The future of Bitcoin is... regulated

[legiteum]

you are making it up, how is it possible that bitcoin lost 95% of its investors when it was not cooperative with law enforcement. that is just your assumption who does not understand how bitcoin developed from the beginning it was created until now. with or without government regulation, bitcoin will continue to grow, because the reason most people invest in bitcoin is not because it is regulated, but because it can give them freedoms that they cannot get when they use banking.

The reason 99% of people invest in Bitcoin is because they think they will be able to sell Bitcoin for more than they paid for it. Get real.

[m2017]

I believe that Bitcoin and other digital currencies will face a choice: become part of the system that cooperates with law enforcement or lose 95% of it's investors.

There is a 95% chance that bitcoin will be integrated into the current global financial system. It would be interesting to hear its creator's opinion on this.

I realize there are "Bitcoin OG" or "hardcores" here that feel that a centrally-regulated Bitcoin goes against everything it originally stood for, but if people are given a choice between that or their investment going down by 95%, they are going to... let the government do what it wants .

What wouldn't agree to for profit, right?

These days there are probably almost nobody is using Bitcoin to avoid their government, which is what it was originally designed to do: most just think of it as an investment that will yield them a profit. And they pay taxes on their gains, and/or report their holdings to their government just like they would if they bought stocks or commodities.

Since its creation, the purpose/use of bitcoin has changed dramatically. And it seems that nothing can be done about it. Humanity has once again perverted the brilliant idea of ​​another creator.

For the sake of profit, bitcoiners, former maximalists, are ready to fulfill any requirement of regulators.

It's also worth noting that regulations in democracies mostly stem from some kind of crisis or emergency. When the US financial system had major problems in 2008--and millions of people lost their retirement savings--then Congress responded with lots of new regulations. The FTX scandal prompted a lot of regulations for the digital asset world, and I suspect that work isn't yet done.

But wasn't it because of the regulator's decision that these millions lost their pension savings, the money from which they used to cover up their "mistakes"?

And now that there are major companies buying US elections like they did in 2024, companies like Ripple, Coinbase, Binance etc. are working every day in Washington to create new regulations that benefit them and disadvantage their competitors. These companies have a financial interest in centralized control as well--even while they go on about the "anti-government" Bitcoin religion in their advertisements.

Companies have their own interests. It has always been like that. You should separate "theirs" from "yours". And advertising will always remain advertising - "sweet lies for fools".

For me, this portends more and more regulation around Bitcoin and other digital currencies--and the era where criminals can successfully use these products coming to an end. This will be very good for the price of Bitcoin in the long run--which is another reason why it will happen.

Even you started talking about criminals. These products were used by ordinary people, among whom the proportion of criminals is absolutely insignificant. Get rid of the influence of government propaganda, according to which only criminals use crypto.

[Die_empty]

The reason 99% of people invest in Bitcoin is because they think they will be able to sell Bitcoin for more than they paid for it. Get real.

You need to get a reliable statistics to prove this point. I agree that most people who own Bitcoin today see it mainly as an investment and  don't give a damn about government regulations. But there are still people who use Bitcoin for the freedom it offers.

Your assumption that Bitcoin will lose 95% of its investors if the US government decide to restrict it is also a baseless predictions since you don't have any data to back it. China was also a big player in the Bitcoin industry until it decided to ban it and most Bitcoin businesses in the country moved to other friendly nations. The ban had an initial negative impact on the price of Bitcoin but with time the market adjusted. The US is the biggest player but without it the market can still recover after a massive downturn.

[CryptoBuds]

you are making it up, how is it possible that bitcoin lost 95% of its investors when it was not cooperative with law enforcement. that is just your assumption who does not understand how bitcoin developed from the beginning it was created until now. with or without government regulation, bitcoin will continue to grow, because the reason most people invest in bitcoin is not because it is regulated, but because it can give them freedoms that they cannot get when they use banking.

bitcon does not need regulation and people also did not expect it to be regulated by the government from the beginning.

I disagree with OP's view that bitcoin will lose 95% of its value but it is also incorrect to assume that bitcoin will not be affected by regulation. Government and regulations will have a significant impact on the growth and popularity of bitcoin. If they come up with harsh policies or ban it, don't expect it to grow and become popular. Even though bitcoin is a decentralized, that doesn't mean it can freely grow and become popular globally without their permission, governments control this world and bitcoin is no exception.

Regulation is inevitable, we have no choice.

[slaman29]

you are making it up, how is it possible that bitcoin lost 95% of its investors when it was not cooperative with law enforcement. that is just your assumption who does not understand how bitcoin developed from the beginning it was created until now. with or without government regulation, bitcoin will continue to grow, because the reason most people invest in bitcoin is not because it is regulated, but because it can give them freedoms that they cannot get when they use banking.

