Topic: If Kamala Harris wins, Bitcoin will be fine. - page 4. (Read 2204 times)

I agree with you and OP that if Harris is elected bitcoin will be fine, just like under Biden even though he doesn't seem friendly to it. But if we had a president who actually liked and supported bitcoin, things would be much better. We will be able to grow exponentially and I believe that as a bitcoin investor, no one does not wish for that. That is why people went crazy when bitcoin also became a topic of discussion among politicians in this year's elections and people started showing support for the candidates.

I have seen some predictions that bitcoin will crash if Harris wins and skyrocket if Trump wins but I don't believe that bullshit. No one can break bitcoin but between the choice of "fine" and "better", I don't think why we should choose "fine".

A President has many ministers, many governmental staffs who are responsible technically to help him/ her and no person can know everything about finance, technology just because he or she is a President.

I am not focusing on it too technically but I think about it like this. Will Bitcoin be good or bad with Kamala Harris as a President of the United States?

Let's think about how the USA economy will be if Kamala Harris is the President?
I don't know what you think but I think the economy will be more terrible under her administration and because of big impacts of USA on the world, if its economy is terrible, in recession for example, the rest of world will be affected seriously too.

Will Bitcoin be fine in that scenario?
Maybe Bitcoin market will have very big shocks like what happened in Covid, after the WHO announcement that it is officially assessed as a pandemic, Bitcoin lost 40% or 50% of its price, I recall it from memory, not check details.

In long term, Bitcoin will be fine but in short term, we will have market massacre.

The list I posted was a summary of Miller's article on Coindesk. If you'd read the post until the end you would have seen that I don't agree with all of his points, or only partly.

Regarding the cloud storage video, the clip was obviously taken out of context. Here's the entire quote (it's from 2010). Harris was not explaining the technical side of cloud storage but implications for an old privacy model from the Fourth Amendment, where everything privacy-related was explained with the analogy of a house.

"It's no longer in a physical place" is obviously wrong technically but it can be perfectly explained with the fact that cloud data normally is stored on several servers ("places") simultaneously, and from the point of view of an user, it's not longer in "your house".

Regardless of Kamala Harris' knowledge about technology/IT (something I can't evaluate), as a president she would not be in charge of the technical details of a tech-education policy. Not even her ministers (although from these I would expect at least a bit of detail knowledge). The real knowledge is normally at secretary level (i.e. one step below ministers in the hierarchy) and below.

Trump has absolutely no idea what Bitcoin is, he doesn't even know how to pay with it and asks others for assistance. He has no idea about promises that he throws away.

lol, that's so true He is just a populist, he thinks that he is doing good by promising Bitcoin users that the rest of the Bitcoins will be mined in the USA but in reality, all he does is that every Bitcoin enthusiasts sees how fake he is with his promises and how he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

Harris and education? He doesn't know what Cloud Storage is, check this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2SLyBL2kdM
I don't like the idea of uniting Harris and Education together

It doesn't make anything more likely to be honest with you. Both candidates are one of the most terrible candidates on planet earth and it's a pity that the United States is in such a bad condition.
I definitely respect your opinion but honestly, that's what I think.

What made you decide that Kamala doesn't pay attention to the crypto sector? There's nothing special about it now, but right before the elections, there will be such loud cries about crypto that your ears will start to curl up.

I want to emphasize that Trump is more of a populist than a man of real action. Yes, of course, he signed some laws, but what about Bitcoin? Will there be concrete steps in the legislative field?

Listen I agree with you, Bitcoin is decentralised anyways, even if the US doesn't support it, or the Democratic party releases policies that are not supportive or in favour of cryptocurrency, nothing will kill Bitcoin. It's just good that Bitcoin is getting any kind of media attention with Trump. Any publicity is good.

Could a Harris victory even be better for Bitcoin than a Trump victory?

G Clay Miller, a Democrat who is campaigning for the Crypto4Harris project wrote recently an article on Coindesk explaining possible reasons:

- Trump didn't act at all crypto-friendly in his tenure from 2016 to 2020, he even started "Operation Hidden Treasure", a pre-coursor to Chokepoint 2.0. His "180 degree turn" is at least dubious.
- Trump doesn't understand that Bitcoin is decentralized, he wants to "Americanize" it by government action - as if Bitcoin was some US state enterprise, lol.
- Trump's move can be explained as an attempt to attract donors like the Winklevii Twins.
- Harris' educational proposals could increase innovations in technology by young Americans, including blockchain/Bitcoin.
- Harris proposes startup credits, which also could help the crypto industry.
- Harris' past as a districtal attorney makes it more likely that she's interested in the rule of law, with predictable and stable regulations also for the crypto industry.

I disagree a bit with the first point. I would not be surprised if Trump (if he wins) would indeed introduce some crypto-friendly regulations, otherwise he risks losing popularity with about 50 million voters. But the second point is completely true, Trump proposes things he can't really influence as a president. For example, Miller already mentioned that he proposes to fire Gensler from the SEC, something the president simply can't do according to American laws.

Regarding the Harris proposals, I think the connection between them and a healthy Bitcoin ecosystem is a bit vague. I can see some potential, but I doubt it will define Bitcoin's success or not.

So my stance holds: I think it will be nearly irrelevant who wins the US presidential election. In neither case I expect actions so hostile that they could harm Bitcoin's adoption.

I agree, I really don't see Kamala winning having any sort of large impact on bitcoin or the price of bitcoin.  It just like with every presidential election people tend to over-blow how much of an impact things really will have when a new president makes it in to office.  The is especially seen in the stock markets and something I heard all of the time in my job.  The data back up that it's really not the case, that the Presidents don't do "damage" as much as some thing they will.

Donald Trump has literally started campaigning on Bitcoin and is promising all kinds of Bitcoin development. But time will tell what kind of action will be taken on Bitcoin after coming to power. However, Kamala Harris has not made any promises on Bitcoin in the run-up to the election, but she has also been wary of crypto-currencies for quite some time now. However, two candidates are very serious about cryptocurrencies.

Kamala may not be as pro-crypto as Trump looks like, it's obvious that Trump "acts" more pro-crypto and I am sure that he is, but of course that depends on the love he gets. That's the difference between the two, crypto people could love or hate Kamala and yet she will just keep doing the right thing she should be doing and that's following the law.

However, it matters if crypto people like or hate Trump because if crypto people love Trump then he will do more than he can and pressure other government agencies to just put some favourable rulings against crypto and promote it, but IF crypto people dislike him? He will go as far as trying to ban it completely. That dude works on emotions and nothing else so it's quite fun to see him go mad when he doesn't get love, that happened with many things before and I think it's expected that we are seeing him change his views depending on how much love he gets and he finds whatever the maximum amount he could be praised as his stance, so it constantly changes.

Kamala Harris has finally breaks silence on crypto:
She has spoken publicly about crypto for the first time, pledging support for the industry while stressing consumer protections.
She also said they will partner together with cryptocurrency to invest in America’s competitiveness and invest in America’s future.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/kamala-harris-finally-breaks-silence-crypto-during-fundraiser

Harris finally mentioned cryptocurrencies in her latest statement, and this is the first time she has mentioned cryptocurrencies in her campaign: she said her administration would encourage technologies like AI and digital assets, while protecting consumers and investors.

Although nothing too impressive and we don't know exactly what her intentions are and what she will do if elected. But I don't deny that this is the most positive sign since the election so far because she has largely ignored and disinterested in everything related to crypto.

Many people were worried that bitcoin would face many obstacles if she won but with this news I hope she will change her mind and be more friendly to crypto. It doesn't matter who wins, what matters most is the growth of bitcoin and the cryptocurrency industry.





https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-22/harris-vows-to-grow-ai-crypto-industries-in-pitch-to-nyc-donors?srnd=energy

Most of the people that jumped on the Bitcoin bandwagon in the recent years are much more concerned about the price. So the idea is:

Trump wins => Price go up and stay up (see using Bitcoin to back US national reserves)

Kamala => Price goes down + unfavorable policies.

Bitcoin was created to be independent of government control providing a permissionless way to make transactions and that is what I came to love about Bitcoin when I first learnt about it. Even paypal wasn't allowing payments to my country but Bitcoin welcomed everyone.

I completely agree here.

