What does a President Trump mean for Bitcoin?

[cjmoles]

That's why I used the words "prior" and "was."  The citations were in direct reference to your statement above:
"And Bitcoin possession was never a crime, either. You seem to be heavily misinformed on this issue."

My argument is that if Trump took a stance similar to those stances I referenced above, then it would be bad for bitcoin.

But I have to repeat that Bitcoin has never been banned in Russia

It doesn't matter what someone says even if it is an official stance on something (read their opinion). The Ministry of Finance cannot enact laws, this is outright beyond their scope. They can only propose a draft but if it doesn't get accepted by the legislative body and signed by the president, it will remain just that, i.e. an opinion. Do you see the difference? Regarding Trump, he is a known loud mouth but even if he tries to actually implement something (not necessarily related to Bitcoin), his initiative may just get ignored. Wtf, he already tried to ban immigration and he was basically brushed off

Actually, his ban stance created a serious panic.  People are flooding into Canada....Mexican nationals are hiding in their homes....If he came out denouncing bitcoin and signed an executive order in those regards, I am pretty sure there would be a dump!  Maybe not everyone would dump, but it would be significant.

I tend to disagree that his denouncement would bring about any serious consequences

We have seen the Chinese authorities openly attacking Bitcoin far beyond empty verbiage. Disallowing Bitcoin withdrawals as well as deposits from major Chinese exchanges is one step short of directly banning it. They tried it twice. The first time we saw something which could be loosely called a panic selling. But it didn't last long. The second time (when they disallowed withdrawals) the effect was almost negligible, and now we see price climbing to new highs. As to me, the effect of his public denouncement of Bitcoin would actually attract more attention to this coin and could in fact add to its popularity, not take from it

Well, I'm not familiar with the Chinese markets so I can't base an opinion on that part.  However, if the big E-merchants in the United States are coerced into suspending their bitcoin services (Amazon, IBM, Overstock,...etc), and the average law abiding bitcoin investors become fearful of receiving Ross Ulbricht type sentences, then a significant number of people may trade in their bitcoin for a less risky investment.  Trump is doing some crazy stuff....he's got a lot of people freaking out over his policies. I just cannot see how a major shift against bitcoin, in the largest economy on the planet, could not have a significant effect on the network.

[1714611502]

1714611502

[1714611502]

1714611502

[deisik]

But I have to repeat that Bitcoin has never been banned in Russia

It doesn't matter what someone says even if it is an official stance on something (read their opinion). The Ministry of Finance cannot enact laws, this is outright beyond their scope. They can only propose a draft but if it doesn't get accepted by the legislative body and signed by the president, it will remain just that, i.e. an opinion. Do you see the difference? Regarding Trump, he is a known loud mouth but even if he tries to actually implement something (not necessarily related to Bitcoin), his initiative may just get ignored. Wtf, he already tried to ban immigration and he was basically brushed off

Actually, his ban stance created a serious panic.  People are flooding into Canada....Mexican nationals are hiding in their homes....If he came out denouncing bitcoin and signed an executive order in those regards, I am pretty sure there would be a dump!  Maybe not everyone would dump, but it would be significant.

I tend to disagree that his denouncement would bring about any serious consequences

We have seen the Chinese authorities openly attacking Bitcoin far beyond empty verbiage. Disallowing Bitcoin withdrawals as well as deposits from major Chinese exchanges is one step short of directly banning it. They tried it twice. The first time we saw something which could be loosely called a panic selling. But it didn't last long. The second time (when they disallowed withdrawals) the effect was almost negligible, and now we see price climbing to new highs. As to me, the effect of his public denouncement of Bitcoin would actually attract more attention to this coin and could in fact add to its popularity, not take from it

Well, I'm not familiar with the Chinese markets so I can't base an opinion on that part.  However, if the big E-merchants in the United States are coerced into suspending their bitcoin services (Amazon, IBM, Overstock,...etc), and the average law abiding bitcoin investors become fearful of receiving Ross Ulbricht type sentences, then a significant number of people may trade in their bitcoin for a less risky investment.  Trump is doing some crazy stuff....he's got a lot of people freaking out over his policies. I just cannot see how a major shift against bitcoin, in the largest economy on the planet, could not have a significant effect on the network

