"Show stopper"
@tecate....your not reading or understanding my posts.........I'm trying to help you understand that there will be no showstopper moment that the BTC crowd can rally against.......no Joe Biden in the Rose Garden saying Bitcoin is banned because of ransomware attacks....no link I can point you too....get that idea out of your head and certainly dont assign it to me or my posts.........the way 'the system' works is by slowly constricting and starving its target of oxygen using the various apparatuses of the state......DOJ, FTC, SWIFT, FED, FINRA, SEC, ECB, ESMA, FCA.
I never necessarily referred to one event, one agency or one jurisdiction exclusively over the course of our discussion. So if you'd like to take a view with regard to action being taken relative to one jurisdiction/agency or multiples, that's fine. However, you had very much led with the whole ransomware deal. If you're saying that there will be a reaction on that basis but it won't be explained away directly, I guess we'll see.
.your comment on the ebbs & flows of regulation is interesting.
I'm not sure why you're only taking notice of that now. I said that there would be every type of regulation on the way - the good (progressive), the bad & the ugly (backward). We had that with the last US administration - positives and negatives. We have that again now with the current administration. That's the game that will play out over the coming years.
you havent spotted the change in the mood music since Colonial/JBS & HSE attacks..
We've been over that - and you've been joining dots based on your own assumptions here - not on the reality. The whole ransomware deal is how superpowers kick each other in the nuts these days. As regards the HSE, its shameful that given umpteen opportunities to acknowledge HSE admin had to take responsibility for its failings, you failed to recognise that.
.see BTC/crypto has been a sideshow & the ebb and flow you mention is because frankly, up until this point, regulators / leaders had better things to do than take a philosophical position on BTC.
Don't you worry - I agree. It still only has a piddly market cap. However, the good thing is that the industry is a hell of a lot farther on these days. You've chimed back in on Yellen/Stablecoin pressures. Have a look at the work visa are doing with stablecoins. Stablecoins are not going away - they're here to stay and whilst she can cause problems in the short term, over the longer run, there is nothing that Yellen can do to stop that. USDC attestations came out yesterday. USDT attestations are due - and they all need to become increasingly more transparent in this regard. This isn't a bad thing if there are going to be centralised stablecoins in the picture. Of course, if undue pressure is placed on centralised stablecoins or centralised exchanges, then over the medium term, that may manifest itself in greater efforts re. algorithmic decentralised stablecoins and decentralised exchanges. How does one of your list of agencies take action against a protocol that runs on a decentralised and autonomous basis?
The change I've detected is because national security has been threatened, more importantly US national security...........& the USA's return to multilaterlism & global institutions has brought global coordinated action back in fashion (see global minimum tax rate). I can assure you that regulators/political leaders have now been forced to take a view on BTC/cypto and that view is being led by US leadership and it isnt positive ..............Operation Constriction has begun.................I can assure you.
If you're referring to ransomware once again, then I disagree. These are the games that superpowers play - but the cause is not bitcoin in any way, shape or form. However, if you'd like to think about national interest, think about this...
The good Chairman is a long way ahead in terms of getting his centralised crypto out into the world - and they will try and push trading partners into using it. Here's the irony - bitcoin and usd stablecoins could be front and center in representing US interests over the longer run. Their only concern re. stablecoins should be to ensure that there's no systemic risk. Beyond that, facilitating further use of the usd internationally represents US interests just fine.
The only way I'm wrong on BTC's price is if indeed it really is being used mainly by people as a store of value and a medium of exchange & I've totally miscalculated how the level of speculation/illicit activity is supporting BTC's price at $63,000 and at whatever it is today $29,000.
Not quite. You're dismissive of speculative interest as if its pure evil - presumably on the basis that you've checked this whole crypto thing out and sher, what earthly use is it to me and my buddies - these people are morons! Your scenario is not representative of everyone on the planet - and there's your mistake. Furthermore, we've discussed btc/crypto here on the basis of decentralised money and store of value. We haven't even gotten in to decentralised finance (albeit it was touched on briefly in another thread recently). Even if bitcoin doesn't play the most active of parts in this disruption, it will still be implicated.
Anything that has resembled success for the yanks in more recent times has been as a consequence of them letting innovators innovate. You think a regulator is going to put their neck out and take the blame for standing in the way of progress and handing the win to some other jurisdiction overseas? I expect plenty of wayward crap from regulators as we go along but by and large, they're not going to turn the cart upside down.