What does it take away?
Discussion
Just that if US power is invested (somehow) in Bitcoin, it is less likely to attack it.
Change "less" to "more", both versions of the sentence could make sense :)
Sorry, but that makes no sense. Bitcoin doesn't need a single country (the US) not attacking it in order to be useful.
On the other hand, Bitcoin needs diverse adoption around the world, and bitcoin concentration in the US is bad for this.
Bitcoin is and needs decentralisation.
Right, it doesn't need USA not attacking it to be *useful*. But the argument would be, and I tend to agree that it's dubious, that the USA attacking it could be very damaging or even fatal to it.
Would you also think in a similar way if bitcoin was being centralised in China?
That it is something good because then China would not be attacking it?
Much less so, partly because of the nature of the CCP, but mostly because the global financial system is not hooked into the Chinese financial and regulatory system in the same way.
*Centralization* per se (or 'ceteris paribus' perhaps better here) is always a bad thing for bitcoin ofc.
USD economy is 26% of global economy in the 4% of global population.
China is 18% of global economy in the 17% of global population.
Centralisation around 17% population would be much less centralisation than around the 4%, don't you think?
Anyway, the rest of the world deserves a decentralised bitcoin. We don't need the US to centralise bitcoin in order to 'protect it from attacks'.
No thanks.
🫂