Quote from: trendcoin on October 03, 2022, 10:43:06 PM

Throughout history, there has been a conflict between solid currencies such as gold and silver and fiat currencies. Bitcoin has emerged on the stage of history as an additional alternative to solid currencies such as gold and silver. I'm already on the side of solid coins. That's why I love Bitcoin so much. We don't need to count the extra great things like peer-to-peer payment, decentralized structure, semi-anonymous structure, financial freedom and portability...

The extra great things about bitcoin likely causes it to be something in the neighborhood of about 1,000x better than gold - even though it could take 20-200 years for the market to price in such reality (and for the vast majority of the population to also realize such), so therefore, even if we cannot be sure how long it could take for the market prices to work out, currently we can see that bitcoin has a market price that is about 1/20th of gold's even though it is about 1,000x better. How to respond to such disparity seems like a fairly obvious answer for those who can see (recognize) the situation for what it seems to be.

Quote from: Maidak on Today at 02:52:14 PM

Quote from: Moeda on October 03, 2022, 08:49:50 PM

Quote from: Silent Sam on September 03, 2022, 07:19:28 AM

It’s decentralized, no need for any 3rd party to babysit your sale and take a piece of it. In developing nations, this technology is enabling more practical operations that will enable translucency and combat corruption in governments.

Then why is it so difficult for governments to accept Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies as currency. I believe, most of the current use of Bitcoin is private parties, while government agencies are more controversial and even reject Bitcoin.
If Bitcoin is good, why don't they use it? Of course this is a question that arises in our minds.
We know that most state institutions around the world are not clean from corruption. So they reject the transparency system that can interfere with their actions, namely corruption. They don't reject Bitcoin, but they reject the transparency system that exists in Bitcoin. My assumption is so, although the assumption is too much.

Bitcoin like everything else in the world, cannot please everyone. The government saying bitcoin is not good does not mean not good, not good for them but it has a lot of benefits for us, maybe it's not good for you but for me it would be great.

Bitcoin is good for almost everyone, even if they do not know about that, yet. Bitcoin is also better when the proportion of holding it is figured out in balanced kind of way, instead of considering how much to hold in terms of "all or nothing."

And, of course, it is more good for some people versus others based on some use cases that they might have or that they might have some conditions in which they would particularly be advantaged more than others, relatively speaking.

Quote from: Maidak on Today at 02:52:14 PM

The transparent system is what makes bitcoin different from the fiat they created, decentralized, transparent is the core of bitcoin, so they can't accept it. If they accept bitcoin, they won't be able to hide the crime they are committing behind the backs of citizens who trust them.

There's some truth in what you are saying, but I would not assume all publicly accountable institutions are evil.. so there would be degrees in which they manipulate information or engage in sloppy accountings.. or in the broader cases when money printing is going on in a way that taxes the public without getting consent.. Privacy is not completely a bad thing either.. so frequently there are needs for privacy, too... It seems that bitcoin changes some of the dynamics, but there still are going to be some needs to protect some of the privacy related to finances for some institutions that start to use bitcoin or holding it in their treasuries...