Total BS: "Bitcoin cannot be controlled by governments"

[Fivestar4everMVP]

Please stop saying, "Bitcoin cannot be controlled by governments", because... it absolutely can, and to some extent already is.

Well, in the end, power belongs to the people, it is the people who will determine whether the government will succeed in this act or not, if the government managed to create a fake version of bitcoin and call it original and called the original bitcoin fake, and managed to lobby all the current bitcoin investors into investing in the fake version of bitcoin, and even Centralised exchanges to treat the fake bitcoin as the original bitcoin, it is the people's reaction that will determine whether the government succeed in this plot or not.

Money is what the people accept to be money, in a situation where the government do this but the every one in and around the world refuse to buy into the idea, and also refuse to accept the fake bitcoin as an original one, it is only a matter of time, the governments version of bitcoin which is fake will fail and fall, and the original Satoshi created bitcoin will take back its place,
The Nigerian government have in previous time banned crypto and tried imposing e-naira on citizens, where is that project today? It's in that wastebin because citizens of Nigeria refused to accept it.

[legiteum]

Ridiculous comparison. None of those altcoins were officially called, "Bitcoin", and non of those altcoins had the power of the US government and it's their allies behind them. None of those altcoins had the cooperation of every single major broker and all major BTC holders. None of those altcoins proposed to legally replace the Bitcoin codebase. Etc. etc.

Well technically at least one of them was directly trying to replace bitcoin (bitcoin cash) pretending to be "real" bitcoin. Whole scene was divided and some old school bitcoin influencers were supporting bigger blocs.

When did the US Congress pass the Act that made bitcoin cash the official version of Bitcoin? Did I miss that? You know, the law that made the old fork of Bitcoin illegal to call "bitcoin" in the USA and its allies. When did they pass that law?

If you can't find such a law, then you are not even remotely talking about the same thing.

Reason they failed was because consensus disagreed with them, but i could see something like this happening again. And majority would support any direction that would increase the value of their bags. Having whole countries legal systems and billionaires in their corner, it's not that difficult to see what would happen.

The "consensus" will follow the money. And the US Congress can make the money go wherever they want it to go.

How Many Bitcoin Forks Are There? You will be surprised!!!

How many forks have been dubbed legal and official by the US Congress, making all other forks called, "Bitcoin" illegal: zero.

You are talking about something very different than US government action here: you are talking about some private actors trying to convince people of things. Governments don't "convince", they enact laws that people follow or they go to jail.

Please stop saying, "Bitcoin cannot be controlled by governments", because... it absolutely can, and to some extent already is.

The Nigerian government have in previous time banned crypto and tried imposing e-naira on citizens, where is that project today? It's in that wastebin because citizens of Nigeria refused to accept it.

Yes, and US citizens have thus far not decided to vote for a new Bitcoin, and there's no sign that they are trying.

But they could. And if the US did it, it would work because the US is 100x larger than Nigeria and it's citizens probably control 1000x the BTC.

***

Comparing the USA to Nigeria or the US Congress to some dude named "Roger" is ridiculous.

[d5000]

The US making the current Bitcoin fork illegal

That is a different scenario than what you outlined in the OP, which is to force major exchanges/ETFs to call only the "gov fork" "Bitcoin".

Making Bitcoin outright illegal in a major market like the US would of course have a major influence on price. It can even provoke a 90% dip compared to the previous ATH. But making even hodling illegal is very difficult in democracies (Okay, it's possible the US moves away from that. But again, we don't have to talk about scenarios with 0.0000001% of likelihood.).

LOL, 96% of the population and 5% of the investment in BTC.

It's actually 60% according to the study I showed above. And Binance is probably not located in the US, even if they are currently, they were located in other locations previously and would have no problem to switch again. Last thing I read was that they are located in the UAE currently.

Retailers would be forced to choose--and if they proposal was one that made them more money, why wouldn't they choose it? Remember these aren't hard-core religious fanatics here, these are just companies who make money (and provide a centralized service for their customers I might add).

