Topic: If the banksters and governments held 90% of the Bitcoin supply, what now? - page 7. (Read 1208 times)

your previous post (before the quote above) told me not to discuss ln factories/core theories (BSCartel).
so i shall not give my answer in this topic.

This scenario will be sad and a part of Bitcoin will be admitted as failed. It won't be different compared to the current system. But despite this, people won't stop to use Bitcoin for the same reasons they don't stop with cash. Because they need it.

Then what should be done to avoid such a situation? How can we prevent the old system from conquering the new? Or should we be worried about this hypothetical scenario? Because if it can happen it will happen.

You have a point this is very risky for our beloved Bitcoin if 90% of the supply goes to the hands of government institution, it could mean the end of Bitcoin because they can do whatever they want to do it, but I prefer a bitcoin fork then dogecoin I love to have the word Bitcoin on it.

It is unlikely that event ahs taken place. the government, banksters and the elites will ahve to spend a lot of money to buy and hold 90% of the Bitcoin. The amount is so huge that not even the government will make such attempt. It will be easier for them to ban the cryptocurrency and declare it illegal to get rid of the problem than to buy that much of Bitcoins.

as krishnapramod said
bitcoins old ethos was to be a insurance against the corporate monopoly of citizens only using the monopoly fiat

but yea if btc does become 90% custodial permissioned and 10% tx expense permissioned.
then yea bitcoin has failed the insurance against corporate monopoly

scenario of 90% of users funds in custodial accounts...
for those 90% yes its not a permissionless system they are using

for the other 10%, where its probably too expensive for a 3rd world country to transact with (tx fee's being more than a few hours wage) those able to access the non-custody 10% are not going to be average joe or just anyone, as the cost of fee's become a barrier in itself
EG football stadium, analogy
anyone can sit in the 10% empty seats but they need to pay for a ticket or get rejected out of the seats
anyone can transact using 10% funds but they need to pay the fe's or the min-dust/min fee rules will reject them

thus rejection rules are a permission.. thus the 10% has its own thing of requiring permission.. so yea it becomes a permissioned system

anyway, in a currency that has 90% custodial control well thats just like a fiat currency.
the answer is to look at if fiat failing

that again has many results.
Venezuela would say yes its failed. Zimbabwe would say yes its failed.
america would say shh the sheep are asleep it hasnt failed until its failed so dont mention its failed until the sheep wake up to the failure alarm sounding off

people think because a bank broadly authorises payments without objection, so feel that fiat is not permissioned because they dont see the back-end system.
even though its their money(cough) there are limitations of £$500 ATM max limits. KYC, sars reporting for £$1000+, extended sars reporting for £$10k, etc etc
but for most sheep they will say its not failed until something actually goes wrong

I have abstained myself from posting on hypothetical threads, but as far as this:

1. How are the governments going to buy Bitcoin from all the ideologists?

2. If that happens, government would make a lot of Bitcoin enthusiasts rich.

3. And then what, dump? And ideologists will still buy. Now what? It's not cyclic. Genie is out of the box. The banks and governments would have to tamper down the whole decentralization. Could they? No.


https://medium.com/opacity/bitcoin-1537e616a074

Bitcoin might/might not become a tool of centralization. There would be another one, slowly building a network effect from the underground.

Majority of the world has come down to shared psychosis when it comes down to fiat, decentralization is a whole new term for them. They don't want change.

But transformation is something you would never know until it changed you.

I do believe that with SoV, Bitcoin would become a MoE, but now with the ETF's (even before that) getting into the scenario, not bad, but the peer-to-peer currency concept would be gone.

Store of value has a lot of established investments, top gold. If Bitcoin proliferation has to happen it should be as a medium of exchange or we are simply coming back to the circle that's shared with the centralized/governments, no change whatsoever.

Leave the Lightning factories or the Core developers conspiracy theories out of it. My thinking is 90% of Bitcoins in the control or under the custody of banks, services like Coinbase, and governments working together so that users would have to "gain" permission to use it.

Has Bitcoin failed in that given scenario?

They can just type numbers into their computers and create money in an instan.  It wouldn't surprise me if they have stockpiled large amounts of bitcoin already.  I don't think it has failed if the banks control 90 percent of bitcoin because the most important thing is your are in complete control of your own funds.  They can not be seized without your private key.

It might be in their possession, but that doesn't mean the bank employers and others have included it to the bank. The whole currency is decentralised and indubitably in every way.

maybe you should share with us why you think controlling a certain percentage of the supply will have any effect on bitcoin itself as a permissionless currency?

from what i see, you can't do anything with supply other than affecting the price. and that has nothing to do with the "permissionless" feature! as it was pointed out, bitcoin is not proof of stake.
additionally it is impossible to control 90% of the supply because it is already too late to do that since the distribution of 80% of the total supply has already happened in a fair way.

It may not be so easy to do so. I mean how much money would you need to do that. I mean its not impossible but its highly unlikely. As we can see more people joining in bitcoin everyday.

in my opinion, this will not be possible considering that many people in the first year also have a lot of bitcoin, but unfortunately many of them forget their password / private key address, so if we counted, it's actually a lot of bitcoin that is still a treasure without the owner

But surely the chance for this to happen is very low when the government and bitcoin are always in a state of war, bitcoin threatens government and government can not control bitcoin, this is the story we hear very regularly, both are inconsistent with each other. In addition, bitcoin has entered the maturation stage and development, most of the bitcoin has belonged to the miners and users, want them to sell all bitcoin to the government, that's possible but the government will need to buy it for a very high price, I do not think the government has enough time and money to do this.

and how it will then differ from the current situation. if the government will hold a large part, then again we will return to the fact that the government will turn everyone to the fullest.

I doubt it, they are against on this since the first.
Well now that they dont have a choice but to accept cryptocurrency it is for them to grab some and manipulate it for the future.
They can have bitcoin now and just store it somewhere! then let the people struggle on supplies and they will just wait for the pump.

If this happens then the aim of creating Bitcoin has been defeated. Bitcoin is not created to be controlled by anybody most especially the government.

This would not totally ruin decentralization, because various banks will be in charge making their own decisions and there are also miners who are dictating their own rules in a way. It will be a failure of an attempt to get rid of banks once and for all though. Governments cannot work together anyway, so it's not a viable option even if 90% was indeed held by governmental structures. Even though sometimes bitcoin price dynamics suggests that there are some manipulations, we cannot be sure of it and even if there are whales, we cannot know who they are. I don't believe in conspiracy theories, so I think everything is okay.

Interesting question ! I think that the state will have enough to buy bitcoins, but it is more profitable to buy them and just watch the growth in the future.