@legiteum. I am not arguing that a big percentage of money transactions is digital. However, with a CBDC the government might have more access to the database which implies that they can more extensively monitor and do surveillance on the people's transactions. This might also imply that they can also have more control on this.
There are also concerns on privacy and security. Also, on your statement that America will never have a CBDC, heheeheheh. We cannot trust the next 5 administrations that they can assure this. Republican or Democrat this is where the rulers will bring the future of money.
Topic: Harris campaign now accepts Bitcoin (Read 1133 times)
The difference on CBDC and digital payments is very big. CBDCs will be issued by your central bank which will certainly come with mechanisms where they can check all of your transactions directly, collect your data and invade your privacy.
The US already can do this with ATM-dispensed physical cash, and they can subpoena any bank transactions they want. A CBDC wouldn't change any of that.
Quote
They presently cannot do this directly because there are processes they need to follow before they can invade your privacy and collect hehehe.
Again, why would a CBDC be any different in this regard? Obviously a CBDC transaction would have the same exact protections as a non-CBDC transaction.
Quote
On CBDCs and knowing how the government behaves, we cannot be shocked if these CBDC payment platforms are designed to invade on everyone's privacy. It would be headshaking and very much stupid if everyone trusts the government for data protection and privacy protection hehehehe.
The US government can, with a valid subpoena, get at almost all transactions that occur already. If the US government wanted to invade everybody's privacy, as you keep alleging, then why not do it now? Why go to all of that trouble to only cover about 10% of the transaction volume that occurs? Why not focus on the 90%.
To be clear, this is an academic topic since the USA will never have a CBDC since there's simply no reason to have one. Physical paper bills are fading away in usage and they will continue to do so. Non-cash checkout lines in grocery stores outnumber the cash ones. Etc. etc. This trend will only accelerate when private-sector digital currency arrives.
On the bankers, the rulers from Wall Street and CBDC. Do you know how much of control over money will be given to your rulers if a CBDC is used by a country? Also, Wall Street is only all in bitcoin as a speculative investment heheheheh. Do you not understand this?
Why would a CBDC make any difference whatsoever? Something like 90% of USD is already held digitally. Why especially would making the last 10% that's floating around in paper change anything? The US isn't going to have a CBDC because there's no reason to have one. Physically dollars will be used less and less and eventually they will just be gone from everywhere but eBay in the collectables section. Those physical pieces of paper will be replaced by credit cards, payment services, and (actually scalable) digital currency.
And yes, Bitcoin is, to almost all of it's holders, nothing more than a speculative investment. It requires $30 billion in hardware to process the transaction load of few busy shopping malls at Christmas. Bitcoin is not a threat to become anything else than what it already is, and there's no government or anything else stopping it. Bitcoin's limitations are technical, not caused by some Illuminati conspiracy.
The difference on CBDC and digital payments is very big. CBDCs will be issued by your central bank which will certainly come with mechanisms where they can check all of your transactions directly, collect your data and invade your privacy. They presently cannot do this directly because there are processes they need to follow before they can invade your privacy and collect hehehe. On CBDCs and knowing how the government behaves, we cannot be shocked if these CBDC payment platforms are designed to invade on everyone's privacy. It would be headshaking and very much stupid if everyone trusts the government for data protection and privacy protection hehehehe.
Personally, I would expect this to cause the value to go up.
The best thing that could happen is that both parties end up being pro-bitcoin.
Both parties leaning their voice to the support of bitcoin is a welcome news although the worrisome aspect about this to me is how genuine is their support? Politicians are not people that should be trusted at their words when they are in need of power they can easily say and accept anything just to have the people for that moment.Because it's now appearing as though both parties are now using bitcoin as a means to an end in their political tussle which therefore makes their sudden pro-bitcoin-ish attitude questionable if this support will grow more wings after the emergence of one of the two parties.
But if I'm the one who will choose between those two candidate Trump will be more better than Harris in terms of possible bitcoin acceptance in US.
Btw do we really want increased Bitcoin acceptance in the US? We can say that high Bitcoin adoption comes with many regulations. Now we are forced to submit KYC almost everywhere while in 2016, I remember that KYC wasn't mandatory and exchanges weren't forcing you to submit KYC.This is the first of it kind “election” where Bitcoin has become the major talk that candidates are prioritizing to gain the mass vote.