Bitcoin lives actually from some anti-government propaganda, or at least "critical thinking against an omnipresent / surveillance state", like the"be your own bank" or "money belongs to you and only to you" stuff. Without that element it would be a completely niche thing with a market cap like a penny stock, or at most like Ethereum

I guess of course it would depend a lot of the nature of the proposal, but if that proposal abandons values like censorship resistance, there would be no way that this proposal would be the one that "made [retailers] more money". The most rational move for all retailers would be to unanimously support the original Bitcoin, whatever name it was called.

I can hardly imagine a fork idea which benefitted exchanges. Can you provide an example? (I haven't read the whole thread, so if it's in a post already please link me to it.)

The only example I could find is some kind of big block hardfork, to decrease the costs for exchanges. But that would be very short-sighted because of the elimination of the fee market.

And banned coins in the US like Monero don't even have 1% of the market cap of Bitcoin. That makes my point for me perfectly.

But Monero actually increased its market cap 2-3x after the ban (it's of course not a complete ban, but a de facto trading stop on several major exchanges due to increased compliance risks)

[legiteum]

The US making the current Bitcoin fork illegal

That is a different scenario than what you outlined in the OP, which is to force major exchanges/ETFs to call only the "gov fork" "Bitcoin".

I thought that would be implied, but yes, if the US Congress (and/or EU authorities for instance) passed a law around Bitcoin, they would surely include the use of the trademarks...

LOL, 96% of the population and 5% of the investment in BTC.

It's actually 60% according to the study I showed above. And Binance is probably not located in the US, even if they are currently, they were located in other locations previously and would have no problem to switch again. Last thing I read was that they are located in the UAE currently.

It's debatable (and hard to pin down exactly), but even 60% is more than enough to hold the price hostage. And the Binance owner was convicted, imprisoned, and had to pay Trump to get out of prison... in the USA.

And I get what happened in the past, but it's a different environment now, and these are all totally legalized companies doing business in all major western countries. They couldn't operate any other way now.

Bitcoin lives actually from some anti-government propaganda, or at least "critical thinking against an omnipresent / surveillance state", like the"be your own bank" or "money belongs to you and only to you" stuff. Without that element it would be a completely niche thing with a market cap like a penny stock, or at most like Ethereum

It's a fair point that the "religion" around Bitcoin probably drives a lot of consumer investors towards it. But lots of consumers--and big companies--probably also avoid it because of that religion as well. Many people assume that somebody says, "screw the government!" they are really saying, "I'm a criminal and I don't want to the police to know what I am doing!" .

Anyhow, it's not the point of the OP to decide what would happen in the scenario, only that it's perfectly possible, i.e. not "impossible" as the myth says it is.

The most rational move for all retailers would be to unanimously support the original Bitcoin, whatever name it was called.

It would depend on the law, I think. If the law allowed for the existence of a fork that used the existing data, then it could be marketed under another name e.g. "Satoshi09" or something.

I can hardly imagine a fork idea which benefitted exchanges. Can you provide an example? (I haven't read the whole thread, so if it's in a post already please link me to it.)

I created a topic about whether changing the Bitcoin architecture to be more centralized (small trusted set of nodes and no PoW), and thus able to actually handle real-world daily payments. The idea would be that this would hugely increase the use of Bitcoin for everything, not just investment and relatively rare large-scale transfers. One could imagine that if everybody used native Bitcoin to do absolutely everything--billions of transactions per day--then that would benefit a lot of people, and also increase the price. In that thread, while clearly the majority of folks recoiled at the idea, at least some agreed that it would be great for Bitcoin's adoption, and thus increase its price.

It's not in the scope of this thread to discuss whether this would actually be the case, but rather to say that it's pretty easy to craft some scenarios that at least some people would think they would profit from. There are some huge businesses in the mix that love changes that they get to implement first.

And further, I'm talking about a relatively friendly and business-oriented approach here, but another scenario would be political winds shifting drastically away from Bitcoin (say if it were associated with with a political party that became deeply disgraced), at which point the US Congress could create a law with a lot more stick than carrot. The OP's point is only that such a thing is possible, not actually how it would be done, or whether it's probable that it's going to be done anytime soon.

