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

[Wind_FURY]

Will governments have the power in censoring Bitcoin if only a few of them bankers hold and control most of the supply? For example, coercion of Bitcoin companies from making some transactions that was ordered by the government.

I believe banking institutions buying Bitcoin wallet services will become dangerous.

[1713900765]

1713900765

[Atomic.2017]

Ah thanks but no thanks. Once 90% of bitcoins are held by banks and governments, it's already called take over. In Corporate Actions, Take Over is the term used if a company is taking over another company. That happens when at least 50% of the shares of the company being taken over is being held by one shareholder. That will be the same case for your stated situation.

[vernl]

That definitely the end of Bitcoin because every banksters and goverments just want to shut Bitcoin down so if they held 90% of the Bitcoin . They will try to kill it for sure.
But in the opposite side, maybe they will try to help Bitcoin developing because it's their money and noone want to lose their money right ?

[honolulu888]

That definitely the end of Bitcoin because every banksters and goverments just want to shut Bitcoin down so if they held 90% of the Bitcoin . They will try to kill it for sure.
But in the opposite side, maybe they will try to help Bitcoin developing because it's their money and noone want to lose their money right ?

Yes its will be the end of bitcoin because the origin of creation of bitcoin is a peer to peer electronic currency without middleman
nowadays most of bitcoin is on the exchange not a peer to peer anymore

[gamechangers]

If the bankers and governments hold 90% of bitcoin, then it will be easy for them to kill bitcoin completely and they would have done that already but I don't think that can be possible because so many individuals hold quite a number of bitcoin.

[franky1]

Will governments have the power in censoring Bitcoin if only a few of them bankers hold and control most of the supply? For example, coercion of Bitcoin companies from making some transactions that was ordered by the government.

I believe banking institutions buying Bitcoin wallet services will become dangerous.

check out https://dcg.co/portfolio
bitflyer
bitgo
bitoasis
bitpay
bitpesa
bitso
blockchain.info
        blockstream(paid core devs)
        bloq(paid devs involved in the bilateral split)
buda
changetip
circle
coinbase

... and thats just letters B and C (also notice the media control in the list.. coindesk)

[ICOTechSupport]

In my honest opinion I do not think this is possible. Because many people are investing in bitcoin so as bitcoin value depends in supply and demand so if the banksters and governments hold 90% of the supply the value will increase making a lot of people very rich.

[franky1]

In my honest opinion I do not think this is possible. Because many people are investing in bitcoin so as bitcoin value depends in supply and demand so if the banksters and governments hold 90% of the supply the value will increase making a lot of people very rich.

what if i told you that there is a high chance that an exchange you use or a merchant gateway or a hardware wallet or even a software wallet can be tied back to a single company with some ownership stake in your coin holding/using solution.. see post above for hints(link provided in previous post)

[Wind_FURY]

Will governments have the power in censoring Bitcoin if only a few of them bankers hold and control most of the supply? For example, coercion of Bitcoin companies from making some transactions that was ordered by the government.

I believe banking institutions buying Bitcoin wallet services will become dangerous.

check out https://dcg.co/portfolio
bitflyer
bitgo
bitoasis
bitpay
bitpesa
bitso
blockchain.info
        blockstream(paid core devs)
        bloq(paid devs involved in the bilateral split)
buda
changetip
circle
coinbase

... and thats just letters B and C (also notice the media control in the list.. coindesk)

It is indeed a scary future if they continue to accumulate comtrol of more and more control of the supply, especially when most of the supply has been mined.

Would it be right to say that this iteration of a decentralized currency is failing? Because what would it be if it's censorable?

[St4yInTh3D4rk]

In my honest opinion I do not think this is possible. Because many people are investing in bitcoin so as bitcoin value depends in supply and demand so if the banksters and governments hold 90% of the supply the value will increase making a lot of people very rich.

what if i told you that there is a high chance that an exchange you use or a merchant gateway or a hardware wallet or even a software wallet can be tied back to a single company with some ownership stake in your coin holding/using solution.. see post above for hints(link provided in previous post)

But is it possible for that to happen? I don't know how much of the people were using the exchange to store their coins but if most of the people were using the wallets means thay can't take our coins without the private keys right?

[Trinity_boy]

That's quite unlikely to happen but if in case it does, then we're doomed. If cryptocurrencies fall under the power of avaricious entities, there will be chaos but then again, since bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are unregulated, that is quite unlikely to happen.

[Veerashanka]

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".

If Banksters had held 90% of Bitcoin then price of it will rise more and more each day, because the number of people ambitious to buy Bitcoin is increasing day by day but every other Millionaire will not release Bitcoin, so price will shoot up.
Government's never store Unregulated Currency correct me if am wrong

[Veerashanka]

In my honest opinion I do not think this is possible. Because many people are investing in bitcoin so as bitcoin value depends in supply and demand so if the banksters and governments hold 90% of the supply the value will increase making a lot of people very rich.

I still believe top 1000 people are holding 92% of Bitcoin.People are sacred to Bitcoin after it's fall from $ 17k, so average earners will never risk buying a Bitcoin even if you hype it will rise 1000% in a year.

[sinkfish]

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.

bitcoin is not a shitty PoS coin that if you have a large portion of the supply you can control the coin. it is PoW and the 51% that you have heard is talking about hash rate not supply!

