If Kamala Harris wins, Bitcoin will be fine.

[avikz]

It's great to see that Bitcoin is able to make a noise in presidential election of US. Honestly US is known as land of opportunity. It has always thrived on innovation. But their approach is different on crypto related matters.

I understand that United States holds only 4% of the world population. But the major point of concern is that, US is also a crypto mining powerhouse of the world. So it is important to have a government who is friendly to cryptocurrency.

I believe that's exactly where it is making noise and that's why we all are interested to see a favourable election for cryptocurrency.

I am sure that Bitcoin will be fine if Kamala Harris wins the election. But in the world of politics, anything and everything can happen!

[Helena Yu]

4) The US are only 4% of the world population. Bitcoin is a global currency. In addition, as shown above, in the US population crypto has already a high adoption (almost 20% of the population having already bought or held crypto). The potential for future price growths lies mainly outside the US where adoption is often still much lower, even in rich countries in Europe for example.

But no one know how much they own, there's a possibility 4% of them own 90% of Bitcoin, of course it's just my own speculation.

No single President on Earth can destroy a decentralized Bitcoin network and its global communities.

Definitely the no one can destroy the network and the communities because they're no the miners, they also can't change what people are doing. But, they can accumulate as much as they can and confiscate other people coins. So, they're not trying to control the network, instead they can control the coins.

[Asiska02]

These "projections" that Bitcoin will fall to 30.000 or so if Harris wins are, in my opinion, completely baseless and overestimating the US influence on Bitcoin.

Discuss & Disagree

I also don’t like the fact that everything about bitcoin is always attached to the US, how can one country be having so much effect on something that is to be used globally. I may not be too dip in economics but I don’t like the fact that it’s always like that. They may be reasons for that and why they’re the pioneer of it but let there be some exceptions to the level of their influence on certain things. We can’t because of 4% of the world population staying they don’t want it and we’ll all follow their suit too, it doesn’t make sense to me. Let bitcoin prevail and continue to thrive irrespective of who wins the US elections that’s what I am clamouring for.

[Lucius]

I have already written several times that it doesn't really matter which candidate will win when it comes to Bitcoin or altcoins, things will continue as usual because politicians will have much more important work than dealing with something that most of them actually consider a trivial issue.

Of course, the influence that various individuals and companies in the US have on Bitcoin should not be ignored, but it is still a country where people have brought business to perfection, and the fact that some others did not recognize the "opportunity" is a completely different topic.

[Justbillywitt]

These "projections" that Bitcoin will fall to 30.000 or so if Harris wins are, in my opinion, completely baseless and overestimating the US influence on Bitcoin.

Discuss & Disagree

I haven't really read or seen any articles where Kamala Harris said she will not support Bitcoin. Irrespective of the outcome of the US election Bitcoin will be fine. So whatever speculation of bitcoin going down if Kamala wins is totally baseless. And you are right, as these people are just trying to overestimate US influence in bitcoin and I think it's not really unnecessary. This is just another strategy to manipulate the market. If eventually Kamala wins people will start panic selling while the whales buy it. Bitcoin will be Bitcoin even with Kamala being US president.

[legendbtc]

They only make up 4% of the world's population but their GDP accounts for nearly 30% of global GDP, the US financial market capitalization is over $50 trillion, which means they dominate nearly 50% of the global financial market...Those are not small numbers and their impact is not small.

Bitcoin will be fine no matter who wins the election but the point is if we have an open government with more bitcoin friendly policies then its development will happen faster and smoother. Meanwhile, if we have a government that is not open and comes up with harsher policies, the development of bitcoin will be slowed down somewhat.
I don't see anyone saying bitcoin will die or not be okay if the US has a president who is not crypto friendly, people are in need of a government that supports it for adoption to happen faster.

[adultcrypto]

Bitcoin does not depend on a single individual to thrive so whoever wins the election, bitcoin will always be fine. However, there are people that have the capacity to inject instant momentum to the market leading to appreciable rise even though there could corrections later in time. Weather we like it or not, Trump have appear like pro-bitcoin so a victory for him will see the price of bitcoin surge and possibly creating new price history. On the other hand, if Kamala Harris wins, there could be immediate decline in price because it will resume the upward move if bullish momentum is dominant. I'm saying base on the general sentiment of the bitcoin community.

[Z390]

I've read many posts and topics about the coming US election on this forum and I don't remember where it is said that Bitcoin won't be fine once Kamala Harris wins the presidential sit, all I can remember is that people are complaining about how harder things will get with regulations and the SEC chairman will have more power to probably misbehave even more.

I am against Kamala because of those behind her, Joe Biden for example said that Bitcoin miners in the United States are spies trying to expose secrets to the outside world, this pissed me off to the core, this man is trying to make Bitcoin mining look like national threat

There will be similar issues once Kamala gets into the office, she knows nothing about Bitcoin and crypto either, she is probably going to be Joe Biden 2.0, I know Bitcoin will survive but what about miners in the U.S? Some peoples lives are around this Bitcoin mining, will they have to leave the U.S for their business?

[bitLeap]

I, who am outside the US, am also looking forward to this political battle and want to see who will take the podium in the White House later. But for now, Crypto, especially Bitcoin, is still being shaken by both parties in order to split the vote. I leave it all to the Bitcoin community in the US because we can only watch it from afar. But when the final results are out, I hope everyone will come back together, the political season is only temporary while the future of Bitcoin is the main thing for the next generation.

[PrivacyG]

In the first place, Bitcoin is not a concern. Quite frankly, Bitcoin is a non-issue in this election. There are certain Bitcoin fanatics who seem to put Bitcoin at the center stage. Some crypto-centered media is also making it appear as if Bitcoin is a key issue. It is not. No wonder why Bitcoin or even crypto was never mentioned in the debate.

We're all supporting Bitcoin but lest we end up a non-thinking cult we should always attach ourselves with the reality. The reality is that these politicians don't care about Bitcoin at all. The majority of the voters don't care about Bitcoin at all. There are more important issues out there.

I wish I could agree with you but I think I do not.  Vast majority of the voters do not care about the key issues of their own Country but about small details that are often worthless and useless too.  If they were to vote with the candidate who was looking for solutions to the key issues, they would have had the issues solved already long ago.

Politicians care about Bitcoin too, they only pretend they do not.  But they obviously do not care about it as in they want to help it out and support it, but the opposite.  And it often shows.  Trump has found this to be a great way to attract many more voters toward him, and you can see how many would vote Trump ONLY for his stance on Bitcoin.  And this shows that a lot of voters mostly care for their own benefits, not for the country as a whole.

[tranthidung]

I wish I could agree with you but I think I do not.  Vast majority of the voters do not care about the key issues of their own Country but about small details that are often worthless and useless too.  If they were to vote with the candidate who was looking for solutions to the key issues, they would have had the issues solved already long ago.

I completely agree with you and it is true in all countries with freedom or dictatorship. People usually don't care about politics, policies or they care of such but fail to realize facts and issues that are existing in their country and are affecting their lives. If they fail at very first steps, they will continue living with same issues and even more new problems, live conditions will become worse.

Politicians care about Bitcoin too, they only pretend they do not.  But they obviously do not care about it as in they want to help it out and support it, but the opposite.  And it often shows.  Trump has found this to be a great way to attract many more voters toward him, and you can see how many would vote Trump ONLY for his stance on Bitcoin.  And this shows that a lot of voters mostly care for their own benefits, not for the country as a whole.

Politicians, businessmen are hard to trust and their stance can change with time. Nothing wrong to change your opinion because world spins, everything in life and society so if you won't change with time, you fail.

[Marvell1]

I, who am outside the US, am also looking forward to this political battle and want to see who will take the podium in the White House later. But for now, Crypto, especially Bitcoin, is still being shaken by both parties in order to split the vote. I leave it all to the Bitcoin community in the US because we can only watch it from afar. But when the final results are out, I hope everyone will come back together, the political season is only temporary while the future of Bitcoin is the main thing for the next generation.

Frankly, only American citizens care about this election because it will decide the future of their country for the next 4 years. The rest of us (non-US citizens) only care about bitcoin and not about any presidential candidates. Everyone has the same concerns about the positive and negative impact of this election on bitcoin, but they have different views on politics so there are disagreements and temporary divisions. But I am sure that when the election is over, people will continue to unite together as if nothing happened because our ultimate goal is bitcoin.

[Cookdata]

These "projections" that Bitcoin will fall to 30.000 or so if Harris wins are, in my opinion, completely baseless and overestimating the US influence on Bitcoin.

Discuss & Disagree

You just kill the bears(market speculators that are bearish and Trump men that are pushing Bitcoin). The funny thing about this thing is that Bitcoin was there before Trump and Biden administration and there impact on economy didn't really impact Bitcoin positively. Trump was against Bitcoin throughout his tenure and Biden was trying the whole time to regulate Bitcoin and Bitcoin is still trading at $58k, the worst has happened and nothing is new under the sun that we have not seen.

Trump is clearly using everyone to get what he want, he is like if you don't vote me and Kamala get into office, your Bitcoin will be taken away and I ask the question. Why has Biden not taken it all this years? Huh! Biden wasn't really having attention of government until people like Trump political push Bitcoin as a tool for his campaign and I'm against that, do your campaign but don't use Bitcoin for political movement, that's limping.

[Finestream]

Yes Bitcoin will be fine. If she wins there might be a temporarily dump like we saw when he was losing the debate but in the long run it will be fine.

But if Gensler is still in the SEC and he keeps suing all these tokens which he calls unregistered securities then we will get issues with many non-bitcoin type of coins. Honestly who knows, one day he might say that Ethereum is a security even though we got the ETH ETFs launched already.

So bitcoin will survive but it would of been more successful if she didn't win the election.

Harris is not actually a threat for bitcoin. It's just that people are only speculating since the other presidential candidate is having a pro-crypto stance so most likely, this Harris is on the opposite side following the path of Biden.

But in reality, we can't be certain what would be Harris approach to crypto particularly bitcoin if ever she'll win the election. She can no longer pull down bitcoin now knowing a lot already have been starting to be aware on how to take advantage of bitcoin whether it's for currency or a good store of value.

[retreat]

Yes, Bitcoin and the crypto world will be fine and run as usual, even though Kamala becomes president, but the development of Bitcoin and the crypto world can run better if she is not elected president. Although many people say that Trump is only using the Bitcoin community to become president, one thing that can be taken from what he said is that Bitcoin will be better if he becomes president. It does sound too sweet a promise, but he is still more realistic compared to candidates who rarely mention Bitcoin in their campaigns.

[serjent05]

Some folks are really obsessed with the US election. I can understand it partly because Trump, as the first candidate ever in US election history (afaik) has taken a very pro-crypto stance.

But that doesn't mean that Bitcoin will not be fine if Kamala Harris wins. Even if she didn't reveal her stance on crypto/Bitcoin (yet) and is likely to continue the Biden approach which is more skeptical to "crypto", above all altcoins.

That you said it, Kamala does not reveal his stance on Bitcoin, she did not say that she will destroy the Bitcoin Industry or put a strict regulation on Bitcoin and its community.  All the people's worries are just speculation in their minds.  And even if Kamala stands against Bitcoin, I believe Bitcoin will be fine because Bitcoin is not a US-based company nor it is a company itself.  that is the beauty of decentralization, just like how the US authority struggles to shut down torrent activities on a p2p file-sharing platform.  Even though they arrested people who own torrent sites and shut down several platforms, torrenting is still on the go today.

[Marykeller]

As it stands, Bitcoin has grown so big globally that a single country's decision on Bitcoin would not affect its growth. So many times have countries that thought that stance on Bitcoin would affect the price; Bitcoin ended up proving those countries wrong that it will increase or decrease as it wants to; their stance towards her "negative or positive" doesn't matter, to define its future. The least that can happen is for the Bitcoin price to react to the country's decision on Bitcoin, but that will only be for a while, and it will be forgotten in a short time as nothing happened to the Bitcoin price. Therefore, whoever wins the American election this year won't stop or be the reason for Bitcoin to skyrocket to a new ATH by next year because we already have the belief that it will soar by 2025. However, no need to worry about who becomes the president of the US, because neither Trump nor Harris can't change the fate of Bitcoin from soaring higher as anticipated to, next year

[stompix]

But if Gensler is still in the SEC and he keeps suing all these tokens which he calls unregistered securities then we will get issues with many non-bitcoin type of coins. Honestly who knows, one day he might say that Ethereum is a security even though we got the ETH ETFs launched already.

And remind me why people on Bitcointalk should care about dogeatcoin, memeoverkillcoin, pepelepepe coin?
One serious reason why any altcoin that gets pumped out of the you know what of their developer team should not be considered security when it fits every single detail of it, we complain all day long that the crypto world is full of rug pulls but god forbid we put some mechanism in places so shitshows that ended affecting even Bitcoin like the luna fiasco won't be possible anymore!

4) The US are only 4% of the world population.

India has 12% but if we had the same news about crypto coming from the US we would be now cheering for $10000.
Population doesn't matter, even GDP is not a true indicator, 10000 people might have enough money for a bowl of rice a day while one guy making that much could afford to DCA $1000 a day, disposable income or total wealth should be more meaningful, and that's where the US has a 30% share of the world.

These "projections" that Bitcoin will fall to 30.000 or so if Harris wins are, in my opinion, completely baseless and overestimating the US influence on Bitcoin.

The influence is there, Bitcoin being banned in the US would mean backward 10 years, not counting the ripple effects.
But the thing is that is just fearmongering from the orange guy to get votes, unless you vote for me, it's the end of your crypto savings, nothing more.

[PrivacyG]

As it stands, Bitcoin has grown so big globally that a single country's decision on Bitcoin would not affect its growth. So many times have countries that thought that stance on Bitcoin would affect the price;

I get what you mean but I some what disagree.

While The United States alone will not put Bitcoin down on its knees, remember a lot of the largest Bitcoin businesses are running a lot of their stuff on the territory of the United States.  More over, a ton of Money is being allocated toward Cryptocurrencies over there and while they do not have God like powers, they can influence the entire world through even one single decision they make.

A leadership that is against Bitcoin could damage it for a while.  It can not be killed, but it can be scratched and healed.  China has changed their mind on banning or not banning Bitcoin so many times it is not even a surprise any more when they switch the flip again.  The United States has never had a very harsh or idiotic approach toward Bitcoin, so having that for the first time could change how things go for Bitcoin.

[d5000]

I understand that United States holds only 4% of the world population. But the major point of concern is that, US is also a crypto mining powerhouse of the world. So it is important to have a government who is friendly to cryptocurrency.

Even if the US was to ban mining (the Warren AML law project would be a "de facto" ban because it would simply not be fulfillable by miners) miners would simply rearrange in other countries. Some Chinese miners are said to be still active via VPN, even if mining is banned there. Technically Bitcoin would be fine after a few difficulty adjustments, just like in 2021 - 2021 was even worse than an US ban would be because the Chinese mining sector had more than 50% of the world's hashrate back then.

It could still have an impact as some US mining companies are now publicly traded, and their stocks going down the drain would for sure also pull the Bitcoin price down. However, as at least some of these companies are also selling other datacenter services (cloud, AI ...) they would not necessarily disappear. In general I'd expect consequences to be similar to the 2021 Chinese mining ban, i.e. a likely price drop but then normalization.

They only make up 4% of the world's population but their GDP accounts for nearly 30% of global GDP, the US financial market capitalization is over $50 trillion, which means they dominate nearly 50% of the global financial market.

I've waited for this argument

My point here is actually that the US is a major part of the present of Bitcoin's adoption, but the future depends more on the development in other countries. The EU for example has only a slightly smaller economy than the US but the crypto penetration there is lower and has thus more possible upside.

Then we have of course developing countries like India, where the GDP grows way faster than in the US. India is actually an interesting case because according to estimations it has the most crypto users of all countries (90 million) but the Bitcoin sector is also being held back by high taxes and relatively strict regulations. And if China returns to a even slightly friendlier policy (e.g. allowing local exchanges again) that would also be much more impactful than any US government measure (besides of a complete ban perhaps, which I think would not be constitutional in the US).

Bitcoin will be fine no matter who wins the election but the point is if we have an open government with more bitcoin friendly policies then its development will happen faster and smoother.

I believe with "development" you mean its adoption? Because technical development is quite international already. And the US has strong enough guarantees in its constitution that open source programming cannot be punished (see also the Tornado Cash case, they had to find other reasons for the detention than just programming).

In terms of adoption, it is possible that a crypto-friendly government can help with that locally. But even in El Salvador adoption isn't much more widespread than in other Latin American countries. As I wrote in the OP already, the US has a quite high adoption already with 15-20% of the population having held crypto (not necessarily Bitcoin).

The influence is there, Bitcoin being banned in the US would mean backward 10 years, not counting the ripple effects.

A complete US ban would indeed be quite a heavy hit. But I believe this to be impossible due to the US having quite good protections of basic human rights (free speech for example could be used as an argument against a crypto ban), even if the government or Congress was willing to ban it it wouldn't be easy. And the 50 million crypto holders are quite an argument to not even try it.