For me, saying, "Bitcoin is impervious to government intervention" places it in some BS nether world of magic software--and distracts from the actual real-world issues. Regulation around Bitcoin is important to pay attention to, precisely because it lives or dies by these regulations. One imagining they are immune to it all because their religion says God will protect them is often very unhealthy. (Good for your mental health in other scenarios though ).

[Ambatman]

And the Binance owner was convicted, imprisoned, and had to pay Trump to get out of prison... in the USA.

That's because he did business with US customers and broke the US law.
It's possible for an exchange to ban a country from visiting their site.

It would depend on the law, I think. If the law allowed for the existence of a fork that used the existing data, then it could be marketed under another name e.g. "Satoshi09" or something.

Legal recognition isn't the same thing as consensus rule
As long as majority of nodes reject it
It would just be a glorified fork but a fork nonetheless.
They could have just declared the law that Bitcoin Cash is the new Bitcoin.

I created a topic about whether changing the Bitcoin architecture to be more centralized (small trusted set of nodes and no PoW), and thus able to actually handle real-world daily payments.

I believe this is what D5000 was talking about fork favouring exchanges
Many people make use of exchange because of these micro and fast transaction
It takes away one of their strength and need if this is done.
Convenience becomes easy
I doubt any exchange for profit would want that.
Even without that, Many huge investors wouldn't want to be reliant on few nodes
Hence the attractiveness Bitcoin has in being decentralised.
It's like saying Fiat but backed by few nodes rather than government.
Let's not talk about how the trusted nodes would be chosen.

[d5000]

And I get what happened in the past, but it's a different environment now, and these are all totally legalized companies doing business in all major western countries. They couldn't operate any other way now.

I question that. Of course they could operate in a different country. Companies change their main location all the time.

It's a fair point that the "religion" around Bitcoin probably drives a lot of consumer investors towards it.

Dismiss it as a "religion" if you want, but it's a sentiment driven by real advantages. No other money system has managed to give users almost (I'd estimate > 99.9%) total control over their funds. In addition, Bitcoin is a safeguard, should the State go rogue, and many governments did go rogue in the last decades (Russia, for example, went from a defectouos but somewhat working democracy into an almost totalitarian dictatorship).

But lots of consumers--and big companies--probably also avoid it because of that religion as well. Many people assume that somebody says, "screw the government!" they are really saying, "I'm a criminal and I don't want to the police to know what I am doing!" .

This sentiment exists of course, but it's driven by people who want the "omnipresent surveillance state" to succeed (and that's not about left vs. right, there are authoritarian left-wingers and right-wingers).

And the scenario of "anti-government/anarchists sticking to the original Bitcoin chain" is relevant. Because Coinbase and the other exchanges will have to take it into account. If user sentiment is strong enough then you, as a company boss, will be very cautious if you could end up destroying your business model because if you're not careful you will crash not only both forks, but also a big part of the rest of the crypto market. I don't think Ethereum or any other coin will emerge from such a situation as the "victorious laughing third". They depend heavily on Bitcoin's decentralization narrative, even if they are much more centralized.

This is why I consider this scenario so unlikely that you may say it's "possible" but it's no longer relevant. It's also possible we all die tomorrow. Or in the next very second.

It would depend on the law, I think. If the law allowed for the existence of a fork that used the existing data, then it could be marketed under another name e.g. "Satoshi09" or something.

Again, the scenario you cite here is a total ban of that fork.

I created a topic about whether changing the Bitcoin architecture to be more centralized (small trusted set of nodes and no PoW), and thus able to actually handle real-world daily payments. The idea would be that this would hugely increase the use of Bitcoin for everything, not just investment and relatively rare large-scale transfers.

But such models do already exist. XRP is perhaps the closest candidate. XRP exists, it can be traded on a lot of exchanges.

Now imagine that Coinbase proposes to transform Bitcoin into a second XRP and mandate it by law. They would lose the whole anti-gov/anarchist/libertarian market. It would not make sense at all.

And further, I'm talking about a relatively friendly and business-oriented approach here, but another scenario would be political winds shifting drastically away from Bitcoin (say if it were associated with with a political party that became deeply disgraced), at which point the US Congress could create a law with a lot more stick than carrot.

Well China tried that. China was almost as powerful in the Bitcoin universe in 2021 as the US today (I'd say the US currently is more powerful but the distance isn't "that" big.). Their dominance in mining was even bigger. Even Binance was Chinese back then.

There was a ~50% crash but it rapidly recovered. (Well, then it crashed again 75% but for different reasons.)

For me, saying, "Bitcoin is impervious to government intervention" places it in some BS nether world of magic software--and distracts from the actual real-world issues. Regulation around Bitcoin is important to pay attention to, precisely because it lives or dies by these regulations.

And my point is again that it is extremely difficult, and more than a single governments would have to cooperate, probably some of them could get problems with their voters.

It is also important that the more Bitcoin users, and the more stake they have (depends on price), the more difficult is even such a multi-country cooperation. It may be already too late.

[legiteum]

Dismiss it as a "religion" if you want, but it's a sentiment driven by real advantages. No other money system has managed to give users almost (I'd estimate > 99.9%) total control over their funds.

What does "total control over their funds" mean? I have 100% total control over my savings, and I don't own any significant significant amount of Bitcoin.

In addition, Bitcoin is a safeguard, should the State go rogue, and many governments did go rogue in the last decades (Russia, for example, went from a defectouos but somewhat working democracy into an almost totalitarian dictatorship).

ROFL. If the "State goes rogue", there's zero chance the internet is still going to work. Get real.  And if the internet doesn't work, Bitcoin doesn't work.

If you are planning for the end of the world, your best investment is... ammunition. Or weapons. Or stable food supplies.

You should watch the show, "The Last of Us" to get an idea of your end-of-world scenario. There's nothing with a $trillon market cap in that universe.

But such models do already exist. XRP is perhaps the closest candidate. XRP exists, it can be traded on a lot of exchanges.

And XRP is pretty huge even though it has nowhere near the brand recognition that Bitcoin has. That said, XRP is still blockchain-based and thus impossible that it scales to everyday payments. It's faster, but nowhere near fast enough (and FYI, ultra-high-scale is my own area of expertise).

Now imagine that Coinbase proposes to transform Bitcoin into a second XRP and mandate it by law. They would lose the whole anti-gov/anarchist/libertarian market. It would not make sense at all.

It would be some kind of trade-off, and we could debate which way it would go. The point is that it's possible and plausible, so the idea that "Bitcoin cannot be controlled by governments" is thus BS.

For me, saying, "Bitcoin is impervious to government intervention" places it in some BS nether world of magic software--and distracts from the actual real-world issues. Regulation around Bitcoin is important to pay attention to, precisely because it lives or dies by these regulations.

And my point is again that it is extremely difficult, and more than a single governments would have to cooperate, probably some of them could get problems with their voters.

It is also important that the more Bitcoin users, and the more stake they have (depends on price), the more difficult is even such a multi-country cooperation. It may be already too late.

A country (mostly the US) would only need to threaten the user population with a massive drop on their valuation, thus extorting them. The US alone could easily threaten this. They would say in effect, "go with us and don't lose any of your money, or go against it and lose a ton". The US-sanctioned fork would have almost no risk, and the US-banned fork would have enormous risk.

[impulse709]

Bitcoin stops being Bitcoin if it gets an owner or a board that controls it in the way you proposed. You can twist the arm of a few individuals to get what you want. You can force owners of exchanges to accept your fork. You can make them confiscate the alternatives or make life difficult for those who are against you. But you can't force your censored and centralized "Bitshit" on a community that has for years learned what Bitcoin stands for. They wont use it and the price, trading volume, and marketcap would soon reflect that.

Forget about it. It's not going to work. If the majority were willing to accept such shit forks, one of the thousands of altcoins that have been created in the last decade would have overtaken Bitcoin by now. None of them have and many of them are dead.

Yes, once Bitcoin is governed by a board, it's no longer Bitcoin, and I don't see that happening to BTC. Even though there's no way some certain government or powerful organization will enforce some restriction and confiscation on individual who dont use their fork shitcoin there's no way they will change the stance of the Bitcoiner community towards BTC, but after reading what OP i thought about the of it happening in the future I want to ask how many Bitcoiners are truly prepare such move since people seem not to care about self custody holding of their BTC.

I agree that an official fork or a government minted bitcoin would not be Bitcoin because of the influence of the powerful groups. Bitcoin is strong because they voluntarily agree and they choose to abide by its rules. I believe the bigger question is how ready Bitcoiners are for this circumstance. People still use exchanges when it comes to holding their own keys for BTC. Had such an attempt to place restrictions or alternative versions ever occurred, custodial users would be far more open to influence. That's why self-custody is still one of the most significant principles of maintaining the decentralization and independence of Bitcoin.

[ImGenius]

The idea that "Bitcoin cannot be controlled by governments" is total bullshit. It's a product in the market just like any other. It's like saying "Microsoft Word cannot be controlled by any government". Sure it can, if the government really wanted to.

While governments can control exchanges, banks, ETF companies and even the legal use of the Bitcoin name, governments cannot control the entire Bitcoin system. A state backed fork could provide liquidity to centralized platforms but it would be up to the users to decide which software they run on and the miners to decide which chain is secure.

Bitcoin’s power is not like magic which is one of the reasons it is so powerful. Governments can’t easily force node operator, miners wallets and users to accept their new rules around the world. They can put pressure on exchanges, but they can’t automatically change the Bitcoin network.

[Pmalek]

Well technically at least one of them was directly trying to replace bitcoin (bitcoin cash) pretending to be "real" bitcoin. Whole scene was divided and some old school bitcoin influencers were supporting bigger blocs.

Reason they failed was because consensus disagreed with them, but i could see something like this happening again.

Consensus disagreed with them and the community rejected the fork despite everything they tried. Marketing and power can only get you so far. In the end, the truth will be revealed. Bitcoin didn't succeed because of its fancy name. The idea behind it can keep going even if the name gets stolen by a pedo-elite war machine. One will be controlled by a State and its military buddies. It will be centralized and not censorship-resistant. The other PoW coin won't have those characteristics, and people will eventually move to the latter because it stands for everything Satoshi's original stood for.

[TedMosby]

Somewhat agree with you, Bitcoin is a decentralized thing that is regulated. I think these are two things that are indirectly contradictory. A decentralized system operates without a central authority, but in reality, Bitcoin is regulated by central authorities in many countries. The difference is just how strict the regulations are.

Bitcoin prices are also "controlled" by governments. Macro news shared by countries like the US can dump/pump the price. The pattern is too obvious to not call it manipulation (indirect control). They share news, the price dumps, they buy, then share news again to counter it.

IMO, Bitcoin cannot be controlled by governments only if we as a community and users believe in the fundamentals and do not rely on the price. So no matter how badly they treat Bitcoin, we keep using it, act like nothing happened. Keep hodling, keep stacking, keep using it.

[suzanne5223]

Bitcoin stops being Bitcoin if it gets an owner or a board that controls it in the way you proposed. You can twist the arm of a few individuals to get what you want. You can force owners of exchanges to accept your fork. You can make them confiscate the alternatives or make life difficult for those who are against you. But you can't force your censored and centralized "Bitshit" on a community that has for years learned what Bitcoin stands for. They wont use it and the price, trading volume, and marketcap would soon reflect that.

Forget about it. It's not going to work. If the majority were willing to accept such shit forks, one of the thousands of altcoins that have been created in the last decade would have overtaken Bitcoin by now. None of them have and many of them are dead.

Yes, once Bitcoin is governed by a board, it's no longer Bitcoin, and I don't see that happening to BTC. Even though there's no way some certain government or powerful organization will enforce some restriction and confiscation on individual who dont use their fork shitcoin there's no way they will change the stance of the Bitcoiner community towards BTC, but after reading what OP i thought about the of it happening in the future I want to ask how many Bitcoiners are truly prepare such move since people seem not to care about self custody holding of their BTC.

I agree that an official fork or a government minted bitcoin would not be Bitcoin because of the influence of the powerful groups. Bitcoin is strong because they voluntarily agree and they choose to abide by its rules. I believe the bigger question is how ready Bitcoiners are for this circumstance. People still use exchanges when it comes to holding their own keys for BTC. Had such an attempt to place restrictions or alternative versions ever occurred, custodial users would be far more open to influence. That's why self-custody is still one of the most significant principles of maintaining the decentralization and independence of Bitcoin.

