You can also r-click and view image in full size/resolution. I forget again how to set the image size in my post

I take bearish positions all the time.   The only hard part is the timing.

$So what compelling information-developments are happening in BTC to make the $ price increase?  You tell me.  An ETF?  Give me a break.... There's nothing new going on is there?

Thank you, but I lived in the US 13 years starting with Reagan's election.  I have seen it happen in real time. And I have seen that here in Brazil too, before and after that. It was deregulation, not government intervention, that created the monster banks and all economic crises since then. 

[...] When the house of cards finally collapsed, they already had enough power over the government to force it bail them out with taxpayers money.  That is where laissez-faire capitalism inevitably leads to.

Yes, very.

Laissez Faire capitalism, which in the US was brought in by back starting with Reagan, first allowed banks and corporations to grow and merge without limits.  (Once upon a time, there was a US government that ordered the breakup of AT&T because it was too big.  Would you believe that?)   Huge companies meant cartels which meant fat profits which meant fat bribes and campaign contributions which meant laws favoring the richest, such as the end of the progressive income tax and all sorts of tax breaks, loopholes and tax heavens.  Laissez-faire capitalism (or extreme deregulation) then allowed banks and financial corporations to invent all sorts of virtual assets built on top of each other, take risks that were once unthinkable, engage in undetected massive fraud, cede control to foreign corporations, etc..  When the house of cards finally collapsed, they already had enough power over the government to force it bail them out with taxpayers money.  That is where laissez-faire capitalism inevitably leads to.

The distinction between anonymous and pseudonymous, for this purpose, escapes me.  Either way, one goal of the technology was to allow a secure payment without the parties having to reveal their identities to anyone, not even to each other, at any time.

That goal implies that governments will not being able to "see" the payments.  Sure, they can tell that someone paid 23.12 BTC to someone else, perhaps to him/herself; but that information is useless if they cannot tell who the parites are -- not even their nationalities or locations.

If the government and everybody else can see exactly how much XFC you earn and where you spend it -- what would be the advantage of using FunnyCoin, instead of banks?

Regarding your other point; that BTC would still serve as a store of value, you're assuming the exchange of BTC to USD is the only thing that would be made illegal. That is naive. "Holding" BTC could be made illegal just as easily.

The truth is if the US decides to be hostile towards BTC, most other countries would follow for fear of economic sanctions etc. This may not be true in the future, but it is the reality today.

Now say you want to purchase a car, a house etc with your wealth stored in BTC. What incentive does the merchant have to accept your illegal BTC instead of legal USD? Maybe you can persuade him by paying more... What benefit does BTC offer him over USD for him to risk confiscation, prison etc?

What are you going to do with your now illegal BTC?

Mining would become easier.

You're missing the main point anyway - the utility of illegal drugs are not affected by their legal status. The utility of BTC is greatly reduced if it is made illegal. And what's the "intrinsic" value of BTC in the first place? Its utility.

The supply of bitcoins are not reduced if they are made illegal. There will still be 21 million of them.

No. It makes me cringe every time someone says this.

The point is that governments will stamp out crypto, like they got rid of BSCs, if they perceive that crypto is actually going to do what it was intended to do. 

Whatever, it does not change the problem.

The controls I am referring to include their fight against money laundering, illegal commerce, bribery, embezzlement, tax evasion, blackmail, financing terrorism, sabotage and assasinations on their soil,  ...  If governments get to see cryptocurrencies as a significant obstacle to their efforts against those things,  they will clamp down on them -- make crypto commerce illegal, raid servers, co-opt or infitrate crypto outfits, etc.  With full support from the banks, of course.

Bearer stock certificates (BSCs) were numbered but anonymous pieces of fancy paper that certified the bearer as owner of so-many shares of some company.  BSCs of major companies were fungible and untraceable, like dollar bills; but one certificate could be worth thousands of dollars, so they were much more convenient than cash or gold for large payments that had to be hidden from the government, and to take money across borders.  Moreover, their value would grow over time, so they could be used to safely store wealth for decades, out of the reach of government.  BSCs of course were favorites of criminals and tax evaders.  Surprise, companies no longer issue BSCs, and they have been outlawed in many places (~20 years ago in Brazil, IIRC). 

[...] you should trust me [...]

Trust: -4: -1 / +0(0)
Warning: Trade with extreme caution!