|
|
|
|
|
|
by Growling_owl
1831 days ago
|
|
|
Okay, let's do the reverse. If you are somebody who wants to win an election, whose vote are you winning by proposing and/or signing a bitcoin ban? It's not like Bitcoin has a CEO that you can point at in the Forbes billionaires list and claim that you are going against him. You have to explain and present to people the coins per wallet distribution statistics and convert it to dollars to get to the topic of inequality, then from there trying to equate Wall Street to Bitcoin. It's not easy, even for a socially competent person, you lose the room and people's attention quite easily. It's far easier to attack Bezos |
|
|
If a politician were to try and ban this, I'm sure compentent spin doctors would think of better lines of attacks than bitcoin == rich people == evil. They might throw a line in the direction of nationalism (chinese control, dangerous!), or note its environmental impact, or note the risks due to instability (so we'll compensate you small fry, but not <xyz>), or claim a connection to organized crime, or note the issues of tax evasion...
I mean, it's not hard to come up with a list, and I firmly believe - not just because it's crypto, but just in general - that people just dont care about this kind of technicality. To be clear: they would need to buy out at least the vast majority of current holders or some such scheme to at least take out the sting for most people - but then, that's something that's attractive to a few special interests too, so that could well fly.
But why would they bother? It's just not going to happen.