Topic: I don't like the idea of governments holding millions of Bitcoins. - page 4. (Read 1507 times)

I never implied it would, nor does it need to. There is plenty of room in this market for lots of different memes.


Haypenny is the world's fastest digital currency platform and the only one that can credibly scale to handle every single daily transaction on the planet between humans. It can do this because it does not use the blockchain architecture, but instead uses a unique architecture made for the exact purpose of a worldwide ubiquitous currency.

So Haypenny is, most emphatically, not "another crypto".

Wrong!

You should pray for instability and dedollarization.

If BTC becomes the global reserve currency, all commodities (such as oil, gas, wheat etc.) will be priced in sats. No more dollar denominations.

Russia already hoards BTC secretly, so you can imagine what will happen if they start dumping dollars and start asking for sats to sell you products.

Same for China.

BRICs could dump USD in favor of BTC and start using the BTC mainnet as a settlement network. No more SWIFT shenanigans (freezing 300 billion dollars).

I suggest to get some survival knowledge in the meanwhile. You're gonna be in tears when you see the modern Roman Empire bursting into flames.

The fact that most people have migrated to social media (FB, Twitter, Instagram) hasn't really crossed your mind, smartypants.

It seems I came to this party late but I'll still give my contribution;

• The poll or our thoughts changes nothing . We should understand that bitcoin is decentralized. So, everyone and including the government can buy as much as they want to hold
• We do not have the power to detect for any government what they want to do with their seized BTC (Whether to keep or resell)
• All we need do as individuals is to buy as much as we can and keep for ourselves and watch how the game will play out.

I'm probably older than you and I have to remind you that Linux never replaced Windows on IBM compatible PCs.

It's just that a new market was created (mobile ecosystem) and new OSes (Android, iOS) emerged. Windows were never displaced from PCs.

Also, care to tell me why nobody has displaced the ancient IPv4/TCP-IP protocol? IPv6 is so much superior.

I'm afraid it's time to educate yourself.

And no, Haypenny (and altcoins/shitcoins in general) will never displace Bitcoin.

Create a wholly new market, embrace the blue ocean philosophy if you have the balls to create something totally new (not yet another "crypto").

Dude, you have the same IQ as Cumala for spouting such uninformed, unintelligent, fearmongering BS. I wonder if people on this forum believe you.

Trump doesn't even control the FED (which prints money).

The US government has to borrow money from FED to buy BTC, it's not free:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1clh38i/banking_system_visualized_watch_the_full_series/

I don't like the idea of Governments holding large amounts of Bitcoin either but up until now they always sell them. They may hold for a while but they usually sell eventually, which by the way is incredibly stupid with the crumbling fiat system & mounting national debts. Nobody can control Bitcoin so don’t worry about it too much, the level of decentralisation is so high, we are not in danger now or for the foreseeable by future.

Governments with the resources they have have the ability to buy Bitcoin in large quantities and this is something to worry about, which will make the Bitcoin market more volatile and concentrated on just a few big players. However, we as ordinary users, cannot do anything about this, because if a government wants, they can buy Bitcoin at any time from an exchange or other party they want. This is an issue that makes many of us unhappy, because when Bitcoin is only held by a few parties, what will happen is that they can manipulate the market with their decisions, whether selling or buying, and that makes Bitcoin become a speculative asset over time. .

The government has legalized bitcoin meaning they support people to use bitcoin, why are they trying to make people lose confidence in bitcoin? That doesn't bring them any benefits, especially they will lose a huge tax source. The fact that governments want to keep the majority of bitcoin is because they are realizing its potential and they are starting to compete with us.


This is a free financial market that still does not have many regulations and no one wants too many regulations, so it is not surprising if there are people selling bitcoin massively and not caring about the impact on the market. That will continue to happen in the future and that is also one of the reasons why many people do not like organizations and governments holding too much bitcoin. And we have no way to prevent these things, and for this reason, the cryptocurrency market is considered much harsher than other markets.

I am currently preparing a full-fledged response with mathematical modeling as I think this topic is amazing! But there is one thing I don't understand @d5000:

The poll you have started says

Should governments hold large amounts of Bitcoin?

No, everything they seize should be sold
Partly yes - holding a few hundred thousands seized BTC is ok
Yes - governments should actively buy without limit
Don't know

whereas your initial post talks about "The US buys 1-2 million BTC".

