[wintom]

>"A bitcoin is a number, and that number has no utility outside of its ability to be accepted by someone else. Unlike gold, the the minimum value of a bitcoin is zero— its value if everyone stops believing it works. This is one reason why a bitcoin is a risky way to hold assets."

I think people forget that there is a lot of value to a censorship resistant currency.

Before Bitcoin was worth hundreds or thousands of dollars it was being used in the black market at whatever rate it was floating at. That rate is a non zero value. There is no other way, other than another crypto currency, to do business in these black market places.

Now blow that out exponentially to places like China where your money isn't exactly your money. Or places where its ok to seize someones property, depending on whose in power.

This then starts to give you an idea that even when the bubble crashes we will still have Bitcoin.

[AstralStorm]

Bitcoin wallet can be seized and the transactions are traceable and public, so a sufficiently determined actor can figure out who has it and how much. Then enforce their cut with violence.

[maxfurman]

I would quibble with this, depending on how we define "seized". My understanding is that your coins cannot be transferred unless the transaction is signed by your private key. So, authorities could seize the computer that has the private key on it, or, as you say, use violence against a known individual, but they have no way in-network to take your wallet. Compare this with the central banking system where governments can and do force banks to freeze or hand over their customers' assets.

[nugget]

The NSA was able to infect air gapped Iranian computers 100 ft underground that only a handful of individuals had access to. I doubt any hot wallets are really out of Government reach given enough time and attention. A cold wallet with offline multi sig - more likely.