTC address doesn't mean anything and won't help the government officials to keep track over all your coins.
The first option described by you is basically impossible to happen, because no government in the world could achieve full control over crypto mining, crypto cold wallets and crypto transactions.
The second scenario is also impossible to happen, because the BTC price cannot stay at 30K USD forever. It will surely move up and down, but it won't remain stable.
I'm sure that most people will choose the second option. Being free seems way better than being a rich servant of the status quo.

1. Not every Bitcoin holders want to link their coins with centralized site especially the Bitcoin maximalist. Maybe 70-80% coins would be controlled by the government, but the other 20-30% are still free in decentralized exchange or P2P.

2. Are you a god so you can make sure Bitcoin price is always stay at $30K? the last Bitcoin ATH was $69K.

Both of your scenarios wouldn't work, I'm not choosing any of them because the government's adoption toward Bitcoin will make it more centralized, we can still trade Bitcoin without third party and there's no guarantee the price will went up to 1000x times.

I get that this is just theoretical, but situation #1 is very unrealistic because bitcoin wouldn’t even get traction or even get off the ground in the first place if it’s as badly centralized as you described.

Bitcoin decentralization has made it more unique than any cryptocurrency and this is why it can't be manipulated by the government. Financial freedom is what majority of people  loves in bitcoin and the government don't like it that is why they are looking for any means to see if it is possible for them to control but no way because bitcoin is beyond their power. If it happens that they eventually find a way to centralized bitcoin,then it will no longer have its potential and the price will be controlled by them. But my happiness is that for it is impossible for them to make this happen. I hate anything centralized because there is no privacy.

This is a good yet difficult question to answer. I won't deny that both have weight. I mean, Bitcoin's price and what it truly represents. I think I would say, either of the two. If I were in the situation I would ask the genie if he could just make the decision for me and I would accept it completely.

But, okay, if the genie won't allow that, perhaps I would just go for the second option. The only problem, to be honest, is that many have invested into Bitcoin. That includes me. Many of us spent money not entirely so that we could use a currency way better than fiat but because there is this mathematical supposition that 21 million coins versus the world's 8 billion people means each coin will rise in price.

No need to wait for a magic lamp to grant one of them, you're the one who decides because now bitcoin can work in all of these ways.
By default, bitcoin is most decentralized. There's no stopping it unless a major accident blows out all electronic devices. On the other hand you can set yourself up to be a regulated rich sheeple by not using bitcoins onchain at all.

If you're richer than satoshi (assuming you're thinking of the 1 million coins), then what does it matter, really, either way?

I'd probably go for option B though -- $30k with over a million coins puts me mostly out of range of my own capacity to spend. And I'd definitely want to see a lot of the world that the status quo otherwise wouldn't allow me to (those who don't play by the rules I mean).

I wouldn't be half mad to be forced to go for Option A though. Poor question. Would be harder to choose if you applied a specific number of coins to each option.

Sometimes imagining like this can also build our imagination more and make us rethink about the future that will happen between the government and bitcoin. Because it does not rule out the first choice can really happen.

But in this case I prefer to choose the second. I love freedom. and isn't bitcoin created to realize that freedom. I don't care about the price even though it has to be stable at 30k even though that's impossible. But as long as has made me rich, it doesn't matter if the bitcoin price continues to be at 30k. Because I'm already rich and free.

You’ll be better off picking the pace on your scavenging the beach for forgotten flashlights as you wouldn’t be getting any stocked up genie soon. Don’t want to spoil the fun but, I stick to what is real and wouldn’t want to dig in to the legend of the arid lands just yet.

A question, for you though;
Just how do you get to know Satoshi is rich?

On the other hand, I think instead of having all these wishes rain on the world, I’ll prefer the natural order of things to take its course as every shift in the evolutionary trend has got some unwanted effects to balance it up in time. Bitcoin is doing just fine with the rest of the world gradually adopting it individually while it increases in value.

You are talking about decentralization and centralization and which should we choose? But how once bitcoin becomes centralized, can it increase in price 30x or 1000x? That doesn't sound unreasonable since the government will control its price and won't let the price rise like that if bitcoin becomes centralized. Looking at how the government controls and manages fiat, it will depreciate over time, not increase over time.

In contrast, bitcoin is not controlled by the government, its price is completely dependent on supply and demand, then the possibility of a price increase will be higher, like what is happening now. So your hypothesis won't happen.

That first part was a fucking delight to read like why in the hell are you out there looking for used fleshlights lol. Anywho I'll humor your thought experiment (kind of) and give you my answer:

I'd choose the latter. Everything that the government puts its finger on dies and shrivels eventually. That happened with real estate, it happened with taxes, and now if bitcoin is to be handled by central government for sure some time in the future its death will be for certain. It doesn't matter if you're fiat-rich or bitcoin-rich anymore, cause wealth is going to be seized by the government to make up for the losses they will incur after just absorbing cryptocurrencies.

The latter, while it would stagnate bitcoin's price, is not going to really do anything bad since you can still use it as a payment service that doesn't track you or anything, plus you can easily trade it for other cryptocurrencies with price points that are not as stale as bitcoin for a quick buck. So profit is still not kicked out of the equation or something.

I will surely go for the decentralized version of bitcoin, even though the price stays for ever at $30,000, that is not the problem, $30,000 is already a good achievement considering that Satoshi himself or their selves never expected bitcoin to become this big, I will go with the decentralized version of bitcoin because ..
1. Not only does it align with the vision Satoshi had for bitcoin , but..
2. Nothing is as sweet as one being free.

Giving the government access to my coin through tax or whatever means will only mean one thing, and that is, "more money for them to loot", while i who owns the money continue to wallow in hardship caused by un-development and high inflation, i will rather keep control of my Bitcoins than grant government access to it, even if it means that the price of bitcoin will rise and fall, and never go past $30,000 again, a good trader can still make a good living buy and selling bitcoin.

  this just hilarious 
Imagination wants to drive you to hell, wake up from that dream mate. 

I was at the beach after having my evening half rack, same boring night walk scavenging for forgotten or used fleshlights and I was thinking, what if instead of one of those magic toys I get my macho pride stuck in a genie bottle? But after hitting the genie so hard in his head probably he will only be able to grant me one wish, and that on shitty conditions, what if I asked him to make me richer then Satoshi but I'd have to choose:

- Bitcoin gets accepted everywhere, every government legalizes it, all mining is centralized, everyone must register every address with the local IRS, you're not allowed to send money outside legal addresses and miners are refusing those, every single transfer is taxed, the government can decide at any point to seize your coins and can do that with ease. BUT the value will go up 1000x times to 30 big ones!
- Bitcoin is not legal tender, but the genie makes it so that the government has no way and no intention of making any move against it, nobody is banning you from owning, nobody is taxing you, nobody cares about your KYC, AML, taxes, profit, any legal action against anything that involves Bitcoin is impossible and illegal, any seizure impossible as it would break the law, you're as free as one can be. But the price stays forever at $30,000.

No middle way, no trick, no further questions, no this or that, your choice and tell me why this and not that!