[2020-06-25] Jim Rogers Warns Governments Will Have To ‘Eliminate' Bitcoin

[gentlemand]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2020/06/25/legendary-investor-jim-rogers-warns-governments-will-have-to-eliminate-bitcoin/#31e92da5584a

Classic old school doom mixed with profound misunderstanding for your morning wank on the toilet.

I enjoy this line particularly - "Controllable electronic money will survive, and virtual currencies beyond the influence of the government will be erased."

So they will erase something beyond their influence. Coolio.

[1713579632]

1713579632

[1713579632]

1713579632

[1713579632]

1713579632

[Lucius]

But he is still a legendary investor whose opinion is respected by millions of people around the world, just as is the case with Warren Buffett, Bill Gates or Carlos Slim. From them actually speaks their money which represents their power to shape public opinion. But it is a species in extinction whose words are worth less and less, and I personally have no doubt that Bitcoin will exist even when they are no longer present among the living.

But still, anyone who thinks a little with their head should not pay attention to such news, then they only serve to fill the media columns on a daily basis. Definitely toilet material, but not for reading but as toilet paper if it exists in paper form

[Woodie]

There is just something about these old guys and new tech, why dont they just say time is up for them to try new technologies

or simply say they have no use for bitcoin and leave all this to the younger generation...everyone walks away happy  

[gentlemand]

There is just something about these old guys and new tech, why dont they just say time is up for them to try new technologies

or simply say they have no use for bitcoin and leave all this to the younger generation...everyone walks away happy  

If I were a legacy fan I'd say it wasn't for me and I'd wait to see what would happen, but these people have profiles they want to embellish and this is something that's obviously spawned more chatter than most things in recent years. They must get asked about it constantly.

Most of those who come out with this stuff will be in nappies soon enough so they get a nice wee attention boost in the short term and it's probably what their own followers want to hear.

[bbc.reporter]

I reckon someone should irritate Jim Rogers on social media and show him Monero. Ask him how the government might stop this hehehe.

ISIS has begun accepting Monero for anonymous donations and has removed bitcoin.



The infamous terrorist group has reportedly chucked Bitcoin in favor of its “privacy focused” cousin, Monero. According to Israeli blockchain analytics firm Whitestream, the syndicate has updated one of its onion address websites to indicate that it will now exclusively accept Monero for cryptocurrency donations. (Whitesteam is the same firm that told the New York Times last year that terrorist groups were increasingly turning to crypto for funding.)

Source https://decrypt.co/33562/isis-shuns-bitcoin-privacy-coin-monero

[buwaytress]

Love how these guys keep exposing their ignorance and lack of initiative to give even 15 minutes of due diligence to look up something they're about to go to town on. Even I take 5 minutes to Google a shitcoin before I do the royal smackdown.

@gentlemand: Bet the writer thoroughly enjoyed quoting the guy. Reminds me of the days I was allowed, even encouraged, to interview morons for a newspaper.

[o_e_l_e_o]

"It's easy, all government needs to do is turn off internet connection"

Lots of people don't understand the internet or computing, like, at all. Keep in mind that we have elected representatives in countries around the world who want to ban all encryption, completely failing to understand that doing so would completely break the internet. This is despite the fact that these representatives have advisors and committees with actual experts on them telling them that such a thing is both impossible and ridiculous, but they still try to pass laws to do it anyway. If they turn round to the population and talk about banning encryption in the name of anti-terrorism or "won't you think of the children!", then huge numbers of people will believe it to be a good idea and vote for it.

If you turn round to these same people and tell them bitcoin funds terrorism and is used to buy drugs and the government is going to ban it, then again many will agree, regardless of how ridiculous or impossible such a statement is.

From the article:

the government will make the cryptocurrency illegal and eliminate it

Right. Because we all know that bitcoin isn't being used in countries which have made it illegal.