What is said adds up to the fact that no shitcoin will ever become Bitcoin, but people don't voluntarily support BTC, and the same thing goes for the government. People support it because it refines our understanding of currency and assets while also maintaining a trustless sovereignty movement. When people see an opportunity like this, they dive in.

Something the people who don't practise self-custody don't know is that they technically make BTC risk becoming another tokenized asset controlled by Wall Street or governments.

[legiteum]

IMO, Bitcoin cannot be controlled by governments only if we as a community and users believe in the fundamentals and do not rely on the price. So no matter how badly they treat Bitcoin, we keep using it, act like nothing happened. Keep hodling, keep stacking, keep using it.

Well, "the community" these days is 99% focused on, "Number Go Up". Bitcoin is not some kind of protest against The Man anymore, it's just a vehicle to get rich for almost all of its holders.

This has caused two things to happen:

1. Bitcoin's value has soared into the $trillions.

2. Bitcoin is now beholden to the US and western mainstream financial system and thus it's governments.

Something the people who don't practise self-custody don't know is that they technically make BTC risk becoming another tokenized asset controlled by Wall Street or governments.

Yep, and guess what: that's already happened. Today, almost everybody who holds and trades Bitcoin does so through a broker, an app, or an ETF.

The "Bitcoin community" originally welcomed all of this since it vastly multiplied the number of BTC holders and thus sent the price to the moon. But that mainstream money has come with a cost: Bitcoin is now a mainstream product in the mainstream marketplace that's subject to be controlled just like any other.

If you take Bitcoin "underground" again, then fine but you'll bring it to the "underground" market valuation too, which is to say pennies compared to where it is now.

You can't have it both ways.

[d5000]

What does "total control over their funds" mean? I have 100% total control over my savings, and I don't own any significant significant amount of Bitcoin.

That there's no relevant intermediary. You operate directly. Thus there's less friction.

ROFL. If the "State goes rogue", there's zero chance the internet is still going to work. Get real.

No. I gave your an example, Putin's Russia. A country which morphed from barely democratic to almost totalitarian. Take such a "rogue state" plus increased surveillance, and then you have the answer to the question why some don't like intermediaries (of any kind, even if it's "crypto") when they deal with their money.

And XRP is pretty huge even though it has nowhere near the brand recognition that Bitcoin has. That said, XRP is still blockchain-based and thus impossible that it scales to everyday payments. It's faster, but nowhere near fast enough (and FYI, ultra-high-scale is my own area of expertise).

Is Ark fast enough for you? (an emerging Bitcoin technology)

(and yes, Ark has an intermediary, but the most that can happen is that you lose access to your money for a few days, they can't steal nor block your funds.)

A country (mostly the US) would only need to threaten the user population with a massive drop on their valuation, thus extorting them. The US alone could easily threaten this. They would say in effect, "go with us and don't lose any of your money, or go against it and lose a ton". The US-sanctioned fork would have almost no risk, and the US-banned fork would have enormous risk.

I think the Monero example I gave is almost a rebuttal to that claim. "Almost" because the Monero exchange market is a relatively small and immature market, but pressure from governments has even increased the market cap.

The only scenario I consider plausible (likelihood >1%) is the "strategic reserve + FATF anti-privacy fork" scenario I mentioned earlier.

[legiteum]

What does "total control over their funds" mean? I have 100% total control over my savings, and I don't own any significant significant amount of Bitcoin.

That there's no relevant intermediary. You operate directly. Thus there's less friction.

I'm still not sure what that means. Can you give me an example where I "don't" have total control over my savings held in various stocks and ETFs in my brokerage account, but I "do" have "total control" over Bitcoin in my brokerage account? A tangible example?

No. I gave your an example, Putin's Russia. A country which morphed from barely democratic to almost totalitarian. Take such a "rogue state" plus increased surveillance, and then you have the answer to the question why some don't like intermediaries (of any kind, even if it's "crypto") when they deal with their money.

