3 ms·

This is one of the reasons for the schizophrenic posture of Bitcoin maxi's toward government adoption - thus Central Bank adoption - of Bitcoin as legal tender,

This is one of the reasons for the schizophrenic posture of Bitcoin maxi's toward government adoption - thus Central Bank adoption - of Bitcoin as legal tender, a la El salvador. I mean apart from the fact that this happening on a global scale would make them stupendously wealthy. But from a pragmatic standpoint, they also know that one advantage Bitcoin does not have, that fiat does, is an armed gang with orders to enforce its use by all citizens. Yet.

yazaddaruvala 4y ago
> one advantage Bitcoin does not have, that fiat does, is an armed gang with orders to enforce its use by all citizens. Nail on the head! The only difference between "tokens" and "currency" is an army and taxes!
- ben_w 4y ago
  Is even that a difference? Countries don't all use their own currencies (and I don't just mean the Euro zone, this also happens with USD and used to happen with GBP), but they do all have their own taxes. Some countries don't have any armed forces unless you count the police. And the force of law is enough of a threat to get people to hand over crypto keys when they're physically in the relevant jurisdictions and the law enforcement makes that demand.
  - yazaddaruvala 4y ago
    > Countries don't all use their own currencies Sure. I think this missed the point. I didn't say/intend "a country / army needs to be backed by a unique currency" I said, "For a token to be a currency, it needs to be backed by [at least one] army and [at least one country's] taxes". e.g. The Euro happens to be backed by multi armies and at least Germany's taxes. > Some countries don't have any armed forces unless you count the police. Again, it isn't "their army" but it is "an army". e.g. Liechtenstein is backed by "Austria and Switzerland under an informal agreement among the three countries." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_arme... Anyways, if we disagree that is ok too. All of this is quite fuzzy really.

yazaddaruvala 4y ago

> one advantage Bitcoin does not have, that fiat does, is an armed gang with orders to enforce its use by all citizens. Nail on the head! The only difference between "tokens" and "currency" is an army and taxes!

ben_w 4y ago
Is even that a difference? Countries don't all use their own currencies (and I don't just mean the Euro zone, this also happens with USD and used to happen with GBP), but they do all have their own taxes. Some countries don't have any armed forces unless you count the police. And the force of law is enough of a threat to get people to hand over crypto keys when they're physically in the relevant jurisdictions and the law enforcement makes that demand.
- yazaddaruvala 4y ago
  > Countries don't all use their own currencies Sure. I think this missed the point. I didn't say/intend "a country / army needs to be backed by a unique currency" I said, "For a token to be a currency, it needs to be backed by [at least one] army and [at least one country's] taxes". e.g. The Euro happens to be backed by multi armies and at least Germany's taxes. > Some countries don't have any armed forces unless you count the police. Again, it isn't "their army" but it is "an army". e.g. Liechtenstein is backed by "Austria and Switzerland under an informal agreement among the three countries." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_arme... Anyways, if we disagree that is ok too. All of this is quite fuzzy really.