[figmentofmyass]

But he is still a legendary investor whose opinion is respected by millions of people around the world, just as is the case with Warren Buffett, Bill Gates or Carlos Slim. From them actually speaks their money which represents their power to shape public opinion. But it is a species in extinction whose words are worth less and less, and I personally have no doubt that Bitcoin will exist even when they are no longer present among the living.

it's not a sprint, it's a marathon.

the dinosaurs will eventually die out. we just need to wait and let bitcoin do its thing. superior money is superior.

we should be thankful traditional/mainstream investors are still pushing these sorts of opinions. it means there is still so much upside left. we're clearly still in the early adoption phase.

I think he's confused between government wants to "eliminate" Bitcoin and government will "eliminate" Bitcoin.

governments hate looking impotent. trying to "eliminate" bitcoin does exactly that.

[cr1776]

Perhaps I misread it, but I didn't see him advocating elimination bitcoin, merely stating he thinks some governments will (attempt) to do that. Merely because you see something as a potential event, doesn't mean you necessarily agree with it.    Eg, suppose you saw that because the US Congress legislated that mortgage borrowers could borrow money with a lower credit score there would be a financial crisis.  That wouldn't imply you thought interference was a good thing.

Maybe there was more to the interview showing whether he thought that was a positive or negative.

[bbc.reporter]

I think he's confused between government wants to "eliminate" Bitcoin and government will "eliminate" Bitcoin. But i'm sure people know government wants to eliminate something they don't like (due to various reasons) already, so this kind of news isn't really meaningful.

I reckon someone should irritate Jim Rogers on social media and show him Monero. Ask him how the government might stop this hehehe.

"It's easy, all government needs to do is turn off internet connection"

I reckon the politicians behind the government would have done anything or eliminate what they wanted if they knew how it can be done within the law.

[Darker45]

I think he's confused between government wants to "eliminate" Bitcoin and government will "eliminate" Bitcoin. But i'm sure people know government wants to eliminate something they don't like (due to various reasons) already, so this kind of news isn't really meaningful.

I reckon someone should irritate Jim Rogers on social media and show him Monero. Ask him how the government might stop this hehehe.

"It's easy, all government needs to do is turn off internet connection"

I reckon the politicians behind the government would have done anything or eliminate what they wanted if they knew how it can be done within the law.

For so long a time, these people or the government itself do things within and without the bounds of law. While they're preaching that no one is above the law, they are actually playing on rules that apply to them alone, or on lack of it. They're simply beyond the law. They arrest people selling and using cocaine but they traffic it. They prosecute and jail people for murder but they sure eliminate others freely. And the list goes on.

Here comes Bitcoin. There is no one to kill. There is no switch to turn off. There is no headquarter to put on fire. There is no neighborhood to bomb. And so forth. But if only there was, they must have already accomplished the mission.

And now they're having a hard time killing this son of a bitch. But it doesn't mean they not acting on it.   

[crwth]

It's the government's uncertainty is the reason why they are not willing to embrace the idea of decentralization. Not being in control means not going to be accepted. Classic move right? If they can't control it then just rule it out. Maybe if they started ruling out that people need this kind of decentralization and the mindset in which it's impossible to print money out of thin air just because you need it, it would change their mindset or something. I doubt this could happen though.

[o_e_l_e_o]

And now they're having a hard time killing this son of a bitch. But it doesn't mean they not acting on it.

They can act on it all they want - this is what bitcoin was designed for. No third parties, decentralized, censorship resistant. I might even go so far as to say the US government trying to "shut down bitcoin" could give it a huge boost. A government like the US' trying and failing to shut down bitcoin does two things. First, it shows that bitcoin does what it claims - that it really is decentralized and can't be controlled by governments. Secondly, it demonstrates why bitcoin is necessary in the first place - because governments don't like their citizens having freedom.

If a government tries to shut down bitcoin, all they will end up doing is justifying its existence.

[Carlton Banks]

They can act on it all they want - this is what bitcoin was designed for. No third parties, decentralized, censorship resistant. I might even go so far as to say the US government trying to "shut down bitcoin" could give it a huge boost. A government like the US' trying and failing to shut down bitcoin does two things. First, it shows that bitcoin does what it claims - that it really is decentralized and can't be controlled by governments. Secondly, it demonstrates why bitcoin is necessary in the first place - because governments don't like their citizens having freedom.

If a government tries to shut down bitcoin, all they will end up doing is justifying its existence.

I've always speculated that this is at least part of the reason why no serious attempt has ever been made to target the Bitcoin network. The biggest risk of failure in such an endeavour is that of drawing attention to the failure; that Bitcoin is too resilient for governments to disrupt.

Also, governments who wish for more influence in international trade/finance have alot to gain for using Bitcoin as a weapon to destabilize both the USD and the SWIFT network, but simultaneously threatens a new financial center of dominance from being assumed by those governments who wish to do so. The tolerance of Bitcoin mining farms in China is the most clear example; it's quite likely that the PRC party leadership didn't fully appreciate the power of Satoshi's cryptocurrency network design, and saw it as a costless and convenient avenue to threaten the USD system. When they realized it was an equal threat to their own control of China's banking system (and their partitioned currency system), they put miners under their yoke on notice to dial down the pressure, but notably continued to permit the mining hardware firms to operate.

China is the perfect distillation of government Bitcoin policy; they cannot quite decide whether they ought to issue an outright & comprehensive ban, or fight for a stake in the system

Perhaps I misread it, but I didn't see him advocating elimination bitcoin, merely stating he thinks some governments will (attempt) to do that. Merely because you see something as a potential event, doesn't mean you necessarily agree with it.

Let's not forget that wealthy investors with a public persona are very likely using their influential status to try to move market sentiment when they make public statements (in interviews such as in the OP), and for any number of reasons. Maybe Rogers wants to help support the fiat currency market, in which he is no doubt at least somewhat invested. Maybe he simply wants in to the Bitcoin market at a good price.

[jseverson]

This could actually be good publicity though:

"The government wants to know everything. Controllable electronic money will survive, and virtual currencies beyond the influence of the government will be erased."

He's basically saying governments will have to eliminate Bitcoin because they can't control it, which is a reasonable take on the matter. The fact that governments can't twist it the way they please is all the more reason to use it. He assumes they will succeed though, which I disagree with.

Other than that, it's the usual bubble talk which is pretty refreshing because I feel like it's been a while since a prominent figure brought it up lol.

Perhaps I misread it, but I didn't see him advocating elimination bitcoin, merely stating he thinks some governments will (attempt) to do that. Merely because you see something as a potential event, doesn't mean you necessarily agree with it.    Eg, suppose you saw that because the US Congress legislated that mortgage borrowers could borrow money with a lower credit score there would be a financial crisis.  That wouldn't imply you thought interference was a good thing.

He also said this:

"I believe that the virtual currency represented by bitcoin will decline and eventually become zero," Rogers said, adding: "This is a clear bubble and I don't know the right price. Virtual currency is not an investment target. It's just gambling."

...which implies he was doing less warning and more fearmongering. He probably agrees with it.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Also, governments who wish for more influence in international trade/finance have alot to gain for using Bitcoin as a weapon to destabilize both the USD and the SWIFT network, but simultaneously threatens a new financial center of dominance from being assumed by those governments who wish to do so.

Agreed. Ignoring for a moment the impossibility of the task, the US "eliminating" bitcoin would be an act of self harm. The government would be cutting the entire country off from a global market, and you can guarantee that countries like China and Russia would try to use that to their advantage to gain power and leverage over the dollar.

Having said all that, I do expect an attack to come from governments and law makers at some point. Traditional banking pays the salaries of our politicians. Banks bankroll their campaigns, lobby them, bribe them, grant them meaningless executive rolls with substantial paychecks, and so forth. Banks aren't going to passively accept the growth of bitcoin, which threatens their control over the government and the people, and so they will bribe politicians to act against it.