Bitcoin is not a major talk. The major talk is inflation, high debt, migrant crisis, no border and etc... Bitcoin is not the priority but Bitcoin is there, they are trying to gain the vote of Bitcoin enthusiasts but I think that in the end, no one will judge them by what they talk about Bitcoin because we all know that they aren't for Bitcoin here, especially the businessman Trump. You can't be a businessman and want self-custody for your people. 
If we don't want to get involved in the war between politicians, we can stand aside and watch things unfold. But if we care about the future and want to contribute to the development of bitcoin, I agree with you that let's vote for the person who will do the least harm to it.
Honestly, both Trump and Harris are untrustworthy but what other choice do we have? We rarely have a third option so let's seize every opportunity even if it is fragile and uncertain. And there is no doubt that Trump is more worth our choice and bet on than Harris. Vote and spread support for him, at least we still have a chance while our chance when voting for Harris is zero.
Honestly, both Trump and Harris are untrustworthy but what other choice do we have? We rarely have a third option so let's seize every opportunity even if it is fragile and uncertain. And there is no doubt that Trump is more worth our choice and bet on than Harris. Vote and spread support for him, at least we still have a chance while our chance when voting for Harris is zero.
Kamala Harris has failed to speak anything about Bitcoin. This is an indication that she is going to continue with Joe Biden's policies on cryptocurrencies. So even if Harris is not speaking you can easily predict what will happen under her administration by observing the current government. But Trump has been speaking about Bitcoin and others. I am sceptical about his ability to implement all he has promised but at least he has promised something. I am not a US citizen but I also consider other factors about the president before endorsing them. His policy about Bitcoin which I am not sure he will implement is not my only consideration. I am concerned more about racial segregation and immigration. But I think Trump has successfully gathered a lot of supporters from the crypto space.
This is the first of it kind “election” where Bitcoin has become the major talk that candidates are prioritizing to gain the mass vote.I would not want Bitcoin to just end in becoming the talk of the town only here in the US presidential election but also should be spread and become major talk across other country's presidential election. Generally, this shows mass level of adoption of Bitcoin. Seeing such developing stories each day makes me have a stronger belief of how scarce and more important that Bitcoin would become in the society in the near future, holding my portfolios of Bitcoin.
All politicians try to please everyone.... Nor Trump nor she cares about crypto really. They just want to picture themelves as pro crypto.
Edited to add source link of video - Donal Trump on X
Let's be vigilant if he has the convictions or if it's just a political tactic. This is Donald Trump three years ago when he said he did not like Bitcoin. However, everyone is allowed to change their views on what they think about something because change is the dynamic nature of humans. I believe that people can learn over time and perhaps Trump has learned. Of course, many of us today were chronic haters of Bitcoin until we understood it and now, we are enthusiastic about it.
As for Harris, I do not know when her passion for cryptocurrency started, hers looks more like a political ambition. She may never win against Trump. I will advise all US citizens to watch carefully.
What Trump learned is that he wanted to stay the President of the United States but he failed, so now is his last chance to become the president again and he is trying everything he can to get as many votes as possible. It's impossible to call Bitcoin a scam in 2021 when you know for years that this coin exists and then change your mind before elections. I personally don't eat their lies. If trump learnt anything, then he should know that the aim of getting every rest of Bitcoin mined in the USA is against Bitcoin because that means the destruction of decentralization.Let's be vigilant if he has the convictions or if it's just a political tactic. This is Donald Trump three years ago when he said he did not like Bitcoin. However, everyone is allowed to change their views on what they think about something because change is the dynamic nature of humans. I believe that people can learn over time and perhaps Trump has learned. Of course, many of us today were chronic haters of Bitcoin until we understood it and now, we are enthusiastic about it.
As for Harris, I do not know when her passion for cryptocurrency started, hers looks more like a political ambition. She may never win against Trump. I will advise all US citizens to watch carefully.
