Another reason bitcoin will succeed: US to target Putin's $40 billion stash

[farlack]

Really interesting thought Peter R. Think it is beyond our imagination what happens of some Francs from the Swiss mountains are moved into bitcoin.

Now lets pretend we are Putin, and he wants to move one billion from his Swiss bank account into bitcoin. Lets try to help him, because I really see a few hurdles:

- Volume on online exchanges is way too low: getting 2 million bitcoins is near to impossible
- Therefore the price of one bitcoin needs and will rise, so less bitcoins are needed. But this only happens because of the one time instant demand, and likely pops afterwards. Not really a safe storage of value, when 50% of your Francs are happily converted from bitcoin again in fiat by all the current bitcoin holders.
- Think it would maybe be interesting to get a deal with a large mining pool?
- Better ideas?

At the moment getting a billion into bitcoin and not losing your principal because you pushed to price artificially high is simply not possible.

Less than 8% of all bitcoins are available on exchanges and other sources for purchase.

Putin would be better off buying about $500,000 worth per day for the foreseeable future, it's not going to be a billion for a long time, but it's the safest way to do it. Even now I think $1,000,000 a day would be too much.

Other sources are the holders of 100,000+ bitcoin, but why they would sell and loss an instant 25% to tax I don't know.

Putin could get a hundred million fiat into bitcoin if given a year, but a billion is not realistic.

Of course in a couple of years, if Ethereum or Bitcoin is truly a 100,000,000,000 economy, getting 1 billion becomes much easier (Of course if this happens, his 100,000,000 this years becomes worth billions in its own right)

Or you can just get a contract with all the merchant processors and buy all the coins that come in every day.

[drawingthesun]

Or you can just get a contract with all the merchant processors and buy all the coins that come in every day.

I'm not sure a billion dollars worth of merchant exchange is currently going on. This method might still take upwards of five years. Unless Bitcoin takes off mainstream.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Putin is probably a bad example.  Putin has no problems with corrupt governments seizing private wealth ... as long as it is the corrupt private wealth seizing government he controls.  For the rich who don't control nation states the risk is more real.

[bryant.coleman]

Putin is probably a bad example.  Putin has no problems with corrupt governments seizing private wealth ...

Are you referring to the Cyprus hair-cut? He tried his best to help Cyprus. Russia was ready to give loans to Cyprus. But the EU officials bullied the Cypriot officials to not to accept them.

[Peter R]

I think Smooth made a good point here:

If V's stash does get raided, it creates that much more incentive for other elites to seek out safer places to store wealth than banks, and eventually they will find bitcoin. For that matter, even just the threat of such a raid has the same effect.

To various extents, the elites are all at the mercy of the direction in which the political wind blows.  As the threat that one can have his bank assets taken increases, the usefulness of the western financial system as a store of value decreases.  As the usefulness of this store of value decreases, so do the legitimacy of the fiat ledgers. 

Big money figuring out the value bitcoin offers them is coming. The only question is when.

The free market will select the best payment network run from the most legitimate ledger.  And the elite represent a large swath of the economic majority.  Now put yourself in the shoes of an elite.  I expect what is important to you is:

- A large market cap with ample liquidity,
- A ledger with wealth distributed efficiently across a broad group of people, that has been "shaken" by numerous bubbles,
- A simple protocol run on a robust decentralized network, that has thrived in spite of efforts to thwart it.

You probably no longer care about block-time targets, writing scripts with for() loops seem a play thing for geeks at best and a threatening complexity at worse, while bitcoins draining into side-chains may look to you like a hole in the core of the system.

You wouldn't dare put your money in Litecoin, or worse yet NXT, simply because you will move the market to a much greater extent, re-creating the booms and busts of bitcoin's past but with an unknown end result.   

You'd store value in bitcoin because it has the largest market cap and the most proven track record.  If your actions make a diverse group of intelligent people who spend their time improving bitcoin more wealthy, you would view this as a good thing.  For you know they will defend the source of their wealth which in turn defends your own. 

And ideology and ideas about fairness will all be secondary considerations.  What matters most (and many won't even consciously realize this) is the strength of our shared agreement that the blockchain is the legitimate ledger and that you prove your spots on this ledger by producing a signature with your private keys.

   

[Melbustus]

Yup. There's supposedly ~$30T (yes, "Trillion") stored as "offshore" (ie, hidden) money globally. With Swiss banks no longer maintaining secrecy, Cyprus, and the IMF publicly making noise about the potential need to haircut all EU depositors, it should already be obvious how much store-of-value potential bitcoin has.

Every crises, seizure, government over-reach, capital control, and "haircut" will make this more obvious to more people.

[bryant.coleman]

Yup. There's supposedly ~$30T (yes, "Trillion") stored as "offshore" (ie, hidden) money globally. With Swiss banks no longer maintaining secrecy, Cyprus, and the IMF publicly making noise about the potential need to haircut all EU depositors, it should already be obvious how much store-of-value potential bitcoin has.

Every crises, seizure, government over-reach, capital control, and "haircut" will make this more obvious to more people.