Yes, that is why I mentioned "newly minted coins" - whoever mints them, has the hashpower, and if someone has 51% of it then the situation can be bad. It happened before with one of the pools having more than 51% and nothing bad happened.

even you bankrupted a country, you cant even get half of the total supply.

[franky1]

It is indeed a scary future if they continue to accumulate comtrol of more and more control of the supply, especially when most of the supply has been mined.

Would it be right to say that this iteration of a decentralized currency is failing? Because what would it be if it's censorable?

the coin amount ownership right now is not here or there in rgards to just who hoards it.
as coin ownership does not directly change anything. as i said just hoarding doesnt affect the protocol.

but certain hoarders can influence direction by SPENDING (eg bribing certain groups)

right now the situation is at a cliff-edge. so not failed not succeeding. as it still requires a few minimal tweaks to end up down a one way roadmap.

id say the imminent threat is the censorship/control already occuring/occured.  
EG
use this software or else find yourself either:
on another network,unable to spend with certain merchants
or
treated as second class software user that doesnt fully validate/(thus lose what was true consensus vote)

later comes the coin control of locking funds up into factories.

then comes when blockchain rules change again where transactions only get accepted to blocks if the funds are being outputted/spent to a certain transaction type

which is exactly like the 19th century banker game / fortknox locking gold up to make people only want to play with quicker swap unaudited paper promises

think about it. does 90% of people have funds in gold. or 10% today..
compare that to the 18-19th century before paper money
now speed up that 150 year switch over of gold to paper.. to be a game that only takes a decade in crypto (lets say 2015-2025)
the flip from sole custody 8 decimal bitcoins people have full permission of.
to full custodian(factory owned) or co-custody(private channel) permissioned 12 decimal unaudited unconfirmed promissory transactions

[RodeoX]

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".

Bitcoin is was not designed to enrich the poor. It is fair money. Fiat currencies, like the dollar, are subject to manipulation of all sorts. It can be used unfairly by issuer. Bitcoin does not allow for anyone, even if they own 99.999% of the supply, to change the protocol.However, if your neighbor owns a factory, they may be making more than you and buying more bitcoin than you.

Anyone is welcome to own bitcoin and nobody can stop us from it. That includes people who can buy large sums of bitcoin. They of course pay large sums of other wealth to get it, it is fair. Even if how the banksters got their money originally is not. You know, the fiat they got from us all.

[Wind_FURY]

It is indeed a scary future if they continue to accumulate comtrol of more and more control of the supply, especially when most of the supply has been mined.

Would it be right to say that this iteration of a decentralized currency is failing? Because what would it be if it's censorable?

the coin amount ownership right now is not here or there in rgards to just who hoards it.
as coin ownership does not directly change anything. as i said just hoarding doesnt affect the protocol.

but certain hoarders can influence direction by SPENDING (eg bribing certain groups)

right now the situation is at a cliff-edge. so not failed not succeeding. as it still requires a few minimal tweaks to end up down a one way roadmap.

It is not just about "institutional hoarding" but also about services like the Blockchain wallet, Coinbase, BitGo, and other centralized services responsible in storing Bitcoins.

id say the imminent threat is the censorship/control already occuring/occured.  
EG
use this software or else find yourself either:
on another network,unable to spend with certain merchants
or
treated as second class software user that doesnt fully validate/(thus lose what was true consensus vote)

The community freely uses the Bitcoin Core software. Where is the "censorship"? Stop gaslighting.

later comes the coin control of locking funds up into factories.

But what are channel factories for you? "Fort Knox"? Hahaha.

Channel factories are payment channels that give the ability for new payment channels to be created without making extra on-chain transactions.

then comes when blockchain rules change again where transactions only get accepted to blocks if the funds are being outputted/spent to a certain transaction type

What?

Then the post goes back to "the Core developers are wrong, I hate them.". Ok, they might be wrong. Give us 5 suggestions on what they should do to make Bitcoin a better network?

[sublime5447]

We need not fear, Bitcoin community is a strong community and we grow from zero to what it is today. If they intend to destroy the price of Bitcoin, they must know that there are people who are loyal to HODL and their actions are merely vain. No matter how strong the punch is taken so it makes Bitcoin fall, but I'm sure Bitcoin will recover somehow.

[Wind_FURY]

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".

Bitcoin is was not designed to enrich the poor. It is fair money. Fiat currencies, like the dollar, are subject to manipulation of all sorts. It can be used unfairly by issuer. Bitcoin does not allow for anyone, even if they own 99.999% of the supply, to change the protocol.However, if your neighbor owns a factory, they may be making more than you and buying more bitcoin than you.

But it might not assure censorship resistance anymore if most of the supply is held by banks and Bitcoin services owned by banks, the "Bitcoin oligarchy". What if the oligarchy, because of their own self-interest, be coerced by the government to censor some transactions it doesn't want? Has that iteration of a "censorship resistant" cryptocurrency then failed?

Anyone is welcome to own bitcoin and nobody can stop us from it. That includes people who can buy large sums of bitcoin. They of course pay large sums of other wealth to get it, it is fair. Even if how the banksters got their money originally is not. You know, the fiat they got from us all.

But wouldn't it make Bitcoin a permission-only currency once most of the supply if controlled by a group of banks and Bitcoin services working together, especially when most of the coins are already mined?

[ardhigalau]

I think banksters and the government have bitcoin but not that much, they are more concerned with the interests of their country than buying bitcoin.