There is a massive difference between a government seizing its way to a reserve or taking their own money to build a reserve. The whole modeling I have developed now presumes that a government puts the money on the table to build a BTC reserve.

Was that an accidental inconsistency or did I overlook something that someone else posted and then you started the poll?

You mean concerns about the centralization of Bitcoin and its potential impact. Although Bitcoin is designed to be decentralized, if a few individuals or entities own a large portion of Bitcoin, it could undermine that principle.This centralization could lead to a form of control similar to what is seen with natural resources. Comparing it to the control of natural resources is accurate; just as control over energy and minerals has created power imbalances, a similar situation could arise if a few individuals or entities control Bitcoin. Centralized control of Bitcoin could affect its market value, acceptance, and usage. It could also lead to economic disparities, similar to those seen in industries influenced by large corporations. Governments and regulatory bodies might intervene to prevent such centralization, aiming to maintain a fair and competitive market. However, this could also introduce new challenges and tensions with the decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies.

States holding significant amounts of Bitcoin could indeed influence the market and the broader ecosystem. Large holdings by states could lead to concerns about centralization and the potential for market manipulation. Additionally, such holdings could impact Bitcoin's perceived independence from traditional financial systems and government control, altering its decentralized ethos.

If Harris is elected, then there won't be an anti-crypto policy in the US at all. They will continue to make the market safer for average investors, which will increase the price. The ETFs were approved under Biden, and they are not anti-Bitcoin, which is a bunch of Republican-spread nonsense.

If Trump is elected, then literally anything can happen as he will not be connected in any way to US laws or the US constitution.


Maybe, but Bitcoin and cryptos generally, having no unique practical use (especially based on their market price), are completely dependent on their market perception. The US banning a product is about as negative as it gets.


That number is complete BS concocted by the crypto whales who are currently lobbying Trump. The real number is something like 10 million, as I understand it, and most of those are simple consumers using an existing app like PayPal and clicking on "buy Bitcoin" and buying a few dollars worth for fun.

Most of Bitcoin's supply is owned by a relatively small group of Bitcoin whales, if I recall.

US consumers, such as they are, certainly juice the price since they provide the liquid market these whales need, but the distribution of Bitcoin is very concentrated, as I understand it.

I mean, come on, if 50 million Americans were actually "Bitcoin fans", this forum would have about 1000x more active users .

Big difference between China and USA is in two countries, governments have different powers to do things they want. In China, government can do anything they want even against benefit of citizens. In the USA. government don't have such power and can not easily do everything they want against their citizens. There are at least two parties in the USA. and their citizens have more human rights, more powerful voices to ask for their rights in the nation.

I agree too. Globally, other countries have their own adoption on Bitcoin and it will help to decentralize Bitcoin network, nodes, hash rate and adoption more in future. This will help to reduce impacts from one or two countries with dominant adoption, hash rate like China, the USA.

Decentralization is key for Bitcoin network and its adoption. With bigger adoption and better decentralization, Bitcoin will have better survival ability against unfriendly regulations in one, two or some countries.

Chance is small and we are actually witnessing a more friendly regulation on Bitcoin with time.

It will happen, the concentration of millions of bitcoin in a few hands is a feasible scenario, we cannot stay only with the known examples, such as those mentioned by OP, then It seems that they understand very well the power generated by the possession of bitcoin in the sense of the "new" resource, such as today's energy and minerals, hence! the story repeats itself, control, they currently do it with natural resources in countries where such minerals or resources should correspond to those regions... is very feasible with bitcoin. Open mind, before it was "crazy" to even think that the United States could have almost 1% of bitcoin.

I don't think there is any negative impact behind the government holding Bitcoin here. Government holding bitcoins means proving that the government has recognition of bitcoins. Yes, but if a country's government suddenly sells bitcoins in the market, there will be a big impact on the market, which has fallen on the market lately. However, if the government makes an announcement before selling bitcoins, there is a chance of market correction, but suddenly the government selling bitcoins has a bloody impact on the market.

I don't like the idea of governments having a major influence in the game of money. While Bitcoin is open for everybody, which includes individuals, companies, and even governments, governments have undue advantage. As a result, they could hostage the rest of the ecosystem.

