I don't like the idea of governments holding millions of Bitcoins.

[Apocollapse]

Currently the US government hold 200K Bitcoin which is around 1% of total supply.

I also don't like the idea about these whales, institutions or countries that purchase and hold a lot of Bitcoin. People only care with the price that keep increasing, it's all fun until these institutions or countries start to freeze the customers' coins and tightening their rules.

Not just governments but any centralized entity should not own a large amount of bitcoin which includes all these "investment companies" that have been growing like mushrooms.

Someone said they just holding customers' coins, they didn't own all the coins.

The point is it doesn't matter whether they hold or bought the coins, as long as they have access to the coins, technically they own the coins.

[Reatim]

Some Bitcoiners seem to be enthusiastic about plans by politicians to buy or hold big amounts of Bitcoin as part of a "strategic reserve".

A huge part of it is bitcoiners thinking that politicians or governments wanting to own bitcoin is a testament of support. It gives off hope that they will be able to hold and use bitcoin without the government questioning them.

It also gives off hope that exchanges previously banned from their countries can operate once again. I understand both sides as I still believe that bitcoin is and should remain decentralized while acknowledging that the government still has some semblance of control over how we use our bitcoins.

[Blitzboy]

Governments such as the US stockpiling Bitcoin? Not just disturbing, but also quite dangerous. Sure, in the short term, it might pump up the price, and some folks might make a quick buck. Long term, though, it is a catastrophe just waiting to happen. These governments have printing capability for their own money. They may play games with the market, utilise it for their own goals; they do not need to sell Bitcoin. It might change Bitcoin from their toy from the open, distributed system it is supposed to be into

The bitcoin community must get more active. We have to defend the things we created. This is a point to show what Bitcoin is actually able to do. This is an opportunity to guarantee that it remains faithful to its original intent: that of a currency for the people, not a weapon for the powerful. We refuse to allow them steer Bitcoin or take over it

[Lucius]

~snip~

Not only do I not like that idea, for me it would be something that would be the beginning of the end of BTC as we have it today. People who advocate such things are not worried about Bitcoin in the long term, because they are only interested in the price and some kind of legitimacy that Bitcoin should get in this way.

Strategic reserves in the form of BTC in any millions are as stupid as Do Kwon's idea to get his shitcoin back with BTC, and when the price of BTC goes down that tower of playing cards collapses in an instant.

Unfortunately, we as ordinary users cannot influence the final outcome, now everything is in the hands of the politicians who will play the way that suits them best - and whoever wins in that circus of democracy, let's not fool ourselves that it will be good for Bitcoin.

[bitLeap]

I don't think Bitcoin would "die" in such a scenario, but I think it could lose a lot of value and confidence. And the scenario is not that unlikely to be ignored.

What do you think? I added a poll also with an intermediate scenario like the one announced by Trump, which would lead to a couple of hundred thousands of BTC hold by states, but not millions.

And that will only make Bitcoin under their control, then the goal of freedom that Satoshi wanted will disappear. Countries that seem friendly to Bitcoin should be suspicious, there's nothing wrong with that because this is about the freedom that we have always guarded and maintained. Therefore, I do not agree with the idea of ​​the government holding millions of Bitcoin. This will destroy us, Bitcoin and erase the vision and mission of the creator of Bitcoin.
This topic really needs to be continuously raised because currently many people are drowning in the sweet promises of politicians who are everywhere in the media highlighting the future of Bitcoin, especially in the US. It does sound good, but if we look at it from another perspective, how unpleasant the policy is in the long term.

[arwin100]

Currently the US government hold 200K Bitcoin which is around 1% of total supply.

I also don't like the idea about these whales, institutions or countries that purchase and hold a lot of Bitcoin. People only care with the price that keep increasing, it's all fun until these institutions or countries start to freeze the customers' coins and tightening their rules.

Huge number of supply which has been acquired again by institutions.

But if they don't purchase huge volume I also don't think that we could reach this far since if we really on community demands maybe its not enough to pump bitcoin up to the current price or maybe for more.

What I don't like on what they have done is possible manipulation attempt especially if they decide to move the market on their dumping antics. Since for sure this action could affect the decisions of some people especially they think that huge institutions or country are big contributors for acquiring huge demand for bitcoin.

[Minor Miner]

Currently the US government hold 200K Bitcoin which is around 1% of total supply.

I also don't like the idea about these whales, institutions or countries that purchase and hold a lot of Bitcoin. People only care with the price that keep increasing, it's all fun until these institutions or countries start to freeze the customers' coins and tightening their rules.

Huge number of supply which has been acquired again by institutions.

But if they don't purchase huge volume I also don't think that we could reach this far since if we really on community demands maybe its not enough to pump bitcoin up to the current price or maybe for more.

What I don't like on what they have done is possible manipulation attempt especially if they decide to move the market on their dumping antics. Since for sure this action could affect the decisions of some people especially they think that huge institutions or country are big contributors for acquiring huge demand for bitcoin.

As I have said many times before, if we want bitcoin to become popular and legally recognized, we will have to pay a price and the price we have to pay is their regulations and control. Likewise, without the participation of governments and large institutions, bitcoin would not have reached the price it has today because retail investors like us would not have been able to do this. 

It can be said that when large organizations enter the market, there are pros and cons. Also, more importantly, they don't care what we think and we have no way of stopping them from buying and holding bitcoin. Besides the solution that needs to be adapted, we hardly have a second solution.

[mirakal]

I don't think this would be that bad as it looks because if the govenmments decide to hold bitcoins the it means govenmments will support the markets and the amount of money or capital on the markets will have a huge increment. So, if we see the govs trying to do it then we should buy cryptos and ride the way because the bump should be huge.

Well, I hope that would be their intention (support), not manipulation. Honestly, I don't have that kind of confidence in trusting the government to have that huge amount of bitcoin with just a simple and easy plan (support). It could possibly be something else, which most of us assume will happen once they have it in their hands. 

If we feel there is manipulation already in the market, how much more when government officials hold a huge share of bitcoin? Maybe, we will never feel the impact by now, but it can be felt in the coming days. 

We are not aiming to see bitcoin in a centralized state but instead in a decentralized one. 
 

[Z-tight]

OFAC already does that. They have a list of "sanctioned" addresses that they are forcing the American miners to "censor".

And are the mining pools blacklisting these sanctioned addresses? I don't think so. The last time i read about a mining pool filtering addresses and their tx's on the grounds of OFAC sanctions was last year, and it was F2pool. Though if i remember correctly, they backtracked on that decision, whenever miners start sanctioning addresses, that could spell trouble for the BTC network.

[DooMAD]

Sounds like a pipe dream from foolish speculators.  I doubt the Fed would allow it even if the convicted felon did somehow win.  

[Z_MBFM]

-

What do you think? I added a poll also with an intermediate scenario like the one announced by Trump, which would lead to a couple of hundred thousands of BTC hold by states, but not millions.

I stand in the same point of view as you regarding the dislike of the government's ideas holding millions of Bitcoin because in my opinion they can do with the strength they have. For parties outside the government will feel difficult. An imbalance will also be the thing that will be felt with the amount of Bitcoin remaining from the total.
But if I think long, this is not an obstacle that will make Bitcoin road in other words will not 'die' even though the scenario is like that.

Millions of dollars is not a very large amount for a country.  So it wouldn't be a bad decision for a country's government to decide to hold millions of dollars worth of bitcoins.  Because if the government keeps them for a long time as a big asset, the return will be much higher which will play a big role in the economy of that country.  But when the government decides to invest billions of dollars in bitcoins it will become redundant.  So as long as a country's government is thinking of investing millions of dollars in Bitcoin I will support them

[Haunebu]

Yeah. That's not happening. This whole Trump crypto drama in recent times is overblown out of proportion primarily due to his brain-dead supporters and no US government under him or Harris or anyone else will plan on HODLING BTC.

Why? Because those corrupt fools are probably HODLING crypto of their own and don't want its value to drop through a move like that.

[Cookdata]

-

What do you think? I added a poll also with an intermediate scenario like the one announced by Trump, which would lead to a couple of hundred thousands of BTC hold by states, but not millions.

I stand in the same point of view as you regarding the dislike of the government's ideas holding millions of Bitcoin because in my opinion they can do with the strength they have. For parties outside the government will feel difficult. An imbalance will also be the thing that will be felt with the amount of Bitcoin remaining from the total.
But if I think long, this is not an obstacle that will make Bitcoin road in other words will not 'die' even though the scenario is like that.

I thought everyone now loves Trump because he is now an advocate liar that suddenly loves Bitcoin and want to help protect self custody operations but we don't like the government holding Bitcoin. Are we going to oppose when president Trump () start buying more Bitcoin for the US? Damn it, I'm bullish.

I remember one of the presidential candidates that advocates for Bitcoin says when he becomes president, he is going to sign a bill for US government to buy 4m bitcoin and I was wow, how many are we having in circulation that these men want to buy this number. However, I'm glad that somebody is seeing it differently right, the centralization of Bitcoin is dangerous and the earlier the better else a time will come when the community opinion wouldn't matter again.

[AprilioMP]

-

Millions of dollars is not a very large amount for a country.  So it wouldn't be a bad decision for a country's government to decide to hold millions of dollars worth of bitcoins.  Because if the government keeps them for a long time as a big asset, the return will be much higher which will play a big role in the economy of that country.  But when the government decides to invest billions of dollars in bitcoins it will become redundant.  So as long as a country's government is thinking of investing millions of dollars in Bitcoin I will support them

If millions of dollars are certainly not a large amount for the country and if they do it are also good for them, but I have the same thoughts as the OP regarding the government's ideas holding millions of bitcoin.
I not only think in terms of profits they will get when holding back the amount of bitcoin with ideas as in the topic title but in terms of difficulties that will be obtained by other parties who are not from the government.

-

I thought everyone now loves Trump because he is now an advocate liar that suddenly loves Bitcoin and want to help protect self custody operations but we don't like the government holding Bitcoin. Are we going to oppose when president Trump () start buying more Bitcoin for the US? Damn it, I'm bullish.

I am not against Donald Trump's idea regarding Bitcoin. I will support anyone who helps Bitcoin's performance, including those who have power.

[coolcoinz]

- The US buys 1-2 million BTC, other states/central banks like the ECB, China and India follow, and together they hold let's say 5-7 million (about 25%-35% of all existing Bitcoins).

I'm sure you are aware of the fact that all bitcoins on every single exchange in the world added together is less than 4 million? Buying 5 million bitcoin is impossible, unless you're able to strike deals with holders like microstrategy and buy out ETFs.

So, in an extremely unlikely scenario that a nation state wants to control 3 million bitcoin, the price would go crazy. It would not be a million dollars per coin crazy but rather 5 million or something like that per BTC.

If you suddenly saw someone bidding 5 million for your coins, would you sell it all? I wouldn't because I'd smell conspiracy. I'd maybe give them 1 BTC just for fun to see if this is real and hold the rest to see what the fuck is making them crave it so much.

Also, check how much they'd have to spend to buy that amount at these prices because this would require some serious printing.

[d5000]

Not just governments but any centralized entity should not own a large amount of bitcoin which includes all these "investment companies" that have been growing like mushrooms. They all can affect the Bitcoin world in a negative way, some more than others like governments.

At least in the case of spot ETFs the situation is a bit different as the Bitcoins are legally owned by the customers, not the investment companies. But for most other "investment" companies you're right, although I still think there's still a difference between a state/government holding Bitcoins (where the decision to buy or sell depends on a political decision) or an investment companies (where the decision depends mainly on the decisions on the customers; politics may interfere but it's rather unlikely, at least in "liberal democracies").

OFAC already does that. They have a list of "sanctioned" addresses that they are forcing the American miners to "censor".

The difference to the scenario I described would be that the blacklist could have to be included at protocol level. Perhaps in the same way checkpoints are included now.

Thinking again this may even be possible with a softfork (so no hardfork would be needed), but it's still a fork if there are miners who chose to ignore the restriction and build a chain with the transactions from/to sanctioned addresses.

I'm sure you are aware of the fact that all bitcoins on every single exchange in the world added together is less than 4 million? Buying 5 million bitcoin is impossible, unless you're able to strike deals with holders like microstrategy and buy out ETFs.

This would of course be done over the course of several years and mostly OTC. If the price is high enough, eventually "unconvinced" long term holders (i.e. those who bought "for the money") would be happy to sell. Satoshi could sell them his coins for example (ok, that's a joke)

[stompix]

Bukele buys Bitcoins!
- Yeah, hurray, we need more governments to buy Bitcoin! Replace the $ with Bitcoisn in federal reserves!
The US buys Bitcoins!
- Oh no, not you, we're facing centralization!

Permissionless, decentralized network!
Their money, their decision, their keys their coins, you know, a free market with nobody able to restrict or block you!

Besides, the whole aftermath of what you think can be achieved even without the first step, and for a doomsday scenario you're thinking it the wrong way. Why would they use a list of restricted addresses, when they could use a list of white-listed ones, so your address is not registered in the system, and the transaction is rejected. And pretty soon they will have the hash to enforce this if they want. 

“U.S.-listed miners’ share of the global hashrate reached a record 26.6%,”

Note that those are just listed companies, not all companies operating in the US. 

[d5000]

Bukele buys Bitcoins!

5000 Bitcoins isn't the same thing as 4 millions (And I'm not in the camp of those having said that states should use Bitcoin as reserve. But as already written, a "don't sell seized Bitcoins" policy would be ok for me, if the numbers stay below 1 million or perhaps a little bit more in total.)

Regarding the "doomsday scenario", the danger I pointed out is about a change at protocol level. If OFAC-obeying miners really wanted to censor addresses without such a protocol change, they would have to 51% attack the network (i.e. reorganizing all chain tips where other miners have found blocks). This would be interpreted as an attack by the market probably, and thus be a serious danger for their business model so incentives work against it. They would rather diversify into other countries again.

[Abiky]

Some Bitcoiners seem to be enthusiastic about plans by politicians to buy or hold big amounts of Bitcoin as part of a "strategic reserve". In particular, Kennedy's announcement that in the (extremely unlikely) case he wins the US election he could buy up to four million Bitcoins as a strategic reserve.

I don't like this idea for the following reason:

States holding such a big amount could interfere too much into Bitcoin's power equilibrium.

Let's see the following hypothetical scenario:

- The US buys 1-2 million BTC, other states/central banks like the ECB, China and India follow, and together they hold let's say 5-7 million (about 25%-35% of all existing Bitcoins).
- Now the FATF sets up a new "recommendation" that a blacklist for "sanctioned" Bitcoin addresses (like those already implemented in Tether and other stablecoins) would be desirable.
- As almost all states obey the FATF's guidelines, together they pressure Bitcoin Core team to implement a blacklist for "sanctioned" Bitcoin addresses which miners have to obey, or alternatively build an own Bitcoin client with a modified protocol.
- This would of course need a hard fork. But they have a lot of coins, so they can increase pressure by threatening to sell all Bitcoins on the chain which does not follow the hard fork. This has a precedent: it's what Ethereum did when they pressured for the hard fork rewinding the TheDAO hack in 2016.

A similar scenario was already discussed for ETFs. But ETFs would never hold so many coins as some are desiring for states/governments to hold, and also their customers could react, so for ETFs I don't see this danger. Up to 1 million, even 2 millions of BTC hold be states/governments/central banks would still not be something to be worried about. But if all bigger states try to buy millions, then it could become really dangerous.

I don't think Bitcoin would "die" in such a scenario, but I think it could lose a lot of value and confidence. And the scenario is not that unlikely to be ignored.

What do you think? I added a poll also with an intermediate scenario like the one announced by Trump, which would lead to a couple of hundred thousands of BTC hold by states, but not millions.

Neither do I. Although, I like the idea of having BTC reserves to back Fiat currencies like the USD and EUR. It will further solidify BTC's position as a store of value. As long as the number of Bitcoins held by the government is small small (compared to the rest of the pack), nothing else matters. Concentration of the circulating supply becomes a problem when only a few powerful entities are in play. When most coins are in the hands of a middleman (custodian), that's when we need to be worried.

Neither institutional investment companies nor mainstream governments will be able to get ahold of all the circulating supply. Hope it stays that way forever. Lets encourage self-custody of BTC to prevent something disastrous from happening in the future.

[Slow death]

I've always thought that a government or central bank shouldn't be buying bitcoins to hodl, because they would be controlling a large portion of bitcoin, and could even manipulate the market whenever they wanted. I also think that when governments seize some bitcoin they should immediately sell it and not keep accumulating it for years, but we are in a market where those who have a lot of money have greater purchasing power and we can't stop them. Nowadays there are some funds that hold a lot of bitcoins, they are hodl, but I wonder when they decide to sell and people know they want to sell, how the market will react. Fortunately, for now, many governments don't see bitcoin as an asset that they should buy a lot of to hodl. The most problematic would be the US government seizing bitcoins and taking years to sell them.