The reason 99% of people invest in Bitcoin is because they think they will be able to sell Bitcoin for more than they paid for it. Get real.

Exactly.

This is also the reason 99% of people who invest in Bitcoin don't actually own the Bitcoin. It's on a wallet that doesn't have private keys, or its on an exchange, or its even in some site wallet.

People still refuse to get real. Its very funny they still talk about unbanked and freedom of banking lol. True only for 1% of people.

[Negotiation]

I believe that Bitcoin and other digital currencies will face a choice: become part of the system that cooperates with law enforcement or lose 95% of it's investors.

Why would cryptocurrencies lose their investors without approval from the government when this has always been the case ever since but look at what happened to bitcoin. It soared and became successful enough that governments are changing their minds about it and now want to be part of that success.

There is no doubt that there will be some kind of regulation from the government over the next years but that would not be enough to control bitcoin. Nothing will ever be able to which is why it’ll never be under the government’ reigns completely.

Yes many are curious about the future of bitcoin it is true that due to its decentralized nature it cannot be easily controlled by the government or any central agency. Bitcoin's future is not entirely uncertain bitcoin's greatest strength is its decentralization. Bitcoin will not be under any government because bitcoin's decentralization and blockchain technology make it very difficult for governments to control it. The government can make various regulations to solve some of the problems caused by the use of bitcoin. With no government control bitcoin is now widely accepted by the general public and will emerge as an important currency.

[summonerrk]

As someone who is clearly not a newbie on the forum, I would like to express my opinion on this matter: yes, for now it seems that regulators have done a great job of killing anonymity, and continue to look for ways to do so. Yes, Trump said goodbye to the head of the SEC, but this will not change things. Regulators have existed and will exist, and look at what they did with Monero and Zcash. I would not bet on these coins not completely disappearing into oblivion. In 2016, we believed that only freedom and anonymity awaited us. These were rosy dreams.

[martinex]

As someone who is clearly not a newbie on the forum, I would like to express my opinion on this matter: yes, for now it seems that regulators have done a great job of killing anonymity, and continue to look for ways to do so. Yes, Trump said goodbye to the head of the SEC, but this will not change things. Regulators have existed and will exist, and look at what they did with Monero and Zcash. I would not bet on these coins not completely disappearing into oblivion. In 2016, we believed that only freedom and anonymity awaited us. These were rosy dreams.

The government is always like that, loopholes are always sought whether in terms of regulation or taxation or other issues related to digital financial transactions, especially the decline in value and the weakening of the US dollar in the future, so that many investors or institutions put their money into more attractive and aggressive instruments such as BTC.

[Ale88]

I believe that Bitcoin and other digital currencies will face a choice: become part of the system that cooperates with law enforcement or lose 95% of it's investors.

I realize there are "Bitcoin OG" or "hardcores" here that feel that a centrally-regulated Bitcoin goes against everything it originally stood for, but if people are given a choice between that or their investment going down by 95%, they are going to... let the government do what it wants .

These days there are probably almost nobody is using Bitcoin to avoid their government, which is what it was originally designed to do: most just think of it as an investment that will yield them a profit. And they pay taxes on their gains, and/or report their holdings to their government just like they would if they bought stocks or commodities.

It's also worth noting that regulations in democracies mostly stem from some kind of crisis or emergency. When the US financial system had major problems in 2008--and millions of people lost their retirement savings--then Congress responded with lots of new regulations. The FTX scandal prompted a lot of regulations for the digital asset world, and I suspect that work isn't yet done.

And now that there are major companies buying US elections like they did in 2024, companies like Ripple, Coinbase, Binance etc. are working every day in Washington to create new regulations that benefit them and disadvantage their competitors. These companies have a financial interest in centralized control as well--even while they go on about the "anti-government" Bitcoin religion in their advertisements.

For me, this portends more and more regulation around Bitcoin and other digital currencies--and the era where criminals can successfully use these products coming to an end. This will be very good for the price of Bitcoin in the long run--which is another reason why it will happen.

Why should bitcoin lose 95% of its investors if it doesn't cooperate with law enforcement? And what does it even mean? Bitcoin transactions are public, it's pretty easy to follow the money. And you're even talking about centrally regulate bitcoin? And who should it regulate? The US government maybe? I think you're not understanding that if bitcoin is where it is now it's exactly because it's completely decentralized. Bitcoin without decentralization is not bitcoin anymore, it's pointless.

