3 ms·
The new breed of users doesnt care at all about such things. Usually the price goes up as it becomes less cypherpunk and more of a regulated surveillance instru
by ajkdhcb2 6y ago
The new breed of users doesnt care at all about such things. Usually the price goes up as it becomes less cypherpunk and more of a regulated surveillance instrument - speculators will argue that it increases legitimacy and encourages institutional investment. It will still be a scarce asset that hedges against inflation
- vokep 6y agoYou're missing that for this to work, miners, those who invest into processing bitcoin transactions, would be willingly lowering the value of what they do. Other comments bring issues they'd already face in cost trying to adopt banning more transactions. But if they accepted those costs, bitcoin's reputation of stability and trust would be broken, if 1 BTC = 0.75BTC because .25 was from tainted transactions, nobody wants to risk that happening to them so they'd abandon quickly and the price would plummet. But if the price would plummet then miners would be inclined to do the opposite to avoid that happening.
- ajkdhcb2 6y agobut it is already happening: https://decrypt.co/48025/bitcoin-mining-pool-that-censors-transactions-sparks-debate https://decrypt.co/48025/bitcoin-mining-pool-that-censors-tr... Big pools need to buy cutting-edge equipment and use huge resources, they have to abide by regulators. Most users would be unaffected because they just "hodl" and only care about the price going up + encouraging institutional adoption. Bitcoiners don't really care about making transactions. The lack of privacy built into the protocol makes this inevitable. You're asking miners to willingly help move illegal funds while regulators watch