If Bitcoin is embraced by the state, is it still Bitcoin?
Discussion
Embraced and controlled are two separate things
Bitcoin is for enemies
Yes, it really is a trap for the state, as it takes away their financing power at the taxpayer's expense, they get to play by the same rules as everyone else.
If they force all of us to use on chain transactions so that they can surveil us all, is it still a good thing?
We're being surveiled as we speak.
The state as we currently know it, can't exist on a hard money standard, and can't survive much longer on the fiat standard.
Disobey retarded and easily avoided laws.
Lightning and e-cash help.
If Bitcoin is adopted by people you don't like, is it still Bitcoin?
If "who adopts bitcoin" is not part of the Bitcoin protocol, how will adoption change Bitcoin? I think "Bitcoin doesn't care" applies here.
In order to compensate for increase in adoption (or decrease) has already been taken into account with the use of dificulty ajustment, so popularity does not affect (block) performance
If states adopt bitcoin scarcity increases initially.
As soon as states step away from using the Bitcoin protocol (out of convenience?) then the lie can start again that there are more IOUs than there are bitcoins. It will affect people depending and trusting those IOUs. It won't affect self custody bitcoin and it won't affect the Bitcoin protocol.
If the use of guns is embraced by the public, are they still guns?
Bitcoin is not defined by they who hold the privkey, they can call it the dollar for all I care. As long as consensus is node driven then all these IRL narratives don't matter
If your German grandparents became NAZIโs, Are they still German?
The state is embraced by bitcoin
Yes, because bitcoin is free to use even for the worst of your enemies
Yes. They will bend the knee because they are greedy and canโt help themselves.
Embracing your own demise would be stupid. But it's the State so...
Of course. We need to accept and be ok with the idea of winning.
The state cannot stay as it is if it embraces Bitcoin. So state will have to evolve to something else if Bitcoin stays decentralized.
What do you mean by embrace?
bitcoin's point is being objectively indifferent to every actor. so yes.
The very essence of #Bitcoin is its decentralisation and censorship-resistance.
The idea is for individuals to have control over their own #money, without interference from third parties, including governments.
If #BTC were to be embraced and controlled by the state, it would go against the principles of financial #sovereignty and #privacy that it was designed to uphold.
Thus, it might cease to be the #Bitcoin we know and value. Instead, it would become a state-controlled and ~potentially~ censored version of its former self.
Nothing about BTC is private. All transactions are on the public ledger. It is, at best, temporarily pseudonomous.
And censorship resistance? Not even close. Because each sat is individually traceable for its entire history, anyone can set up their payment gateway to refuse acceptance of 'tainted' sats; or be compelled to by a powerful entity, such as a government.