[michellee]

As someone who is clearly not a newbie on the forum, I would like to express my opinion on this matter: yes, for now it seems that regulators have done a great job of killing anonymity, and continue to look for ways to do so. Yes, Trump said goodbye to the head of the SEC, but this will not change things. Regulators have existed and will exist, and look at what they did with Monero and Zcash. I would not bet on these coins not completely disappearing into oblivion. In 2016, we believed that only freedom and anonymity awaited us. These were rosy dreams.

Yeah, that is right because regulators will not wants to see something out of their control especially when many people using that thing. They maybe try to control their people using that thing, in this matter Bitcoin, so they will create a regulation that will bond their people in use of Bitcoin.

But even if there is a strict regulation from the government, that will not stops anonymity still exist because people want to hide whatever they do from their government. They have privacy so the government can understand that but people should still obey the law in their country.

If that can run together, maybe that will be better for a country and the people. But that is only in a dream.

[legiteum]

Why should bitcoin lose 95% of its investors if it doesn't cooperate with law enforcement?

That's not what I meant. I only meant to say that if the US made Bitcoin illegal, it would lose 95% of it's investors and probably a similar margin in market cap.

Hence the US government has extreme leverage over Bitcoin holders, and thus the Bitcoin network itself.

And you're even talking about centrally regulate bitcoin? And who should it regulate? The US government maybe? I think you're not understanding that if bitcoin is where it is now it's exactly because it's completely decentralized. Bitcoin without decentralization is not bitcoin anymore, it's pointless.

Bitcoin is already regulated in all kinds of ways, in terms of how people are allowed to use it.

And I agree: without centralization, it's certainly not the original intent of Bitcoin--but that era passed 10 years ago . Now it's just another investment instrument--although I'm not sure everybody quite gets the implications of this.

[betswift]

As someone who is clearly not a newbie on the forum, I would like to express my opinion on this matter: yes, for now it seems that regulators have done a great job of killing anonymity, and continue to look for ways to do so. Yes, Trump said goodbye to the head of the SEC, but this will not change things. Regulators have existed and will exist, and look at what they did with Monero and Zcash. I would not bet on these coins not completely disappearing into oblivion. In 2016, we believed that only freedom and anonymity awaited us. These were rosy dreams.

The government is always like that, loopholes are always sought whether in terms of regulation or taxation or other issues related to digital financial transactions, especially the decline in value and the weakening of the US dollar in the future, so that many investors or institutions put their money into more attractive and aggressive instruments such as BTC.

Loopholes are there when the conditions for doing it by the law are dead and dusted.Both by ordinary peeps and bigger structures alike.
At least many out there understand that Bitcoin is the way.

[Ale88]

Why should bitcoin lose 95% of its investors if it doesn't cooperate with law enforcement?

That's not what I meant. I only meant to say that if the US made Bitcoin illegal, it would lose 95% of it's investors and probably a similar margin in market cap.
Hence the US government has extreme leverage over Bitcoin holders, and thus the Bitcoin network itself.

The story that the US (or whatever other country) could ban bitcoin and therefore people would start panic selling etc etc would have been acceptable a few years ago, not now. Why? Mainly because of the ETFs. If the ETFs have been approved despite the democrats and the SEC tried to do whatever the could to stop them, in my opinion it clearly shows that who decides is BlackRock and the other huge investment funds, not the government. And now that the investment funds are making a ton of money thanks to the ETFs and they keep suggesting their customers to buy more bitcoins do you really think the US government could somehow declare them illegal? It won't happen, now it's too late for them to do it.

[BlackHatCoiner]

The story that the US (or whatever other country) could ban bitcoin and therefore people would start panic selling etc etc would have been acceptable a few years ago, not not. Why? Mainly because of the ETFs.

Besides the approval from the regulation sector, it is also resistant to changes in the protocol, as evidently experienced in the block size war era. The 2016-17 was a very important period for bitcoin, because it turned out that people who seem very powerful could not modify the rules to their benefit; no one would rather have a fork over the original, no matter the influence.

[legiteum]

The story that the US (or whatever other country) could ban bitcoin and therefore people would start panic selling etc etc would have been acceptable a few years ago, not not. Why? Mainly because of the ETFs. If the ETFs have been approved despite the democrats and the SEC tried to do whatever the could to stop them, in my opinion it clearly shows that who decides is BlackRock and the other huge investment funds, not the government. And now that the investment funds are making a ton of money thanks to the ETFs and they keep suggesting their customers to buy more bitcoins do you really think the US government could somehow declare them illegal? It won't happen, now it's too late for them to do it.

If Blackrock could make more money with Bitcoin being illegal and there being an alternative, then that's what Blackrock would support.

I really doubt anybody would ever want to--or need to--make Bitcoin full-on illegal, but the US could give legal disadvantages to Bitcoin and advantages to some alternative that Trump, Musk & Blackrock would all support.

