"Isn't Apple a distraction to Microsoft Windows adoption?"

"Isn't Unix a distraction to IBM mainframe adoption?"

"Isn't Bitcoin a distraction to PayPal adoption?"

I could go on and on. Imagining the current top dog in technology is going to stay that way "forever" is the height of foolishness.

And if you want to make +20% on your investment in the next few years, then maybe Bitcoin could do it. If you want to make 10x or 100x on an investment, it will need to be a new technology that most people don't consider mainstream yet. There's room for both.

Wow. Okay. How about I lobby the government to make my current favorite investment, NVDA, have these special privileges instead of Bitcoin? Does that sound fair to you? Why not have the government pump GOLD instead? Or APPL? Or Soybean futures? Or some other stock?

Bitcoin investors begging the government for free handouts so their investment will increase in value--like what you are asking for here--is... quite the evolution from Bitcoin's origins, that's for sure .

All I have to say is that the old adage about "live by the sword, die by the sword" applies here: if you want to use the power of the government in order to make your investment increase in value, be prepared for that same government to want something in return. People don't vote to make a certain part of the population rich without wanting something back from them--and they often take back twice as much as they gave.

And I must say, after Bitcoin has gone up 500% during the Biden presidency, it's amazing to me that for some people it's still not enough and they want Bitcoin to go up even more and want the government to force people to buy it. This is the textbook definition of greed on display here.

Um, Trump has done all kinds of things in his personal life. Nobody, including Trump himself, cares about that.

As I said (several times) above, the "leave it to the states" thing has run out of gas for the Republicans. The only way abortion in the USA will be curtailed the way those wanting it to be made illegal want it curtailed is for there to be Federal laws against it. The current pending case against the abortion pill is just one example: all Trump would need to do is stop fighting that, and abortion will be effectively illegal across the country--and that's just one of many examples.

The the Federal government, per the constitution (and for obvious practical reasons), must get involved with interstate commerce, which means with allowing or disallowing abortion pills and/or people leaving their states to have an abortion.

No matter how desperately (some*) Republicans are trying to dodge this issue, there's simply no getting out of it. And in this context, Americans aren't going to believe the party who has spent 40 years calling the procedure "murder" when they say they don't want to make it illegal.

(* And it's notable that many Republican voices out there are not dodging this at all, and are clearly calling for 50 state bans because they actually mean what they say they mean when they say they are opposed to abortion).


LOL. The 1980s called and are asking for the GOP back . Today's Republican party has nothing to do with that anymore. Today the party is Trump, Trump and Trump.

That's nonsense. Bitcoin doesn't make sovereign currencies drop in price per se, and no serious person believes that.

And if they did, they'd make Bitcoin illegal, which almost all countries do not do.

You seem to think "legal tender" means the same thing as "legal". It doesn't. The law passed in El Salvador has been a boondoggle and didn't do anything to increase retail adoption there. It was just a pump-and-dump scheme for the country's elites.

Trump didn't remove the "Deep State" in his first term, and instead expanded it. What makes you think he will remove it in his second term?

And why especially do you care about the abortion issue if all you really care about is the "Deep State"?

And abortion laws are very divisive. If you are for peace, why are you in favor of abortion laws?

So if Trump vowed to pass a law overriding the states, guaranteeing a woman's right to an abortion, you'd still support him with every fiber of your being as you demonstrate all of the time here, right?

If Trump vowed to start a war with some country (say Mexico for instance) if he were elected,  you'd still support him with every fiber of your being, right?

My problem with understanding what you are for is that it seems to change weekly at the same time Trump changes his own mind about things. The only constant I see in your views is that that they line up with whatever Trump says on a day to day basis.

I understand being in favor of Trump because you want certain policies enacted that he supports. But when Trump contradicts himself, y'all seem to just change your own mind at the suspiciously exact same moment.

You know quite well that the US is not going to cancel Social Security, Medicare, income taxes, and basically the entire US government as it is today. You know quite well that Trump surely would never do that, and he will in fact expand the federal government's powers in ways that other presidents haven't, as he already did while he was in office before.

And yet you are effectively saying that abortion--the thing you keep calling "murder"--should be illegal (presumably, punishable as murder)--in all 50 states.

What this tells me is that what you really want is for Trump to win the election, and you are willing to say anything, on any given day, in order for that to happen.

In other words, once again, you seem willing to forgo everything you purport to believe in exchange for Trump being elected, which seems to be an end in itself for you.

So I'll ask this question of you once again, as I have several times here with no answer so far: what could Trump actually do in order for him not to get your vote in November? Is there any line he cannot cross?

That you can't answer this tells us the whole story: there is no answer. You prioritize Trump over all other values.

