Topic: Do you think some countries already adding BTC to their reserves? - page 4. (Read 4658 times)
December 22, 2013, 04:39:49 AM
Has the US managed to access the vast majority of the funds seized from the silk road? I heard that the FBI was holding 1.5% of all bitcoins in existence? Can anyone verify or debunk that?
December 22, 2013, 02:47:36 AM
I really don't think governments will buy bitcoins until they cost $10k each. By then the writing will be on the wall for fiat systems, and they will want to hedge against a crypto future.
December 22, 2013, 02:43:44 AM
i was thinking something along the same lins.. considering that the U.S. has been printing $85 billion per month, if they could just throw maybe 1% of that for 1 year... that'd double the value of bitcoins.
December 22, 2013, 12:23:32 AM
I don't think so, although I guess anything is possible. Recently a municipality in Finland wanted to invest some money in the national lottery (yes, playing lotto)... there was some discussion but it was, sadly, illegal to do that. I bet the people are happy to have such wise people in control of their tax money.
Well, that was off-topic but I wanted to share that with you anyway. Forgot that the US has now some BTC from the Silk Road, so I guess that's a partial "yes" to your question.
Well, that was off-topic but I wanted to share that with you anyway. Forgot that the US has now some BTC from the Silk Road, so I guess that's a partial "yes" to your question.
December 21, 2013, 10:40:06 PM
The US have a nice reserve, courtesy of the Silk Road shut down 
December 21, 2013, 08:12:10 PM
It doesn't work like that. There is a limit to the number of bitcoins ever to exist. Out of the 21 million, only 12 million has been mined. There are many big players holding a lot of coins, like Satoshi (who would probably never move his coins, for doing so signals the second coming of Satoshi), the FBI with their seized coins, the Winklevoss brothers, DPR's missing stash, etc, lost coins like the hard drive in the land fill (6K there), plus a lot of people are holdhodling. The amount of bitcoins available on the market is far less than the 12 million in existence.
The coins that are for sale now are not on for the same price. At the time of writing, on Mt.Gox there is $30million worth of bitcoin available for sale. You will get BTC28400. The price would be pushed to up to $4500/BTC. Of course, you can do it across many exchanges, but to sink even with 50-60 million into bitcoins would either take a long time, and/or would push the price up noticeably, and you won't get 100K BTC
Accumulating a position of BTC1,000,000 without being noticed is nigh on impossible. It will take a long time, you will need a lot of cash because the cost will rise.
Thousands? May be, hence I voted yes. Even some investment companies are doing it. Hundreds of thousands? No.
Except for seizures, like TonyOliver said.
The coins that are for sale now are not on for the same price. At the time of writing, on Mt.Gox there is $30million worth of bitcoin available for sale. You will get BTC28400. The price would be pushed to up to $4500/BTC. Of course, you can do it across many exchanges, but to sink even with 50-60 million into bitcoins would either take a long time, and/or would push the price up noticeably, and you won't get 100K BTC
Accumulating a position of BTC1,000,000 without being noticed is nigh on impossible. It will take a long time, you will need a lot of cash because the cost will rise.
Thousands? May be, hence I voted yes. Even some investment companies are doing it. Hundreds of thousands? No.
Except for seizures, like TonyOliver said.
December 21, 2013, 08:05:13 PM
World governments are already acquiring them through seizures of the proceeds of illegal activities. Like the silk road and the virus writers in Germany.
December 21, 2013, 08:02:16 PM
no of course.
December 21, 2013, 07:37:31 PM
Just wondering what people thought.
My thoughts,
For a relatively small investment, 50-60 million dollars, (+- the value of 1-2 tons of gold) A small country can acquire a 100 000 BTC position.
In the event BTC fails, it is small enough that they would not have to disclose it, but in the event that there are mass bail outs and/or a global fiat crisis then BTC value would skyrocket. In which case, where most countries may be facing some form of revolt, a finance minister/president that could announce he had the foresight to add a BTC position to his countries reserves, now worth billions of dollars, and easily distributable to places in need, may be seen as a visionary/hero/saviour.
Also whatever China's ultimate position on BTC may be. This last week gave them a great opportunity to accumulate a VERY LARGE 1 000 000 + BTC position without raising, but actually decreasing the price. Personally I think it may soon be a strategic necessity for large countries to take positions in BTC even if they are actively engaged in discouraging it.
(In a currency crisis, besides outperforming gold, BTC may even be seen as superior to gold. Because the public may be skeptical that newly issued notes supposedly now redeemable for gold have not been over-issued and plus there would be distribution hurdles. Meanwhile satoshis could be immediately distributed to places in need in a crisis & are also completely 'verifiable'.)
My thoughts,
For a relatively small investment, 50-60 million dollars, (+- the value of 1-2 tons of gold) A small country can acquire a 100 000 BTC position.
In the event BTC fails, it is small enough that they would not have to disclose it, but in the event that there are mass bail outs and/or a global fiat crisis then BTC value would skyrocket. In which case, where most countries may be facing some form of revolt, a finance minister/president that could announce he had the foresight to add a BTC position to his countries reserves, now worth billions of dollars, and easily distributable to places in need, may be seen as a visionary/hero/saviour.
Also whatever China's ultimate position on BTC may be. This last week gave them a great opportunity to accumulate a VERY LARGE 1 000 000 + BTC position without raising, but actually decreasing the price. Personally I think it may soon be a strategic necessity for large countries to take positions in BTC even if they are actively engaged in discouraging it.
(In a currency crisis, besides outperforming gold, BTC may even be seen as superior to gold. Because the public may be skeptical that newly issued notes supposedly now redeemable for gold have not been over-issued and plus there would be distribution hurdles. Meanwhile satoshis could be immediately distributed to places in need in a crisis & are also completely 'verifiable'.)
Jump to: