Not your vault, not your money. Why some nation-states will HODL Bitcoin.

[no-ice-please]

Afghanistan's Taliban government is pressing for the release of billions of dollars of central bank reserves as the drought-stricken nation faces a cash crunch, mass starvation and a new migration crisis.

Afghanistan parked billions of dollars in assets overseas with the U.S. Federal Reserve and other central banks in Europe, but that money has been frozen since the Islamist Taliban ousted the Western-backed government in August.

https://www.xm.com/research/markets/allNews/reuters/just-give-us-our-money-taliban-push-to-unlock-afghan-billions-abroad-44779875

The Taliban will never EVER see that money again. If only there was a robust, self-sovereign, censorship-resistant currency that an entity can actually HODL in their own actual custody, without any counterparty trust.

Isn't it surprising enough that they did at all decide to hold all that money with banks essentially out of their reach in times of crises or coordinated attacks? Who would do that? I am puzzled, I mean they most likely did plan their attacks for a long time. Maybe they thought transferring that money out might be a suspicious on their behalf?

[Wind_FURY]

I get the idea, but that putting Bitcoin as something that helps the Taliban doesn't look good to me.

“Doesn’t look good for you”, but there’s no “you” or “me” in the blockchain, and the transactions that happen in the blockchain.

One of those might be the Taliban, https://blockstream.info/tx/recent

Maybe they will learn their lesson and buy Bitcoion for what is good for them but they have a mentality of the Middle Ages. They don't seem to be very open-minded about decentralized systems.

But they will be open-minded with what is practical.

Plus what’s the difference between El Salvador and the Taliban in the context of them making their Bitcoin transactions? None.

[Pmalek]

Reports showed that United States army left talibans billions of dollars worth military and other equipment, over 200 aircrafts, 45 helicopters, over 75,000 vehicles, drones, rifles, bombs and who knows what else.
That is more than many countries have combined, and list is much longer, that makes you wonder why they really did such thing and not destroying it if they couldn't bring it back.

I remember reading about them destroying most of it, but not everything got wrecked.

You can check out these two sources that talk about it:
https://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2021/9/8/taliban-disappointed-by-destroyed-equipment-left-by-us-forces
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2021/08/30/what-military-equipment-left-behind-afghanistan-us/5658895001/

They even made a video where they are destroying vehicles, lol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giY2lAsP3jA

The source mentions that some equipment was blown up and set on fire.
The aircrafts were also destroyed:

“Those aircraft will never fly again,”

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2021/08/30/what-military-equipment-left-behind-afghanistan-us/5658895001/

They did leave behind counter-rocket and artillery systems and the explanation about why they did that makes sense. Those defensive systems were operational and used to protect their own troops from attacks. Hence, they couldn't be dismantled or destroyed because it would leave the Americans without a shield.

McKenzie didn’t specify how many such units, which at $10 million apiece detect and shoot down incoming rockets and artillery and mortar rounds, were left behind. But he did say they were kept until the end to ensure that the Kabul airfield was defended from rocket attacks such as the one launched Monday.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2021/08/30/what-military-equipment-left-behind-afghanistan-us/5658895001/

[dkbit98]

I remember reading about them destroying most of it, but not everything got wrecked.

Then it must be true if they said it supported by press
There are so many videos of talibans (even on censorship king youtube) driving trucks, helicopters, airplanes with full US equipment and even uniforms.
I don't believe most of the things on mainstream media, and there is clear opposite opinion between republicans and democrats about this, and only difference is that they don't agree if it is wort $85B or less.
https://fee.org/articles/here-s-the-list-of-billions-in-military-equipment-the-us-left-behind-for-the-taliban/

Let's get back to Bitcoin topic, Chainalysis 2021 report showed that Afghanistan saw big jump in Bitcoin usage and they are better ranked than many other countries.
They are top20 country for global crypto adoption according to Chainalysis, and that is a big jump even better than in Turkey, but they still have lower volume and less transactions.
Let's try to imagine situation in Afghanistan, banks and ATM's didn't work as well as Paypal, so people had no other option than to use bitcoin.
https://bitcoinke.io/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Geography-of-Cryptocurrency-2021.pdf

[Wind_FURY]

I get the idea, but that putting Bitcoin as something that helps the Taliban doesn't look good to me.

“Doesn’t look good for you”, but there’s no “you” or “me” in the blockchain, and the transactions that happen in the blockchain.

If you care about Bitcoin adoption/usage, you would show "good" usage of Bitcoin.

But “good usage” and “bad usage” does not exist in the blockchain. In the blockchain, they’re only mere transactions made by one entity to another, neutral, and censorship-resistant. If you tag me as someone who “doesn’t care” about Bitcoin adoption because of that opinion, OK then tag me.

[no-ice-please]

I get the idea, but that putting Bitcoin as something that helps the Taliban doesn't look good to me.

“Doesn’t look good for you”, but there’s no “you” or “me” in the blockchain, and the transactions that happen in the blockchain.

If you care about Bitcoin adoption/usage, you would show "good" usage of Bitcoin.

But “good usage” and “bad usage” does not exist in the blockchain. In the blockchain, they’re only mere transactions made by one entity to another, neutral, and censorship-resistant. If you tag me as someone who “doesn’t care” about Bitcoin adoption because of that opinion, OK then tag me.

@Wind_FURY I would say that the thing with your statement is that it is entirely true, but will be portrayed by Bitcoin opponents and the media in a different way regardless. That doesn't stop Bitcoin, but it might slow it down in so far as the skeptics get a confirmation of their misguided understanding (or simply the lack thereof) of Bitcoin and what it is all about. They twist the neutrality proposition of Bitcoin into something that is bad because when everyone is the same it would mean the bad guys are as good as the good guys and vice versa, while not understanding that (quote:) "“good usage” and “bad usage” does not exist in the blockchain".

[Wind_FURY]

I get the idea, but that putting Bitcoin as something that helps the Taliban doesn't look good to me.

“Doesn’t look good for you”, but there’s no “you” or “me” in the blockchain, and the transactions that happen in the blockchain.

If you care about Bitcoin adoption/usage, you would show "good" usage of Bitcoin.

But “good usage” and “bad usage” does not exist in the blockchain. In the blockchain, they’re only mere transactions made by one entity to another, neutral, and censorship-resistant. If you tag me as someone who “doesn’t care” about Bitcoin adoption because of that opinion, OK then tag me.

@Wind_FURY I would say that the thing with your statement is that it is entirely true, but will be portrayed by Bitcoin opponents and the media in a different way regardless. That doesn't stop Bitcoin, but it might slow it down in so far as the skeptics get a confirmation of their misguided understanding (or simply the lack thereof) of Bitcoin and what it is all about. They twist the neutrality proposition of Bitcoin into something that is bad because when everyone is the same it would mean the bad guys are as good as the good guys and vice versa, while not understanding that (quote:) "“good usage” and “bad usage” does not exist in the blockchain".

What’s new with that? That will merely be just another FUD, that will DIE, like all of the other FUD. Did that stop Bitcoin from being adopted by the billionaires as a HODL-type, long term investment? NO, they came, they bought, they HODL. Did it stop the network? No, the network keeps chugging along, to used by ANYONE, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME. Permissionless, censorship-resistant.

[Wind_FURY]

@Wind_FURY I would say that the thing with your statement is that it is entirely true, but will be portrayed by Bitcoin opponents and the media in a different way regardless. That doesn't stop Bitcoin, but it might slow it down in so far as the skeptics get a confirmation of their misguided understanding (or simply the lack thereof) of Bitcoin and what it is all about. They twist the neutrality proposition of Bitcoin into something that is bad because when everyone is the same it would mean the bad guys are as good as the good guys and vice versa, while not understanding that (quote:) "“good usage” and “bad usage” does not exist in the blockchain".

What’s new with that? That will merely be just another FUD, that will DIE, like all of the other FUD. Did that stop Bitcoin from being adopted by the billionaires as a HODL-type, long term investment? NO, they came, they bought, they HODL. Did it stop the network? No, the network keeps chugging along, to used by ANYONE, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME. Permissionless, censorship-resistant.

But did that slowdown Bitcoin adaption?

Slow down, speed up, does it matter? Bitcoin WILL be used where it will be used.

Did it disrupt Bitcoin development?

Did any FUD stop development? No.

Did it cause network censorship (e.g. port 8333 blocked)?

Then you agree with me? Or are you contradicting yourself? Or did I misunderstand you when you posted,

If you care about Bitcoin adoption/usage, you would show "good" usage of Bitcoin.

I believe another 90% market crash is necessary for us to relearn, and remind us “what is Bitcoin”.