Here is an interesting opinion of Jim Rogers (which I completely disagree with, but i always like to listen to what opponents say):
https://youtu.be/tNSXWkApxU8?t=410He basically says that if bitcoin/crypto would be successful, government can simply abolish it like England abolished scrip in the 30ies bymaking trading NOT in bank of england notes (pounds) a TREASON.
Don't simply dismiss this, hopefully, wrong notion, because he is an old fogie since this is Jim Rogers, again, who happens to know about commodity markets quite a bit.
He is not short, but not long either. Acknowledges that he might be wrong in his skepticism.
I think that he is wrong because bitcoin provides a standard/reference point, is apolitical and not 'owned' by a particular government plus could accelerate the commerce in due course.
Being neutral would make it resistant to the moves that he described, unless there is cooperation among G20.
What do you guys think?
Yes, it is perfectly "possible".
But... why would they? Bitcoin have some features that may even be good for them.
Also, before simply banning it, there are lots of intermediate steps:
- Specific taxes
- Mandatory report of Bitcoin holdings
- Whitelisting only on fiat ramps
- etc....
So, even IF any of that would happen it would take many years. I am not worried yet.
In 1933 FDR declared owning gold (inside the country) as being illegal.
Before that 40% of dollars had to be backed by gold. Afterwards, they did not have to be backed (for inside the country trade), but only in 1971 that gold-$ link was abolished for international settlements.
I am not worried too, but curious what will happen going forward when fiat debts would not be able to get paid.