Ross Ulbricht of SilkRoad fame was sentenced for a bunch of accusations not related to Bitcoin as such

If I'm not mistaken he was heavily engaged in drug trafficking and consequently in money laundering. In other words, if he had been using cash, he would most likely get absolutely the same sentence for his criminal activities. Besides, you are obviously distorting facts in your post. The fact that the US economy is the largest on the planet (which is debatable per se) doesn't mean that American citizens are the largest holders or operators of Bitcoin. Further, so-called "bitcoin investors" are not very law-abiding overall. In fact, their use of Bitcoin itself is an evidence that they are not (as law abiding as the rest of American population)

[cjmoles]

But I have to repeat that Bitcoin has never been banned in Russia

It doesn't matter what someone says even if it is an official stance on something (read their opinion). The Ministry of Finance cannot enact laws, this is outright beyond their scope. They can only propose a draft but if it doesn't get accepted by the legislative body and signed by the president, it will remain just that, i.e. an opinion. Do you see the difference? Regarding Trump, he is a known loud mouth but even if he tries to actually implement something (not necessarily related to Bitcoin), his initiative may just get ignored. Wtf, he already tried to ban immigration and he was basically brushed off

Actually, his ban stance created a serious panic.  People are flooding into Canada....Mexican nationals are hiding in their homes....If he came out denouncing bitcoin and signed an executive order in those regards, I am pretty sure there would be a dump!  Maybe not everyone would dump, but it would be significant.

I tend to disagree that his denouncement would bring about any serious consequences

We have seen the Chinese authorities openly attacking Bitcoin far beyond empty verbiage. Disallowing Bitcoin withdrawals as well as deposits from major Chinese exchanges is one step short of directly banning it. They tried it twice. The first time we saw something which could be loosely called a panic selling. But it didn't last long. The second time (when they disallowed withdrawals) the effect was almost negligible, and now we see price climbing to new highs. As to me, the effect of his public denouncement of Bitcoin would actually attract more attention to this coin and could in fact add to its popularity, not take from it

Well, I'm not familiar with the Chinese markets so I can't base an opinion on that part.  However, if the big E-merchants in the United States are coerced into suspending their bitcoin services (Amazon, IBM, Overstock,...etc), and the average law abiding bitcoin investors become fearful of receiving Ross Ulbricht type sentences, then a significant number of people may trade in their bitcoin for a less risky investment.  Trump is doing some crazy stuff....he's got a lot of people freaking out over his policies. I just cannot see how a major shift against bitcoin, in the largest economy on the planet, could not have a significant effect on the network

Ross Ulbricht of SilkRoad fame was sentenced for a bunch of accusations not related to Bitcoin as such

If I'm not mistaken he was heavily engaged in drug trafficking and consequently in money laundering. In other words, if he had been using cash, he would most likely get absolutely the same sentence for his criminal activities. Besides, you are obviously distorting facts in your post. The fact that the US economy is the largest on the planet (which is debatable per se) doesn't mean that American citizens are the largest holders or operators of Bitcoin. Further, so-called "bitcoin investors" are not very law-abiding overall. In fact, their use of Bitcoin itself is an evidence that they are not (as law abiding as the rest of American population)

In the USA some people associate bitcoin with the Silk Road for what ever reason, so the FEAR alone of having their assets ceased and being incarcerated like Ulbricht is no small consequence.  And, there are a lot of people who have invested in bitcoin strictly for investment purposes, so the fact that they invested in bitcoin is not evidence that they are not law abiding citizens because it is not against the law to invest in bitcoin in the United States at this time.  And, even if we accepted the premise that the United States didn't have a significant economy and that there are no significant bitcoin investors (ignoring some of the obvious like coinbase and the winklevoss twins), that doesn't belie the fact that the USD/BTC markets would be impacted. Right?

[deisik]

In the USA some people associate bitcoin with the Silk Road for what ever reason, so the FEAR alone of having their assets ceased and being incarcerated like Ulbricht is no small consequence.  And, there are a lot of people who have invested in bitcoin strictly for investment purposes, so the fact that they invested in bitcoin is not evidence that they are not law abiding citizens because it is not against the law to invest in bitcoin in the United States at this time.  And, even if we accepted the premise that the United States didn't have a significant economy and that there are no significant bitcoin investors (ignoring some of the obvious like coinbase and the winklevoss twins), that doesn't belie the fact that the USD/BTC markets would be impacted. Right?

People who associate Bitcoin with Silk Road are either staying away from Bitcoin completely (and thus they are irrelevant) or perfectly aware of the possible consequences and likely already chose their course of action (if they are involved with Bitcoin). Further, if it is not against the law to invest in Bitcoin at present, so could Trump easily change this law? Yeah, I know that gold had already been prohibited in 1934 from personal possession for investment purposes (i.e. bullion, certificates and coins), but would gold prohibition work out today if it should happen again?

We see that Trump is openly ignored by some top officials, but how many people would choose to disobey him in a silent manner?

[cjmoles]

In the USA some people associate bitcoin with the Silk Road for what ever reason, so the FEAR alone of having their assets ceased and being incarcerated like Ulbricht is no small consequence.  And, there are a lot of people who have invested in bitcoin strictly for investment purposes, so the fact that they invested in bitcoin is not evidence that they are not law abiding citizens because it is not against the law to invest in bitcoin in the United States at this time.  And, even if we accepted the premise that the United States didn't have a significant economy and that there are no significant bitcoin investors (ignoring some of the obvious like coinbase and the winklevoss twins), that doesn't belie the fact that the USD/BTC markets would be impacted. Right?

People who associate Bitcoin with Silk Road are either staying away from Bitcoin completely (and thus they are irrelevant) or perfectly aware of the possible consequences and likely already chose their course of action (if they are involved with Bitcoin). Further, if it is not against the law to invest in Bitcoin at present, so could Trump easily change this law? Yeah, I know that gold had already been prohibited in 1934 from personal possession for investment purposes (i.e. bullion, certificates and coins), but would gold prohibition work out today if it should happen again?

We see that Trump is openly ignored by some top officials, but how many people would choose to disobey him in a silent manner?

I don't know.  But, Trump has appointed a significant number of Goldman Sachs executives to his cabinet and has criticized the Chinese for currency manipulation.  Much of the bitcoin activity has been ignored by prior administrations but Trump seems to interpret codified regulations to justify implementing his far reaching policies.  He could very well interpret the Anti Money Laundering Act liberally enough to sign an executive order banning the use of bitcoin to fight his war against terrorism.  An executive order such as that would be enforced immediately and wouldn't be changed unless it was ruled unconstitutional in the federal courts. He has already tried to push through some very questionable executive orders under the premise that he had the ultimate authority for national security reasons....The guy is a fruitcake!  They're knocking in doors and dragging people to deportation centers, without due process, at escalated rates....It's pretty serious.

[deisik]

In the USA some people associate bitcoin with the Silk Road for what ever reason, so the FEAR alone of having their assets ceased and being incarcerated like Ulbricht is no small consequence.  And, there are a lot of people who have invested in bitcoin strictly for investment purposes, so the fact that they invested in bitcoin is not evidence that they are not law abiding citizens because it is not against the law to invest in bitcoin in the United States at this time.  And, even if we accepted the premise that the United States didn't have a significant economy and that there are no significant bitcoin investors (ignoring some of the obvious like coinbase and the winklevoss twins), that doesn't belie the fact that the USD/BTC markets would be impacted. Right?

People who associate Bitcoin with Silk Road are either staying away from Bitcoin completely (and thus they are irrelevant) or perfectly aware of the possible consequences and likely already chose their course of action (if they are involved with Bitcoin). Further, if it is not against the law to invest in Bitcoin at present, so could Trump easily change this law? Yeah, I know that gold had already been prohibited in 1934 from personal possession for investment purposes (i.e. bullion, certificates and coins), but would gold prohibition work out today if it should happen again?

We see that Trump is openly ignored by some top officials, but how many people would choose to disobey him in a silent manner?

I don't know.  But, Trump has appointed a significant number of Goldman Sachs executives to his cabinet and has criticized the Chinese for currency manipulation.  Much of the bitcoin activity has been ignored by prior administrations but Trump seems to interpret codified regulations to justify implementing his far reaching policies.  He could very well interpret the Anti Money Laundering Act liberally enough to sign an executive order banning the use of bitcoin to fight his war against terrorism.  An executive order such as that would be enforced immediately and wouldn't be changed unless it was ruled unconstitutional in the federal courts. He has already tried to push through some very questionable executive orders under the premise that he had the ultimate authority for national security reasons....The guy is a fruitcake!  They're knocking in doors and dragging people to deportation centers, without due process, at escalated rates....It's pretty serious

Then I don't know either

I've heard Putin addressing the issue of Bitcoin when he had been asked directly at a press conference, and he was very discreet about his words and stance toward Bitcoin. Basically, he admitted that it could be used as a unit of account in special cases. It looks like the change in the overall attitude about Bitcoin in Russia (from openly hostile toward what can be loosely construed as neutral or even friendly, to a certain degree) was caused by Putin himself. Herman Greff (the former minister) is a known proponent of Bitcoin, and he might have explained to the Russian president the real idea behind Bitcoin

[bryant.coleman]

Herman Greff (the former minister) is a known proponent of Bitcoin and he might have explained to the Russian president the real idea behind Bitcoin

It is always nice to hear that there are supporters of Bitcoin in the Russian political establishment. Herman Gref is a very powerful person. He was the minister of economy from 2000 to 2007, and right now he is the CEO of the biggest bank in Russia (Sberbank). I wish there were more people like him in the Putin cabinet.

[ASHLIUSZ]

Herman Greff (the former minister) is a known proponent of Bitcoin and he might have explained to the Russian president the real idea behind Bitcoin

It is always nice to hear that there are supporters of Bitcoin in the Russian political establishment. Herman Gref is a very powerful person. He was the minister of economy from 2000 to 2007, and right now he is the CEO of the biggest bank in Russia (Sberbank). I wish there were more people like him in the Putin cabinet.

That's not a big news, because Russia made ban on bitcoin and now it has been taken back stating that the technology will support perfect financial solution for all needs. In a news other than Sberbank, Russia's biggest bank in terms of value has revealed the statement that blockchain technology will be  used by most banks due to its worth. Expect everything to be functioning on blockchain by 2019.

[cjmoles]

In the USA some people associate bitcoin with the Silk Road for what ever reason, so the FEAR alone of having their assets ceased and being incarcerated like Ulbricht is no small consequence.  And, there are a lot of people who have invested in bitcoin strictly for investment purposes, so the fact that they invested in bitcoin is not evidence that they are not law abiding citizens because it is not against the law to invest in bitcoin in the United States at this time.  And, even if we accepted the premise that the United States didn't have a significant economy and that there are no significant bitcoin investors (ignoring some of the obvious like coinbase and the winklevoss twins), that doesn't belie the fact that the USD/BTC markets would be impacted. Right?

People who associate Bitcoin with Silk Road are either staying away from Bitcoin completely (and thus they are irrelevant) or perfectly aware of the possible consequences and likely already chose their course of action (if they are involved with Bitcoin). Further, if it is not against the law to invest in Bitcoin at present, so could Trump easily change this law? Yeah, I know that gold had already been prohibited in 1934 from personal possession for investment purposes (i.e. bullion, certificates and coins), but would gold prohibition work out today if it should happen again?

We see that Trump is openly ignored by some top officials, but how many people would choose to disobey him in a silent manner?

I don't know.  But, Trump has appointed a significant number of Goldman Sachs executives to his cabinet and has criticized the Chinese for currency manipulation.  Much of the bitcoin activity has been ignored by prior administrations but Trump seems to interpret codified regulations to justify implementing his far reaching policies.  He could very well interpret the Anti Money Laundering Act liberally enough to sign an executive order banning the use of bitcoin to fight his war against terrorism.  An executive order such as that would be enforced immediately and wouldn't be changed unless it was ruled unconstitutional in the federal courts. He has already tried to push through some very questionable executive orders under the premise that he had the ultimate authority for national security reasons....The guy is a fruitcake!  They're knocking in doors and dragging people to deportation centers, without due process, at escalated rates....It's pretty serious

Then I don't know either

I've heard Putin addressing the issue of Bitcoin when he had been asked directly at a press conference, and he was very discreet about his words and stance toward Bitcoin. Basically, he admitted that it could be used as a unit of account in special cases. It looks like the change in the overall attitude about Bitcoin in Russia (from openly hostile toward what can be loosely construed as neutral or even friendly, to a certain degree) was caused by Putin himself. Herman Greff (the former minister) is a known proponent of Bitcoin, and he might have explained to the Russian president the real idea behind Bitcoin

Yes, Russia's current stance on bitcoin has been relaxed, publicly, so that does help build confidence....But, Russia doesn't have an extremely robust economy relative to the rest of the industrialized world.  The president of the United States seems partial to the interests of Goldman Sachs....so....I'd imagine that Goldman Sachs' stance on bitcoin might come into play in this discussion somewhere down the line, much like Herman Greff's.

[deisik]

Then I don't know either

I've heard Putin addressing the issue of Bitcoin when he had been asked directly at a press conference, and he was very discreet about his words and stance toward Bitcoin. Basically, he admitted that it could be used as a unit of account in special cases. It looks like the change in the overall attitude about Bitcoin in Russia (from openly hostile toward what can be loosely construed as neutral or even friendly, to a certain degree) was caused by Putin himself. Herman Greff (the former minister) is a known proponent of Bitcoin, and he might have explained to the Russian president the real idea behind Bitcoin

Yes, Russia's current stance on bitcoin has been relaxed, publicly, so that does help build confidence....But, Russia doesn't have an extremely robust economy relative to the rest of the industrialized world.  The president of the United States seems partial to the interests of Goldman Sachs....so....I'd imagine that Goldman Sachs' stance on bitcoin might come into play in this discussion somewhere down the line, much like Herman Greff's

So what is the worst case scenario?

Let's assume that Bitcoin gets outright banned in the US (just like possession of gold had been banned by Roosevelt). Obviously, the companies like Coinbase will have to either close their operations completely (as to me, this is unlikely) or move elsewhere. For purely online companies (and Bitcoin companies fit here perfectly) this seems to be the most rational decision. Will the American Bitcoin users sell or otherwise liquidate their stashes? That's just as unlikely ("come and take it"). And what will we have as a net effect of this ban? The price will likely drop to around 700 dollars per coin, and folks outside the US (and certainly many of them within the US) will jump at an opportunity to buy cheap bitcoins as it happened earlier in January

[ValeryBark]

In the USA some people associate bitcoin with the Silk Road for what ever reason, so the FEAR alone of having their assets ceased and being incarcerated like Ulbricht is no small consequence.  And, there are a lot of people who have invested in bitcoin strictly for investment purposes, so the fact that they invested in bitcoin is not evidence that they are not law abiding citizens because it is not against the law to invest in bitcoin in the United States at this time.  And, even if we accepted the premise that the United States didn't have a significant economy and that there are no significant bitcoin investors (ignoring some of the obvious like coinbase and the winklevoss twins), that doesn't belie the fact that the USD/BTC markets would be impacted. Right?

People who associate Bitcoin with Silk Road are either staying away from Bitcoin completely (and thus they are irrelevant) or perfectly aware of the possible consequences and likely already chose their course of action (if they are involved with Bitcoin). Further, if it is not against the law to invest in Bitcoin at present, so could Trump easily change this law? Yeah, I know that gold had already been prohibited in 1934 from personal possession for investment purposes (i.e. bullion, certificates and coins), but would gold prohibition work out today if it should happen again?

We see that Trump is openly ignored by some top officials, but how many people would choose to disobey him in a silent manner?

I don't know.  But, Trump has appointed a significant number of Goldman Sachs executives to his cabinet and has criticized the Chinese for currency manipulation.  Much of the bitcoin activity has been ignored by prior administrations but Trump seems to interpret codified regulations to justify implementing his far reaching policies.  He could very well interpret the Anti Money Laundering Act liberally enough to sign an executive order banning the use of bitcoin to fight his war against terrorism.  An executive order such as that would be enforced immediately and wouldn't be changed unless it was ruled unconstitutional in the federal courts. He has already tried to push through some very questionable executive orders under the premise that he had the ultimate authority for national security reasons....The guy is a fruitcake!  They're knocking in doors and dragging people to deportation centers, without due process, at escalated rates....It's pretty serious

Then I don't know either

I've heard Putin addressing the issue of Bitcoin when he had been asked directly at a press conference, and he was very discreet about his words and stance toward Bitcoin. Basically, he admitted that it could be used as a unit of account in special cases. It looks like the change in the overall attitude about Bitcoin in Russia (from openly hostile toward what can be loosely construed as neutral or even friendly, to a certain degree) was caused by Putin himself. Herman Greff (the former minister) is a known proponent of Bitcoin, and he might have explained to the Russian president the real idea behind Bitcoin

Yes, Russia's current stance on bitcoin has been relaxed, publicly, so that does help build confidence....But, Russia doesn't have an extremely robust economy relative to the rest of the industrialized world.  The president of the United States seems partial to the interests of Goldman Sachs....so....I'd imagine that Goldman Sachs' stance on bitcoin might come into play in this discussion somewhere down the line, much like Herman Greff's.

Russians generally consider bitcoin as a threat to the economy. The law of bitcoin in Russia 2015 provides for liability of individuals and legal entities for the proliferation of liberality that the text of the law also called cash substitute, and also for creating, distributing and selling software for the creation of the cryptocurrency provides for liability in the form of a penalty from 5 to 20 thousand rubles.
In case of repeated violation of the law on cryptocurrencies in Russia, it may amount to fraud, and the offender will face a maximum penalty of imprisonment for a term up to three years.

[cjmoles]

Then I don't know either

I've heard Putin addressing the issue of Bitcoin when he had been asked directly at a press conference, and he was very discreet about his words and stance toward Bitcoin. Basically, he admitted that it could be used as a unit of account in special cases. It looks like the change in the overall attitude about Bitcoin in Russia (from openly hostile toward what can be loosely construed as neutral or even friendly, to a certain degree) was caused by Putin himself. Herman Greff (the former minister) is a known proponent of Bitcoin, and he might have explained to the Russian president the real idea behind Bitcoin

Yes, Russia's current stance on bitcoin has been relaxed, publicly, so that does help build confidence....But, Russia doesn't have an extremely robust economy relative to the rest of the industrialized world.  The president of the United States seems partial to the interests of Goldman Sachs....so....I'd imagine that Goldman Sachs' stance on bitcoin might come into play in this discussion somewhere down the line, much like Herman Greff's

So what is the worst case scenario?

Let's assume that Bitcoin gets outright banned in the US (just like possession of gold had been banned by Roosevelt). Obviously, the companies like Coinbase will have to either close their operations completely (as to me, this is unlikely) or move elsewhere. For purely online companies (and Bitcoin companies fit here perfectly) this seems to be the most rational decision. Will the American Bitcoin users sell or otherwise liquidate their stashes? That's just as unlikely ("come and take it"). And what will we have as a net effect of this ban? The price will likely drop to around 700 dollars per coin, and folks outside the US (and certainly many of them within the US) will jump at an opportunity to buy cheap bitcoins as it happened earlier in January

When the US government took an aggressive stance on the online poker industry, the most serious online professionals became expatriates and moved to countries that were more poker friendly.  The enforcement of the UIGEA happened over night....I woke up one morning to an FBI splash screen instead of my poker account....all funds were frozen on several sites!  It was spooky!  Bitcoin pretty much saved some of us who didn't expatriate....but....the gambling industry took a huge hit.  So, I think that something similar could happen if bitcoin were also outlawed....The faithful bitcoiners will either expatriate or go rogue, and the casual investors will liquidate. Weak hands will fold, and faithful holders will take up the slack....but the overall effect may reduce bitcoin's marketcap.

[artows21]

I don't think Trump knows about bitcoins because he doesn't care about it, he has already lots of money, this is not a big deal for him. However if he knows about bitcoins, he will be able to bann it in US but probably not in others countries. In this case, I think the value of BTC  will go up. But Trump has no reason to do that, because he can't use bitcoin for a political strategy.

[kiklo]

Everyone is worried about , Trump.

Everyone better start watching CHINA,
they are the ones that FROZE THEIR ENTIRE COUNTRIES BTC & LTC WITHDRAWALS for a month or more.

They exerted more control over their Crypto Exchanges, than anything done by the US.

BTC= Better Trust China

 

[SpousedHF]

So far it seems to be going up we can only hope that it will continue to rise I sure hope it does cause I'm loving it when it is doing good always like to see it doing good.

[tommy163]

Everyone is worried about , Trump.

Everyone better start watching CHINA,
they are the ones that FROZE THEIR ENTIRE COUNTRIES BTC & LTC WITHDRAWALS for a month or more.

They exerted more control over their Crypto Exchanges, than anything done by the US.

BTC= Better Trust China

 

I never trust the China. They are not good and they will betray us when they have enough fund or money. Stay away from them if you want to become rich. However, try to watch their step because we can not deny their huge influence to the cryptos world
Damn it

Don't trust China, they screw bitcoiners once, twice, and once more. They hate bitcoin and they are communism country. People love bitcoin because they seek for freedom and decentraliztion.

[deisik]

So what is the worst case scenario?

Let's assume that Bitcoin gets outright banned in the US (just like possession of gold had been banned by Roosevelt). Obviously, the companies like Coinbase will have to either close their operations completely (as to me, this is unlikely) or move elsewhere. For purely online companies (and Bitcoin companies fit here perfectly) this seems to be the most rational decision. Will the American Bitcoin users sell or otherwise liquidate their stashes? That's just as unlikely ("come and take it"). And what will we have as a net effect of this ban? The price will likely drop to around 700 dollars per coin, and folks outside the US (and certainly many of them within the US) will jump at an opportunity to buy cheap bitcoins as it happened earlier in January

When the US government took an aggressive stance on the online poker industry, the most serious online professionals became expatriates and moved to countries that were more poker friendly.  The enforcement of the UIGEA happened over night....I woke up one morning to an FBI splash screen instead of my poker account....all funds were frozen on several sites!  It was spooky!  Bitcoin pretty much saved some of us who didn't expatriate....but....the gambling industry took a huge hit.  So, I think that something similar could happen if bitcoin were also outlawed....The faithful bitcoiners will either expatriate or go rogue, and the casual investors will liquidate. Weak hands will fold, and faithful holders will take up the slack....but the overall effect may reduce bitcoin's marketcap.

Well, I empathize with you, I certainly know how it feels

And I kinda understand your apprehensions and fear ("once bitten twice shy"), but we should remain realists, before all. In this case, if you don't use web wallets such as Coinbase and their likes, you are basically insured from your money being taken (read stolen) by the FBI unless they break into your home, of course (but in that case you'd better expatriate to another country where Bitcoin is not going to be prohibited, say, to Switzerland). In this way, Bitcoin is certainly better and "reliable" than poker

Everyone is worried about , Trump.

Everyone better start watching CHINA,
they are the ones that FROZE THEIR ENTIRE COUNTRIES BTC & LTC WITHDRAWALS for a month or more

They froze withdrawals and the price went exponential, more power to them

BTC= Better Trust China

BTC -> Bye-bye To China

[KennyR]

So what is the worst case scenario?

Let's assume that Bitcoin gets outright banned in the US (just like possession of gold had been banned by Roosevelt). Obviously, the companies like Coinbase will have to either close their operations completely (as to me, this is unlikely) or move elsewhere. For purely online companies (and Bitcoin companies fit here perfectly) this seems to be the most rational decision. Will the American Bitcoin users sell or otherwise liquidate their stashes? That's just as unlikely ("come and take it"). And what will we have as a net effect of this ban? The price will likely drop to around 700 dollars per coin, and folks outside the US (and certainly many of them within the US) will jump at an opportunity to buy cheap bitcoins as it happened earlier in January

When the US government took an aggressive stance on the online poker industry, the most serious online professionals became expatriates and moved to countries that were more poker friendly.  The enforcement of the UIGEA happened over night....I woke up one morning to an FBI splash screen instead of my poker account....all funds were frozen on several sites!  It was spooky!  Bitcoin pretty much saved some of us who didn't expatriate....but....the gambling industry took a huge hit.  So, I think that something similar could happen if bitcoin were also outlawed....The faithful bitcoiners will either expatriate or go rogue, and the casual investors will liquidate. Weak hands will fold, and faithful holders will take up the slack....but the overall effect may reduce bitcoin's marketcap.