Harris is the copy-paste too, she doesn't care about Bitcoin, I bet she doesn't know what it is but accepts it anyway because she wants to steal voters from Donald Trump. Did you watch the video where Harris talks about Cloud Storage? Watch it man and you'll understand how stupid she is, there is no way on earth she can understand what Bitcoin is with her brain.
Both of them want to confuse people and think they became friendly. A common action by those unscrupulous politicians, But if I'm the one who will choose between those two candidate Trump will be more better than Harris in terms of possible bitcoin acceptance in US. Harris action is not really going after on bitcoin and they used third party platform maybe to avoid getting any more involvement towards bitcoin. While Trump is so hardcore towards his intentions and really showing some potentials of adaption for bitcoin. Although I really get it why people still have a doubt in Trump since he's also really a anti bitcoin before. But there's nothing else to choose which is strong and I guess in this selection people will choose lesser evil between these two to make sure there will be no heavy disturbance of circulation of bitcoin transaction in US.
Edited to add source link of video - Donal Trump on X
Let's be vigilant if he has the convictions or if it's just a political tactic. This is Donald Trump three years ago when he said he did not like Bitcoin. However, everyone is allowed to change their views on what they think about something because change is the dynamic nature of humans. I believe that people can learn over time and perhaps Trump has learned. Of course, many of us today were chronic haters of Bitcoin until we understood it and now, we are enthusiastic about it.
As for Harris, I do not know when her passion for cryptocurrency started, hers looks more like a political ambition. She may never win against Trump. I will advise all US citizens to watch carefully.
Harris is the copy-paste too, she doesn't care about Bitcoin, I bet she doesn't know what it is but accepts it anyway because she wants to steal voters from Donald Trump. Did you watch the video where Harris talks about Cloud Storage? Watch it man and you'll understand how stupid she is, there is no way on earth she can understand what Bitcoin is with her brain.
What do you think we should do? Should we rebel and overthrow the current government? Or should we stay out and not vote, but does that make any difference when one of the two candidates still becomes president?
The nature of politics is to lie and do whatever it takes to get what they want and everyone knows it. But the harsh truth is that whether we like it or not, we cannot change the fact that they are still the ones who lead the country and control us. So what we can do is vote for the person we think is the lesser evil. Same with crypto, vote for the candidate you think will do the least harm to it.
Vote for Trump, he seems to be the only person we can trust right now, he is surrounded by people who want to see crypto prevail, starting with black rock, Saylor, Elon Musk, and a few others, even JFK, he is the better option than Kamala right now, we can't just fold our hands, I know that politicians will always be politicians but what Trump wants to do is far from trying to deceive his people.
Trump will do less harm than Kamala. Vote wisely
If we don't want to get involved in the war between politicians, we can stand aside and watch things unfold. But if we care about the future and want to contribute to the development of bitcoin, I agree with you that let's vote for the person who will do the least harm to it.
Honestly, both Trump and Harris are untrustworthy but what other choice do we have? We rarely have a third option so let's seize every opportunity even if it is fragile and uncertain. And there is no doubt that Trump is more worth our choice and bet on than Harris. Vote and spread support for him, at least we still have a chance while our chance when voting for Harris is zero.
On the bankers, the rulers from Wall Street and CBDC. Do you know how much of control over money will be given to your rulers if a CBDC is used by a country? Also, Wall Street is only all in bitcoin as a speculative investment heheheheh. Do you not understand this?
Why would a CBDC make any difference whatsoever? Something like 90% of USD is already held digitally. Why especially would making the last 10% that's floating around in paper change anything? The US isn't going to have a CBDC because there's no reason to have one. Physically dollars will be used less and less and eventually they will just be gone from everywhere but eBay in the collectables section. Those physical pieces of paper will be replaced by credit cards, payment services, and (actually scalable) digital currency.
And yes, Bitcoin is, to almost all of it's holders, nothing more than a speculative investment. It requires $30 billion in hardware to process the transaction load of few busy shopping malls at Christmas. Bitcoin is not a threat to become anything else than what it already is, and there's no government or anything else stopping it. Bitcoin's limitations are technical, not caused by some Illuminati conspiracy.
Is she doing this because she needs more donations to help her campaign funding or is she only doing this because she saw how Trump is pro bitcoin and it helped his campaign and she wants to gain that market share?
Like Cameron and Tyler said a couple of weeks back, if she wants to be pro Bitcoin and pro Crypto she doesnt need to wait until she wins the election. She can take a stand now and fire Gary Gensler who is bad for the crypto industry. However its been a couple of weeks and not action really taken.
Which shows she is just doing this to buy votes and nothing more.
Like Cameron and Tyler said a couple of weeks back, if she wants to be pro Bitcoin and pro Crypto she doesnt need to wait until she wins the election. She can take a stand now and fire Gary Gensler who is bad for the crypto industry. However its been a couple of weeks and not action really taken.
Which shows she is just doing this to buy votes and nothing more.
Hopefully you realize she has no power to fire Gensler lol. This is the kind of nonsense lies Maga cultists spread, don't be one of those idiots. If you want to see someone completely changing their stance on crypto simply to buy votes and nothing more, look no further than convicted criminal and lifelong conman and traitor to America Donald Trump.
You are very much correct, however, what I was telling the mr. democrat legiteum is there is no evidence that can implicate the government that they are hacking directly on the people. However, because of these laws very much similar to what you have mentioned and these laws like the Patriot Act, the government are giving themselves the right to invade the people's privacy.
I am quite certain Harris cannot mention that she is against CBDC because this would certainly make the rulers from Wall Street and the banking industry very angry heheheh.
LOL, I am anything but "Mr. Democrat".
There are many millions of Republicans in the USA who oppose Trump:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_oppose_the_Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign
The existing laws about banking in the US are absolutely nothing like... the Patriot Act. That doesn't even make sense.
Harris has not stated whether she is for a CBDC. Harris has also not mentioned her views on C++ versus C, either. Or which side of the toilet paper roll should face outward. I doubt she'll get into that when there are things that Americans actually care about to talk about.
And why would "the rulers from Wall Street" care about a CBDC anyhow? Wall Street is all-in on Bitcoin, and a CBDC wouldn't make any difference to Bitcoin anyhow. And there's essentially no constituency anywhere for a CBDC in the US left, right or center, so... it's not going to happen.
Heheheeheh it was joke. I am quite certain that you are not a democrat, however, it only appears that you are very angry when someone talks about Kamala hehehe.
In any case, on the Patriot act, banking and the people's privacy. This has a very big impact because the Patriot Act changes how bankers manage bank accounts. Banks are very much closely more monitored, data collection from the people are more strict and any transaction can be suspicious. The implementation of this act is dangerous and it can be certainly abused to invade a person's privacy.
On the bankers, the rulers from Wall Street and CBDC. Do you know how much of control over money will be given to your rulers if a CBDC is used by a country? Also, Wall Street is only all in bitcoin as a speculative investment heheheheh. Do you not understand this?
Yes, for people who have over $100 million in gains in a year. Most people like that are pretty public about their wealth since they are billionaires.
Now, do I expect this to pass Congress? I doubt it. Why? Because such a tax actually wouldn't raise very much money since there are only a few hundred people in the US like this.
But the only reason you've been lead to care about this is that the people controlling the media you ingest on a daily basis are... among those hundreds.
Now, do I expect this to pass Congress? I doubt it. Why? Because such a tax actually wouldn't raise very much money since there are only a few hundred people in the US like this.
But the only reason you've been lead to care about this is that the people controlling the media you ingest on a daily basis are... among those hundreds.
It may pass, it may not. The deal is, they're trying to do it. In my eyes this is an attack on privacy. I don't care if people choose to be vocal about their investments. The important thing is that it's their choice. Democrats want to take that right to choose away. It's an attack on privacy.
Republicans want to collect taxes too, and they will respond to crime just like the Democrats do. We already have the same reporting for anybody who puts more than $10,000 cash inside of any US bank, and that's been the law here for the last 50 years.
Quote
Quote
I suspect that any laws that pass Congress will roughly mirror the physical cash controls we have in the US: reporting is only required for very large sums, i.e. amounts that would very likely involve criminal activity. The threshold for cash today is $10,000, but that was passed in the early 1970s, so even the equivalent would be about $100k. This is common sense: the government is after big-time criminals and money launderers, not some average American with $50k in their crypto wallet--it's not worth their time to even check.
