For those of you who say governments can't ban bitcoin

[skooter]

If black/red-listing (aka, tainting) can be arranged in a way which is even a little bit credible, I believe that it would open the door for such registration.  This because large institutions (Google/Facebook, Overstock/TigerDirect, etc) can be forced to honor it and it will rapidly create fungibility problems for everybody.  And also, of course, that forced registration would in and of itself change the nature of Bitcoin beyond recognition.

That's not what I was getting at though. Forcing people to register/provide access to their wallets to a govt agency makes it possible for the govt to seize your coins.

The converse seems much more likely to me.  That is, the ability to seize ones coins produces the ability to force registration.  The difference between seizing and devaluing is minimal if the devaluation is significant, and I think that the impacts of tainting may be more effective in this than most people imagine.

There is no real reason for the government to even wish to seize people's BTC.  They have as much funding as they need under the current system where they basically pull it out of thin air.  The plebs are prone to trade assets away in exchange for peanuts within a few months of obtaining it anyway...and the peanut vendors are the ones who the government caters to.

The thing which is of extreme value to understand who is doing what with what resources.  That is why I expect that there will be a strong and growing interest in correlating individuals to transactions. [edit->] And that will be the driving force behind registration(s).

Well, the ability to force registration would only apply to US businesses/residents. So it'd still be very hard to trace coins in the overall system.

And the point of seizure is the same as being able to seize someone's bank account. It'd likely need a court order to do so.

[1715187749]

1715187749

[1715187749]

1715187749

[1715187749]

1715187749

[1715187749]

1715187749

[1715187749]

1715187749

[tvbcof]

Well, the ability to force registration would only apply to US businesses/residents. So it'd still be very hard to trace coins in the overall system.

And the point of seizure is the same as being able to seize someone's bank account. It'd likely need a court order to do so.

Actually, you are probably wrong.

If the U.S. Govt can force U.S. companies who want to deal with Bitcoin to honor the output of a chartered taint authority, they could force anyone who has BTC no matter what jurisdiction they happen to be in to register.  Of course people won't have to register, but if they do not the coins they hold will be unusable for many services.

And if someone tries to give me a BTC that I cannot use to buy something at TigerDirect, I will want a discount.  This even if I personally don't plan to buy anything from TigerDirect I'll want a discount because I'll have to take a discount from whoever I try to trade the Bitcoin to.  (This is the mechanism by which devaluation happens.)

As for a court order, I doubt if the goobmint would need one for taint.  They would issue a charter to entities who would taint coins upon request and yank the charter from those who would not.  Since the U.S. Govt has the power to force institutions to honor the output of a tainting authority the charter is make-or-break to an entity such as Mellon/Waters/Guo's 'Coin Validation' service.  They'll have no choice but to play ball.  In fact, such entities would probably not even have a business model unless they can expect to partner with the government who will force customers to their doorstep.

[franky1]

If the government passes a regulation saying that they need to have access to everyone's bitcoin wallets (just like they have access to everyone's bank accounts, and have the ability to seize/freeze assets), individuals who don't comply likely won't have anything happen, but you can bet that major businesses will be complying. Without major businesses accepting it, it can't go mainstream and it'll just be a drug trader currency.

they can have my privkey containing 10ksat, but the other privkey containing many bitcoins... i dont know who that belongs to mr IRS man

that is what most newbies think the IRS will do, the fact is that when you sell bitcoins for fiat above $600 amounts (so yes you dont have to declare a starbucks purchase of $10 worth. much like you dont declare if someone buys you a sandwich or a coffee now with FIAT, or a relative gives to some money for a special occasion) all you need to declare and log is the larger priced items. such as a TV, car, a whole weeks worth of income/lifestyle costs.

businesses are 99.9% set up for tax, whether they accept fiat or bitcoin
businesses display their prices in FIAT and they at checkout have that FIAT price converted to bitcoin. So already they know that their income from a product sale nets them X fiat, whether accepting bitcoin or fiat. its the same. so dont worry about business accounting, many businesses can do it as easily as clicking 3 buttons on a mouse.

too many people worry about small things and make their minds believe the small things are enormous. the IRS tax announcement is not a bad thing, its not going to catch anybody out or cause them big problems in the future.

i simply cant believe that people think government hates bitcoin, and that their tin foil hat theories that making bitcoin now classified as something that holds real value, is:
1. a bad thing
2. a thing that governments will use to arrest and seize assets with
3. cause a world wide ban
4. other crackpot doomsday events

people can finally now transact and know exactly where they stand when it comes to tax, the government has declared bitcoin valuable, and as long as you pay taxes nothing will happen.

so relax folks.

[jonald_fyookball]

If governments out right banned bitcoin, it could set bitcoin back 10 years...
But you can't stop it... It is similar to marijuana prohibition... People
Want it too much.   That is taking nearly a century to crumble mostly without any Internet.
The Internet accelerates the spread of knowledge and information and that acceleration is accelerating.

[pening]

I think what the OP is trying to say is that if they want, governments can make Bitcoin useless as a mainstream replacement for national currencies.

And he's got a point.  For every example of people ignoring the law there's a dozen where the law is observed.  Government decrees the speed limit and outlaws travelling faster than that.  Most people, most of the time abide by that even when they have motivation to break the law.  (people tend to download music etc because there's no visible deterrent.  Put internet police in the ISPs and most people would soon stop).

It doesn't matter much if you carry on using Bitcoin, if the wider population doesn't, then you are trading in a small corner of the wider economy.  Whether this matters really depends on where you believe Bitcoin needs to be, what its objectives are.  If its to replace conventional money, there's a definite problem.  If its to create a parallel money, it may matter to some extent (depends on other countries, people's risk assessment).  If its build an alternative for those of a certain mindset, well its already there and that cant be stopped. But its not going to change other peoples minds to fit that last scenario and it will be a small niche.

[leopard2]

I think Liberty Dollar is a poor example for two reasons.  One, it was made to look very similar to US coin and two, it was centralized so it was very easy to kick down a door and shut it down.  Neither applicable to Bitcoin.

Exactly. If you have a door to kick in, it's useless. Same with Ripple Hullcoin etc.

[skooter]

If the government passes a regulation saying that they need to have access to everyone's bitcoin wallets (just like they have access to everyone's bank accounts, and have the ability to seize/freeze assets), individuals who don't comply likely won't have anything happen, but you can bet that major businesses will be complying. Without major businesses accepting it, it can't go mainstream and it'll just be a drug trader currency.

they can have my privkey containing 10ksat, but the other privkey containing many bitcoins... i dont know who that belongs to mr IRS man

You might be willing to do that, but the mainstream public follows banking laws for the most part.

And yes, major businesses are set up for accounting, but more complex accounting systems DO cost money to set up. And since bitcoin is, for now, officially property, it's fairly trivial for the IRS to impose a transfer tax on it. Which again, YOU might snub and send/receive bitcoin to whoever you want and ignore the tax, but a company like amazon can't do that.

Remember, you're not spending a currency, you're transferring property every time you "spend" bitcoin.

And there's plenty of precedent for taxes/fees on transferring property. Transferring (non-publicly listed) company stock often has fees/taxes associated with it. Transferring real estate has fees/taxes with it. Buying shares of a public company has regulatory fees associated with it.

By ruling bitcoin as a property, not a currency, it opens to door on all kinds of taxes on it. If someone opens up a store where you can physically buy bitcoin with cash, states could easily say that you have to pay sales tax on those purchases now.

I think Liberty Dollar is a poor example for two reasons.  One, it was made to look very similar to US coin and two, it was centralized so it was very easy to kick down a door and shut it down.  Neither applicable to Bitcoin.

Exactly. If you have a door to kick in, it's useless. Same with Ripple Hullcoin etc.

There's definitely doors to kick in. There's datacenters with petahashes of equipment, and mining pools that control petahashes of power.

Those entities can be forced to to adhere to regulations or risk getting seized.

[tuaris]

I think Liberty Dollar is a poor example for two reasons.  One, it was made to look very similar to US coin and two, it was centralized so it was very easy to kick down a door and shut it down.  Neither applicable to Bitcoin.

This is a little off topic, but I am curious as to why the Disney Dollar hasn't suffered the same fate as the Liberty Dollar.

[skooter]

I think Liberty Dollar is a poor example for two reasons.  One, it was made to look very similar to US coin and two, it was centralized so it was very easy to kick down a door and shut it down.  Neither applicable to Bitcoin.

This is a little off topic, but I am curious as to why the Disney Dollar hasn't suffered the same fate as the Liberty Dollar.

Simple.

The disney dollar is basically a multiple use gift card. Also, Disney corporation doesn't spew a bunch of anti-government crap when selling these store credits.

The liberty dollar had all kinds of anti-government propaganda on their website. It was also very scammy. They were basically selling people gold/silver bullion at a HUGE markup with deceptive marketing. IMO, good riddance. If someone tried to pay me with a liberty dollar I'd call the cops on them. Basically every "liberty dollar" would be backed by like 50 cents worth of gold. Total scam.

Even their website, had that shit where it's like "Special offer, expires in <a date 5 days from now>", but every day the "expiration" date on the "special" offer moved back a day. Sold exactly the way a scam would be sold.

[amspir]

I think Liberty Dollar is a poor example for two reasons.  One, it was made to look very similar to US coin and two, it was centralized so it was very easy to kick down a door and shut it down.  Neither applicable to Bitcoin.

This is a little off topic, but I am curious as to why the Disney Dollar hasn't suffered the same fate as the Liberty Dollar.

The people behind Disney Dollar probably aren't anti-Federal Reserve.

[vqp]

My theory: One of the three letter agencies will be in charge of crypto and will receive funding and make sure cryptos never go away. All happy. Source:my ass

[EvilPanda]

What do you mean by "governments"? Local, state, governments? China? Russia? There will never be something like a "world ban" some countries may be against it but not all.

[cbeast]

Source:my ass

Confirmed 

[Bit_Happy]

I think Liberty Dollar is a poor example for two reasons.  One, it was made to look very similar to US coin and two, it was centralized so it was very easy to kick down a door and shut it down.  Neither applicable to Bitcoin.

"Trust in God"
I still have a couple of paper Liberty dollars and God isn't going to help me with them.

[skooter]

What do you mean by "governments"? Local, state, governments? China? Russia? There will never be something like a "world ban" some countries may be against it but not all.

US Federal/state governments.

Rest of the world doesn't mean shit.

[tvbcof]

What do you mean by "governments"? Local, state, governments? China? Russia? There will never be something like a "world ban" some countries may be against it but not all.

The threat to capital management options posed by crypto-currencies (after they grow some more) will be pretty universally felt by all governments.  I would not be at all surprised if this is one area of cooperation between nations which are otherwise in a lukewarm state of conflict.  The best hope we (hodlers) have is that one nation sees Bitcoin as an artifact which harms and adversary disproportionately and thus partially supports it.

[igorr]

governments can ban everything and your life if necessary.

[leopard2]

That would probably make both governments and banks both unpopular and unsuccessful.
Big institutions are a no-no in the bitcoin sphere. Something a lot of people doesn't seem to get.

To put things in perspective:

The market cap of bitcoin is currently $5.7 billion.
The market cap of Apple is $579 billion.
The monetary base of the USD is estimated to be $3 trillion ($3000 billion)
The M1 of USD is estimated to be $10 trillion.

Currently, bitcoin is a very small thing in the institutional finance world.   I believe things will change.

You need to look at the GLOBAL money supply which is very roughly around 75 trillion, so around 10 000 times the market cap of BTC.

[jbreher]

It was also very scammy. They were basically selling people gold/silver bullion at a HUGE markup with deceptive marketing. IMO, good riddance. If someone tried to pay me with a liberty dollar I'd call the cops on them. Basically every "liberty dollar" would be backed by like 50 cents worth of gold. Total scam.

Bullshit. Every Liberty Dollar that I've seen was redeemable on demand for a set weight of silver bullion - just as the original US Dollar was redeemable for a set weight of gold or silver.

I have one such $20 silver certificate on my desk right now. Up until the feds came in and (illegally, in my mind) confiscated all their precious metals holdings, one could go to their Shelter System Warehouse in Coeur d'Alene, ID, and exchange this $20 Silver Certificate for one ounce of .999 fine silver.

[skooter]

It was also very scammy. They were basically selling people gold/silver bullion at a HUGE markup with deceptive marketing. IMO, good riddance. If someone tried to pay me with a liberty dollar I'd call the cops on them. Basically every "liberty dollar" would be backed by like 50 cents worth of gold. Total scam.

Bullshit. Every Liberty Dollar that I've seen was redeemable on demand for a set weight of silver bullion - just as the original US Dollar was redeemable for a set weight of gold or silver.

I have one such $20 silver certificate on my desk right now. Up until the feds came in and (illegally, in my mind) confiscated all their precious metals holdings, one could go to their Shelter System Warehouse in Coeur d'Alene, ID, and exchange this $20 Silver Certificate for one ounce of .999 fine silver.

Reread what I said.

At the time silver was like $10 - $15 / oz, so they charged a massive markup.

That IMO is a scam. I never said they didn't honor redemptions. I said they charged a huge markup on their product and marketed it in a way to deceive stupid people.