[waych]

Given that this strategic reserve is to be built from all the various civil and criminal asset forfeitures, and not actually buying any crypto currency, how exactly is this considered a "wealth transfer"?

This is centralizing governance of forfeited assets from across the many agencies that are currently holding wallets with no direction, into a single place: the Treasury. This seems far favorable to letting various (430+) agencies manage these valuable assets on their own where they can easily be lost, stolen, etc.

[iwontberude]

Being a baggie for bitcoin begs the question that it’s necessarily going to increase over time. Given that Blackrock recently published a video reiterating the ground truth that there is no ultimate guarantee that the finite supply of bitcoin could not be increased, there are signs maybe this isn’t so bulletproof.

[npoc]

Blackrock are wrong.

No one will ever persuade me to or vast swathes of other bitcoin node runners, to run a version of bitcoin with a higher cap. It devalues our bitcoin. It devalues bitcoin full-stop.

Sure, a new fork can be, and in fact are, created with a higher cap, but why would people choose it over a harder system with a lower issuance?

Even if it somehow took hold, the old harder version of bitcoin would beat the newer softer version just like it's beating the soft fiat money we currently use.

[iwontberude]

I think the unspoken rationale is that governments can compel you to destroy a market. Look at when the US seized all of the gold in May of 1933. Blackrock operates in time scales where this sort of risk awareness is relevant.

[npoc]

Sure. But how does a government, or even governments, compel bitcoiners all around the world to stop running a version of bitcoin core on their nodes (likely running over TOR)?

[iwontberude]

Well considering the feds have charged and sentenced people for the activity of their exit nodes (CSAM), to which tor project has no response, I wouldn’t bother with Tor.

I’m sure the feds could force funding attached to crypto accounts to be verified by a trusted version of the bitcoin network or they are not legal to trade. They don’t have to physically stop the mining or validation, just the on/off ramps and banks who use it as collateral.

[npoc]

> Well considering the feds have charged and sentenced people for the activity of their exit nodes (CSAM), to which tor project has no response, I wouldn’t bother with Tor.

I'm certainly not a Tor expert, but I don't think bitcoin nodes running over Tor require an exit node. Even if they did they don't need to be located in the US.

> I’m sure the feds could force funding attached to crypto accounts to be verified by a trusted version of the bitcoin network or they are not legal to trade. They don’t have to physically stop the mining or validation, just the on/off ramps and banks who use it as collateral.

We could debate the details on a per-nation basis, but ultimately it's pointless. Even if it is possible for a nation to completely suppress bitcoin use within its borders, there will always be some country somewhere that embraces bitcoin and value looking to be stored will always migrate to the best store of value (bitcoin), just as air moves to the lowest-pressure volume, bitcoin miners move to areas with wasted, unwanted energy and electrons travel to less negatively-charged parts of a circuit.

[wmf]

It reduces sell pressure. I don't know how to estimate what that's worth.