Topic: Do you trust bitcoin holders? - page 8. (Read 1397 times)

No, it doesn't promote hate against those subjects. But because of its features promoting anonymity and decentralization, that seems to be it but that's not a direct hit to them.

I am a Bitcoin holder and I trust myself. Why there's a need to question someone who's holding it as a store of value if you're going to trust him or not?

Trust is subjective and the subject about bitcoin holding is lack to say on what aspect do you trust them.

Trust about what? I'm not doing what others tell me anyway, I have my head on my shoulders. I can listen to people's opinions, but I have the ability to agree or disagree with it.

No thats just what the common people think because bitcoin was built to be different from the centralized systems.

I dont take it to be anti-bank, in fact blockchain technology is being used by many banks for providing different services.

So as far as trusting someone goes, that depends on the context of what trust you are talking about. If you think the holders have their own agenda, then yes they are in it for profit just like everyone of us. Are they try to embezzle someone? I dont think so.

Fact that the people who are very public about bitcoin as anarchists, does not make it anti-government. The proper terms are "decentralized" and "censorship resistant".

I don't know why you're trying to mix politics and Bitcoin?

So, a Bitcoin holder shouldn't trust a boomer who invest in gold?
So, a Bitcoin holder shouldn't trust a content creator who show his face to anyone in the world?
So, a Bitcoin holder shouldn't trust a trader who use centralized exchange?

I doubt if people can completely avoid banks, even you trade via P2P, you still need to use bank accounts to receive your money. You might can completely avoid banks if you can spend Bitcoin directly to purchase or pay something, but it's only possible in El Salvador.

Bitcoin is neither pro nor anti government. It’s not anything to fuel any kind of political agenda. It is simply a financial tool that gives us the option to choose where we want to store our money in aside from banks.

Do not promote that bitcoin is anti-government as it tarnishes bitcoin’s reputation and makes it seem as if bitcoin might be used to support any kind of terrorism.

Both of the main ideas behind your post are wrong, bitcoin is not against governments and banks, it is just that if they both did their job as they should when it comes to fiat currencies, the need for bitcoin will not exist, however through history they both have systematically failed on this task given by their citizens and clients, so bitcoin is a natural reaction to this, and about trusting bitcoin holders, I do not see the relationship with the previous question or why it even matters at all.

Bitcoin is not anti government, who thought you such mindset against bitcoin, because as far as we know bitcoin is best served as an alternative to banks, that is bitcoin provide linkage between Bank and the unbaked in some cases.


Some of the false theories are so misleading and this is one of such false theory that bitcoin is Anti government.

Bitcoin is simply an alternative and perfects everything that fiat, banks, and weaknesses in government regulation do not have with its currency. And Bitcoin is not against or anti banks or governments, because they also can't stop it unless they stop the internet. But they can make the rules if they want.
Bitcoin holders only treat Bitcoin as a store of value or investment and they have freedom because the holder has full control without any third party, and besides that because Bitcoin is very profitable for those who hold it.

The use of Bitcoin does not remain the same. In the early days of Bitcoin, people used Bitcoin as private money. But the use case of Bitcoin has changed a lot. Centralization is everywhere, and people use CEX to do KYC. As long as you are compromising your privacy by sharing your personal information with Centralized exchanges, you cannot be anti-government. Even if you are anti-government, it's up to you.

I do not judge people based on their race or religion. I also do not judge people based on what they do. If someone is a Bitcoin user, that does not mean he is anti-government. Even if someone is anti-government, that does not mean I do not trust them just because they are anti-government. I judge people based on how they are with me and how they are with others.

Bitcoin promotes, above all, freedom of choice. Show us in which part of the white paper, Bitcoin is against the government. You, OP, have a rather erroneous opinion, which leads to the idea that the information you have is incorrect. If we talk about the fact that many people associate the use of Bitcoin with scammers and criminals, then the statistics fail here too. If we talk about trust in Bitcoin holders, then some are truly trustworthy, and you can and should listen to their opinions. What can you say about Andreas Antonopoulos? Is there any danger in him as a person promoting Bitcoin?

If we really want to be anti-government and banks then we will experience difficulties, because we also have families who are not Bitcoin holders. Therefore instead of being anti-government, it is better if we just need to be wise in playing our role, especially in investing in Bitcoin. This means that even though we don't like the fiat financial system, that doesn't mean we are totally declaring war on the government. There is a way of mediation by spreading education about Bitcoin, because I believe the government is much more aware of the presence of Bitcoin, access to financial information is their activity so anything that has a big influence on finances will have been aware of it for quite some time.

Well, it happens that my country is friendly with Bitcoin, not only informally friendly but many of the governments also take part in investing and trading Bitcoin. Create good regulations to bridge the community to be able to buy and sell Bitcoin legally. Of course there are taxes, of course, but as long as it doesn't cause problems then I quite support government programs that welcome Bitcoin.

Sure, I will trust a holder; what is the reason not to trust a Bitcoin holder? Everything has a system by which it operates. Starting from the government, arms of government, and every other system under the government, including banks, have their own individual ways of operation. That is how Bitcoin was designed for the specific system it should operate on. It is never a crime to have Bitcoin; as a matter of fact, Bitcoin was designed not to be controlled or handled by the government or banks, and therefore there is no need to trust a Bitcoin holder unless you are aware that the person is using it for illegal clearing. 

Bitcoin can never be anti government. The government has the power to regulate only its own institutions. Don't compare bitcoin with government banks. Because bitcoin is decentralized, there is no government control and no obligation to do so. Every citizen will invest in Bitcoin as they are free and find their way to security. I trust bitcoin holders and every holder likes to hold bitcoins.

Thanks for this clarification, I believe that most investors that are holding Bitcoin, are just for business purposes, a store of value where they can put their money and believe that on the long run, it'll acrue many times over in ROI. Bitcoin holders can not be anti banks, because they use them to make fiat transactions everyday, most people that hodl Bitcoin will not even like to use it to make payments for purchases, they'll rather use fiat and hodl their Bitcoin. Also Bitcoin, holders in countries where it's not banned can't be anti government, why should they? The only thing that the governments can do is collect tax when they want to convert to fiat through CEX, but then they collect tax on almost every money related transactions.

Of all the banks, the one that I hate the most are the central banks. They're the most useless of banks. If money will one day be separated from the state, the first institution that will be dissolved is the central bank. If money becomes decentralized, the rest of the banks may remain useful but central banks will perish.

Solid Bitcoin supporters may not necessarily be bank haters, but I guess most, if not all, of them are central bank haters. Compared to money, central banks are a young invention. I believe we can do away with central banks. They're most probably net negative to society.

 Indirectly you assume bitcoin is an anti-government against the CEX but I'd say the foundation of bitcoin is on the perspective to provide a hedge to intercept global financial frustration such as the government regulations and economy conditions.
However, I'm a bitcoin holder and I don't hold it to stand opposite with the fiats such as some others could wrongly be insighted that bitcoin may take over the fiats in the future. That's not true.
The justification of bitcoin is literally on individuals perspectives to how they're being influenced with the technology potentials so, I believe I'm utilizing my bitcoin holding unexemptionally from what it's created for and not about the misusage of those associated with it on criminal intensions.

I don't really seem to understand your point of view when you make mention of been anti government because I doubt if you can successfully be an anti government even as a bitcoin holder, as bitcoin does not give you the power to fight the government so it cant seem to be a reason you become an anti government and moreover bitcoin itself isn't anti government or bank rather it goes beyond the barriers banks may suffer with universality and that has been the advantage of the decentralization of bitcoin all along even if some persons ha sin a way try using it against the banks and in other was for which it was intended, it still doesn't make bitcoin anti government or bank.

Trusting bitcoin holders is actually relative because you are definitely goin to do that at your own risk because everyone actually gets to hold bitcoin for reasons best known to them and so this variations can bring about the relativity in the purpose for holding of bitcoin but if its about them using it against the government or banks I cant say for sur but personally I don't hold bitcoin for any of such purposes and I can be trusted but I cant say for others.

Bitcoin is not anti government and anti banks directly. Bitcoin is pro-freedom. Governments are anti-freedom because their purpose is to kyc anything that moves or breathes. So when bitcoin offers freedom, it automatically becomes anti-government. That’s the choice people have to make. Freedom and governance cannot coexist. You either have one, or the other.

Bitcoin offers freedom and in the free world, there are many criminal people because they can abuse that freedom to accomplish their own goals. Hackers, thieves, terrorists, drug sellers… These people do exist and they make big money everyday because there is huge demand for the services and products they offer.

In this context, do I trust Bitcoin holders? It depends on the holder we are talking about. We can’t say every btc holder is good or bad.

There is no justification for not trusting a bitcoin holder because a bitcoin holder can hold on to the bitcoins within his freedom which can be said to be his right. However, if a Bitcoin holder participates in anti-social and anti-financial activities of the country, then there may be reason not to trust the holder. A gold miner like gold for his profitInvestment and Holding Just as a Bitcoin investor can invest and hold Bitcoin for better future profits. A holder can deposit and sell the digital currency from his/her economic rights if Bitcoin is officially recognized in that country.

You do not have to trust Bitcoin holders if your factors like anti-government and banks are to be put into consideration but only trust in the Bitcoin itself. If you buy Bitcoin today and plan to hold it for the time being, then you are already a holder. Now, do you trust yourself? Can people trust you on this holding? That's the situation. Do not totally trust anyone but your Bitcoin and your plans about it. Nevertheless, the holders have been so important in the sustainability of Bitcoin over the years, this is not the time they will suddenly abandon the coin, they will continue to add their quota even as they hold it more.

However, there are categories of holders, some are for the short term, many are for the medium term, and others are for the long term. In between, there are permanent holders as well, so naturally if some holders liquidated their asset due to one reason or the other especially when the time planned for the liquidation has lapsed regardless of the date such a plan has been set as no one is holding you from selling your coin at the time you want to sell it. For these, I believe that the holders should be trusted to a high degree as many had witnessed the thick and thin with Bitcoin and have not panickly liquidated their assets.

But I do not know if this will continue to be true if the government starts clamping down on Bitcoin, only fearless holders may stay in this situation.