In meinen auch nicht. Der Bitcoin wird auf Null gehen, soviel ist sicher.

Davor könnte es höchstens ein paar Dead Cat Bounces geben, vielleicht auf 100.000, dann 200.000 und dann eine Million. Hat alles keine Bedeutung, sind ja alles nur spekulative Blasen. Denn das Ende ist schon absehbar, zumindest in kosmologischen Zeitabständen.

(SCNR )

Danke für den kurzen Erfahrungsbericht. Das deckt sich ja mit dem was bullrun2020bro oben schrieb, nur halt "von der anderen Seite" aus gesehen. Und es scheint weiter so zu sein, dass viele Projekte da einiges ausgeben, trotz des etwas angeschlagenen Images von ICOs. Auf btc-echo sehe ich jedenfalls nicht wirklich einen Rückgang von solchen stark nach Werbung riechenden Contents.

Beim 28-29K-Bereich erwarte ich tatsächlich etwas Widerstand, weil sich da einige der alten Tiefs befanden, insbesondere das Tief Mitte 2021 (war glaube ich im Bereich 28500). Vielleicht gehts davor noch mal auf 19K zurück (glaube ich aber eher nicht, eher noch mal 25K).

Nächste Station wäre dann meiner Meinung nach 33K.

Der Kurs hält sich ja erstaunlich gut. Ich hätte gedacht, die extreme Volatilität und der erneute Fall unter 25K lassen ihn noch mal runterpurzeln auf 22000 oder so. Aber dann scheinen die 26000 keine komplette Nebelkerze gewesen zu sein. Zumindest bis jetzt.

re: neue Subprimekrise - glaube ich nicht, auch wenn LBOs natürlich nicht wirklich schön aussehen.

Der folgende Artikel auf Zeit Online zum Thema US-Bankenkrise ist auf einigen Plattformen hinter einer Paywall, mobil jedoch (zumindest in diesem Moment noch) kostenlos lesbar:

Mit Bitcoin wäre das nicht passiert. Oder?

Ich fasse kurz zusammen
- der Artikel listet erst den möglichen Vorteil von Bitcoin, den die Anhänger immer nennen, die Unabhängigkeit von Banken usw. auf.
- dann wird eingeschränkt: im Kreditwesen hätte Bitcoin das gleiche Problem wie Banken
- und schließlich, dass die Krypto-Plattformen stark ans Fiatsystem angebunden sind, also auch Banken benötigen.

Bezeichnend für das, was ich am Artikel auszusetzen habe, finde ich den letzten Satz:

Das bezieht sich darauf, dass natürlich die meisten Menschen Bitcoin erwerben, indem sie ihn über ein Bankkonto kaufen.

Das Problem hier (bzw. die "Masche" des Artikels, um eine negative Meinung über Bitcoin zu verbreiten) ist, dass die Probleme das gegenwärtigen Krypto-Markts, also insbesondere die Abhängigkeit von zentralen Börsen, quasi als "systemisch" angesehen werden. Ich bin sicher, René Pickhardt, der wieder einmal erwähnt wird, sieht das anders

Schließlich ist die Idee von Bitcoin ja, gerade diese zentralisierten Plattformen irgendwann hinter sich zu lassen. Das Problem derzeit ist natürlich die Volatilität, weshalb die "Wertspeicher" und besonders die "Recheneinheit"-Eigenschaft noch mangelhaft sind.

Ich habe aber in mehreren Fäden hier mögliche Lösungen aufgezeigt, die sich schon jetzt implementieren ließen, darunter dezentrale Optionen, dezentrale Finanzprodukte auf Basis von "moving averages" und "Deckungen durch Merchants".

Es stimmt schon, dass dieser Bereich noch wenig vorankommt, möglicherweise wird es da erst mal im Ethereum/Altcoinbereich zu Durchbrüchen kommen. Die Anreize sprechen im Moment eher noch für die Daseinsform "Spekulationsobjekt". Aber zu behaupten, das wäre systemisch bzw. für immer und ewig so, ist imo eine (möglicherweise bewusste, möglicherweise auch wegen Unkenntnis dieser Möglichkeiten unbewusste) Irreführung.

