Until the Victorian government announces that they are going to auction off bitcoins which they confiscated, I had the impression that only the US marshals had the coin. And it will not be a surprise if there are even more bitcoins held by government from other countries and that could even include the central banks.
I still think they are probably too dumb to keep any Bitcoins, they would rather sell it and spend 100% of the gains on gold if they want to store value. 
Topic: How many bitcoins do governments and central banks own? - page 2. (Read 2657 times)
Until the Victorian government announces that they are going to auction off bitcoins which they confiscated, I had the impression that only the US marshals had the coin. And it will not be a surprise if there are even more bitcoins held by government from other countries and that could even include the central banks.
Other than coins still waiting to be sold off, I'd be very surprised if it's anything other than zero. They've got their own money to play with.
The logical thing for them to do is to hold at least a % of those coins, but they are probably auditing 100% of the stolen stacks from exchanges because they probably don't even know what to do with them. 
just to lobby against bitcoin altogeather, like they do against everything else that doesnt suit them.
Really? There are Bitcoin businesses and people making money with Bitcoin in most countries.
Do you really think an economy like Russia will be better off by banning Bitcoin than the UK?
There is no way of knowing this one for sure, they could have nothing, but on the other hand maybe they are hoarding up, just in case things get too serious for them, but
thats a longshot, since it would be much more financially wise just to lobby against bitcoin altogeather, like they do against everything else that doesnt suit them.
cheers
thats a longshot, since it would be much more financially wise just to lobby against bitcoin altogeather, like they do against everything else that doesnt suit them.
cheers
It seems like this could represent another ongoing "success" indicator.
While some U.S. states are planning to accept Bitcoin for payments (New York, Utah, New Hampshire) I don't think that any government or central bank already owns bitcoins that are part of their budget (only from seizure)
i think none, if they went serious about it, they would control a large stack already and manipulate every exchange like nothing
Assuming that they want to have a controlling interest in this particular form of money, I would say that they probably own a fair share of bitcoins in various unmentioned wallets.
This is an interesting segment of the Comment.
BTW, this is a policy oriented law review article (i.e., lots of pontification and speculation) written by a student member of the law review its published in. The person has since graduated and practices in a litigation group of a solid firm. In other words, consider the source when evaluating the article (a busy first year associate that has no time for this stuff). Its an interesting topic, though.
BTW, this is a policy oriented law review article (i.e., lots of pontification and speculation) written by a student member of the law review its published in. The person has since graduated and practices in a litigation group of a solid firm. In other words, consider the source when evaluating the article (a busy first year associate that has no time for this stuff). Its an interesting topic, though.
be careful what you wish for 
Quote
...
Alternatively, it can attempt to exercise direct control over digital
currencies by offering them a form of quasi-membership status, where increased
legitimacy is traded for Bitcoin users' business.
...
Alternatively, it can attempt to exercise direct control over digital
currencies by offering them a form of quasi-membership status, where increased
legitimacy is traded for Bitcoin users' business.
...
I'm utterly curious as to whom they are going to offer a membership status in the IMF. Who are those "them" actually, all bitcoin holders taken together and separately, or just miners alone? Why would anyone in their right mind want to have anything to do with this International Misery Fund?
It seems like this could represent another ongoing "success" indicator.
This is hard to know because we don't really know who own the btc. We can only see wallets with a lot of coins but we can't know who is the owner of that coins just following the transactions.
be careful what you wish for
http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1407
Quote
This Comment introduced Bitcoin in conjunction with the history of the
International Monetary Fund in order to demonstrate the possibility of future
conflict between the two. The peer-to-peer, decentralized, and largely
unregulated system that is Bitcoin contains the potential to threaten the global
economic stability that the TMF was created to protect. The threat posed by
Bitcoin is, for the moment, only theoretical. But as more and more people come
to understand the advantages of digital money over paper money, the threat it
poses becomes increasingly real. If the future of e-commerce entails a transition
to digital currencies, it is critical that our economic, political, and legal
institutions are prepared. Recognizing the importance of Bitcoin in the context
of digital currencies is the first step in understanding how to best plan for the
future.
How, when, and to what extent it will grow remains to be seen. But the
potential consequences of widespread adoption of the Bitcoin are already
palpable. In order to guard against the global economic destabilization that could
occur if and when the world decides to adopt digital currencies, we must
consider ways in which our national and international institutions can guide that
transition in the here and now. At present, the IMF has at least two options. It
can attempt to exercise indirect control over digital currencies vis-A-vis its
member nations by expanding the scope of Article IV, Section 5 of the Articles
of Agreement. Alternatively, it can attempt to exercise direct control over digital
currencies by offering them a form of quasi-membership status, where increased
legitimacy is traded for Bitcoin users' business.
Regardless of which measure is chosen, the potential need for a method to
combat speculative attacks using Bitcoin is clear. As the Internet continues to
play an increasingly important role in how we conduct commerce, our
institutions have to adjust to the new challenges this change creates. The
evolution of Bitcoin is no exception. Although still in its nascent stages, Bitcoin
and other digital currencies like it are projected to become important players in
the future of e-commerce. The time to consider how to prepare for that future is
now, before practical problems arise.
International Monetary Fund in order to demonstrate the possibility of future
conflict between the two. The peer-to-peer, decentralized, and largely
unregulated system that is Bitcoin contains the potential to threaten the global
economic stability that the TMF was created to protect. The threat posed by
Bitcoin is, for the moment, only theoretical. But as more and more people come
to understand the advantages of digital money over paper money, the threat it
poses becomes increasingly real. If the future of e-commerce entails a transition
to digital currencies, it is critical that our economic, political, and legal
institutions are prepared. Recognizing the importance of Bitcoin in the context
of digital currencies is the first step in understanding how to best plan for the
future.
How, when, and to what extent it will grow remains to be seen. But the
potential consequences of widespread adoption of the Bitcoin are already
palpable. In order to guard against the global economic destabilization that could
occur if and when the world decides to adopt digital currencies, we must
consider ways in which our national and international institutions can guide that
transition in the here and now. At present, the IMF has at least two options. It
can attempt to exercise indirect control over digital currencies vis-A-vis its
member nations by expanding the scope of Article IV, Section 5 of the Articles
of Agreement. Alternatively, it can attempt to exercise direct control over digital
currencies by offering them a form of quasi-membership status, where increased
legitimacy is traded for Bitcoin users' business.
Regardless of which measure is chosen, the potential need for a method to
combat speculative attacks using Bitcoin is clear. As the Internet continues to
play an increasingly important role in how we conduct commerce, our
institutions have to adjust to the new challenges this change creates. The
evolution of Bitcoin is no exception. Although still in its nascent stages, Bitcoin
and other digital currencies like it are projected to become important players in
the future of e-commerce. The time to consider how to prepare for that future is
now, before practical problems arise.
http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1407
Other than coins still waiting to be sold off, I'd be very surprised if it's anything other than zero. They've got their own money to play with.
It seems like this could represent another ongoing "success" indicator.
Jump to: