If the banksters and governments held 90% of the Bitcoin supply, what now?

[franky1]

No one made a compelling debate.

If 90% of Bitcoin is controlled by a few centralized and powerful groups, what will happen? Will it cease to be a permissionless system?

depends on HOW the 90% is utilised, presents different results

Leave the Lightning factories or the Core developers conspiracy theories out of it. My thinking is 90% of Bitcoins in the control or under the custody of banks, services like Coinbase, and governments working together so that users would have to "gain" permission to use it.

Has Bitcoin failed in that given scenario?

scenario of 90% of users funds in custodial accounts...
for those 90% yes its not a permissionless system they are using

for the other 10%, where its probably too expensive for a 3rd world country to transact with (tx fee's being more than a few hours wage) those able to access the non-custody 10% are not going to be average joe or just anyone, as the cost of fee's become a barrier in itself
EG football stadium, analogy
anyone can sit in the 10% empty seats but they need to pay for a ticket or get rejected out of the seats
anyone can transact using 10% funds but they need to pay the fe's or the min-dust/min fee rules will reject them

thus rejection rules are a permission.. thus the 10% has its own thing of requiring permission.. so yea it becomes a permissioned system

anyway, in a currency that has 90% custodial control well thats just like a fiat currency.
the answer is to look at if fiat failing

that again has many results.
Venezuela would say yes its failed. Zimbabwe would say yes its failed.
america would say shh the sheep are asleep it hasnt failed until its failed so dont mention its failed until the sheep wake up to the failure alarm sounding off

people think because a bank broadly authorises payments without objection, so feel that fiat is not permissioned because they dont see the back-end system.
even though its their money(cough) there are limitations of £$500 ATM max limits. KYC, sars reporting for £$1000+, extended sars reporting for £$10k, etc etc
but for most sheep they will say its not failed until something actually goes wrong

[1713976781]

1713976781

[1713976781]

1713976781

[1713976781]

1713976781

[1713976781]

1713976781

[franky1]

as krishnapramod said
bitcoins old ethos was to be a insurance against the corporate monopoly of citizens only using the monopoly fiat

but yea if btc does become 90% custodial permissioned and 10% tx expense permissioned.
then yea bitcoin has failed the insurance against corporate monopoly

[NoeSanchez]

It is unlikely that event ahs taken place. the government, banksters and the elites will ahve to spend a lot of money to buy and hold 90% of the Bitcoin. The amount is so huge that not even the government will make such attempt. It will be easier for them to ban the cryptocurrency and declare it illegal to get rid of the problem than to buy that much of Bitcoins.

[robelneo]

If by "supply" you mean "newly minted coins", then Bitcoin is finished. If anyone has 51% it is bad, but if it is government specifically, then RIP Bitcoin, I will be dumping and going for Dogecoin.

You have a point this is very risky for our beloved Bitcoin if 90% of the supply goes to the hands of government institution, it could mean the end of Bitcoin because they can do whatever they want to do it, but I prefer a bitcoin fork then dogecoin I love to have the word Bitcoin on it.

[Wind_FURY]

No one made a compelling debate.

If 90% of Bitcoin is controlled by a few centralized and powerful groups, what will happen? Will it cease to be a permissionless system?

depends on HOW the 90% is utilised, presents different results

Leave the Lightning factories or the Core developers conspiracy theories out of it. My thinking is 90% of Bitcoins in the control or under the custody of banks, services like Coinbase, and governments working together so that users would have to "gain" permission to use it.

Has Bitcoin failed in that given scenario?

scenario of 90% of users funds in custodial accounts...
for those 90% yes its not a permissionless system they are using

for the other 10%, where its probably too expensive for a 3rd world country to transact with (tx fee's being more than a few hours wage) those able to access the non-custody 10% are not going to be average joe or just anyone, as the cost of fee's become a barrier in itself
EG football stadium, analogy
anyone can sit in the 10% empty seats but they need to pay for a ticket or get rejected out of the seats
anyone can transact using 10% funds but they need to pay the fe's or the min-dust/min fee rules will reject them

thus rejection rules are a permission.. thus the 10% has its own thing of requiring permission.. so yea it becomes a permissioned system

anyway, in a currency that has 90% custodial control well thats just like a fiat currency.
the answer is to look at if fiat failing

that again has many results.
Venezuela would say yes its failed. Zimbabwe would say yes its failed.
america would say shh the sheep are asleep it hasnt failed until its failed so dont mention its failed until the sheep wake up to the failure alarm sounding off

people think because a bank broadly authorises payments without objection, that fiat is not permissioned becaus they dont se the back-end system.
even though its their money(cough) there are limitations of £$500 ATM max limits. KYC, sars reporting for £$1000+, extended sars reporting for £$10k, etc etc
but for most sheep they will say its not failed until something actually goes wrong

Then what should be done to avoid such a situation? How can we prevent the old system from conquering the new? Or should we be worried about this hypothetical scenario? Because if it can happen it will happen.

[LeGaulois]

This scenario will be sad and a part of Bitcoin will be admitted as failed. It won't be different compared to the current system. But despite this, people won't stop to use Bitcoin for the same reasons they don't stop with cash. Because they need it.