Recht hat der Artikel allerdings in einem Punkt: "Banken" im Sinne von Institutionen, die die Bewertung von Kreditrisiken übernehmen, sind wahrscheinlich auch in einer "Bitcoin-Utopie" nötig. Ob es möglich sein wird, das algorithmisch, also über DeFi, zu lösen - da bin ich eher skeptisch.

Aber nicht als Einfallstor für Fiat, wie im zitierten letzten Satz des Artikels behauptet wird. Denn die Idee ist ja, dass Bitcoin direkt für die Zahlung von Produkten und Dienstleistungen verwendet wird, und dann wird kein "frisches Geld" mehr benötigt.

Tja, wer hätte das gedacht? Die 25200 nach so viel erfolglosem Herumgegurke dann doch ohne Probleme um über 1000$ geknackt ... nach einem Rücksetzer auf 19500 (inzwischen allerdings wieder um 25000).

Coindesk hat übrigens eine andere Theorie als die "Investoren flüchten vor den Banken in Bitcoin" (siehe dazu auch diesen Beitrag im Presseforum):

Bitcoin Breaks $25K as U.S. Inflation Slowed to 6% in February

Die Inflationsdaten scheinen sich also gebessert zu haben und sind zurück auf dem sinkenden Weg. Da könnte man folgende Hypothese aufstellen: Normalerweise müsste sowas positiv auf die Aktienmärkte durchschlagen. Der Aktienmarkt ist aber durch die Bankenpleiten angeschlagen und hat daher nur minimal profitiert (ca. 1,5% beim Nasdaq-100), also suchen sich Investoren andere Risiko-Assets, und finden: Bitcoin!

Das ganze natürlich kombiniert mit einem schönen Shortsqueeze.

Aber erst mal sehen ob der 25K Bereich hält.

(@dogebearman: nette Theorie mit Tether, könnte tatsächlich so abgelaufen sein.)

Thank you! I suspected there was some kind of NFT action on Doge too, due to this mempool graph (and a surge in transaction activity on Bitinfocharts):

Link to chart

I was aware of Dogeparty already, although I suspect that OP_RETURN is also restricted in Dogecoin and thus it would more be used for traditional NFTs stored off-chain.

En Argentina este año hay elecciones, y es posible que haya algún cambio.

Primero la situación actual: El gobierno no es exactamente hostil a las criptomonedas, pero tampoco súper amigable. Hace unos años hubo casos en los cuales la agencia recaudadora de impuestos le pidió a algunos Bitcoineros registrados en exchanges locales a mandarles un archivo Excel con todas sus operaciones cripto ... esto ahuyentó a muchos de estas plataformas y se fueron al mercado P2P. Mantienen una política cambiaria muy restrictiva que benefició a las criptomonedas porque pueden ser usadas para comprar divisas (y stablecoins) por encima del monto permitido.

En cuanto a impuestos, actualmente el BTC es tratado como muchos otros activos financieros: si tus ganancias superan ciertos límites por año calendario, se tributa el impuesto a la renta financiera. También forma parte del patrimonio para el impuesto a los bienes personales (esto estaba relacionado a la noticia que hace poco apareció en algunos medios cripto: se incluyeron las criptomonedas en un "blanqueo", si tenías tenencias no declaradas y las regularizabas, te cobraban menos que si te descubrían.)

Ahora bien, que podría pasar en las elecciones (son en octubre/noviembre):

Hasta ahora el partido que más chances de ganar tiene es Juntos por el Cambio, que es de naturaleza "conservadora-liberal" (hay principalmente dos candidatos: Horacio R. Larreta - alcalde de Bs. Aires. - y Patricia Bullrich - ex ministra de Seguridad). Es el partido que gobernó entre 2015 y 2019, período cuando explotaron las fintech en el país. En general está a favor de liberar restricciones al mercado cambiario y en general se muestra también amigable con las criptomonedas. Pero fueron ellos también los que incluyeron primero a las criptomonedas al impuesto a la renta financiera. O sea su posición fue: permitir mucho, pero también cobrar.