In addition, if Bitcoin is close to an ideology then it's libertarianism/anarchism, and none of the big US parties are even close to these ideologies. Some say Trump is close to a libertarian ideology, but "libertarian" would also mean to open the borders to allow the free flow of human capital (Racism is actually one of the most anti-libertarian things that exist.) Some other things Libertarians like Rothbard advocated for are actually the opposite of what Republicans want, even Democrats are closer in some areas (e.g. pro-choice, or in general restrictions and prohibitions, with the exceptions of weapons ...). But Democrats are of course also far away from libertarian/anarchist principles.


The explanation for this behaviour is for sure the current actual user base, composed mainly by speculative investors. I'm sure the large majority of those who are supporting an US Bitcoin reserve like Trump has announced it, would love to cash out at let's say $500k and go away.

The optimist interpretation of that behavior is that it is a consequence of the strong growth of Bitcoin in recent years. Above all after 2020 I believe many were lured in by influencers promising then high returns, and some (those who invested in the correct moment) got what they had been promised, or they are close to get it, and thus they want more.

In this case, there's still a chance that each year some of these new investor groups fall down the rabbit hole, appreciating Bitcoin's original "values" and understand its unique value propositions, all related to concepts like censorship resistance. And that in the long term, we see a slow growth of "value-oriented" Bitcoiners.

Actually i find it weird how many people are hoping and praying that governments and leaders are doing the right things for it. It's like we are dependable on the government intervention, just to push the price to moon, and hell with the original idea of it.

And that why so many people don't seem to carem that we are now waiting price to be controlled by government blessing for it or banning it. I don't really have a solution or any scenario where it wouldn't be, and i accept this development, knowing full well that that means i don't in my core really believe in decentralization, but i thought that more people would be worried about this.

Bitcoin should be not depending on any of that as the very reason it exists is because it was supposed to be resilient against government intervention. And now we are counting on presidents to pump the price? What happened? Why people suddenly want to be dependable of such actions? Only thing i can see that we are being just greedy over the use cases it was originally designed for.

India and China are countries with populations of over 1 billion people, but why can't bitcoin and cryptocurrencies be popular there and why aren't they the paradise of the world's financial industry? Or why is every financial market in the world influenced and dominated by the US market? Although bitcoin is a global currency, it is not a wise idea to rely on population percentage to judge their importance to bitcoin.

For people to be able to invest in bitcoin, they need income, knowledge, awareness…and in terms of all these factors, the US outperforms the rest of the world. We cannot deny their influence and role in the world financial industry, not just bitcoin.

Very good points overall, but if we want to be honest, for this one, we shouldn't be looking at the share of the global population but rather at the share of the global economy, which, for the US is estimated to be at around 25% (of World's GDP).
A million people from third-world countries, who don't have $10 to spare, even if excited about Bitcoin, will not have as much impact on the price (and that's what most here care about the most) as 1,000 Americans earning $100k or above.

Of course, whoever wins the election, they play a big role in determining the direction of policy for the growth of major economic issues but the public wants to see who is more pro BTC and which candidate is less concerned which ultimately could lead to a downward trend in the price of BTC.

Honestly, I don't like the US in many ways but I don't deny that their influence is too big in every field in the world, Bitcoin is also one of them.
Bitcoin ETFs are the clearest example of this, why is the entire crypto industry only interested in Bitcoin ETFs in the US when Bitcoin ETFs are already present in many other regions and countries? Look at the amount of money flowing into the market from US investors every day compared to other markets and we will see a huge difference, we cannot deny that. They are the number 1 power in the world, they are still the ones who decide the fate of the world economy, let alone a small market like bitcoin can escape their influence.

Don't underestimate their influence and luckily they didn't ban bitcoin in the early days. Otherwise, we would never have seen bitcoin grow to the extent it has today.

Nowadays, banning bitcoin has become an impossible task no matter who becomes president but they can limit its growth with policies that prevent people from investing in it.

I highly agree, that many countries are stereotyping what the United States is doing, may it be the internal policy, foreign policy, or the relation with other country.  So, I also think that once the US bans Bitcoin, its alliance country will soon follow through.

But I do not think that Kamala will go beyond the ordinary means and ban Bitcoin totally. She might probably put regulations and laws that will benefit the United States on Bitcoin because her financial adviser will surely tell her that US will be missing out on a great opportunity if they totally ban Bitcoin.