If that average American with $50k is forced to reveal how much they hold and on which address, it won't matter who the government is really after. It's like when you get stopped and searched because they think you might carry illegal substances (but you don't) you don't care who they were after.
There are valid government inquiries and invalid ones. If the authorities have probably cause and go through the correct channels and perform a constitutionally legal search, then what is the problem? Yes, police sometimes break the law, and that's part of our system. But the answer is policing the police, not... anarchy where criminals can just attack whomever they want because there are no police at all.
Quote
Quote
And the partisan thing is ridiculous: the law for cash was signed by Republican president Richard Nixon. This is about national security, and every week there's another children's hospital that is crippled in the USA by criminals using crypto for cyberextortion, or another murder-for-hire paid for that way, etc. etc.
Damn! That was brutal. Did you just use the "crypto is used by criminals to cripple children hospitals" argument? I have to save that for future generations who visit this forum.
Please check statistics and tell us all how many children's hospitals were crippled in the US in the last 12 months and how many murderers got paid with bitcoin. I'd really like to see the numbers for that.
This took me about five seconds to look this up:
https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/providers/cybersecurity-matter-forces-lurie-childrens-hospitals-communications-mychart-offline
I mean seriously, are you going to try to tell me that crypto has never been used for crime? It's like saying cash has never been used for crime, or the internet has never been used for crime, or the telephone hasn't. All of those things have been regulated over the years, and subject to government subpoenas, and crypto will be no different.
Yes, for people who have over $100 million in gains in a year. Most people like that are pretty public about their wealth since they are billionaires.
Now, do I expect this to pass Congress? I doubt it. Why? Because such a tax actually wouldn't raise very much money since there are only a few hundred people in the US like this.
But the only reason you've been lead to care about this is that the people controlling the media you ingest on a daily basis are... among those hundreds.
Now, do I expect this to pass Congress? I doubt it. Why? Because such a tax actually wouldn't raise very much money since there are only a few hundred people in the US like this.
But the only reason you've been lead to care about this is that the people controlling the media you ingest on a daily basis are... among those hundreds.
It may pass, it may not. The deal is, they're trying to do it. In my eyes this is an attack on privacy. I don't care if people choose to be vocal about their investments. The important thing is that it's their choice. Democrats want to take that right to choose away. It's an attack on privacy.
Quote
I suspect that any laws that pass Congress will roughly mirror the physical cash controls we have in the US: reporting is only required for very large sums, i.e. amounts that would very likely involve criminal activity. The threshold for cash today is $10,000, but that was passed in the early 1970s, so even the equivalent would be about $100k. This is common sense: the government is after big-time criminals and money launderers, not some average American with $50k in their crypto wallet--it's not worth their time to even check.
If that average American with $50k is forced to reveal how much they hold and on which address, it won't matter who the government is really after. It's like when you get stopped and searched because they think you might carry illegal substances (but you don't) you don't care who they were after.
Quote
And the partisan thing is ridiculous: the law for cash was signed by Republican president Richard Nixon. This is about national security, and every week there's another children's hospital that is crippled in the USA by criminals using crypto for cyberextortion, or another murder-for-hire paid for that way, etc. etc.
Damn! That was brutal. Did you just use the "crypto is used by criminals to cripple children hospitals" argument? I have to save that for future generations who visit this forum.
Please check statistics and tell us all how many children's hospitals were crippled in the US in the last 12 months and how many murderers got paid with bitcoin. I'd really like to see the numbers for that.
You are very much correct, however, what I was telling the mr. democrat legiteum is there is no evidence that can implicate the government that they are hacking directly on the people. However, because of these laws very much similar to what you have mentioned and these laws like the Patriot Act, the government are giving themselves the right to invade the people's privacy.
I am quite certain Harris cannot mention that she is against CBDC because this would certainly make the rulers from Wall Street and the banking industry very angry heheheh.
LOL, I am anything but "Mr. Democrat".
There are many millions of Republicans in the USA who oppose Trump:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_oppose_the_Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign
The existing laws about banking in the US are absolutely nothing like... the Patriot Act. That doesn't even make sense.
