Yeah... The same thing was said of each and every innovation this world has ever had before it boomed...
Because of that, today a 90-year-old lady can use Uber and WhatsApp...The tendency for cryptos to become easier and easier to use, making it increasingly wide spread(and more stabel) will make a ban on them just as effective as the drug ban. The difference is that people willing to use currency is effectively EVERYONE, unlike the number of people who want to use drugs, but despite that, anyone who wants access to drugs, has it. Given that, the failure in enforcing the ban on cryptos will be even more pathetic.
A ban would initially be actually in effect in large established business, but as the market is always reinventing itself, new, smaller, non-regulated business that deal with cryptos(despite the ban) would gradually and increasingly gain competitiveness. This is in fact another benefit of cryptos, they would serve as a way to get around stupid and protectionist regulations that only benefit the already established business. And again, an effect such as this will be so widepread, that enforcing regulations would be impossible.
In face of this, regulators will be forced to do what they did with uber: bend over and back off.
This is what in the end will force the bigger companies to join in: the need to stay competitive.
These changes won't happen overnight, but at least they will be the way it is supposed to be in a descentralized/free market: from the bottom to the upper part of the economy, because if it is the other way around, things would only get worse.
In a nutshell, once the control freaks lose their ability to control(which was guaranteed essentialy through the monopoly of money), their incompetence will be their death sentence.
So tell me again, what is so unique about diamonds?
Me too... But bans and regulation is the only thing that government officials with their peanut brains know to do... And when they see that their power is threatened(as we see it now by their reaction to cryptos), they naturally react. If they lose their power, they will actually have to work and do something useful... But that, for them, is a death sentence.
Me too... But bans and regulation is the only thing that government officials with their peanut brains know to do... And when they see that their power is threatened(as we see it now by their reaction to cryptos), they naturally react. If they lose their power, they will actually have to work and do something useful... But that, for them, is a death sentence.
So we can surely expect more attempts at regulation and bans.
Says the 21 year old who's never run anything let alone has any experience with the complexity of government. There are a bunch of people I knew in government who have gone on to start successful companies and non-profits that have done significant good in the world, which would imply a bit more than "peanut brains". What have you accomplished there Mr. "waa, you're personally attacking me", to give you the right to slander? If you're going to call everyone in government a "peanut brain", you're going to have to back that up, which you can't do given the fact that you know fuck all about it.Me too... But bans and regulation is the only thing that government officials with their peanut brains know to do... And when they see that their power is threatened(as we see it now by their reaction to cryptos), they naturally react. If they lose their power, they will actually have to work and do something useful... But that, for them, is a death sentence.
So we can surely expect more attempts at regulation and bans.
Well, I beg to differ. What legitimizes something is not government regulation, but people's concept of what is valueable.
On the other side of my last post... Firearms are legitimized by the United States Constitution. Despite that, you see constant attempts to ban guns... Over and over again... So "legitimizing" in the way you mean will mean nothing.