En el caso de ganar ellos, no espero mayores cambios en las políticas en general, pero sí quizá menos casos de "curiosidad excesiva" como lo que comenté del Excel que debieron entregar algunos Bitcoineros (algo sin embargo familiar para Bitcoineros de otros países).

En el caso que gane el partido que gobierna actualmente (Partido Justicialista, los "peronistas" o "kirchneristas" - estos últimos son una ramificación post-2000) para mí depende mucho del candidato. Si es el actual ministro de economía, Sergio Massa, éste es relativamente liberal y se ha mostrado en general amigable con las criptomonedas. Podría empeorar el panorama si gana alguien con carácter más autoritario, como Axel Kicillof, pero es probable que no se presente. También hay una pequeña posibilidad que se presente la ex presidenta Cristina Kirchner. No se que haría ella, su último gobierno (2011-15) prefirió ignorar las criptos, aunque hubo contactos con la comunidad bitcoinera local y fue en estos años cuando nacieron los primeros exchanges locales registrados.

Hay un tercer partido que podría ganar con mínimas chances, que son los "libertarios" con su candidato Javier Milei. Este se ha mostrado en múltiples ocasiones a favor de las criptomonedas, y por ende se podría esperar una regulación muy amigable. Pero no creo que gane la elección, puede salir primero en la primera vuelta si los otros candidatos siguen débiles (es probable que varios tengan entre 20 y 30 por ciento) pero es muy improbable que gane un balotaje. Tiene algunas posiciones extremamente controvertidas que también a mí me parecen "excesivas", por ejemplo está a favor de la venta de órganos.

Pregunté en el hilo de Doge y sí, tienen algo similar:

Doginals

Pero no usan Taproot ni Segwit, sino los métodos antiguos que se usaban antes para meter datos en la blockchain (más precisamente, en una transacción P2SH). Aparentemente tienen un límite de 10 kB de datos por transacción. Eso puede explicar por ahí ese aumento de transacciones que se ve en el gráfico de Johoe.

Además tienen Dogeparty, una extensión similar a Counterparty, que también permite NFTs pero no se hasta que tamaño se podrán grabar on-chain (depende del límite de bytes de OP_RETURN en Doge).

Habrá que ver si Doginals y LTC-Ordinals pueden atraer a parte de la comunidad NFT que se formó alrededor de Ordinals en BTC. Creo y espero que cuando la moda actual haya pasado (en semanas a meses) y/o cuando aumenten las fees por un nuevo empujón alcista podría pasarse la mayoría de la actividad a estas plataformas.

But again, if Bitcoin is under these blockchains, they would have to pay a high fee.

No, it would not need any change. That would all be done by the miners. The miners send each tx they see in the mempool with non-financial data in it (and perhaps a certain size) to the filtering service, which may operate with humans or AI (most likely mostly with AI but with humans for a second opinion in edge cases, like Facebook etc. do it). The filtering service gives them an "OK" or "NotOK". Only then, they include it into their blocks. This would have the effect that large Ordinals inscription transactions would be often delayed at least one block, but that would make "pure financial transactions" go through faster.

RSK was still mostly based on the "federation" concept - although with some improvement - in it when I last looked into it. The most decentralized I'm aware of are Stacks and Nomic, which have "dynamic" federations which can be changed at regular intervals (both use a premined altcoin to sustain the sidechain). But both are not specialized in arbitrary data (although for sure they could be used for that).

A "data sidechain" like that I had in mind doesn't even need a two-way peg like RSK/Stacks/Nomic still need. Only the data would be "outside" of the main chain, no financial transactions, but the data items would be chained together and hashed into OP_RETURN outputs on the main chain. I have no idea if the concept has some weak point but I would love to see it "live". Maybe I'll create a thread with a proof-of-concept for it elsewhere. You could even implement a governance mechanism where the nodes could decide which content has to be hidden (e.g. via some sort of Proof-of-stake) to address the "illegal content" problem.

Well I try to explain again ...

First, why would you choose Bitcoin for your NFT and not, for example, Litecoin? Because a Bitcoin NFT could be probably sold for a higher price. So in this case, it makes some sense to use BTC and not an altcoin.

But now let's have the case of illegal content "they got tired of having other services removing it". The classic example is child abuse imagery or other kinds of illegal pornography. Why should you publish it on BTC and not on LTC? On both chains it's accessible for their "group", i.e. those wanting to see it, but LTC is far cheaper, there you could even store high-definition images for a modest price. It would make even more sense from the point of view of these criminals to store this content on a shitcoin on position 1000 on Coinmarketcap, because it would be even much cheaper and they could share it in their groups, but nobody outside of their groups probably would ever notice it because these coins run "under the radar" of almost everybody in the crypto community. It's accessible for this group but quite "hidden" ... that's what I meant with hidden, not something "encrypted".

I don't think this kind of criminal group (illegal porn uploaders) had any advantage publishing content on the "expensive" Bitcoin. Bitcoin would more in danger for illegal content that gives somebody some kind of "prestige" or "attention", like military classified information. But even for this group of "illegal uploaders" I think something like LTC would be a better choice, for example for a large classified e-mail leak or a map with exact positions of defenders in a war, like the (hypothetic) Ukraine example I mentioned.

But this is one of the examples where I think that the uploader doesn't need Ordinals. If you have such important information and are willing to pay for it, 15% more (with a non-Ordinal technique) would not stop you.

There would have to subscribe probably to a kind of filtering service, like those employed by social media companies.  That would not be the problem, but probably not all miners would want that, and so from time to time some illegal file could pass through these controls. It would not be reliable.

I've voted for "no opinion", although I actually have an opinion

1) the ordinals concept generally is not that bad and has even some positive aspects,
2) but on-chain inscriptions of larger data elements (let's say, larger than a few hundreds of bytes) are not really desirable on BTC, they should better find a home on alt-chains or sidechains. And they should really use OP_RETURN, not a Taproot hack.

So in general I'm "leaning against" inscriptions, but not against the Ordinals concept in general.

I see the benefit of a simple yes/no question (I'm aware of the problems of polls in general ) but in this case I'd have liked some few more options, or a poll with a Likert scale (from "strongly agree" to "strongly oppose"). However, even with it's minimalist design, it's interesting what the outcome of this poll will be.

That would actually a much more biased poll design, because you're mentioning a positive aspect for one of the options, but not for the other one.

I think also a fee market should exist, but within financial-type transactions (which can include contracts, options and even OP_RETURN based tokens with low data consumption). We're currently still near the bottom of a bear market, thus fees are low. If inscriptions stay popular while a bull market is entering its advanced stages, a big influx of large inscriptions could seriously impact Bitcoin's usability, a second "end 2017" scenario would be likely.

Serious question: Does Doge currently support Ordinals? I've read elsewhere (without proper sources) that currently not, but if this is true, is it planned?

There were some discussions about Ordinals on altcoins (LTC has it already) and Doge, as a meme coin, would be a good fit I think for jpeg/gif-based NFTs.

It seems to be difficult to investigate about that without outright asking, as all Doge communities/forums are (of course) dominated by memes.

Hablando de Dogecoin, hace unos días (entre el 7 y el 10 de marzo) el mempool se parecía algo al de Bitcoin:



Ya que aparentemente Dogecoin aún no cuenta con Ordinals, ¿habrá alguien registrado NFTs de otra manera?

Eché un vistazo al explorador de bloques pero no pude observar nada raro en estos días. Quizá también simplemente fue algún exchange "ordenando" sus fondos. Para colmo es medio difícil investigar desarrollos/tendencias "serias" en la comunidad de Doge: el reddit está lleno de memes y chistes, y el hilo en Bitcointalk casi no se usa (de investing.com mejor no hablo). ¿Alguien conoce otro foro/comunidad?

It seems you don't really read my posts "Problem 2" is the perception of Bitcoin as the original, most prestigious blockchain ("OG"). This is actually a good feature and generates network effect, and so there's no point in "solving" it. Or do you want BTC to become a shitcoin like all others? (There were several Bitcoin clones in the past that copied the code 1:1, so the code isn't the primary network effect generator).

It also has nothing to do with illegal content. If someone wants to publish illegal content, a certain amount of "prestige" of the blockchain is normally not needed and can even be harmful if the content is meant to be a bit "hidden". "Prestige" is needed if you want to sell a NFT for the highest possible price. So they are different "problem classes". There may be exceptions, (a dumb example: let's say a whistleblower publishes a classified file of all Ukrainian defense positions on an Ordinals inscription and chooses BTC for it, just to get maximum publicity), but normally the "prestige" and "illegal content" problems are not linked.

Your "proposal" is simply censorship, and such a feature could be mis-used for all type of other censorship. Miners could, however, control inscriptions themselves, which would of course be ideal but I don't think it will work consistently. Thus I believe "Notify and take down" is a better approach, but difficult to achieve inside of the main chain (i.e. once we try to implement something like "completely ignorable OP_RETURN messages", de facto it becomes a kind of sidechain).



I'm of course aware of coloured coins, but is there a non-federated sidechain specialized in data in operation (Bitcoin-based, of course)? I'm not aware of one, but maybe a platform like Counterparty offers such a feature ... Data sidechains don't need 2-way pegs, so they are much easier to implement than "financial" sidechains. The "novelty" would be it to be a real "chain", i.e. not only hashes in OP_RETURN pointing to distinct locations (like IPFS).

I'm also skeptic that a single measure would work. Thus what I would propose is a "battery of measures" for an "incentive framework" like I called it last page: new witness discounts for financial and small data txes, making Ordinals more expensive, in addition to a data sidechain, to achieve that there are always several alternatives for NFT lovers and the "hack" Ordinals being one of the most expensive ones.

PS: Have read Casey's post on bitcoin-dev, and I think the "data sidechain" could solve some of the problems of non-on-chain-stored NFTs he mentions, for example the bad protection of NFT buyers. My other idea - let BTC ordinal satoshi "series numbers" point to an altcoin-storage, e.g. on NMC or LTC - would also work, but would be perhaps more complex.

I have addressed that earlier in many posts (discussion with @n0nce some weeks ago). My stance is still the same: those who want to attack bitcoin this way do not need Ordinals. If Ordinals is "capped" then they would have only to pay 15% more fees with the old methods. They could even attack Monero or Grin this way (see here).

In fact I'm adressing this problem in my last post, see the part about the "notify and takedown" system for a OP_RETURN based "data sidechain".

The spam problem has its roots in two aspects:

1) the perceived low cost of the Bitcoin blockchain with respect to Ethereum,
2) the condition of Bitcoin as the "OG" cryptocurrency.

Problem 2 cannot be solved, it's even one of Bitcoin's main network effect generators of financial purposes. We can try to attack problem 1, although there is no perfect solution. IMO the goal should be to offer first "better" alternatives than Ordinals which do not generate spam conditions, like a data sidechain and OP_RETURN improvements, and only if the problem persists, then go and tighten rules (and @franky1: I sorta agree with you partially in your last post about rule tightening, although still - it's not my preferred way to act in this case, as the devs may have had their reasons allowing big taproot scripts).

I addressed this point in my answer to @franky1 here, in short: this way to act would never be sustainable for miners over longer timeframes, they would get lower profits and pools offering that "service" would lose hashrate (and miner bribing doesn't change anything in the equation).

This can definitively happen, but I don't think that such high profits can be expected for more than a certain "highly valuable", limited number of inscriptions, imo much lesser than whats happening currently, perhaps 50-100 inscriptions per day. So the block chain congestion would imo definitively decrease a lot.

That are anomalies, the well known case of the almost 4 MB picture seems to have been a "protest against censorship", i.e. an unique event (where the mining pool chose to throw away around 120.000 USD). If pools would continue with that, nobody would lend them mining power anymore. In fact if you chose a "non-ordinal" pool the miner would get more fees in this case. (Yep, NFTers could bribe pools, but that would have the same effect than a tx fee increase.)

In addition, data storage with older methods, as I wrote before, was possible until Ordinals appeared. It was only ~15% more expensive. IMO the current "ordinals fad" could have also happened with the old methods, as 15% more would not change much. But 4x would be quite a lot and make some of the NFT folks re-think if they shouldn't use another chain.

I'm not totally against a "tightening" of the rules, but I'd tend to avoid it as it would set a bad precedent ... hey, let's try feature X out, but if Y appears we don't like, let's tighten the rules so Y isn't possible anymore! That's imo against Bitcoin's long term oriented philosophy. It could also lead to a new "update war" (if it's really not a fork, I believe it would be a soft fork, if it's protocol enforced and not only through "nonstandard" rules).

But if the spam problem persisted and did result in problematic fee structures (let's say a situation like late 2017/early 2018), then I would support such a rule tightening as an emergency measure. However, the current situation isn't that dramatic -- that 1 sat/byte works is not the norm at all, in several periods of the past you'd have to wait several months to get such a low-fee tx through. ~3-4 sat/byte like currently for 1-day txes, isn't that bad, in 2019 several times you'd have to pay 10+.

Yep, I more or less agree -- my remark was about the way the "sub-consensus" works in the case of Ordinals and Omni/Counterparty, and it's identic. Both assign "significance" to data which would normally be read as "arbitrary" with the standard Bitcoin tools (which follow only the Bitcoin protocol).

I've thought a bit how the Ordinals problem could be dealt with without censorship or hard forks, but simply using incentive mechanisms and/or possible soft forks. Apart from making ordinal-type taproot scripts non-standard, which could be a "short term" strategy but is a bit of a "hack", I think there could be a more long-term oriented, "cleaner" strategy to provide a clear "incentive framework": creating two new transaction types with even better witness discounts than Segwit-style transactions.

The first type would be for pure financial transactions without OP_RETURN scripts nor any contracts. It would get 4x discount in comparison to today. Maybe even with a privacy mechanism in the style of Monero or Grin.

The second type would be for small data inscriptions with a single OP_RETURN output to up to a few hundreds of bytes, and would get 2x the Segwit-style witness discount. I would prefer 200 bytes instead of 80, or even a bit more, to be able to support at least some of the Ordinal Inscription use cases, without opening to things like JPEGs.

For larger inscriptions, a "data sidechain" could be supported "semi-officially", with a client offering to store inscriptions which are hashed into a small OP_RETURN output, but separately from the main chain. (This could include the "notify and takedown" mechanism I outlined here).

We could allow some more types to be supported by the 2x category, like popular contract types (multisig, atomic swaps/Lightning HTLCs and channel openings etc.). There could be a mechanism similar to "standardness" to enable them for that category.

We would then have a new "minimum fee level" 4 times lower than now, so - always having the current "fee market" in mind - the fee level for the current categories would be moving two "steps" higher for the current transaction types:

- standard non-segwit transactions: paying 8x the new minimum fee
- standard segwit transactions with full contracts, including Ordinals: paying 4x the minimum fee
- new "small data" / limited contract transactions: paying 2x the minimum fee
- simple financial transactions: paying 1x the minimum fee

Ordinals Inscriptions would then, on average, pay approximately 4 times the fees they pay now (with similar network congestion).

This is just a very general idea, which should (from my understanding, please correct if not) be achievable with a soft fork. The advantage is: we would not rule out new contracts and innovation in that field, but make it up to 4x more expensive until it is accepted generally.

Well I remain skeptical about Ordinals (on BTC), but that is not entirely correct. The Ordinals software is open source (it's even CC0), so if Casey changed his rules, everybody could continue with the old ord software, or fork it and make an improved client based on the old rules. As the inscriptions "obey" the current Bitcoin consensus the inscriptions themselves are sort of "enforced" by the protocol.

The only way Casey could try to make old inscriptions invalid is trying to use his ordinals.com domain to claim some sort of "authority" on the Ordinals protocol "extension". But I think he would not be successful. That would be very much suicide for the concept, old ordinals owners would become enraged and fund an alternative platform.

Omni, Counterparty and other "extension" providers are similar. Of course they have parts of a kind of an own consensus which is not identical to the Bitcoin consensus, but there is no centralized authority which can control the way it is used. (Ethereum, for example, is much more centralized than any of these "extension providers" due to the premine, the ETH foundation/founders can simply threaten to dump any fork-coins which result in a protocol upgrade not wanted by them like they did in the TheDAO fiasco, even if the majority of the nodes support it.)

BTW, looking at inscriptions like this one: are they now trying to replicate Namecoin on BTC?  

El IVA es ciertamente un mecanismo que emplean los países con baja capacidad de control de "patrimonios". Pero su gran problema es que (en el caso que se apueste solo al IVA, y no a impuestos a la renta y al patrimonio) no permite una política tributaria progresiva, es decir que el Estado pierde parte de los que podrían aportar los que más se benefician de asimetrías de información y poder propias de las economías de mercado. Yo creo que hasta que no hayamos vencido estas asimetrías, en una sociedad realmente libertaria, los impuestos progresivos son legítimos, y la mayoría de los estados los necesita para autofinanciarse.

Justo ahí está uno de los puntos que tiene el estado para controlar: no solo propiedades inmuebles, sino también otros artículos de alto valor (por ejemplo, automóviles 0 km) en muchos países requieren algún tipo de registración. Al final, si quieres esconder tus Bitcoins, no podrás hacer mucho con ellos, al menos nada que te de realmente "lujos", al menos si no aceptas una migración a otro país.

Es cierto que el estado no puede controlar todo el patrimonio de todos sus ciudadanos. Por eso el enfoque está en los "peces gordos", clase media alta para arriba, que realmente afectan la recaudación de impuestos progresivos. El consumo de estos estratos sociales da muchas posibilidades al Estado a controlar, porque justamente definen su status con automóviles, casas etc.. No es que no le escapará nada ni de esta clase, pero por ejemplo, alguien que declara menos de la mitad de lo que tiene realmente, si no lo hace realmente bien, está muchas veces en problemas.

Te doy la razón que el Bitcoin no es tan fácil de controlar si se mueve entre diferentes países. Pero: ¿a cuanta gente afecta eso? La mayoría siempre se quedarán en un país (fuera de vacaciones/viajes de negocios etc.), o a lo sumo se muda a un país vecino.

De acuerdo. Es un poco más fácil de esconderse con Monero que con Bitcoin, pero también se requiere conocimiento.

Los paraísos fiscales funcionan si son pequeños (en relación a los "no paraísos fiscales") porque justamente se benefician del escaso porcentaje de gente que prefiere mudarse a pagar un poco más de impuestos. Pero tienen un "mercado" limitado.

Le deseo suerte a El Salvador con Bitcoin City, por lo menos es un semi-paraíso fiscal con algunos aspectos simpáticos (otros no tanto, como el autoritarismo) y no estaría mal que le saque una parte de este mercado a lugares totalmente antipáticos como los Emiratos Árabes, pero si por ejemplo, México o Brasil quisieran imitar el modelo, fallarían. Son ya demasiado grandes - necesitan este "plus" que le aportan impuestos progresivos.