[franky1]

Then what should be done to avoid such a situation? How can we prevent the old system from conquering the new? Or should we be worried about this hypothetical scenario? Because if it can happen it will happen.

your previous post (before the quote above) told me not to discuss ln factories/core theories (BSCartel).
so i shall not give my answer in this topic.

[franky1]

This scenario will be sad and a part of Bitcoin will be admitted as failed. It won't be different compared to the current system. But despite this, people won't stop to use Bitcoin for the same reasons they don't stop with cash. Because they need it.

people will stop using bitcoin. they will find another altcoin thats cheaper tx fee and not needed to lock funds up
(myspace to facebook scenario)

if you think people will remain just using bitcoin. then bitcoin becomes the monopoly

in my view as others have also displayed. bitcoin should be the open choice to avoid the monopoly. thus if bitcoin becomes a "one world currency" where nothing else is available. then bitcoin failed itself

[alex_gr_cc]

Would it be fair enough to assume that the project has failed, or failing?

90% of Bitcoin being held by an oligarchy of the elite, a cartel of banks, and by governments working together might turn Bitcoin into their "playground".

The situation with bitcoin in this case is the same as with other assets in the financial market. Whoever has more money, he also runs a feast. I don't think anyone will play games. Most likely, bitcoin will be treated seriously as an investment instrument.

[BitHodler]

in my view as others have also displayed. bitcoin should be the open choice to avoid the monopoly. thus if bitcoin becomes a "one world currency" where nothing else is available. then bitcoin failed itself

I'm glad that we will never head into that direction with how there is enough room for a wide variety of currencies to emerge and all occupy their share of the so called 'money market'.

Institutions don't really care much about Bitcoin itself, so they are more than happy to continue trading convenient financial instruments with cash settlements. As long as they can buy Bitcoin's exposure it's enough already.

Eventually options and futures markets will dominate Bitcoin too, so it's only a matter of time. Let them have their cash settled instruments and we continue to actually own what we think we own.

[Lilly Valencia]

More and more people are joining the bitcoin scene everyday,buying bitcoin and hodling. The banksters don't want to get people rich. For sure they are going to control it, if they just want to shut it down it'll be waste of energy and money if they mine it that need some crazy setup to gain a ton of BTC circulation.

[happyme1818]

Would it be fair enough to assume that the project has failed, or failing?

90% of Bitcoin being held by an oligarchy of the elite, a cartel of banks, and by governments working together might turn Bitcoin into their "playground".

It is a failure if that happened. Although I think it will not happen because many holder believe in Bitcoin and those people are investors and they will keep it and hold it for their future.

[xtrump101]

Would it be fair enough to assume that the project has failed, or failing?

90% of Bitcoin being held by an oligarchy of the elite, a cartel of banks, and by governments working together might turn Bitcoin into their "playground".

i dont think so, look at the confiscated bitcoin in the mt. gox echange it wat sold or bid by the FBI to the public, though were not sure who bought it cause they dont disclose that information, it could be some rich individual or the government itself haha, i mean who knows, your point is likely possible though.

[MelodyCrypto]

because the supply of Bitcoin is limited if the government or banker holds 90% of the supply of course there will be market manipulation
but I think this will require a lot of funds and only a few countries can do this, like Dubai

[Dextract]

Then we are totally fucked since they can control the price of Bitcoin in the market  

[sidebyside]

If the bank and the government hold nearly 90% of the bitcoin supply. I think that's not good for investors. Price fluctuations of bitcoin will be controlled by the government. Tax regulations will be issued. It can affect the profitability of investors.

[Wind_FURY]

Then what should be done to avoid such a situation? How can we prevent the old system from conquering the new? Or should we be worried about this hypothetical scenario? Because if it can happen it will happen.

your previous post (before the quote above) told me not to discuss ln factories/core theories (BSCartel).
so i shall not give my answer in this topic.

Hahaha only because I haven't fully read about Channel Factories yet. It is hard to debate on something I only partially know something about, and that "something" changes as fast as it is being developed.

Core conspiracy theories are a fun topic, but let's have every discussion on the technical side, and make it a part of everyone's learning process.

[BitcoinHodler]

in my opinion the only way to discuss a "what if" scenario like this is to first talk about the reasons why you think that scenario is going to happen.
for example in this case you should first discuss the reasons why a government or bank would want to control 90% of bitcoin supply? is it to control its price and make profit? or is it to control its future development? or some sort of censoring?

if we clarify the motivation then we can clarify whether it is even going to happen or not. for instance to control the price there are a lot of easier and much cheaper ways. other motivations may not even work with controlling the supply. for example no matter how much bitcoin you have, you still can't change consensus rules because it is not Proof of Stake coin.

[shendy]

Would it be fair enough to assume that the project has failed, or failing?

90% of Bitcoin being held by an oligarchy of the elite, a cartel of banks, and by governments working together might turn Bitcoin into their "playground".

It's sad if they take bitcoin and become a playground, but that won't happen. I think all this will work well without the government and also bankers, bitcoin holders are quite varied and this will be a separate game by the community.

[Womalith12]

If government agencies and the banking agencies held 90% of the coins, it would have sunken already. There is no doubt about that. Most government agencies are trying to make their own form of cryptocurrency that allows intervention, as a result they do not want the traditional crytocurrencies to exist.