Topic: Trump will compete directly with Bitcoin - page 4. (Read 2233 times)

What free money are you talking about? I would just want my nation to hold reserves in the hardest asset to make. That's all.

• No it shouldn't, because all of them include counterparty risk.
• Nonetheless, it is indirectly involved in supporting large corporations by purchasing corporate bonds.

It shouldn't be in the position of speculating with companies, because companies have counterparty risk. Therefore, the reserves should be kept in a hard asset, not liabilities. This is why gold emerged naturally as the world's reserve asset for so many centuries.

... and is gold experiencing any troubles? Or were its holders experiencing troubles during the gold standard? (Apart from the confiscation order.) No, it kept rising in value. Why should Bitcoin be any different?

So, let me get this straight. I should be wanting big government, confiscating my property, and storing it in de-monetized assets that will lose value overtime. Would that be fair?

You are right, perfect word is not really the best word to use in this situation, maybe it would be wiser to say "in a better world". But it's still true that governments take law to earn more from taxpayers and in reality they don't do it to guarantee their safety. There are many valid reasons and proofs this argument of mine and I've already posted one in my previous post.

A few minutes ago, I was thinking that Bitcoin blockchain is accessible by everyone, right? If I share my Bitcoin address with someone to receive a payment, they'll be able to check my transaction history. I can't hide that history because blockchain is available for everyone for free. Logically, I should have the right to do everything to protect my privacy, including CoinJoin and mixing to hide traces because what if someone finds that particular address belongs to me and tries to rob me?

Whatever good the free money you are getting from US taxpayers is can be reversed by an act of Congress as well. You are placing yourself at the mercy of Congress. If you are saying there will be no impact, then why bother doing it at all? If there is a big impact, then that impact can be correspondingly reversed.


Okay, how about AAPL? How about NVDA? How about soybean futures? How about any other thing US investors might want to invest in? Should the US government be in the business of speculating in the financial markets so specific investors in those things should benefit?

One thing is for sure: once the government invests in one thing, holders of those other assets are sure as heck going to lobby the government to prop up their investments too. That's just politics.



The US has gold--and has since the country began--because gold originally backed the US dollar. Now the gold the US owns isn't even 1% of the dollar and they stopped buying gold a century ago because there is no reason to.


So you actually want Big Government--but just for your favorite stuff and not anybody else's. Cool .

I guess that works as long as nobody else has the same idea about their favorite investment too...

Trump can never directly compete with bitcoin because bitcoin is not under anyone's control. Bitcoin moves at its own pace bitcoin's recent rise could create a more welcoming environment for its digital assets, bringing legitimacy and stability to the market. For investors, this could mean significant gains not only with bitcoin but also with emerging altcoins and meme coins that thrive in a bullish climate. It's still early in bitcoin, a strong bull run is more likely than ever. Bitcoin has no impact on Trump's policies, investors will still invest in bitcoin without any risk.

In the act, they're planning to buy something around a million bitcoin. That's around four times Microstrategy's holdings. Enormous amount, but still, we've experienced these massive buys before.

I'd bet it has crossed their minds, but the truth is they don't have to print anything. The people who own the Fed can already empty all the exchanges with a click of a button. Maybe they're buying in secret. (After all, their wealth was built by successfully hiding it, for centuries.)

Printing money for the express purpose of buying Bitcoin would be one of the most chad moves the Federal Reserve could possibly make. They're gonna suck & be hated for whatever they do, so why not buy some BTC at least?


They're gonna be involved in it regardless of what anybody has to say about it. If BlackRock is involved, that means they are also involved.

Um, the US government has more money than Michael Saylor? Like, several million times more? Is that a serious question?



That's idiotic then: it's just a pure give away to Bitcoin holders. Why doesn't the government just loan my company some money for 20 years, too?


[/quote]

The US has gold (although not a lot of it) for legacy reasons. If they suddenly bought a bunch of gold then yes, that would control the price of gold.

As a Bitcoin maximalist I am finding it rather amazing you want the US government intimately involved in Bitcoin like this.

Trumpcoin cannot compete with bitcoin, i don't know why some will have to say this, when bitcoin on it own already constitutes more than 60% of the entire cryptocurrency market, this means that if Trumpcoin eventually remains in existence, it will only be relevant as an alts and those that will invest on it will still take similar risk as other altcoins, if am asked, i will say that i don't see any competition in this, people will still prefer bitcoin to any centralized altcoin.

How is it able to control the price by more than a rich billionaire like Saylor? There are already whales that can temporarily affect the price. I don't see what's different with the US government.

It will sell it, in the future. In the act, it writes:

It will acquire it for the exact same purpose as it acquires any other asset; for financial security.

Why am I asking that? Does Washington DC dictate the price of all assets it keeps as reserves? Does it dictate the price of gold?

And allowing the US government to control the price of it will achieve that... how exactly?



No, taxes dollars are used to... pay for stuff like people's retirement and the military. Why would the US buy anything if the intent was not to sell it at a profit later?

You basically asking the US to perform the world's largest-ever rug-pull. 

And remember that when you are asking a government to do something for you, you are subjecting yourself to the whims of politics and politicians. You are basically asking for Washington DC to be able to dictate the price of Bitcoin. If they like you, they will buy more and pump your investment. If they don't like you, they will sell and screw you over.

And if the price of Bitcoin became a strategic asset of the United States, do you actually think they would not move to control it? That's pretty naive.

It sounds like you are asking for free money from US taxpayers and not expecting to pay anything back. Good luck with that.

Trump cannot outright "kill" Bitcoin, his ability to shape public perception through his vast platform could severely impact its value. A single provocative tweet from him could trigger a massive sell-off, potentially eroding 90% of Bitcoin's worth. As such, investors should consider diversifying their portfolios if Trump were to ascend to the presidency again.

What I want is irrelevant. What matters is the endgame. Bitcoin is the best money we ever had. It's a matter of time until it becomes the universal store of value, one could even argue the "world reserve currency". If it's inevitable to happen, then I'd rather it happening sooner rather than later.

Here's what I read from decrypt.co:

Essentially, they plan to convert existing federal assets into bitcoin. This means that strategic reserves, which have already been taxed, are currently held in non-bitcoin assets. If I was American, I'd rather my confiscated money be used to strengthen the nation's financial security for the future, than be diluted into assets like gold that are gradually getting demonetized.

This is the official Bitcoin act, by the way: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/4912/text.

Self-custody? He routinely mixed up Joe Biden and Barack Obama in his speeches in the last few months. He told Elon Musk that his was afraid of "nuclear warming". Again, you really should actually listen to him speak--you will see what I mean: he is far worse off mentally than Biden ever was.


You really want the US to be able to control the price of Bitcoin? Seriously? That's what having a reserve means, you know. That is why the US has a strategic reserve of oil, for instance. Trying to use taxpayer dollars--especially that of the US, whom could buy basically all of it if they wanted to--as a way to make your Bitcoin go up in price is a foolish strategy that will undoubtedly achieve the opposite of what you want in the long run.

You really, really do not want the US or any government to "have the most Bitcoins". Getting in the bed with governments is dangerous. Getting in bed with a convicted criminal who has a long history of prioritizing only himself is simply crazy to me.

If you think the US taxpayers are going to hand your investment billions of dollars and not want anything in return, you are mistaken...

Trump is 78. At that age, I wouldn't expect him to even know what self-custody is. But, he apparently does, when he told everyone that he will defend the right to hold your own keys.

And it's not just that. He said that he plans to have a Bitcoin strategic reserve with all the bitcoin that have been confiscated by the authorities (instead of auctioning them off). To me that translates as "I want my country to have the most bitcoins". Then, he said he wants to make all the bitcoin to be mined inside the US. That would mean he plans to cut the draconian regulations put into the mining industry, and reduce the energy costs by expanding other sources of energy, like nuclear power. Then, he said he wants to fire Gary Gesler (who has been a problem for the industry, if you haven't noticed already) and replace the SEC's anti-Bitcoin stance with a "Bitcoin and Crypto Presidential Advisory Council".

And I'm not in favor of Trump, per se. But he brings along others who align with our interests. Perhaps Trump can be overly outspoken, yet this administration may be the most pro-Bitcoin we're likely to ever see.

You’re completely delusional and I also wonder how long it took you to make this post with the help of chat gpt 😂 you think Trump spent the last decade trying to better the US and spend all of his leisure time and money in the last leg of his life to get even more rich than the insanely wealthy person he already was and to end up here at this time and place to deploy his grand master plan of using his position of power to make himself the worlds first trillianaire by shilling his own coin? Your imagination runs wild and it appears you have been brainwashed by the losers of the left! Trust the process and just sit back and enjoy the show son.

If you are saying that their laws are ineffective at catching criminals, then fine. I honestly don't know either way--we would have to dive into specific laws and specific criminal cases--but I definitely don't see anything wrong, in principle, with governments restricting certain technologies that are objectively deemed to be enabling crime and otherwise don't have any other valid practical use.


Okay, so what then? We all get some guns and fight off our neighbors who might have bigger guns? What good will your Bitcoin do you if somebody can just come along and steal anything you buy with it and kill you?

Governments have lots of problems, and they are sometimes infective and sometimes even terrible. But you are asking for pure anarchy here, which is just silly. The hard reality here is that we all have to work for better governments, and try to make our governments do better and be more fair. Throwing your hands up and saying, "no government!" is not a solution.

If we lived in a perfect world, there would be no criminals. If our perfect world had criminals, then they would be "perfect criminals", so the idea that money spent to catch dumb criminals (e.g., those using bitcoin as medium of exchange) would hold even more water than in the current world.

The fact is that big criminals have long abandoned bitcoin. They use monero and cash. The biggest criminals, however, are historically the issuers of the fiat currency.

In a perfect world, I would agree with legiteum but in this real world, I think that BlackHatCoiner is right, governments do everything for the sake of money, they don't do it to prevent crime and I'll prove it. Have a look at what happens in EU countries, they let violent refugees to come in our countries, do all the violence, steal from shops and so on, yet, they get all the best treatment in form of free money and free housing while us, taxpayers feed them. If governments wanted to prevent crime, they wouldn't let violent migrants in our countries. My friend lives in Spain and he tells me that in Barcelona, phone thefts are so common that it's unimaginable but police does nothing. If they find a thief, they'll release him/her in a few minutes.

Because it's tax payer money. You don't spend tax payer money to beat a dead horse. Criminals use privacy coins like Monero, that cannot be surveilled. The argument for surveillance to catch criminals no longer holds up, as they now have tools that allow them to evade government control entirely.

I would argue that aiming to criminalize self-custody is objectively against Bitcoin. There's no personal preference to that. It's just what it is.

One of them has shown appreciation for Bitcoin. The other has actively tried to undermine it. It's that simple to my mind.

That would be an argument for no law enforcement whatsoever: you can't stop all crime, so why even try to stop any crime. And it's just silly.

And lots of crypto-based crimes have in fact been thwarted by chain analysis and so on, and there are a lot of things law enforcement can do to make it harder for criminals to succeed. It won't be 100%--nothing is--but they can certainly make it a lot harder to be successful, and thus reduce the number of attacks.


Sure, but you don't get to make you your own definitions based on your personal preferences .

Besides, if you want to do crime, wouldn't a criminal use Monero (etc.) instead? I would doubt that Bitcoin itself is used at all for crime anymore because of chain analysis. Even with a mixer it seems like it would be risky.

So if that's the case, then placing anti-money laundering rules on Bitcoin-USD transactions seems like it would affect about zero people.



So both candidates will continue the anti-money laundering rules for Bitcoin etc., but one of them carries the risk of corruptly destroying the entire Bitcoin market for his own gain--and yet you still liked Trump more? Very strange.

Keep in mind, by the way, that the $billions that the crypto universe pumped into US elections this year was from centralized brokers like Coinbase and Binance, not by self-custodial individual Bitcoin holders. As such, those are the companies who will be determining Bitcoin policy under Trump, not people like yourself...