Quote from: Abiky on March 06, 2020, 07:36:10 PM

My guess is that once governments start circulating their own digital currencies, they will try to crackdown on Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as we know them.

Wouldn't it have been smarter to nip it in the bud years ago? Why let it flourish for 10-15 years, allowing for the possibility of mass adoption?

Quote from: Abiky on March 06, 2020, 07:36:10 PM

It's no secret that the entire crypto space is largely dependent on centralized infrastructure (centralized exchanges, centralized wallet services, etc). People will not want to use something that's considered "illegal" by worldwide governments. While it'll still be possible to continue using Bitcoin regardless of government bans, regulations, etc, not many people will support it (only libertarians, geeks, anarchists, etc.). By that time, it'll be nearly impossible to get access to Bitcoin with Fiat currency or even exchange Bitcoin to Fiat (as the government crackdown will make all centralized exchanges to cease their operations).

That's one perspective. Here's another: Governments are competing. The cryptocurrency/blockchain services industry is a potentially multi-billion dollar industry. They want that economic growth, for their country's GDP. If Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies might become widely adopted as traditional investment assets like gold and silver, banning it means getting left behind. Governments would be robbing their populations and maybe even endangering their operating budgets by doing so. Central banks should be tucking away bitcoins for a rainy day, not trying to ban it.

Quote from: gentlemand on March 06, 2020, 07:55:07 PM

People will of course refer to the gold seizures in the 1930s. It's a very different world now. Money is an awful lot more mobile and populations are a lot more vocal and a lot less likely to fall in line.

You're right. The US government would probably look foolish and impotent trying to enforce something like Executive Order 6102 on Bitcoin.