Okay, but how exactly would Bitcoin help you there? In order to gain any benefit you'd need to take your entire life off-grid. You'd need to live in a forest shack like the Unabomber. Maybe you'd have some money but there would be no place to safely spend it.

The best remedy against totalitarianism is to... vote against totalitarianism. Pretty much nothing is going to help you if it comes to your country. I realize that's bleak, but it's reality.

If they outlawed Bitcoin, for instance, the value would drop by 99% or more. You are much better off investing in bullets or ready-to-eat meals or something tangible that you can use without using the (very traceable) Internet.
 

(and yes, Ark has an intermediary, but the most that can happen is that you lose access to your money for a few days, they can't steal nor block your funds.)

L2's are not Bitcoin. They are L2s. They introduce risk and friction that basically makes it pointless to have the first layer. That's why Bitcoin L2s have never taken off: you are better off with a more efficient L1.

I think the Monero example I gave is almost a rebuttal to that claim. "Almost" because the Monero exchange market is a relatively small and immature market, but pressure from governments has even increased the market cap.

In the world were there are things like Strategy, Michael Saylor, Musk, Trump, CoinBase, Binance, ETFs, Blackrock, Master Card, and thousands of US-based fintech firms and banks all supporting Bitcoin.... Bitcoin suddenly becoming illegal is simply unthinkable at this point. These firms and individuals don't care about anti-government religion, they care about making money. They will do whatever the US government tells them to do.  They aren't going to flirt with being hauled off to prison for some "cause" (that doesn't even make any sense).

Bitcoin's price structure today is entirely dependent on the mainstream financial infrastructure that the US and its allies provide. That wasn't true in the past, but it is now. And that infrastructure is ultimately controlled by Congress and the US president...

[Pmalek]

I'm still not sure what that means. Can you give me an example where I "don't" have total control over my savings held in various stocks and ETFs in my brokerage account, but I "do" have "total control" over Bitcoin in my brokerage account? A tangible example?

You don't have total control. A third party has. A financial institution (a custodian), a broker has control and custody. You own the stocks. They are in your name, but you don't have total control. You depend on the third party to get your will. It's a centralized and custodial system.

Can the assets be taken or stolen from you? Not really. Not in a normal country.
Can there be disruptions and temporary issues? Yes.

Your account can be frozen because of X, Y, Z. You, the broker, or the financial institution can be sanctioned or investigated. The custodian can go bankrupt.
There are laws and protections against these things but procedures take time. You can't say you have total control over something when another party can cause the problems I just mentioned and make you lose control, even if it's temporary.

Your bitcoin doesn't have to be with a custodian and it shouldn't. You have total control of it when it's in self custody.

[legiteum]

Your bitcoin doesn't have to be with a custodian and it shouldn't. You have total control of it when it's in self custody.

Sure, until somebody with a gun comes along and steals it from you. Then you have zero control because your money is gone.

There's a reason 99% of people with a large amount of savings prefer to keep their money in a financial institution and not hidden under their bed. Most people don't fancy themselves to be expert gunfighters. There's risk no matter what, but at least in the USA, you aren't at serious risk of losing your money permanently unless you are prosecuted for some crime.

[Son Of Blockchain (SOB)]

Your bitcoin doesn't have to be with a custodian and it shouldn't. You have total control of it when it's in self custody.

Sure, until somebody with a gun comes along and steals it from you. Then you have zero control because your money is gone.

There's a reason 99% of people with a large amount of savings prefer to keep their money in a financial institution and not hidden under their bed. Most people don't fancy themselves to be expert gunfighters. There's risk no matter what, but at least in the USA, you aren't at serious risk of losing your money permanently unless you are prosecuted for some crime.

Goodluck keeping your money in a financial institution but I bet your statement wouldn't convince lots of reasonable people here to disregard Bitcoin, life is a choice and if you decide that Bitcoin is bullshit and saving with it is more riskier than a bank then go ahead an do so instead of trying to convince people towards an outdated way of saving money.
 I wonder how anyone would know I own Bitcoin then come pulling a gun at me if I'm not a loud mouth that goes about telling people I own Bitcoin, why haven't anyone pulled a gun at Michael Saylor or Musk and other people popularly known for holding Bitcoin, sometimes, things doesn't work the way we think, you should understand that fact.