Harris has not stated whether she is for a CBDC. Harris has also not mentioned her views on C++ versus C, either. Or which side of the toilet paper roll should face outward. I doubt she'll get into that when there are things that Americans actually care about to talk about.
And why would "the rulers from Wall Street" care about a CBDC anyhow? Wall Street is all-in on Bitcoin, and a CBDC wouldn't make any difference to Bitcoin anyhow. And there's essentially no constituency anywhere for a CBDC in the US left, right or center, so... it's not going to happen.
She's in the same league as Elizabeth Warren who wanted wallet providers to enforce KYC and wanted all bitcoin holders to be asked to declare their holdings by the IRS.
She wants to delegalize privacy!
Harris only wants donations because she believes people are dumb enough to finance the campaign of someone who wants to later tax their holdings and deprive them of their privacy.
Give me money you dumb animals and if I win I'll take the rest of it.
There's absolutely no evidence Harris or Warren or anybody else in the US government wants to "deprive you of your privacy".
The US has has capital gains taxes since the 1930s, under every president of every party. The US will have capital gains taxes forever, regardless of who is elected.
Have you ever seen where Kamala talked about Bitcoin before? Because I haven't, she is pretending mate, this is enough evidence for me, Kamala is backed by that witch called Warren and Joe Biden, if she wins you will see what these people will do, it is not going to end well, this is the same thing I keep telling everyone who are supporting kamala right now.
Kiss Privacy goodbye if kamala takes over, she is accepting donations in crypto because crypto has so many fans in the United States of America, once this is over she will turn into the monster she's been hiding.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/top-super-pac-backing-kamala-harris-accept-cryptocurrency-donations-2024-09-05/
Now both major US candidates accept Bitcoin for donations. Great progress for Bitcoin acceptance.
Do not be fooled by politician, folks. They are the absolute devils and will do anything to win an election, but once you hand them the power, that is when you will see their true colors. I know of countries whose Governments would suddenly accept donations via cryptocurrencies after years of FUD just because they are at war and want to win it at all costs. Once things get better, they just continue with the same FUD and demonization of cryptocurrencies.Now both major US candidates accept Bitcoin for donations. Great progress for Bitcoin acceptance.
What do you think we should do? Should we rebel and overthrow the current government? Or should we stay out and not vote, but does that make any difference when one of the two candidates still becomes president?
The nature of politics is to lie and do whatever it takes to get what they want and everyone knows it. But the harsh truth is that whether we like it or not, we cannot change the fact that they are still the ones who lead the country and control us. So what we can do is vote for the person we think is the lesser evil. Same with crypto, vote for the candidate you think will do the least harm to it.
Vote for Trump, he seems to be the only person we can trust right now, he is surrounded by people who want to see crypto prevail, starting with black rock, Saylor, Elon Musk, and a few others, even JFK, he is the better option than Kamala right now, we can't just fold our hands, I know that politicians will always be politicians but what Trump wants to do is far from trying to deceive his people.
Trump will do less harm than Kamala. Vote wisely
Agreed that there is no evidence, however, the government always wants to inquire very much closely on the people and invade their privacy if they want this.
What are you talking about? How is there no evidence?
They wanted to make wallet providers ask users for KYC so they can assign wallets to IDs! This was a real legislative act they wanted to push through Congress.
How is that not an attempt to deprive people of privacy?
The Democrats see self hosted wallets as aiding tax evaders, money launderers, drug traffickers and other criminals. Republicans believe self custody preserves basic freedoms in a digital world.
Representative Sherman (Democrat) compared self hosted wallets to bearer bonds which were banned in the U.S. in the 1980s.
https://www.ledgerinsights.com/self-hosted-wallet-congress-privacy-freedom/
You are very much correct, however, what I was telling the mr. democrat legiteum is there is no evidence that can implicate the government that they are hacking directly on the people. However, because of these laws very much similar to what you have mentioned and these laws like the Patriot Act, the government are giving themselves the right to invade the people's privacy.
I am quite certain Harris cannot mention that she is against CBDC because this would certainly make the rulers from Wall Street and the banking industry very angry heheheh.
Jump to: