Topic: Trump will compete directly with Bitcoin - page 4. (Read 2019 times)

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...

I agree with you here. If BTC was really a danger they would have found a way to restrict already in the US since. But it isn't, instead it's one of the highest sectors that the US government take taxes from through trading. This is why most traders in the US, are complaining that they enjoy low benefits of trading because of the high taxes they pay. So, dismissing trading as a source of revenue in the US will reduce their financial strength.

Since it's un-centralized, Trump cannot control the blockchain because that is the way he can stop traders. Traders will still access their account with VPN if it is banned from access. Even China banned it for a while, many traders still accessed they're through VPN. What Trump can do but i know he won't be to increase the taxes enough that it will be unaffordable for US traders.

Supporting the discrimination of self-custody marks as "anti-Bitcoin" to me.

You can't, though. Even if the excuse of surveilling everyone "for the sake of the children" was not ridiculous to begin with, it's simply no longer feasible in practice. The Internet makes it virtually impossible to monitor those who take care of their privacy, just as it makes it impractical to prevent encrypted messages from being transmitted. You're only increasing the potential harm for innocent people.

I don't care what percentage that is. Discriminating people that self-custody their bitcoin is criminal, IMO, and definitely anti-Bitcoin.

I don't consider him saint. I'm just noticing his stance on certain things, like crypto, and compare him to the other candidate. Given that one of them is anti-Bitcoin, because he uses tax payer money to fund blockchain surveillance and wants to pass laws that discriminate the very essence of bitcoin, I don't have high standards for the other one.

How can I be a Harris supporter? She lost and the election is over. We'll never hear from that politician again.

And how do you know Musk is not dumping his Bitcoin now? He will make 10x more on using the government to pump Tesla and SpaceX than he ever could with his crypto. It's quite possible we never hear anything about crypto again from Musk since he has bigger money to make now.

I think it's worth discussing the risks the new ruling faction in the US poses to the crypto market--and the President himself being directly in our business is clearly a gigantic new risk.

And this isn't "bashing" Trump--what good would that do?--this is just discussing what the new situation is.

I strongly don't believe this part of your comment. From all indications and actions of Trump in Bitcoin in the pre election and the support gotten from Bitcoin enthusiast. After the election when Trump emerged as winner. Elon Musk went there and congratulated him and probably other Bitcoin community members did the same. Op let's us remove political sentiment. From your point of views on the matter indicates that you are strong and die hard supporter of Kamala Harris but now that Trump has won, what is next in the Bitcoin community. And as I said Trump will not illegalized Bitcoin in US though we can't predict politicians promises but US is not Africa.

I never said he was "pro-Bitcoin" per se, only that it's completely ridiculous to characterize him as, "out to get Bitcoin". The adoption numbers alone make that statement look ridiculous.

And yes, the US government wants to stop terrorism, and the attacks on our private institutions (esp. hospitals) that make use of tools that allow them to be paid without being traced. While those laws haven't all passed, you can bet your last dollar that US citizens are sick of being robbed and terrorized by these people, so they will eventually make things like mixers illegal to use in the US.

But that's 0.01% of the market that even cares about that. Most people use a KYC'd exchange anyhow because they have nothing to hide from the government if they were to specifically target them.

Hence your characterization that "Biden was out to get Bitcoin" was misleading since 99.9% of Bitcoin users are not targets for any laws that are even proposed, let alone these laws you say "might get passed" in some version of the future.


I've said no such thing. In fact, in a new thread, I'm saying the exact opposite: that the markets have only priced Trump's victory at +7%--which you could argue could have happened if there was no election at all, and is what Bitcoin does all of the time.


I'm saying that Trump presents a drastically different risk to Bitcoin based on his track record of self-dealing, of lawlessness, and the fact that he is, unlike any other elected politician in the USA (or anywhere?) in the actual business himself personally. You are whistling past the graveyard if you don't think this is a significant new risk to Bitcoin.

I knew the bitcoin was going to see an ATH if Donald Trump eventually wins the elections I also knew Trump had a better campaign manifesto than the candidate of Democrats, Kamala. He was going to favor the bitcoin market more than Harris and seems to pick things from a more realistic direction. Imagine the Gender Affirming Care pushed by the Joe Biden's regime to promote transgenda within children and other older individuals. Trump immediately called this a child abuse which I so much support him.

Depending on his approach and priority list on the revamping of the economy, it will give a direction to the bull or bear market between next year. The investments capital will see a massive increase and his administration might contribute largely on the strength of the market.

Please read the actual piece of legislation. Here's a post that quotes the essence: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63029978. This proposal was published in 2023, under Biden, and it basically describes that for Bitcoin use to be legal, you must go through a fully licensed third party, fully KYC-ed-- essentially, discriminating anyone self-custodying their bitcoin.

... so far. For if democrats were allowed to govern the US for another four years, I highly doubt they wouldn't attempt to step forward into more, similar dystopian proposals. (I don't believe republicans are way better in this regard, but I find it moronic to think of Biden as pro-Bitcoin, just because self-custody wasn't "banned" since he entered office.)

I'm not expecting any miracles, and I don't rely on politicians. But, you've presented a viewpoint suggesting that Bitcoin's success is completely dependent on a political party. IMO, you're being excessive, because you suggest that everything would be fine if President X were in office, just because Bitcoin ... wasn't made illegal for as long as his presidency ..., while President Y would lead to the complete collapse of the crypto space, because... he just wants to pump his coin...