Well... I'll I can say is I have faith and will continue to have faith u til the bitter end should that be the end. To give up on bitcpin seems like a trick like so many others we experience. We are tricked into dispare and depression. Maybe you are right but I won't give up the fight.

Why governments won't ban/kill Bitcoin but will contain it as Store-of-Value (SoV)

1) Enforcement cost > control benefit - A true ban drives use off-grid (Tor, mesh, cash ramps), destroys visibility, and raises policing costs. Containment via KYC perimeters is cheaper and yields data.

2) Better telemetry inside the tent - With ETFs, exchanges, and custodians, governments get biometrically tied identities, flow analytics, and seizure paths. A ban forfeits that intelligence.

3) Tax and fee capture - Capital-gains, trading, and withholding taxes + Wall-St. fees create dependable revenue. Bans cut a growing tax base and antagonize large financial donors.

4) Financial-stability risk of a ban - Now that pensions, brokers, and banks hold paper Bitcoin, prohibition would trigger losses, lawsuits, and collateral stress. Regulation avoids systemic jolts.

5) Geopolitical arbitrage - A global ban is unlikely to synchronize perfectly. Any major hub offering permissive rules attracts capital and talent. Containment preserves competitiveness while limiting MoE.

6) Legal drag & optics - Speech/property/innovation arguments slow blanket prohibition in rule-of-law states. "Regulate and protect consumers" polls better than "ban and confiscate".

7) Energy & industrial coalitions - Mining as flexible load helps grids, monetizes stranded energy, and brings rural jobs. Those lobbies resist outright bans; regulators prefer conditional allowances.

8) Paperization gives a steering wheel - ETFs/futures/structured notes dampen volatility, centralize price discovery, and make policy nudges effective. You don't need a ban if you can steer.

9) Seizure & prosecution value - Law enforcement has repeatedly seized Bitcoin. A ban reduces cooperative custody and pushes value where seizure is harder.

10) Narrative management > martyr creation - Bans create martyrs and adoption surges. "Invest, don't transact" plus perks for CBDC/stablecoins normalizes behavior without revolt.

11) Innovation insurance - States want optionality if Bitcoin tech (or reserves) becomes strategically useful. Regulate now, keep the option to lean in later.

12) Precedent risk - Banning a major asset class spooks broader markets. Incremental containment avoids setting a weaponizable precedent against other assets.

These are some of the reasons that make me quite confident, there won't be any Outright prohibition (criminalize possession/usage broadly).

I'd put the odds at ~10% or lower over the next 5 years in US/EU/UK.

It would require a massive crisis + political alignment + judicial acquiescence. Possible, not probable. I'd say extreme edge case.

The odds for - Partial/sectoral bans & hard throttling (merchant MoE suppression, node/platform de-platforming bursts, strict KYC travel-rule, custody only) - are higher - ~30%.

My base case is SoV-allowed containment (~60%) - Paper Bitcoin dominates, self-custody tolerated but inconvenienced; MoE pushed to CBDC/stablecoin rails.

Banning Bitcoin is expensive, leaky, and counter-productive for governments.

Containing it - paperizing price, taxing flows, steering payments to CBDC/stablecoin rails - delivers control, telemetry, and revenue with fewer riots. Price can still compound inside that cage; freedom lives only in the relatively small, well-kept self-custody sleeve.

More context:

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqvtw30knexxgwasss0qwafnz68hdx6u25xwpclsz4750ez46qpx2qyt8wumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgtcppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qqsve3e3wvjsfdy9hr2kxu5k923c4nmx8hykc6pd34jpdy5ms4vmmfs3t6rum

My question would be in what you will invest the 70% you just pulled out of BTC 😁 I would guess not as fiat on a bank

I’d caution against listening to Witney Webb and trusting her completely. She had some good takes on Bitcoin from adversarial standpoint, but I’ve noticed she doesn’t really understand the beast and has only surface knowledge about it.

The part i don‘t understand is how you say you reduced your Bitcoin holding while thinking that it‘s Gold 2.0 which the whole world (see the BRICS new vault-gold based system).

Besides, are you now investing in Palantir, Microsoft, Amazon etc.?

I don‘t see any other alternative than Bitcoin against The Great Taking scenario for the common man.

i have much the same issues with what is going on. it's pretty tiring to shout into the void and not even hear the faintest echo back.

so thanks!

Ok pussy

I think the masses will still embrace Bitcoin simply because *there is no other way* to preserve wealth.

Stablecoins are completely irrelevant since they will just get devalued as their underlying currency, so the masses will quickly learn that stablecoins do not protect them from inflation at all.

The only thing that protects you from inflation is Bitcoin. Even the S&P 500 does not beat inflation, and the masses will learn this quickly as well.

I must admit that I am not capable of such sophisticated logic and reasoning. Many of these concepts are completely new to me, yet I intuitively feel they likely describe reality well. Therefore, I do not wish to refute your conclusions.

However, I believe an important aspect is being overlooked: it seems to me that good is fighting evil—freedom versus slavery.

One must ask: what is the morally right thing to do?

If evil is capable of such plans, then good can always counteract them. I feel that now, more than ever, people are seeing through a lot of BS.

These extremely complex plans only succeed as long as they remain hidden in darkness, away from the bright light of truth that exposes them.

We should expose and reject them with all our might, refusing to support them with our time and energy or any resources, regardless of potential profit.