You are making my point for me. If Trump wins in November, people with your exact views will be running the country. That's why it's likely abortion will be made illegal--or effectively so--in all 50 states if Trump wins.

The way I explain it to people is that if Trump is elected, there will be a 50/50 chance that abortion will be outlawed in all 50 states in 2025.

If you want to be sure abortion is legal in 2025, your only choice is voting Democrat.

This just isn't practical. Most abortions these days are done using the pill, and that can easily be transported across state lines. And people can transport themselves the other direction. Since the Republicans overturned Roe, abortions have actually increased even though individual states made it illegal.

And the ruling on the FDA action on the abortion pill shows just how easily Trump could effectively ban all abortions in the USA without an act of Congress.

Republicans are trying to "states rights" this issue away, but it won't work. And probably two thirds of their voters don't want it to work anyhow as they want an abortion ban that actually works instead of this "return it to the states" nonsense.

That's because most Americans want higher taxes on people other than themselves--and most agree that "rich people" aren't themselves.

Republicans used to run principally on tax cuts for the rich, but that is super-duper unpopular, and that kept making them lose elections, so they dropped that (and so many of their other old policies like reforming SS and healthcare), and now they just talk about relatively meaningless social issues like bathrooms and beer commercials.

Wow. Okay. That's... an opinion...

So by that logic, it sounds like you'd vote to make Ether, Monera, and thousands of other digital currencies, illegal?


But by asking for a special law written to prop up your favorite investment, you are asking the government to decide everything. Your opinion is that every investment that is not Bitcoin is, "shit" (I guess).

It's fine to have that opinion, but it's quite another thing to ask for the government to enforce your investment opinion into law such that your opinion gets special rewards from the government to the detriment of other people's opinions.

When you involve the government in investments, you are taking decision making away from individuals.

So every other cryptocurrency or digital currency in the world--and every other form of investment known to man--is a "shitcoin"? Is that what you think?

And you really think the government should be in the business of deciding which assets are "valuable" and which are "shitcoins"?

Great, so you want to use the power of the central government to force people to buy into the same investment you've bought into, thereby making the value of your investment going up. Nice guy .

So if Bitcoin should be forced upon citizens, why not Ether? Why not DOGE? Why not Haypenny currencies?

And while we're at it, I'm very bullish on a stock right now (MRVL). Should I advocate the US government make that stock "legal tender" so everybody will have to buy it, and make it go through the roof?

Why should Bitcoin, of all things, be given this special treatment by the government?

Hello folks. I was hoping to get advice on for the best exchanges for altcoins. I'm very interested in brokers who can take in USD or Bitcoin in exchange for the newest/hottest relatively undiscovered altcoins out there. I'm well aware of the "big" players like Binance and CoinBase, but I'd love to hear about some of the smaller ones that people think are worthwhile.

No, it won't. A government forcing Bitcoin down the throats of its citizens won't change the fact that Bitcoin costs up to 30 US dollars per transaction and can take up to 30 minutes to complete.

No government can repeal the laws of physics, which is what it would take to make Bitcoin fast and cheap enough to be viable for everyday transactions. In almost every country, people are free to use Bitcoin however they like. They don't do it because it's impractical, not because it's illegal.

PLEASE STOP ASKING FOR BITCOIN TO BE MADE "LEGAL TENDER"

It doesn't mean what you think it means, it won't work (see: El Salvador), it's completely unfair to all of the other technologies out there e.g. Ether etc., and it's inviting the power of the government to regulate it in ways you can never imagine.

And it goes against everything Bitcoin has ever stood for.

Any vendor is free to accept Bitcoin if they want. But guess what: many vendors don't want to because it can cost up to $30 and take 30 minutes for a single transaction.

So what then? You want to use the power of the government to force people to accept Bitcoin even if they don't want to?

So Bitcoin went from a libertarian ideal to... people asking their government to get the cops to shove Bitcoin down people's throats. Amazing.

This is everything the original founders of Bitcoin fought against.

And make no mistake: the minute you accept help from the government, then... the government is going to want its pound of flesh. That's how it works in the real world, folks.

What do you think the difference is? If everybody is free to buy, sell and hold Bitcoin, what more do you want?

Bitcoin is legal in almost every country in the world. What are you talking about?

The actual legal definition of "legal tender", as it's derived from the US Constitution, is that it forces those winning in a judgement in court to accept the given currency as payment whether they want to or not.

That's it. That's all "legal tender" means in actual legal terms.

What those asking for "legal tender" here seem to want is:

1. Bitcoin to be legal to hold and trade--which it already is in almost every country in the world. No new laws are necessary.

2. They want to use the power of the government to promote Bitcoin so it goes up in price (and they wish to do this while screwing over every other digital currency like Ether, Dogecoin, Haypenny currencies, and so on).