But nothing good has emerged from the Cyprus hair-cuts... At that time, a lot of people here were posting about how Bitcoin will become hugely popular there. What happened? Bitcoin remains in the shadows in Cyprus.

[leopard2]

As long as governments benefit more from modern slavery (which is what fiat money truly is), than from a form of money than is immune to outside control, they will not adopt BTC.

Russia or even places like Iran or Venezuela may have their problems with outside powers, but even for those countries fiat is still essential in extracting labor from their citizens.

On top of that Uncle Sam would probably "find" some weapons of mass destruction real quick if a country adopts BTC as a currency. Heck, look at Iraq, when they tried to adopt another fiat than USD (EUR).  

[Tx2000]

I find these kinds of rationalizations to be hilarious.  Bitcoin will succeed on it's own merits, not because "zomg wall street/putin/buffet/gates/justin bieber" are going to discover bitcoin and invest in it.

[cryptnutter]

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense - why would Putin keep his stash in a country where the US could get to it?

[molecular]

As long as governments benefit more from modern slavery (which is what fiat money truly is), than from a form of money than is immune to outside control, they will not adopt BTC.

Russia or even places like Iran or Venezuela may have their problems with outside powers, but even for those countries fiat is still essential in extracting labor from their citizens.

On top of that Uncle Sam would probably "find" some weapons of mass destruction real quick if a country adopts BTC as a currency. Heck, look at Iraq, when they tried to adopt another fiat than USD (EUR).  

so much relevant truth in one post

EDIT: however consider that in the end, the government really has no say in what is used as money by the population. If they extract labour from the population under decreasing living conditions for too long, they might wake up, come to their senses and exert the power they have. A dangerous game they play. Also a dangerous game the US specifically plays, by the way, misusing their exorbitant privilege like that (for those who don't know the Charles de Gaulle speech from '65, it's a must watch)

[Beliathon]

Big money figuring out the value bitcoin offers them is coming. The only question is when.

As long as governments benefit more from modern slavery (which is what fiat money truly is), than from a form of money than is immune to outside control, they will not adopt BTC.

Russia or even places like Iran or Venezuela may have their problems with outside powers, but even for those countries fiat is still essential in extracting labor from their citizens.

Very true.

However, let us bear in mind that governments aren't the only ones with big money. As much as we all love to hate transnational corporations, the fact reamins: These entities have no real incentive to store all their wealth in nation-state fiat, and very soon they will have an abundance of reasons NOT to store their wealth in nation-state fiat.

[twiifm]

I find these kinds of rationalizations to be hilarious.  Bitcoin will succeed on it's own merits, not because "zomg wall street/putin/buffet/gates/justin bieber" are going to discover bitcoin and invest in it.

I've witnessed some crazy pumps in pennystock land but nothing as outrageous as bitcoin land.  This idea of Putin moving his $40B into BTC is just nuts.

Usually when someone is said to be worth $40B.  It's probably the net of their assets.  Not a pile of cash sitting in a bank somewhere.  It's probably distributed in stocks, bonds, real estates, cash.  If someone has $40B in the first place then they most likely know a thing or two about finance

[dead_bit]

On top of that Uncle Sam would probably "find" some weapons of mass destruction real quick if a country adopts BTC as a currency. Heck, look at Iraq, when they tried to adopt another fiat than USD (EUR).  

Don't lie, it's not good for the world. The Iraqi invasion had nothing to do with Iraq changing currencies. You and I both know that Iraq doesn't decide anything when it comes to monetary policy. Saddam was a CIA stooge... I suspect though that you've never even been to Iraq and are relying purely on what others tell you to form an opinion.

The idea that Putin or any other elite will go into bitcoin is at best a fantasy. BTC is used primarily as an investment tool not a store of wealth. Anyone who is using BTC as a store of wealth is sweating bullets right now, and obviously no one who has that kind of money can possibly be that stupid. BTC has to stopped being used as an investment tool if it ever hopes to become all of the things you people are talking about.

[Beliathon]

If someone has $40B in the first place then they most likely know a thing or two about finance

Sorry, but that's a stupid comment. There are MANY rich people (mostly software entrepreneurs) who know little-to-nothing about finance.

...Iraq doesn't decide anything when it comes to monetary policy. Saddam was a CIA stooge... I suspect though that you've never even been to Iraq and are relying purely on what others tell you to form an opinion.

A true statement.

Anyone who is using BTC as a store of wealth is sweating bullets right now...

I'm not sweating anything, I went all-in on Bitcoin long before China did. Financially speaking, I'm WAY ahead, and I'll hold like I've always done.

and obviously no one who has that kind of money can possibly be that stupid.

You should also know that, statistically speaking, there is something like a 93% chance that I'm smarter than you.

[dead_bit]

Anyone who is using BTC as a store of wealth is sweating bullets right now...

I'm not sweating anything, I went all-in on Bitcoin long before China did. Financially speaking, I'm WAY ahead, and I'll hold like I've always done.

and obviously no one who has that kind of money can possibly be that stupid.

