I think @ChrisV post deserves more consideration from the perspective of what happens if gov (like the US) bans the use of crypto. Forget whether it is likely to happen, just assume it did happen and try to figure out the consequences of that, because it is a very real possibility. I can't say the odds, but I can say with certainty that it is a possibility this could happen. And if you think in terms of incentives, it actually makes a lot of sense for a gov to ban it. Fiat gives significant flexibility to monetary policy. So I think it's worthwhile to consider the implications of this.
I however, disagree with many of the posts about BTC as a currency (ie medium of exchange) and what it buys. BTC is not a scalable currency, nor will any proof of work based cryptocurrency ever be. It will never usurp Visa, etc. It's just not possible from a technical standpoint as the PoW algorithm is designed to be inefficient. Now it is possible that you could have a cryptocurrency that is backed by the value of BTC but that transactionally can achieve scalability (there are already examples of this), which could certainly have some value (and influence the value of BTC). But people transacting on a large scale frequent basis with BTC directly is never going to happen unless there is a fundamental change in the tech. Look up the number of transactions per second BTC can support, it's single digits and it's designed to be that way. Even if you consider the transactions can be reconciled later its infeasible to achieve meaningful scale with that sort of bandwidth. Just because some vendors are allowing purchases in BTC, it's a novelty not an actual solution, the transaction costs and delays will never scale. Sidenote - ETH 2.0 is addressing problems with its scalability via sharding (scalability) and proof of stake (transaction efficiency).
I think BTC as a store of value is a much more sound argument and I think holds water particularly due to the current monetary policies in place (which no gov is going to want to slow down due to short term incentives). So if BTC is a hedge against a major currency crisis and if BTC is not deriving its value as a medium of exchange. What would the impact be if the gov banned it? I'm not sure it would matter that much if it is banned as a medium of exchange, since it isn't a realistic one anyway, but I'm not sure how many retail investors have realized this... It would be impacted if the gov banned owning it as an asset however, I'm not sure if this is nearly as probable.
Anyway, I wrote this post as I think it would make for a valuable discussion to hear the forums thoughts around where they think BTC is headed if the US gov did ban it in some capacity (and why), if anyone is interested in sharing them...
I however, disagree with many of the posts about BTC as a currency (ie medium of exchange) and what it buys. BTC is not a scalable currency, nor will any proof of work based cryptocurrency ever be. It will never usurp Visa, etc. It's just not possible from a technical standpoint as the PoW algorithm is designed to be inefficient. Now it is possible that you could have a cryptocurrency that is backed by the value of BTC but that transactionally can achieve scalability (there are already examples of this), which could certainly have some value (and influence the value of BTC). But people transacting on a large scale frequent basis with BTC directly is never going to happen unless there is a fundamental change in the tech. Look up the number of transactions per second BTC can support, it's single digits and it's designed to be that way. Even if you consider the transactions can be reconciled later its infeasible to achieve meaningful scale with that sort of bandwidth. Just because some vendors are allowing purchases in BTC, it's a novelty not an actual solution, the transaction costs and delays will never scale. Sidenote - ETH 2.0 is addressing problems with its scalability via sharding (scalability) and proof of stake (transaction efficiency).
I think BTC as a store of value is a much more sound argument and I think holds water particularly due to the current monetary policies in place (which no gov is going to want to slow down due to short term incentives). So if BTC is a hedge against a major currency crisis and if BTC is not deriving its value as a medium of exchange. What would the impact be if the gov banned it? I'm not sure it would matter that much if it is banned as a medium of exchange, since it isn't a realistic one anyway, but I'm not sure how many retail investors have realized this... It would be impacted if the gov banned owning it as an asset however, I'm not sure if this is nearly as probable.
Anyway, I wrote this post as I think it would make for a valuable discussion to hear the forums thoughts around where they think BTC is headed if the US gov did ban it in some capacity (and why), if anyone is interested in sharing them...
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum:
Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.