What can actually stop the US government, or any government for that matter, for example, to print so much money out of thin air just for the purpose of acquiring the biggest portion possible out of Bitcoin's total supply? If that happens, then the government in effect is still in control of what's otherwise a decentralized currency. The masses at the bottom are still at the mercy of the few who are in power.

You're forgetting Europe, Japan, South Korea, and the growing middle classes in India and China? Your figure is way too high. I would put that figure more close to 30-35% (GDP share is around 26%)

Just in another thread I agreed that the US has potential to send Bitcoin into a deep winter if turning too anti-crypto. And it can definitely cause a deep panic with another 70-80% crash.

But: First, it's extremely unlikely that an anti-crypto policy in the US will be as harsh as in China in 2021. Most "anti-crypto" scenarios emphasize on measures like mining taxes, in a absolute worst case scenario we could perhaps think about cancellations of financial products like the spot ETFs, but the likelihood of a "financial ban" like in China is almost zero I think, even with an "unstable" government. And second, I believe the US private crypto market could be close to saturation, other countries will very likely catch up in the next years and decades, reducing the US importance.

And crypto users in the US are not even close to the majority of the world. For example, regarding Bitcoin nodes, the US has about 28% according to https://bitnodes.io. The crypto ownership in the US is estimated at 50 million, while in India for example it's 90 million, even if the Indian average investor very likely has less BTC than the average US investor. In contrast, EU countries have a relatively low ownership but together they come close to the US, and in this case we can assume that the holdings per capita are more similar, maybe dragged down a bit by Eastern Europe (Example source).

The potential of a "doomsday scenario" imo is much larger if many countries cooperate, e.g. using FATF as the excuse for an intervention, like I outlined in the above thread.

That's true; I think you're right on this one. Supposing a government is aiming to purchase 5 million bitcoins, just like the OP suggests in the starting post, the price would skyrocket as it's about 25% of the total supply, perhaps making such a purpose impossible. However, it's not something that will be done in a one-and-done purchase but through a lengthy process of accumulation. My point is that governments do have the ability to acquire significant amounts of cryptocurrency, which could possibly affect true decentralization as we now know it.

I don't know the exact stats, but my feeling is that most of the consumer investors in Bitcoin come from the USA. If that's the case, then that would mean most of the price of Bitcoin is supported by US consumers.

It would be a thousand times worse than China's "ban" (which was not really a ban).

The US is 4% of the world population, but something like 20% of the GDP, and probably about 60% of the GDP that can be devoted to frivolous things like investing in Bitcoin (e.g. expendable income).

And since Bitcoin's price is based on perception alone, a US move against Bitcoin would invoke a panic that would drop the price well below what the numbers say it should.

Long story short, if you hold your life savings in Bitcoin, then you better pray for a stable US government...

This is the scenario I'm fearing, but it's not the only possible outcome.

The US (or any larger country deciding to incorporate Bitcoin into their reserves) could also stay alone mostly with their Bitcoin investment, like a "big El Salvador".

We could imagine a scenario when the announcement of a large country to buy BTC leads to a big pump in price purely led by expectations, i.e. a duplication or more. If this pump occurs too early, it could however make Bitcoin less attractive for other countries as the potential upside for the price would be lower and buying a substantial reserve would be more expensive. If the pump is too massive, the country making the first move could even retract their decision (depending on how it was decided), because it becomes "too expensive". This would lead to massive price turbulences but Bitcoin's independence would stay intact.

The most dangerous scenario would actually be that countries don't make big announcements but instead simply keep confiscated Bitcoins (e.g. argumenting "what we do with these BTC will be decided later", to not fuel expectations) and perhaps buy on a low scale in bear markets. This would enable them to accumulate a lot of Bitcoins without moving the price much.

I don't understand what you meant about "additional emissions".

While I share the general stance that too much state involvement into BTC is bad, I think you overestimate the importance of the US in general.

The US alone will not be able to ruin Bitcoin. Bad decisions of US politicians can impact the price, yes, they could even trigger a deep Bitcoin winter, but not take it back to $1000. Perhaps slightly worse than the China "ban" in 2021.
The US are only 4% of the world's population. Their GDP share is higher, but it will continue to decrease over time because the wealth on the globe will be more equally distributed over time, and that's good

My OP is more directed to a scenario where nations all over the world buy a large amount of BTC, like it occurs with gold now. And that would be mucho more problematic than a single nation wanting to "own" Bitcoin.