Besides the approval from the regulation sector, it is also resistant to changes in the protocol, as evidently experienced in the block size war era. The 2016-17 was a very important period for bitcoin, because it turned out that people who seem very powerful could not modify the rules to their benefit; no one would rather have a fork over the original, no matter the influence.

In 2017 the President of the United States was not involved. The US can do whatever it wants and it doesn't need to care what a few programmers think. The US government could compel a code change and after paying off the right people (e.g. Blackrock and a few other Bitcoin whales) then Bitcoin would not fork since nobody would want to lose their money.

I'm not saying they would probably change any protocols are whatever--why would they?--but it's not correct to say it's "impossible" that the Bitcoin codebase does not change at the behest of the US government.

Today, Bitcoin is just another government-regulated financial system--and my thesis is that this will just increase as time goes on.

[BlackHatCoiner]

In 2017 the President of the United States was not involved. The US can do whatever it wants and it doesn't need to care what a few programmers think. The US government could compel a code change and after paying off the right people (e.g. Blackrock and a few other Bitcoin whales) then Bitcoin would not fork since nobody would want to lose their money.

There is not "no fork". There is fork, chain is split into two. People who own bitcoin will own coins in both chains. This isn't a matter of resisting to political pressure, it's just the nature of things. It is then down to people to decide which fork to use. They could very well use both. Or sell one to buy the other.

I know that you understand that the "illegal fork" will become worthless and you don't even consider it, but I think it's very important to draw a line over what literally will happen versus what you speculate that will happen.

[BlackBoss_]

There is not "no fork". There is fork, chain is split into two. People who own bitcoin will own coins in both chains. This isn't a matter of resisting to political pressure, it's just the nature of things. It is then down to people to decide which fork to use. They could very well use both. Or sell one to buy the other.

I know that you understand that the "illegal fork" will become worthless and you don't even consider it, but I think it's very important to draw a line over what literally will happen versus what you speculate that will happen.

Forks can happen like with Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Satoshi Vision as BCH and BSV but these forked coins don't succeed after noisy months around their fork time.

Other forks like shitcoins, more than a hundred of such "forked" altcoins are mostly dead projects.

How many Bitcoin forks are there? and because they're dead projects that reveal by a fact that many of us don't know about these forks.

In future any fork under political pressure won't be successful one in my opinion.

[Ale88]

The story that the US (or whatever other country) could ban bitcoin and therefore people would start panic selling etc etc would have been acceptable a few years ago, not now. Why? Mainly because of the ETFs. If the ETFs have been approved despite the democrats and the SEC tried to do whatever the could to stop them, in my opinion it clearly shows that who decides is BlackRock and the other huge investment funds, not the government. And now that the investment funds are making a ton of money thanks to the ETFs and they keep suggesting their customers to buy more bitcoins do you really think the US government could somehow declare them illegal? It won't happen, now it's too late for them to do it.

If Blackrock could make more money with Bitcoin being illegal and there being an alternative, then that's what Blackrock would support.

I really doubt anybody would ever want to--or need to--make Bitcoin full-on illegal, but the US could give legal disadvantages to Bitcoin and advantages to some alternative that Trump, Musk & Blackrock would all support.

I'm really struggling to follow you: how could BlackRock make more money after pushing the US government to make bitcoin illegal? Before they push to get their ETFs approved, tell all their customer to have a 2-3% bitcoin allocation in their wallets and then they try to make it illegal? So their customer would have bought something illegal and would have to sell it for peanuts? What kind of financial strategy is this supposed to be?

[legiteum]

If Blackrock could make more money with Bitcoin being illegal and there being an alternative, then that's what Blackrock would support.

I really doubt anybody would ever want to--or need to--make Bitcoin full-on illegal, but the US could give legal disadvantages to Bitcoin and advantages to some alternative that Trump, Musk & Blackrock would all support.

I'm really struggling to follow you: how could BlackRock make more money after pushing the US government to make bitcoin illegal?

If they made their own competing product for instance? Pretty easy. Blackrock probably makes pretty good money with their ETF, but they could make 100x more if they actually own a piece of the actual asset themselves.

With control of the US government, you can basically make infinite money--the money Blackrock makes with the ETF is peanuts in comparison.

[NotATether]

The reason 99% of people invest in Bitcoin is because they think they will be able to sell Bitcoin for more than they paid for it. Get real.

That puts us in the 1%. The people who actually use Bitcoin how it was intended to be used.

It also explains why Monero ownership is so low. There are no moons or ATHs, so people are not as interested in it as in Bitcoin.

In a way however, it's kinda frustrating to see the low amount of stores actually accepting crypto, even Bitcoin.