Well, I empathize with you, I certainly know how it feels

And I kinda understand your appreciations and fear ("once bitten twice shy"), but we should remain realists, before all. In this case, if you don't use web wallets such as Coinbase and their likes, you are basically insured from your money being taken (read stolen) by the FBI unless they break into your home, of course (but in that case you'd better expatriate to another country where Bitcoin is not going to be prohibited, say, to Switzerland). In this way, Bitcoin is better than poker

Everyone is worried about , Trump.

Everyone better start watching CHINA,
they are the ones that FROZE THEIR ENTIRE COUNTRIES BTC & LTC WITHDRAWALS for a month or more

They froze withdrawals and the price went exponential, more power to them

BTC= Better Trust China

BTC -> Bye-bye To China

Well that's the right acronym for BTC relating to China. The dependence of Bitcoin on China has decreased a lot than the past days. Still it has got the increased user profiles as well increasing acceptance compared to the other nations. Recent day the focus turned towards US when the Chinese Yuan fall in respect to the price increase of bitcoin. The regulatory use of bitcoin in US didn't make a big change in the US market.

[cjmoles]

So what is the worst case scenario?

Let's assume that Bitcoin gets outright banned in the US (just like possession of gold had been banned by Roosevelt). Obviously, the companies like Coinbase will have to either close their operations completely (as to me, this is unlikely) or move elsewhere. For purely online companies (and Bitcoin companies fit here perfectly) this seems to be the most rational decision. Will the American Bitcoin users sell or otherwise liquidate their stashes? That's just as unlikely ("come and take it"). And what will we have as a net effect of this ban? The price will likely drop to around 700 dollars per coin, and folks outside the US (and certainly many of them within the US) will jump at an opportunity to buy cheap bitcoins as it happened earlier in January

When the US government took an aggressive stance on the online poker industry, the most serious online professionals became expatriates and moved to countries that were more poker friendly.  The enforcement of the UIGEA happened over night....I woke up one morning to an FBI splash screen instead of my poker account....all funds were frozen on several sites!  It was spooky!  Bitcoin pretty much saved some of us who didn't expatriate....but....the gambling industry took a huge hit.  So, I think that something similar could happen if bitcoin were also outlawed....The faithful bitcoiners will either expatriate or go rogue, and the casual investors will liquidate. Weak hands will fold, and faithful holders will take up the slack....but the overall effect may reduce bitcoin's marketcap.

Well, I empathize with you, I certainly know how it feels

And I kinda understand your apprehensions and fear ("once bitten twice shy"), but we should remain realists, before all. In this case, if you don't use web wallets such as Coinbase and their likes, you are basically insured from your money being taken (read stolen) by the FBI unless they break into your home, of course (but in that case you'd better expatriate to another country where Bitcoin is not going to be prohibited, say, to Switzerland). In this way, Bitcoin is certainly better and "reliable" than poker

We ended up getting most of our money back.  The real problem was what it did to the industry....The UIGEA stopped banks from transferring money to certain sites....it didn't make gambling illegal.  It just prevented US dollars from entering the gambling markets.  Before "Black Friday" it was fairly easy for a skilled poker player to make a profit, but after "Black Friday" it became difficult because there was less USD entering the online poker markets.

So, while they cannot "freeze" our bitcoin wallets, they can stop the US dollar from entering the cryptocurrency markets through US financial institutions under current regulatory code. 

[Doamader]

Trump is shaking a lot too many things at the same time, his ideas to punish companies that sell at USA and dont offer work to USA citizens, is the model to follow by each country, but too many thing he wanna to change without consult the law, we dont need him at bitcoin, sure a good opinion about bitcoin would be a boost to the mass adoption but those wont happen, bitcoin can became a target instead be promoted.