[cr1776]

I think he's confused between government wants to "eliminate" Bitcoin and government will "eliminate" Bitcoin. But i'm sure people know government wants to eliminate something they don't like (due to various reasons) already, so this kind of news isn't really meaningful.

I reckon someone should irritate Jim Rogers on social media and show him Monero. Ask him how the government might stop this hehehe.

"It's easy, all government needs to do is turn off internet connection"

I reckon the politicians behind the government would have done anything or eliminate what they wanted if they knew how it can be done within the law.

These guys want money and power and are willing to do practically anything to get it.

This group wants (and has currently) power over the money supply via the Fed in the US and similar institutions around the world.  They can surreptitiously steal a few percent of everyone's wealth every year forever and most people don't notice the hidden tax of inflation.  When you are talking about trillions in assets, that adds up quite quickly.  Not to mention, they have the power to create money at will and lend it to favored groups, politicians etc.  Anyone that can be bought and then control a huge government.

This is why bitcoin is critical, it prevents the power-hungry politicians from controlling people and stealing from them.

Many politicians, particularly the ones who are in it for money and power over other people, will do anything within the law or without the law to defeat the people who want liberty.  Look at how far some of the politicians went to defeat Trump in 2016 and then again to delegitimize him after he won.  They were willing to break the law to "unmask" people, attempt to entrap people, lie to the people in public (e.g. Clapper and Brennan - based on the congressional testimony which was opposite what they were saying on CNN/MSNBC etc).  

[cr1776]

...

Perhaps I misread it, but I didn't see him advocating elimination bitcoin, merely stating he thinks some governments will (attempt) to do that. Merely because you see something as a potential event, doesn't mean you necessarily agree with it.

Let's not forget that wealthy investors with a public persona are very likely using their influential status to try to move market sentiment when they make public statements (in interviews such as in the OP), and for any number of reasons. Maybe Rogers wants to help support the fiat currency market, in which he is no doubt at least somewhat invested. Maybe he simply wants in to the Bitcoin market at a good price.

All true. They will definitely talk their book.  Look at McAfee as an example who admitted it. 

[Harlot]

I wish the author of this Forbes article built around the statement of Jim Rogers about Bitcoin being eliminated by the government since the main body doesn't really talk about anything near that. They didn't talked about the government of any country is headed towards that direction but instead said things about China is headed towards being a digitalized country which isn't really supporting the statement of Jim Rogers. One thing is for sure though that this will still be an unclear statement and cannot be use as basis to anything as we don't see any kind of plans from the government eliminating Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

[bbc.reporter]

I think he's confused between government wants to "eliminate" Bitcoin and government will "eliminate" Bitcoin. But i'm sure people know government wants to eliminate something they don't like (due to various reasons) already, so this kind of news isn't really meaningful.

I reckon someone should irritate Jim Rogers on social media and show him Monero. Ask him how the government might stop this hehehe.

"It's easy, all government needs to do is turn off internet connection"

I reckon the politicians behind the government would have done anything or eliminate what they wanted if they knew how it can be done within the law.

For so long a time, these people or the government itself do things within and without the bounds of law. While they're preaching that no one is above the law, they are actually playing on rules that apply to them alone, or on lack of it. They're simply beyond the law. They arrest people selling and using cocaine but they traffic it. They prosecute and jail people for murder but they sure eliminate others freely. And the list goes on.

Here comes Bitcoin. There is no one to kill. There is no switch to turn off. There is no headquarter to put on fire. There is no neighborhood to bomb. And so forth. But if only there was, they must have already accomplished the mission.

And now they're having a hard time killing this son of a bitch. But it doesn't mean they not acting on it.   

Similar to what you said, what will they act on? Outside the law, bomb mining farms, murder miners and assasinate developers?

Also, within the law, Bitcoin is protected by the 1st amendment.