[suzanne5223]

Something the people who don't practise self-custody don't know is that they technically make BTC risk becoming another tokenized asset controlled by Wall Street or governments.

Yep, and guess what: that's already happened. Today, almost everybody who holds and trades Bitcoin does so through a broker, an app, or an ETF.

Yes, and no, because trading of Bitcoin through broker does not technically increase the chance of BTC being controlled by Wall Street or governments because the traders is not using the platform as storage. Although it may lead to trust of the third party during the trading season, just like every CEX

The "Bitcoin community" originally welcomed all of this since it vastly multiplied the number of BTC holders and thus sent the price to the moon.

Not really, because BTC, being a decentralized asset, welcomes every organization and institution. There's nothing the community will do to prevent the institution since BTC's potential will eventually attract them.

But that mainstream money has come with a cost: Bitcoin is now a mainstream product in the mainstream marketplace that's subject to be controlled just like any other.

It is what it is. Every advantage will always come with a disadvantage, but we Bitcoiners must not add to something that will make the institution treat BTC as jpeg.

[legiteum]

Goodluck keeping your money in a financial institution but I bet your statement wouldn't convince lots of reasonable people here to disregard Bitcoin, life is a choice and if you decide that Bitcoin is bullshit and saving with it is more riskier than a bank then go ahead an do so instead of trying to convince people towards an outdated way of saving money.

I wonder how anyone would know I own Bitcoin then come pulling a gun at me if I'm not a loud mouth that goes about telling people I own Bitcoin, why haven't anyone pulled a gun at Michael Saylor or Musk and other people popularly known for holding Bitcoin, sometimes, things doesn't work the way we think, you should understand that fact.

Michael Saylor and Musk both don't self-custody their Bitcoin. Get real. They have a giant security apparatus around them that costs millions to maintain. Most people don't have that sort of money, or if they do, they are smart enough to leave problems like this to the experts who also guard other people's money and are very good at it.

As for how people would know... you are posting on a public forum! 

Seriously though, criminals are pretty smart, and they tend to figure things out since this is all they all day. That's why there have been thousands of stories of people being robbed of their self-custody crypto.

And far from convincing people otherwise, almost all BTC today is held with brokers, apps, and ETFs. Most investors don't want to walk around with a sidearm waiting for the next criminal to come along with a $5 wrench attack, and most don't want to. Bitcoin and broader crypto hasn't changed anything in terms of people's behaviors. Banks and financial institutions still exist and are doing better than ever, including with Bitcoin and crypto. It's just another product for them.

Yep, and guess what: that's already happened. Today, almost everybody who holds and trades Bitcoin does so through a broker, an app, or an ETF.

Yes, and no, because trading of Bitcoin through broker does not technically increase the chance of BTC being controlled by Wall Street or governments because the traders is not using the platform as storage. Although it may lead to trust of the third party during the trading season, just like every CEX

There's no difference between Robinhood holding my BTC and Robinhood holding my NVDA. In both cases I'm completely beholden to a corporation to guard my bags.

And yes, in most cases people don't self-custody their crypto when they have a serious amount of savings held there. That's why companies like Binance and CoinBase and hundreds of others are gigantic companies. The exceptions are whales with $billions who have enough money to essentially build their own security infrastructure, although even that is pretty rare--who needs that headache?

But that mainstream money has come with a cost: Bitcoin is now a mainstream product in the mainstream marketplace that's subject to be controlled just like any other.

It is what it is. Every advantage will always come with a disadvantage, but we Bitcoiners must not add to something that will make the institution treat BTC as jpeg.

You have to remember that this forum isn't all BTC holders or even most of them--it's a tiny minority of hard-cores. Most just hear the word, "Bitcoin" and see the hype and want to make some money, so they click on the word, "Bitcoin" in their investment app. And since there are millions like that, that is why BTC's value is over $1 trillion and not just $1 million.

Many warned against this here: that Bitcoin joining the mainstream financial system would destroy its independence from the system. Now there's no way it's going back to the days when it took several BTC to buy a pizza.