Topic: What would happen to the price of bitcoin if it was declared illegal in the USA? - page 2. (Read 5622 times)

The substantive difference is that a huge number of people use and appreciate filesharing.  With Bitcoin, only a tiny fraction of people have even heard of it, and a majority of those who have have a pretty negative impression of it (which is likely no accident.)  So, obviously, the impact and 'marketing potential' of a crackdown would differ significantly between Bitcoin and various forms of filesharing.

The same thing that happened when the usa outlawed alcohol, it disappeared for good never to be seen or used ever again.   

I think it would work about as well as making file sharing illegal. Good luck!  

Ya, I know...The truth tends to be particularly painful.  Why don't you people get a strong leadership like the Ecuadorian people did if you don't like being perceived as our tools?  Or just keep getting blown up in Afghanistan.  Your choice.

I suggest not to visit certain European nations, then, particularly France. Their hospitality may cool down considerably if you call them vassals.

To answer your question even though I fail to see how it fit's into this particular conversation:  Not that I'm aware of or that anyone has mentioned to me.  My propensity to call it like I see it has been noted by others from time to time.

Did you have problems with megalomania earlier?

I don't see a mechanism by which your projections are the likely outcome of a dedicated crackdown on Bitcoin by the US.  Particularly because the European states are our vassals which will dance to whatever tune we call, and in the case of Venezuela we're going to need an excuse to go marching in at some point when we've finished up obtaining Iran's oil producing holdings.

I do theorize that a crackdown on Bitcoin would be good for my Bitcoin speculative investment in terms of long term payout but partly because my projections of what would likely happen in most other parts of the world are about 180 degrees from yours.

More importantly, I think such a crackdown would help Bitcoin achieve a certain very important utility which may or may not have been a goal of the designer.  That is to point out to the populations that there are monetary alternatives to ones which might otherwise be presented as the only possible solution (upon the collapse of our current fiat regimes.)

Sure, if they want Bitcoin to make the headlines of the international press every other day for the next few years, that's the way to go.

If they want the Pirate Party in Europe to dominate European politics, that's the way to go.

If they want Bitcoin to become the 2nd official currency of Venezuela and a number of other countries, that's the way to go.

the satan spawn Mitt Romney needs bitcoins to get the financial support he needs and to buy more jetskis and buy bombs anonymously to drop on muslims.

"Participating in ownership of transfer of Bitcoin is aids and abets terrorism, threatens national security, and the perpetrator is classified as an enemy combatant in the global war on terror and is treated according to current protocols on the matter."

I may or may not need to remind people that currently in the US 'enemy combatants' no matter what their nationality and location are subject to extra-judicial actions up to and including execution.

There will probably be a golden window where very few people understand Bitcoin and are involved in it.  That could be the best opportunity for a severe clampdown as the vast majority of the population would buy any story-line (particularly after a few false-flag events) and very few families would have a family member who was neutralized.

In spite of my paranoid ramblings on this topic, I think it unlikely that things will get 'that bad' and indeed it is likely that nothing will happen at all.  But if I were charged with the engineering challenge quashing Bitcoin in a no-holds-barred type of way, I think that would be the most effective way to do it.  We (the US) already have the infrastructure in place for such operations after all, and since building up the infrastructure has been politically costly I am guessing that there was an offsetting reason for getting things set up.

plus

how are they going to look when they once again STEAL OUR MONEY!

when are people going to get mad?

This will be the new logo 

Relabel: BitUnits

edit: and at the pace of government that'll buy us at least 6 years.

"It is illegal to transfer Bitcoins"

writing the law is easy... enforcing it would be harder.

why look week by passing a law you know you will fail to enforce?

Let's help them out. How would *you* write the law making Bitcoin illegal? I guess it would require a definition to label it. It would also need an action that would be observable. I'm just wondering how it can be done without making teaching math itself illegal.

From the same wiki page

The limitation on gold ownership in the U.S. was repealed after President Gerald Ford signed a bill legalizing private ownership of gold coins, bars and certificates by an act of Congress codified in Pub.L. 93-373 which went into effect December 31, 1974

read down in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102
for that quote.

re: OP I think that the US is not the financial beast it once was and is still declining rapidly in that aspect so that the effect on the price of BTC might not be nearly what people would fear.

Thralen

Would this scenario be similar to the Gold Reserve Act of 1934?

BTW does anyone know the current status of the Gold Reserve Act? Is it actually illegal for people in the US to own/trade gold?

This I doubt would be as significant a problem as you suggest although it would certainly have some influence.

For one, working on code covertly is vastly easier than running a business of any volume covertly.  People who have a hope of making a worthwhile contribution to something like Bitcoin would have close to zero trouble doing so anonymously.

For two, a robust government attack on something like Bitcoin would be such a blatant display of fascism that it would likely stir the ire of a lot of highly intelligent people.  If might even increase the level of interest from highly talented technical people...like when so many people left Europe for New Mexico to work on a nuclear bomb on behalf of a government which they felt was the most promising at the time.

It is true that there is some utility in knowing who Gavin is and being able to meet him in person if desired and that may be lost but the loss would be completely understandable in the face of an organized legal attack.