Trump will compete directly with Bitcoin

[BlackHatCoiner]

And allowing the US government to control the price of it will achieve that... how exactly?

How is it able to control the price by more than a rich billionaire like Saylor? There are already whales that can temporarily affect the price. I don't see what's different with the US government.

No, taxes dollars are used to... pay for stuff like people's retirement and the military. Why would the US buy anything if the intent was not to sell it at a profit later?

It will sell it, in the future. In the act, it writes:

To ensure the long-term stability and security of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, the Secretary shall hold all Bitcoin acquired through the Bitcoin Purchase Program for not less than 20 years.

It will acquire it for the exact same purpose as it acquires any other asset; for financial security.

You are basically asking for Washington DC to be able to dictate the price of Bitcoin.

Why am I asking that? Does Washington DC dictate the price of all assets it keeps as reserves? Does it dictate the price of gold?

[348Judah]

Trumpcoin cannot compete with bitcoin, i don't know why some will have to say this, when bitcoin on it own already constitutes more than 60% of the entire cryptocurrency market, this means that if Trumpcoin eventually remains in existence, it will only be relevant as an alts and those that will invest on it will still take similar risk as other altcoins, if am asked, i will say that i don't see any competition in this, people will still prefer bitcoin to any centralized altcoin.

[legiteum]

And allowing the US government to control the price of it will achieve that... how exactly?

How is it able to control the price by more than a rich billionaire like Saylor? There are already whales that can temporarily affect the price. I don't see what's different with the US government.

Um, the US government has more money than Michael Saylor? Like, several million times more? Is that a serious question?

No, taxes dollars are used to... pay for stuff like people's retirement and the military. Why would the US buy anything if the intent was not to sell it at a profit later?

It will sell it, in the future. In the act, it writes:

To ensure the long-term stability and security of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, the Secretary shall hold all Bitcoin acquired through the Bitcoin Purchase Program for not less than 20 years.

That's idiotic then: it's just a pure give away to Bitcoin holders. Why doesn't the government just loan my company some money for 20 years, too?

You are basically asking for Washington DC to be able to dictate the price of Bitcoin.

Why am I asking that? Does Washington DC dictate the price of all assets it keeps as reserves? Does it dictate the price of gold?

[/quote]

The US has gold (although not a lot of it) for legacy reasons. If they suddenly bought a bunch of gold then yes, that would control the price of gold.

As a Bitcoin maximalist I am finding it rather amazing you want the US government intimately involved in Bitcoin like this.

[nutildah]

Printing money for the express purpose of buying Bitcoin would be one of the most chad moves the Federal Reserve could possibly make. They're gonna suck & be hated for whatever they do, so why not buy some BTC at least?

As a Bitcoin maximalist I am finding it rather amazing you want the US government intimately involved in Bitcoin like this.

They're gonna be involved in it regardless of what anybody has to say about it. If BlackRock is involved, that means they are also involved.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Um, the US government has more money than Michael Saylor? Like, several million times more? Is that a serious question?

In the act, they're planning to buy something around a million bitcoin. That's around four times Microstrategy's holdings. Enormous amount, but still, we've experienced these massive buys before.

That's idiotic then: it's just a pure give away to Bitcoin holders. Why doesn't the government just loan my company some money for 20 years, too?

Because your company does not lack counterparty risk? Because your company is whatever legiteum decides? Because infinite reasons?

The US has gold (although not a lot of it) for legacy reasons. If they suddenly bought a bunch of gold then yes, that would control the price of gold.

This precisely started, more or less, in the past, during the early 20th century. How do you think that has gone with gold so far?

As a Bitcoin maximalist I am finding it rather amazing you want the US government intimately involved in Bitcoin like this.

Bitcoin is for everyone. If governments continue to confiscate property, as they often do, then at least let it be reserved in Bitcoin. I don't want governments intervening in our lives as much as they currently do, but regardless of my anarcho-capitalist ideals, I also have to ground my expectations in what's feasible. The reality is that government influence isn't going anywhere. So, if they must hold reserves, it might as well be in the best form of money available.

Printing money for the express purpose of buying Bitcoin would be one of the most chad moves the Federal Reserve could possibly make. They're gonna suck & be hated for whatever they do, so why not buy some BTC at least?

I'd bet it has crossed their minds, but the truth is they don't have to print anything. The people who own the Fed can already empty all the exchanges with a click of a button. Maybe they're buying in secret. (After all, their wealth was built by successfully hiding it, for centuries.)

[Negotiation]

Trump can never directly compete with bitcoin because bitcoin is not under anyone's control. Bitcoin moves at its own pace bitcoin's recent rise could create a more welcoming environment for its digital assets, bringing legitimacy and stability to the market. For investors, this could mean significant gains not only with bitcoin but also with emerging altcoins and meme coins that thrive in a bullish climate. It's still early in bitcoin, a strong bull run is more likely than ever. Bitcoin has no impact on Trump's policies, investors will still invest in bitcoin without any risk.

[legiteum]

Um, the US government has more money than Michael Saylor? Like, several million times more? Is that a serious question?

In the act, they're planning to buy something around a million bitcoin. That's around four times Microstrategy's holdings. Enormous amount, but still, we've experienced these massive buys before.

Whatever good the free money you are getting from US taxpayers is can be reversed by an act of Congress as well. You are placing yourself at the mercy of Congress. If you are saying there will be no impact, then why bother doing it at all? If there is a big impact, then that impact can be correspondingly reversed.

That's idiotic then: it's just a pure give away to Bitcoin holders. Why doesn't the government just loan my company some money for 20 years, too?

Because your company does not lack counterparty risk? Because your company is whatever legiteum decides? Because infinite reasons?

Okay, how about AAPL? How about NVDA? How about soybean futures? How about any other thing US investors might want to invest in? Should the US government be in the business of speculating in the financial markets so specific investors in those things should benefit?

One thing is for sure: once the government invests in one thing, holders of those other assets are sure as heck going to lobby the government to prop up their investments too. That's just politics.

The US has gold (although not a lot of it) for legacy reasons. If they suddenly bought a bunch of gold then yes, that would control the price of gold.

This precisely started, more or less, in the past, during the early 20th century. How do you think that has gone with gold so far?

The US has gold--and has since the country began--because gold originally backed the US dollar. Now the gold the US owns isn't even 1% of the dollar and they stopped buying gold a century ago because there is no reason to.

As a Bitcoin maximalist I am finding it rather amazing you want the US government intimately involved in Bitcoin like this.

Bitcoin is for everyone. If governments continue to confiscate property, as they often do, then at least let it be reserved in Bitcoin.

So you actually want Big Government--but just for your favorite stuff and not anybody else's. Cool .

I guess that works as long as nobody else has the same idea about their favorite investment too...

[Synchronice]

In a perfect world, I would agree with legiteum but in this real world

If we lived in a perfect world, there would be no criminals. If our perfect world had criminals, then they would be "perfect criminals", so the idea that money spent to catch dumb criminals (e.g., those using bitcoin as medium of exchange) would hold even more water than in the current world.

The fact is that big criminals have long abandoned bitcoin. They use monero and cash. The biggest criminals, however, are historically the issuers of the fiat currency.

You are right, perfect word is not really the best word to use in this situation, maybe it would be wiser to say "in a better world". But it's still true that governments take law to earn more from taxpayers and in reality they don't do it to guarantee their safety. There are many valid reasons and proofs this argument of mine and I've already posted one in my previous post.

A few minutes ago, I was thinking that Bitcoin blockchain is accessible by everyone, right? If I share my Bitcoin address with someone to receive a payment, they'll be able to check my transaction history. I can't hide that history because blockchain is available for everyone for free. Logically, I should have the right to do everything to protect my privacy, including CoinJoin and mixing to hide traces because what if someone finds that particular address belongs to me and tries to rob me?

[BlackHatCoiner]

Whatever good the free money you are getting from US taxpayers is can be reversed by an act of Congress as well

What free money are you talking about? I would just want my nation to hold reserves in the hardest asset to make. That's all.

Okay, how about AAPL? How about NVDA? How about soybean futures? How about any other thing US investors might want to invest in? Should the US government be in the business of speculating in the financial markets so specific investors in those things should benefit?

• No it shouldn't, because all of them include counterparty risk.
• Nonetheless, it is indirectly involved in supporting large corporations by purchasing corporate bonds.

It shouldn't be in the position of speculating with companies, because companies have counterparty risk. Therefore, the reserves should be kept in a hard asset, not liabilities. This is why gold emerged naturally as the world's reserve asset for so many centuries.

The US has gold--and has since the country began--because gold originally backed the US dollar. Now the gold the US owns isn't even 1% of the dollar and they stopped buying gold a century ago because there is no reason to.

... and is gold experiencing any troubles? Or were its holders experiencing troubles during the gold standard? (Apart from the confiscation order.) No, it kept rising in value. Why should Bitcoin be any different?

So you actually want Big Government--but just for your favorite stuff and not anybody else's. Cool

So, let me get this straight. I should be wanting big government, confiscating my property, and storing it in de-monetized assets that will lose value overtime. Would that be fair?

[legiteum]

Whatever good the free money you are getting from US taxpayers is can be reversed by an act of Congress as well

What free money are you talking about? I would just want my nation to hold reserves in the hardest asset to make. That's all.

The US doesn't hold "reserves", it takes in taxes and spends them on things. In fact, it takes in about $.80 for every dollar it spends iirc.

Indeed, you are actually asking US taxpayers to take on more debt in order for them to prop up your favorite investment.

It shouldn't be in the position of speculating with companies, because companies have counterparty risk. Therefore, the reserves should be kept in a hard asset, not liabilities. This is why gold emerged naturally as the world's reserve asset for so many centuries.

Again, the US gold reserves are there as a legacy thing--it's almost a curiosity at this point--and it's an insignificant portion of our national revenue.

(And yes, many over the years have suggested we sell off the reserves and return the money to taxpayers, but it's such a small amount that nobody really feels like bothering with this).

So you actually want Big Government--but just for your favorite stuff and not anybody else's. Cool

So, let me get this straight. I should be wanting big government, confiscating my property, and storing it in de-monetized assets that will lose value overtime. Would that be fair?

No, I want them to spend it on the stuff we voted for, like heath care for old people, retirements, and the military. Neither the US nor any other government "stores" money--if they did, they should simply give it back to us since they clearly don't need it.

Tell you what: maybe the US can pass a law allowing individuals to decide what the government should do with its surplus (currently running at $-1.9T in the US). You could decide to a) have them send you a check proportional to the amount of taxes you gave them; or b) tell them to buy Bitcoin with your surplus taxes instead.

Sound fair?

[Cremi]

In a perfect world, I would agree with legiteum but in this real world

If we lived in a perfect world, there would be no criminals. If our perfect world had criminals, then they would be "perfect criminals", so the idea that money spent to catch dumb criminals (e.g., those using bitcoin as medium of exchange) would hold even more water than in the current world.

The fact is that big criminals have long abandoned bitcoin. They use monero and cash. The biggest criminals, however, are historically the issuers of the fiat currency.

You are right, perfect word is not really the best word to use in this situation, maybe it would be wiser to say "in a better world". But it's still true that governments take law to earn more from taxpayers and in reality they don't do it to guarantee their safety. There are many valid reasons and proofs this argument of mine and I've already posted one in my previous post.

A few minutes ago, I was thinking that Bitcoin blockchain is accessible by everyone, right? If I share my Bitcoin address with someone to receive a payment, they'll be able to check my transaction history. I can't hide that history because blockchain is available for everyone for free. Logically, I should have the right to do everything to protect my privacy, including CoinJoin and mixing to hide traces because what if someone finds that particular address belongs to me and tries to rob me?

why not using a new wallet adress -> you have your privacy..

[BlackHatCoiner]

The US doesn't hold "reserves", it takes in taxes and spends them on things. In fact, it takes in about $.80 for every dollar it spends iirc.

Here's the Federal Reserve balance sheet: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/20241003/. To me, that reads "we have $7 trillion worth of assets and liabilities in reserves".

I agree with you that this "institution" ideally shouldn't exist at all (if that's what you're arguing), but in reality, dismantling it is currently impossible. The people who control the vast majority of the world's assets also control this board, and they aren't going anywhere. Right now, there are billions of dollars' worth of assets just sitting idle, contributing neither to healthcare, the military, nor retirement funds.

I don't support taking on additional debt. I'm simply suggesting that instead of allowing (e.g.) $11 billion in gold to sit untouched, gathering dust and losing value, we should convert it into bitcoin, leave it untouched for 20 years, and then use it to fund retirement, healthcare, or similar needs. Of course, I'd also be open to giving people the gold now and letting them decide what to do with it-- that might even be the better approach, but it wasn't proposed by the people who will be the next government.

[legiteum]

The US doesn't hold "reserves", it takes in taxes and spends them on things. In fact, it takes in about $.80 for every dollar it spends iirc.

Here's the Federal Reserve balance sheet: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/20241003/. To me, that reads "we have $7 trillion worth of assets and liabilities in reserves".

I agree with you that this "institution" ideally shouldn't exist at all (if that's what you're arguing), but in reality, dismantling it is currently impossible. The people who control the vast majority of the world's assets also control this board, and they aren't going anywhere. Right now, there are billions of dollars' worth of assets just sitting idle, contributing neither to healthcare, the military, nor retirement funds.

No, they are not just sitting idle, the Fed needs that money (and it needs to be liquid money) to do it's job on a daily basis, in the same way a company needs a checking account.

The don't invest in stocks or other volatile illiquid assets for this reason.

The US buying Bitcoin would be a pure expense until it is sold.

I don't support taking on additional debt. I'm simply suggesting that instead of allowing (e.g.) $11 billion in gold to sit untouched, gathering dust and losing value, we should convert it into bitcoin, leave it untouched for 20 years, and then use it to fund retirement, healthcare, or similar needs. Of course, I'd also be open to giving people the gold now and letting them decide what to do with it-- that might even be the better approach, but it wasn't proposed by the people who will be the next government.

If you did that, millions of Americans would scream that the money should be spent on their favorite project instead.

This is the problem when you start playing with other people's money.

What is wrong with just letting the free market decide the price of Bitcoin? Why do you need the government to compel taxes from citizens in order to prop up the price?

***

As a total side-note--and to cross our threads here--my own theory of Satoshi implies that the US actually does currently hold ~1M btc that they don't know what to do with since spending it would reveal state secrets and they don't know how to account for this money in any case.

[BlackHatCoiner]

No, they are not just sitting idle, the Fed needs that money (and it needs to be liquid money) to do it's job on a daily basis, in the same way a company needs a checking account.

Gold is certainly sitting idle.

The don't invest in stocks or other volatile illiquid assets for this reason.

What's "illiquid"? Lol. You mean non-saleable? Bitcoin is the easiest asset to sell at the market price.

What is wrong with just letting the free market decide the price of Bitcoin? Why do you need the government to compel taxes from citizens in order to prop up the price?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with letting the free market determine the price for bitcoin, but I'm thinking that a plan to secure the nation's finances with bitcoin-- similar to how other hard assets have been used throughout history-- might actually make sense.

I'm all in to returning those hard assets back to the people. If that's not realistic, use that money to finance public sectors, like healthcare or education, that the people have voted for. However, since the US government has historically held reserves in gold and other hard assets, with no desire to spend them in the present, it seems reasonable to consider converting those reserves into a stronger asset. That's all; no additional debt, just a practical acknowledgment of reality and a constructive alternative proposal.

[legiteum]

No, they are not just sitting idle, the Fed needs that money (and it needs to be liquid money) to do it's job on a daily basis, in the same way a company needs a checking account.

Gold is certainly sitting idle.

Again, that is only because it was left over from 100 years ago and we haven't gotten around to getting rid of it yet since it's an insignificant amount of money.

What is wrong with just letting the free market decide the price of Bitcoin? Why do you need the government to compel taxes from citizens in order to prop up the price?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with letting the free market determine the price for bitcoin, but I'm thinking that a plan to secure the nation's finances with bitcoin-- similar to how other hard assets have been used throughout history-- might actually make sense.

You are asking US taxpayers to buy Bitcoin instead of paying for people's health care, retirement and the military--because you want your particular choice of investment to go up in value so you can get rich.

Again, I'm rather dumfounded that people in the Bitcoin community would want this entanglement with the US government. It goes against everything that the "Bitcoin movement" ever stood for, and replaces the idea with a government special interest giveaway to some rich investors. And there's absolutely no way that a tiny number of American get rich using US government outlays without them wanting something in return, and/or being subjected to some other backlash, e.g. forcing all Bitcoin mining to be in the US, and be with "registered" miners who are controlled by government regulators.

[Synchronice]

why not using a new wallet adress -> you have your privacy..

DEXs are getting banned and if I want to convert my Bitcoins, I have to use a centralized exchange. CEXs don't generate a new Bitcoin address every time you try to deposit, so what are my options? To receive coins on one address always. Blockchain explorer websites let you to see how much coin I received and what was the value of the coin in that particular time.

I'm thinking that a plan to secure the nation's finances with bitcoin-- similar to how other hard assets have been used throughout history-- might actually make sense.

I think that at the moment its not a good idea. Bitcoin is very volatile. If the USA announces that they are going to buy Bitcoins, then the price will instantly reach very high levels and it will be stupid to buy at that price.
Maybe in a few years it can be a good idea. Overall, it really makes sense. Crypto is the future of money and there is no other better investment than future.

[FinallyRegistered]

I'm so over the political sentiment with blinders on.  The OP is right, and everyone who opposes is wrong (at lease from his/her perspective).  There's no arguing or negotiating this with someone like this.  7 pages of emptiness so far in this thread.

Satoshi had to go through this with those that didn't believe in bitcoin.  "If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry".  7 pages of debating OP, I think we've drilled this into the ground now, can we move on?

[legiteum]

I'm so over the political sentiment with blinders on.  The OP is right, and everyone who opposes is wrong (at lease from his/her perspective).  There's no arguing or negotiating this with someone like this.  7 pages of emptiness so far in this thread.

Satoshi had to go through this with those that didn't believe in bitcoin.  "If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry".  7 pages of debating OP, I think we've drilled this into the ground now, can we move on?

I think we did. Why did you just pop the thread to the top again by posting this rather meaningless comment?

[Smartvirus]

Trim might be the number one citizen of the world now but, I don’t think his got what it takes to crash Bitcoin. No single individual have got what it takes to crash what depends on the consensus of the people. American politics might be for the Americans but, we should understand that Bitcoin is for the entire world and that’s worth more than the government of any particular world.
While there might be propagandas and people would have what to speculate on in Trump’s government or cabinet, we could as well let the man don some wrongs before calling him out on what we all know him to have promoted so well in his campaigns. Trump is a business man and you could expect him to think that way on how to harness what he may, from Bitcoin.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Again, I'm rather dumfounded that people in the Bitcoin community would want this entanglement with the US government. It goes against everything that the "Bitcoin movement" ever stood for

First things first, Bitcoin is not accurately described as a "movement", nor does it have a community. Perhaps this is the romantic way to see it, but the bottom line is that it's an asset, and cultural wars it has experienced in the past set this clear. It began with the cypherpunk spirit, which I very respect, and the early adopters were connected with some cypherpunk ideals, but the genius of bitcoin lies in the freedom to treat it however you like; it is an asset, just like gold. You don't refer to gold as a "movement", nor does gold has a "community". So anyone is "welcomed" to use bitcoin.

Now back to government.

I don't want the government to have any "strategic reserve plan", ideally, but we don't live in an ideal world, and decisions need to be taken. If the government would have to use my already confiscated property, then I'd rather it sitting in the hardest asset, than in one that gradually loses value. And for once more, that money sit idle. Read the act. It refers to surplus; extra funds that are held by the Federal Reserve, not taxpayer dollars allocated for social programs. In other words, that money is an extra revenue, that can be used as an investment. It could be used, for example, to fund public infrastructure. It can also be used as investment in bitcoin for 20 years, and then released for funding public infrastructure.

To clarify with an analogy: just as in a democracy, I may not prefer any of the political parties but am ultimately compelled to choose one to govern, the same principle applies to the strategic reserve plan. I would rather see the funds taken from myself and the public held in the hardest asset, to be gradually released over many years, with value appreciated, than just leave it in an instrument that won't appreciate the same, or even hold the value of our money.

Last but not least, if there was such an option, I'd rather that surplus be returned to the people, in cash, in a fair manner, the moment Trump enters office. But, unfortunately there isn't.