You can’t get rid of Bitcoin, but if you make it illegal for retailers to accept Bitcoin and for currency exchanges like Coinbase to operate its pretty much taken care of.
The time for that has passed, you have Coinbase listed on the NASDAQ, you dont just make something like that illegal overnight. As I said the ship has sailed, squashing it is harder now that crypto firms can hire their own lobbysists
The minute the fed considers Bitcoin and crypto to be a risk, they'll axe it. Coinbase or not.
I think the CIA likes having Bitcoin as a means for foreign nationals to exfiltrate money. That's harder to do now in certain countries, but still possible.
And the FBI likes being able to watch where the money flows.
Yes, but I thought the whole point of prohibition (unless you're living in that weird period between 18th amendment and 21st amendment) is that it was a terrible idea, never to be repeated again.
> The minute the fed considers Bitcoin and crypto to be a risk, they'll axe it. Coinbase or not.
This doesn't make sense, you presume that Fed has zero understanding of consequences of their actions.
Fed may consider something to be a risk and yet not act on it. Just because they haven't acted on it, doesn't mean they don't consider it to be a risk.
I am fairly sure there would be constitutional issues with banning it. After all its just some characters/a string. We went through a lot of this with the cryptography wars in the 90s
Something something color of your bits. And even if you somehow managed to convince someone that a digital asset was speech you still have to contend that commercial speech isn't as protected.
I remember prohibition, do you? It enriched a number of people willing to break the law, only to be repealed in a short time, when it was found to entirely useless and simple to get around.
Alcohol was only illegal in the US, unless there is a worldwide ban it will be fine. I have survived this long without ever setting foot in the USA, I reckon I can manage a bit longer.
It almost is, actually. The power of an executive order to control the behavior of the executive branch is untestedly unlimited.
Part one would be a note of the laws establishing the Treasury Department's mandate to regulate financial instruments.
Part two would be a finding that cryptocurrencies are harmful to the interests of the USA.
Part three would be an order to the Secretary of the Treasury to determine what businesses are involved in cryptocurrencies, and to take the following sanctions: ...
prohibit any transfers of credit or payments between financial institutions, or by, through, or to any financial institution, to the extent that such transfers or payments are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and involve any interest of the sanctioned business;
prohibit any United States financial institution from making loans or providing credit to the sanctioned business;
(iv) prohibit any transactions in foreign exchange that are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and in which the sanctioned business has any interest;
(v) prohibit any United States person from investing in or purchasing significant amounts of equity or debt instruments of the sanctioned business;
Form and specific sanctions taken from EO 2021-27505, from December 17 2021.
> The power of an executive order to control the behavior of the executive branch is untestedly unlimited.
"Untestedly" being the important part. There is no practical limit on the orders that can be issued but actually enforcing those rules on anyone outside the executive branch is a different matter. Also, you skipped over the parts of EO 2021-27505 where (a) it required declaring a (rather dubious IMHO) state of emergency, (b) the sanctions were previously authorized by Congress in the Fentanyl Sanctions Act, and (c) all the sanctions applied to "foreign persons", not citizens. There is no state of emergency, sanctions were not authorized by Congress, and you want to sanctions citizens of the United States and locally-owned businesses.
This is why purely from a "theory of governance" standpoint I find it crazy that Congress is even allowed to establish agencies in another branch that wields power reserved for them.