So, the SEC then? Or who should be responsible for safe payments and fighting against illicit cash flows in your opinion? Last time I checked it was exactly Yellen's job. What you allude to is the job of the Fed not the treasury.
Bitcoin Expert Predicts A $100 Trillion Market Cap
- Thread starter Nobert
- Start date
Baron
ET Founder
No. Because BTC is not a security. And the SEC will fully understand this principle once Ripple Labs hands them their asses in court, which is coming down the pipeline very soon.
Since when have BTC payments not been safe? The track record of safe BTC payments is incredible. That's why there's over 330 GB of blockchain transactions to prove it.
The amount of yearly illicit cash flows in U.S. dollars worldwide for drugs, gambling, money laundering, prostitution, and criminal activity completely blows the entire crypto ecosystem off the map. Again, she needs to stop worrying about experimental outer-fringe currencies like cryptos because she or no other singular entity have control over them anyway. They call it DeFi for a reason.
RE: "Bitcoin Expert Predicts A $100 Trillion Market Cap"
"expert" is the most overused buzzword during the last year.
"expert" is the most overused buzzword during the last year.
* there were a number cryptos and IOUs that were correctly classified as securities and banned, so that the SEC is following the crypto space is more than warranted.
* bitcoin won't work in isolation without exchanges. Every time you move your crypto out of your wallet you are exposed to hackers, fraudulent behavior at exchanges and outright theft.
* it's irrelevant how large illicit cash flow in fiat is. You are kind of suggesting that the treasury is looking away when it comes to fiat currency but tries to crack down on illicit payments in cryptos. That's at best a wild allegation. Treasury is probably closely following both.
Perhaps you know exactly that your play money is hugely at risk of being valued at zero if the US ever banned cryptos completely. The chance of that happening is greatly reduced if regulators or the treasury won't look into this space. So, I do understand your motivations and where your allegiances lie
* bitcoin won't work in isolation without exchanges. Every time you move your crypto out of your wallet you are exposed to hackers, fraudulent behavior at exchanges and outright theft.
* it's irrelevant how large illicit cash flow in fiat is. You are kind of suggesting that the treasury is looking away when it comes to fiat currency but tries to crack down on illicit payments in cryptos. That's at best a wild allegation. Treasury is probably closely following both.
Perhaps you know exactly that your play money is hugely at risk of being valued at zero if the US ever banned cryptos completely. The chance of that happening is greatly reduced if regulators or the treasury won't look into this space. So, I do understand your motivations and where your allegiances lie
In trading / financial world,
the synonym for
expert is amateur
amateurs call themselves experts.
ok, then, remove the peg to the dollar, then use your bitcoin to buy your own island, and declare your own country to see how long it'd take to turn your bitcoin country into a banana republic 
.
bitcoin in itself is a software product. Then it'd be subjected to software vulnerabilities such as: DoS, phishing and dictionary attacks, Eclipse attacks, Routing attacks, Timejacking, Sybil attack, ECDSA cryptographic algorithm generates unique private keys. However, it appears that ECDSA has insufficient entropy, which can result in the same random value in more than one signature,....:
https://www.apriorit.com/dev-blog/578-blockchain-attack-vectors
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures
.bitcoin in itself is a software product. Then it'd be subjected to software vulnerabilities such as: DoS, phishing and dictionary attacks, Eclipse attacks, Routing attacks, Timejacking, Sybil attack, ECDSA cryptographic algorithm generates unique private keys. However, it appears that ECDSA has insufficient entropy, which can result in the same random value in more than one signature,....:
https://www.apriorit.com/dev-blog/578-blockchain-attack-vectors
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures
By fending off competing currencies, I think she is actually doing her job.
The way I see it is that nobody likes what the FED is doing, but how much of the American population is actually benefiting from what the FED is doing? If people and the governments had to live within their means, I think the quality of life for many Americans would be much lower. There wouldn't be cheap shit to buy, and there wouldn't be excess money thrown around for innovation.
If BTC is going to bring financial equality for everyone in the world, doesn't that mean those at the top will be brought down and those at the bottom benefit? Well, the US as a whole is up there, so everyone needs to prepare to work as hard as most third world workers do. BTC being the great equalizer will really suck for those who benefited the most from globalization over the past 20-30 years.