You should also know that, statistically speaking, there is something like a 93% chance that I'm smarter than you. Now sit your ass down.

Whoa your amazing statistical analysis has proved your awesome intelligence. Typical thinking, why reply with reason when you can attempt to put someone else down instead? That always works... don't worry you proved you were in the 7% with your reply.

[Patel]

Putin wouldn't put his money into Bitcoin because more than likely his address(s) would be blacklisted by mining pools, which will be enforced by governments.

[Lauda]

Putin wouldn't put his money into Bitcoin because more than likely his address(s) would be blacklisted by mining pools, which will be enforced by governments.

Nobody can really force this. How would you know which addresses are his? He could mix this up beyond tracking.
Storing money in a bank is less safer than storing it in a wallet file.
I don't however understand what Obama think he will achieve with this? This won't stop Putin, nor does he care at all.

[Peter R]

I have a feeling we're on to something.

Yup. There's supposedly ~$30T (yes, "Trillion") stored as "offshore" (ie, hidden) money globally. With Swiss banks no longer maintaining secrecy, Cyprus, and the IMF publicly making noise about the potential need to haircut all EU depositors, it should already be obvious how much store-of-value potential bitcoin has.

Every crises, seizure, government over-reach, capital control, and "haircut" will make this more obvious to more people.

But nothing good has emerged from the Cyprus hair-cuts... At that time, a lot of people here were posting about how Bitcoin will become hugely popular there. What happened? Bitcoin remains in the shadows in Cyprus.

Bryant: bitcoin's market cap has increased by a factor of 10 and its generalized user base by a factor of √10 since talk of the Cyprus confiscations began.  I think your statement "nothing good has emerged" is false.  

I find these kinds of rationalizations to be hilarious.  Bitcoin will succeed on it's own merits, not because "zomg wall street/putin/buffet/gates/justin bieber" are going to discover bitcoin and invest in it.

If you think they would be investing, you missed the point.  Bitcoin represents a useful way to store and move wealth outside the western financial system.  

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense - why would Putin keep his stash in a country where the US could get to it?

Is it possible to store value in the western financial system any other way?  If you have USD, euros, pounds, etc., in any bank account anywhere, I believe they are at risk due to the US's influence over the western financial system.  This question is above my pay grade, but I believe that unless you have physical US $100 bills, your wealth can be "sanctioned" by the US's influence over SWIFT, the IMF, and in part due to US dollar's role as reserve currency.  

This idea of Putin moving his $40B into BTC is just nuts.

That wasn't the idea.  The idea is that the elite begin to move small portions of their financial wealth into bitcoin, due to its useful properties as a store of value.

Usually when someone is said to be worth $40B.  It's probably the net of their assets.  Not a pile of cash sitting in a bank somewhere.  It's probably distributed in stocks, bonds, real estates, cash.  

Vladimir's personal wealth is estimated as high as $70 billion.  $40 billion could be the component stored as financial assets.  

The idea that Putin or any other elite will go into bitcoin is at best a fantasy. BTC is used primarily as an investment tool not a store of wealth. Anyone who is using BTC as a store of wealth is sweating bullets right now, and obviously no one who has that kind of money can possibly be that stupid. BTC has to stopped being used as an investment tool if it ever hopes to become all of the things you people are talking about.

Imagine that tomorrow everyone knew for a fact that bitcoin would no longer increase in value.  But they also knew that it would no longer decrease in value.  1 BTC would forever buy the same basket of goods.  What would happen?  Aggregate demand would increase simply due to bitcoin's useful properties as a store of value.  But of course if aggregate demand increases, so must the price.  

The only reason the price of bitcoin isn't much higher is because people believe it could also be a lot lower.

Putin wouldn't put his money into Bitcoin because more than likely his address(s) would be blacklisted by mining pools, which will be enforced by governments.

Why would anyone necessarily know which addresses are controlled by Putin?  For all we know, he could control certain addresses now (although I'm not suggesting he does).  
 

[dead_bit]

The idea that Putin or any other elite will go into bitcoin is at best a fantasy. BTC is used primarily as an investment tool not a store of wealth. Anyone who is using BTC as a store of wealth is sweating bullets right now, and obviously no one who has that kind of money can possibly be that stupid. BTC has to stopped being used as an investment tool if it ever hopes to become all of the things you people are talking about.

Imagine that tomorrow everyone knew for a fact that bitcoin would no longer increase in value.  But they also knew that it would no longer decrease in value.  1 BTC would forever buy the same basket of goods.  What would happen?  Aggregate demand would increase simply due to bitcoin's useful properties as a store of value.  But of course if aggregate demand increases, so must the price.  

The only reason the price of bitcoin isn't much higher is because people believe it could also be a lot lower.

So you're basically agreeing with me, BTC would not be a good idea because it is not a store of wealth. The situation you're speaking of is a fantasy right now. Could the future hold that very situation, well of course it could, but it most likely will not. Why because the greed of the community will force it to maintain it's investment vehicle status.