$BTC: Two Bitcoin FUDs to address this Thanksgiving weekend:

1. China PlusToken FUD: Old news. Please see linked thread.

2. U.S. Treasury FUD: Read thread below...

1/ These news are much more relevant, as they imply severe trade-offs for people who want to keep their bitcoins undoxxed, with the cost and risks of doing so. I would not disqualify the tweet as mere FUD in the sense that what he posted is false. It should be taken seriously.
2/ For all we know, his decision of making it public before TG weekend may come out of the urgency of informing CT of a poignant anti-Bitcoin move by a Trump administration trying to cut lose ends before leaving office—not just "price manipulation" as I've seen suggested around.
3/ It implies the acceleration of a process already planned for for months in advance, not something he just came up with to "crash the market."
4/ In practicality, assuming this passes, it will have two major consencuences:

a. Armstrong's analysis is correct. And I would go further in saying, this regulation would leave the U.S. severely handicapped to continue to be the leader in the cryptocurrency industry worldwide.
5/ b. It would bifurcate major market actors into two camps. For the sake of simplicity, I´ll call the former the "Conservationsists" and the latter the "Integrationists."
6/ Conservationists are mostly old Bitcoin money, big early-adopter HODLers who believe in Bitcoin's value proposition as a whole, including scarcity, pseudonymity, untraceableness, and unconfiscatableness.
7/ Integrationists are mostly new Bitcoin money, insitutions and HNWIs who value only Bitcoin's scarcity and its capacity to accrue value over time. They also believe that BTC needs to be integrated into the legacy financial system.
8/ Frankly...

The former see the value of Bitcoin as a mechanism to protect individuals against government overreach, as well as save and invest their property in a permissionless manner.
9/ The latter would like to see it taxed to build roads, it seems. They like ETFs and already protect their investments within safe haven jurisdictions.
10/ What does this mean for price direction long-term? In my opinion nothing changes...

Conservationists will continue to HODL (with the added incentive of keeping their coins burried for no-one to find, so even less sell pressure there).
11/ Integrationists will see this as expected or needed or "a trade-off" and continue to buy and hold.
12/ What does this mean in terms of narrative in public debate?

Privacy and ownsership, even more so than price, will be the most contested subjects in Bitcoin in the next few years.
13/ To clearify, a lot of people don't neatly fall in either of camps. Some are apathetic, undecided, a certain mix of both. Also, let's not confuse all major players with insitutional or legacy pedigree as Integrationists:
14/ Jack Dorsey, Cathie Wood, and Michael Saylor, for example, don't strike me as Integrationists at all, as they have supported Bitcoin's entire value proposition in the past. Notice how two of them are also OGs.
15/ I'll leave examples of Integrationists diguised as Conservastionists for you to come up with...
Fin/ In summary, the fundamentals remain the same, so in my view even if we continue correcting ($14k, 12k, or whatever), the cause would be simply out of major market actors taking profits with the aim to buy cheaper.

More from Bitcoin

1/THREAD: WHEN WAS IT CLEAR?

Oct. 8, 2020: The purpose of this thread is to document and timestamp when it first became clear that #Bitcoin was likely to become a major reserve asset for public corporations, and eventually states, with Square's purchase of $50M in BTC.

The purpose is to give something to cite when ppl later claim "But there was NO WAY OF KNOWING..."

h/t @ErikSTownsend who used the same format to call out the impact of Covid on Feb 8 and made me personally aware of the looming shutdown of the country
https://t.co/opuiNgSeqC !


Bitcoiners smarter than me have been predicting the takeover of the dollar by Bitcoin for many years.

In 2014 with Bitcoin barely at $1B, @pierre_rochard wrote https://t.co/EGHa58KqHq, covering all the incorrect narratives of Bitcoin and stating it will overtake the dollar.

"[skeptics] misunderstand how strong currencies like bitcoin overtake weak currencies like the dollar: it is through speculative attacks and currency crises caused by investors, not through the careful evaluation of tech journalists and 'mainstream consumers'" - @pierre_rochard

I first became bullish on Bitcoin in the summer of 2016, around a $3B market cap, but it was still a toy project at that time in the eyes of most in the financial world, while many technologists thought of it as a v1 technology to be improved on.
The #Bitcoin fundamentals of four generations of inflation, entitlements, and regulations are separate and apart from #Bitcoin the technological innovation. If we had sound money there would be little demand for Bitcoin. (1/13)


The notion that gold futures hold down the physical gold price or subjects the gold price to long-term manipulation is a canard. CME gold futures deliveries are settled with warrants meeting exact specifications met by approved refineries, carriers, and warehouses which (2/13)

ensures the integrity of delivery apart from the exchange. https://t.co/CpV1OBSsAT One need look no further than the 1980 Hunt Silver fiasco which illustrates how deliverable futures contracts provide for the discovery of an untapped silver supply resting in people's homes.(3/13)

Not so for Bitcoin. The CME Bakkt Bitcoin contract is for Bakkt Bitcoin. It is not Bitcoin. Bakkt Bitcoin is a cash-settled monthly futures contract. While the Bakkt Bitcoin has geographically storage of private keys, they are not your private keys. (4/13)


Not your keys, not your bitcoin. The Bitcoin Warehouse is an internal ledger The internal ledger operates separate and apart from the Bitcoin blockchain. The only interaction with the public blockchain is during the deposit of bitcoin into the Bakkt Warehouse and the (5/13)

You May Also Like

I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.


Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel

He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:

He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:

He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party