[pat87]

Bitcoin can be killed by means other than technological.

For example it can be outlawed. Sure, people would still be able to use it, but they would be breaking the law and that would deter many, possibly enough to kill it outright.

[mamon]

Bitcoin does not need to be killed because it’s dead already: proved to be useless for all practical purposes, now used mostly for money laundering or other criminal activities

[wolco]

That's such a misguided view. Bitcoin is mostly owned as an asset because of the hype.

Criminals use other less tracable coins.

[kebman]

That's an interesting claim, all the time regular banknotes and coins offer way better alternatives for doing just that (e.g. money laundering and black market transactions), due to their much better relative untraceability as compared to just about all cryptocurrencies, and even so-called privacy coins.

The only thing cryptocurrency has clearly got going for it, is in relative better ease of use, and better security, as compared to coins and banknotes, especially when it comes to international transactions.

It's troublesome to move a literal ton of cash from A to B, while moving a virtual ton of cryptocurrency isn't. The cost and risk of moving said ton of cash from A to B, is also staggering compared to the relative security and ease of movement offered by cryptocurrencies.

Best of all, cryptocurrency just about removes the need to have a bank as a third party when both storing and moving your valuables. Thus it's a much bigger problem for banks, than governments. Remember, taxation still existed in a time when no valuables were traceable. So that fact that some cryptocurrencies are claimed to be untracable, doesn't really matter much to the state.

[lonelappde]

Interesting that you wrote paragraphs rebutting your first paragraph.

[kebman]

I didn't. You just assumed I did, which is different.

[Andrew_nenakhov]

Money laundering and other criminal activities are a very profitable businesses that power an important sector of economy. If Bitcoin enables or facilitates them, it is far from what I would call useless.

Also: it will not be outlawed everywhere, some country will jump on the opportunity. So you earn bitcoins in one place, legalize then in another one, where it is legal. It's not so easy to prevent this, I'd even call an attempt futile.

[vkou]

Let's say, for the sake of argument that Ukraine legalizes BTC, while it's illegal everywhere else.

What you think will happen:

- Ukraine will make fat stacks from all the people who care about BTC. Crypto-libertarians will rejoice, issue fifty billion ICOs, and Ukraine's GDP will exceed that of the rest of the world. BTC will go to the moon, and anyone who didn't get on that train when its future was in doubt will be starving to death in a ditch, or working as an indebtured servant, soldering mining rigs for early adopters.

What will actually happen:

- Any Ukranian bank that touches BTC will be barred from doing business in USD. For a bank, this is as good as suicide.

- Any intermediary that exchanges BTC for a local currency (Hryvnia), without touching USD will be barred from transacting with any Ukranian banks, that don't want to be barred from doing business in USD.

- Anyone trying to use Hryvnia for any international transactions will be subject to strict AML scrutiny, because it is a well-known intermediary currency for laundering BTC. The burden of proof with AML is on you, not your accuser.

- The Ukranian Rada will quickly come to its senses, and, in order not piss in the cornflakes of the 99% of its citizenry that doesn't give a shit about BTC, will ban it, and stop being a pariah state in the world of international finance.

[Andrew_nenakhov]

What a perfect example of a straw man argument you made! I just love when people tell me what they think I think!

No, hypothetical Ukraine will not issue fifty billion ICOs and its GDP will not exceed the rest of the world (btw it is rather ignorant to tie ICOs to bitcoin, they are completely different things).

What I think will happen in this hypothetical scenario, is that bitcoin will have a safe place in Ukraine where it can be legally turned in a very real cash USD, totally by an off-banking method. Then these USDs will be shipped to banks in Poland or Germany or Switzerland, which will accept it rather happily (as they usually do). Meanwhile, the rest of the world would continue using bitcoin for their day to day purposes, ignoring a worldwide ban. Some purposes will probably criminal [1], but many will have legal ones, especially in countries with failed fiat currency, like Venezuela or Zimbabwe. Because, you know, you can't really control a person who sells a pig to his neighbour and wants to have something REAL in return.

Should be mentioned, that if we pretend that just one country will legalize bitcoin, then it is more likely that this country will be the one least vulnerable to bank sanctions. Iran or North Korea are much more likely candidates than Ukraine.

Anyway, in reality, a worldwide ban is unlikely at this point, given the acceptance of bitcoin by too many jurisdictions already [2]. It's just a matter of time when it'll go to the moon and establish itself as the main world currency.

[1] In Russia all drug trade has moved online, facilitating sales with cryptocurrencies, check this investigation https://darknark.lenta.ru/ - and no Russian bank exchanges BTC for local currency. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_bitcoin_by_country...

[rvnx]

Wow, the second situation is actually very close to the one in Estonia.

The country with easy ICOs and many guys who became rich after launching coins, and sadly today the pariah of international finance.

The worst part of it, is that literally 99.9% of the population are totally honest persons and get punished for everyone else.

10% live in "absolute poverty" and it's certainly not the lack of money that caused it.

Hundreds of billions of USD are/were in the country.

[xtracto]

> now used mostly for money laundering or other criminal activities That would be monero.

[FillardMillmore]

This is a bold claim - proven to be useless for all practical purposes by whom? Care to provide evidence to back this up?