Bitcoin Forum

...

It will be correctly noted that the SEC does not equal the entirety of the U.S. federal government. To be sure, most governments are not monolithic entities with one goal or set of goals in mind. It is equally true that various governments have acted with varying degrees of hostility and openness towards bitcoin. To be sure, there are a ton of variables, and it is nearly impossible to pinpoint the most potent factors. However, it should be fairly clear that a largely friendly country like Germany has less at stake to their monetary system, than a country like the U.S. has.

Nevertheless, it is really interesting to see how thoroughly some people still have themselves deluded as to what government's overall and ultimate reaction to cryptocurrencies will be. Despite department after department, branch after branch, of (at least the u.s.) government showing at the very least, distrust, and at worst open hostility towards bitcoin. . . what exactly is it that gives some people the impression that bitcoin is and can be anything other than antithetical to the existence of monopoly governments and nation states as we know them?

You have to be truly naive to not read between the lines of these kinds of statements by the SEC and others, and to take them at face value.
If you value bitcoin, but see the government as a necessary, though often fallible, institution in society; consider for a second how hostile governments have been from the outset. Consider that (although they have the power to do much worse than they have thus far done to stifle bitcoin) they tend to encroach upon things gradually, allowing people to become comfortable with the idea of their presence and little by little becoming more tyrannical. This benefits them and their credibility, gaining them far more, in the long run, than simply squashing things they don't like.

Humans tend to see what they want to see, simple as that. Personally I think bitcoin has a huge chance of dying before it even learns how to talk. What we need is a network of users and personal exchangers, spread worldwide. We need to make africa and Third world countries start sending Money With bitcoin and get the knowledge of this out to the Public. If a few more big governments start banning bitcoin the adoption of this Technology will never happen, that is a fact. Sure it COULD develop and spread, but that road is long and hard.. today we have an open highway.

Unfortunately, on this open highway to decentralized currencies, we are all riding in cars and motorcycles.

We need buses.

Actually we need a Railway and Trains. We need mass-adoption before governemnts start defending their currencies(Like many countries already have).

If this is not done soon this dream of decentralized Money will die.

Consider what your line in the sand is; is a government still legitimate to you no matter what they do? Is there a point which they should not cross, in your mind? Is there a set of circumstances surrounding their treatment of cryptocurrencies which will trigger in you a change in stance towards your government; from one of believing it moral and necessary to work within the system to change the system; to one of realizing that the prior method is ineffective and/or that you are morally justified in opposing it in extra-legal ways?

It's not about me, nor you, nor this community. It's about the Public. They already got fed With lies and propaganda from MSM so if governments were to ban it 50% of current users would abandon ship and everyone on their way in to learn about bitcoin would turn around in the doorway. And "current users" and the People in the doorway are what.. less than 0.1% of population?

Given the myriad theoretical reasonings for why governments will necessarily fight cryptocurrency, and all the empirical evidence so far; what is the thought process of the statist bitcoiner at this point?

I like analogy with private cars and public transit and agree with you.