I'll have to double check when I'm not on my phone and have a bit more time, but I *think* it was this recent Andreas Antonopoulos video where he raised a similar point:

https://youtu.be/15qZu-OHFk0

If memory serves, he said "you'd have to be a sociopath", or words to that effect.  It's probably a thought many of us have briefly considered at some point or another, but yes, it's sick when you actually stop to think about it.

* moved by request from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5158920.msg52488736#msg52488736 *



I'd assume it's more a case of "when" than "if", so once the demand is there and it makes sense to have one, we'll probably get it then.  Difficult to tell how long it might take, but I guess that's up to devs, retailers and anyone else working towards the goal of increased adoption.

Perhaps he was generalising, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.  But whether he really believes he speaks for an entire nation (and a highly populous one to boot) or not is beside the point.  Everyone is free to transact however they choose.  If you want to use Bitcoin to make payments for real world goods and services, go for it.  If you want to speculate and try a bit of daytrading, that's cool too.  If you're holding until you retire, awesome.  Whatever you're doing, keep doing it.  It's not for others to tell you what's right or wrong, even if opinions are offered on the subject.

I personally think speculation is overrated, but if that's what people want, who am I to judge?  It's their personal wealth on the line, not mine.

ETFs won't be censoring any transactions, though, because the investors won't have any access to the BTC to send it anywhere.  The sole purpose of an ETF is to hold some bitcoins in reserve and not move them.  People then place fiat bets on the price, never interacting directly with the bitcoins.

I don't think I did initially, but I'm there now.  You're approaching it from the hypothetical scenario that a majority of Bitcoin users would be reliant on these companies and would then be restricted in their usage, correct?

From the perspective of someone who definitely wouldn't be reliant on those custodians, I'd feel a bit sorry for those "users" (technically, not really Bitcoin users), but that in and of itself wouldn't constitute a failure of Bitcoin (in my view anyway), as it's simply what those people opted to sign up for.  No responsibility and no control.  If that's what some people want, it's up to them.  If, however, it begins to impact those of us who aren't using those services, that I would perceive as a failure. 

If, for example, such a cartel claimed they had an economic majority and somehow managed to pressure developers into going down a certain developmental path or otherwise interfered with network governance, that's where I'd draw the line.  Provided the users who hold their own private keys are still free to transact in the way they want to, it's not a failure.

It'll take a keener mind than mine to figure that out.  It's tricky enough keeping track of the "lost" bitcoins where people assume access to the private key has been lost, but it's still largely guesswork, as it may just be long-term HODLing.  I have coins that haven't moved in 5+ years, so do some people assume those coins are lost because they haven't moved in a while.  But I would assume that because some early adopters have vast tranches of BTC and are more likely to be of the "hold your own keys" mindset, there should still be a sizeable sum in the hands of individuals.

Plus, it's pretty well established that these third party custodians are shit at security and seldom manage to retain custody of their clients' BTC, meaning it usually ends up back in the hands of individuals anyway.   

Well there's certainly a great deal of room for personal opinion on that one, heh.

If it did happen (and I find it pretty unlikely), I'd say it depends on how much trust it would require from those of us not utilising their services.  If they started leveraging their influence and pushing for protocol changes, I probably would consider it a failure.

That does raise a valid point.  There are definitely people, blogs and websites talking about "being your own bank", but then somehow managing to finish the explanation with a link to Coinbase or whatever.  It doesn't quite follow rationally.  I always tried to refer people to localbitcoins where possible, as it's at least a little closer to Bitcoin's ethos compared to conventional custodial exchanges.

People place too much emphasis on the US government.  Just because they're clinging on to superpower status in the fiat world, doesn't give them superpower status in Bitcoin.  If they hold some of their wealth in wallets where they control the private keys and they start running some nodes, or even start mining, maybe then it's worth caring about what the US government thinks about Bitcoin.  Until then, they aren't part of our system.  They can order companies about and impose taxes on their citizens.  That's nothing to do with Bitcoin, though.  Stop overstating their importance.

It all boils down to this:

How much knowledge do you need?

If you can explain to someone how to send and receive a Bitcoin transaction, then they already know as much as they do about fiat.  That gets us about halfway there.  Then you have to explain security, backups and personal responsibility, which might take a bit longer.  Emphasise the part about how there's no one who can intervene to cancel or refund a transaction for them and you're pretty much done.

How is any of that difficult to explain?

It's a tricky one.  Even though they clearly don't understand fiat properly, they think they do.  And that's enough for them.  They're content to continue using it. 

So on one hand they have this fiat thing they "understand" (even if they don't) and on the other hand they have this Crypto thing they definitely don't understand and see no real incentive to learn about.

As such, Crypto's biggest flaw is that it's not the incumbent system people are accustomed to.  So we need to find a better way to explain it.

Do the "majority of people" use a broker service, though?  With the exception of some free shares I was given by my employer, I sure as hell don't, but that might just due to my distrust of traditional finance.  Because if people aren't using a broker, that's the only way casual investors can access an ETF.  I'm guessing most banks offer such services, but I suspect the majority of people are currently more concerned with putting food on the table in an age of ever increasing disparity between rich and poor.  Unless you meant the "majority of people with access to disposable income looking to invest in something", perhaps?

Then there's the generational gap to consider.  Are brokers keeping up with current trends?  I don't feel like brokers have made much of an attempt to engage with me, so I'm seemingly not their target audience.  Who else are they overlooking?  And where will those people look to store their wealth?  I get the impression younger generations feel that crypto is quite accessible to them, so perhaps they're more likely to want to hold their own private keys.

I suspect brokers will also be required to mention that crypto ETFs will be on the higher end of the risk spectrum, so that may also prompt casual investors to look at other options.  It's a widely held assumption here on the forums that a Bitcoin or other crypto ETF will unfold just like previous ETFs, but I'm not convinced of that.  A Bitcoin ETF won't be like a precious metals ETF in terms of volatility.  It will be an altogether different beast.

And then there's obviously that pesky first hurdle of how long it will actually take one of these things to get the green light from the bureaucrats.  Could easily be a few more years yet.  Will investors be prepared to wait, or will FOMO force them to download a wallet and do it the "proper" way?

There's just so many variables to consider.  There's no way to know how it's going to unfold.

I mean, they might think they are going to control it, sure.  But in practice, they're pretty impotent.  They'll interfere with any low-hanging fruit they can reach, but the concept as a whole is just beyond them.  They'll pass some laws that primarily affect exchanges and businesses, then maybe point to whatever dark-web criminal last got arrested and say "yeah, look at how much control we have", but in practice, they can't do much of any real consequence. 

You can't really regulate mathematics and that's basically all we're doing here.  Obscurity and security via really big numbers.

My impression was that ETFs abandoned any pretence of custody?  Exchanges at least give you the option to withdraw the BTC to a wallet you control (assuming you manage to do it before they get hacked, anyway).  But with ETFs, all you're ever likely to physically possess is a slip of paper detailing what the basket of assets are that you're betting on.  When you cash out, the only thing they're going to give you is fiat.  You're never going to see the bitcoins.

It must be horrific enough to be involved in an accident or an attack where you suffer a facial deformity and require reconstructive surgery, but how much worse would it be if your whole identity relied on the success of that surgery?  It's a stupid idea.  Look at the recent rise in things like "acid attacks".  How much more prevalent and damaging would those be if it becomes a prerequisite for our face to look the same just to spend our money?



True enough, but with the advances being made in 3D printing, it probably won't be too long before someone could conceivably print out a realistic mask to wear.  A simple photo still likely wouldn't be sufficient to generate the mapping for it, but how would you even know if you were being filmed/scanned as you walked into a building, for example?

"Bad" is a matter of perspective.  I'm not personally a fan of traditional finance getting involved, because it's not something that I can see bringing much benefit to the average user.  ETFs are a plaything for "fat cats" and a mirage of an oasis for middlemen.  I find it's generally speculators who are most keenly interested by the prospect of ETFs.  For the people who care more about freedom and censorship resistance, there's really not much to get excited about.

Those governments feeling the most insecure can't be very confident in their grip on power, I guess.  If you want to control the people, it helps to be in control of their money.  As someone on the outside, looking in, it would appear they can't see Bitcoin providing any benefit to their (seemingly oppressive) regime, so instinctively seek to limit its use.  Seems like restricting freedom is a natural reaction for places with such well documented human rights violations.

He announced to the entire internet that he was Satoshi Nakamoto and then went on to claim that he didn't want any publicity.  That would be like me announcing I'm the second coming of Christ and then saying "but don't tell anyone".  

I get why you're eager to defend the man, as he says lots of things that support your personal views about how Bitcoin should work, but there comes a time where you should probably just recognise him for what he is:  A liar.

That's not a viable option for those who like to make a scene, though.  

It's only a good conspiracy if you can scream it from the rooftops and hope that some gullible passers-by will believe it.

The protests have no direct ties to Bitcoin at all.  But articles like this one do highlight the desire for privacy from the protesters, so that's a point that could be worthy of discussion.

As with others, I'm not convinced there is a need for donations.  I mean, maybe there's a cost for printing all those placards they seem to be carrying in the photos I've seen, but still, seems like a bad idea.  I still believe it would likely encourage scammers to pose as a protester and ask for funds if they thought they could get away with it.