Bitcoin will be banned

S-VV

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Messages
599
They are already seeding the idea that Bitcoin is environmentally unfriendly. After that, they will start shilling the "racism" and "unequal access"of cryptocurrencies. Then they will connect it to "domestic terrorism". Retail investors will be prohibited from buying/selling. Of course, this will not apply to institutions, banks etc..., who will use it as a hedge against the geometric devaluation of the dollar
 
OP
S-VV

S-VV

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Messages
599
Oh, and I forgot, in a classic doublethink, central banks will introduce their own centralised digital currency, and tie one unique address to each citizen. Absolute traceability, zero anonymity.
 

Waynish

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2016
Messages
2,206
Oh, and I forgot, in a classic doublethink, central banks will introduce their own centralised digital currency, and tie one unique address to each citizen. Absolute traceability, zero anonymity.
Blockchain is itself a public ledger. It already is the opposite of anonymous. FBI et al already has all the software to analyze the block chain to see what is going on. Most exchanges are already regulated such that they do KYC like banks. Cryptocurrencies are the future global super-fiat... But people love being on their chains, so what's new?
 

amd

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
864
Big Tech will replace traditional banks for transactions with digital currency.

Without debt (The Great Reset) traditional banks won't have the leverage they once did.

Google signs up six more partners for its digital banking platform coming to Google Pay
https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/03/google-signs-up-six-more-partners-for-its-digital-banking-platform-coming-to-google-pay/
"Google is expanding its plans to offer digital banking services in the U.S. The company announced today it’s partnering with half a dozen more banks to offer digital checking and savings accounts to Google Pay users in the U.S., starting sometime next year."
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
They are already seeding the idea that Bitcoin is environmentally unfriendly. After that, they will start shilling the "racism" and "unequal access"of cryptocurrencies. Then they will connect it to "domestic terrorism". Retail investors will be prohibited from buying/selling. Of course, this will not apply to institutions, banks etc..., who will use it as a hedge against the geometric devaluation of the dollar

No, it won't. I would say there is a 99.5% it won't be.

Why would it be? Gold and silver haven't been banned. They've just been manipulated and regulated. They can already manipulate BTC's value and perception thru the news and exchanges. Why ban that?

If Bitcoin was going to be banned, or destroyed, the time to do that was back in 2009. It's too big now, even though it's a relatively tiny asset class.

If retail investors can't buy or sell it, well, then institutional investors have no one to sell their coins to when the price goes up. It would be pointless if institutions just traded it among themselves.

Here's a visulization of all the world's money. See how tiny all cryptos are in comparison?


Go back and listen to Jamie Dimon's words about Bitcoin in 2017, which were not all negative.



And lastly...... what makes you think governments and/or banks didn't have a hand in inventing Bitcoin in the first place?
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
Without debt (The Great Reset) traditional banks won't have the leverage they once did.

Without debt, there is no money in the current system. All you have to do is look at a Federal Reserve Note to realize it's a promissory note.

This is why a debt jubilee would be needed to move to an asset backed currency (NESARA/GESARA). No one "buys" anything in the current system, they simply "discharge their debt."

The banks never really had any real power or money. It was all deception, a con with hidden ledger sheets. Tom Shauf explains it in the Secret Banker's Manual-

 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
But gold was banned in the US at one time.

No it wasn't. It was regulated, and certain amounts were confiscated. None was ever taken from living men and women, but many gave up their gold thinking that the Gold Reserve Act applied to them, even though it only applied to businesses.
 

jnklheimer

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2021
Messages
356
its runaway from them
they will try to get their hands on it but its impsossible
china is fudding in the media that they want to tighten regulation on btc mining in their country because it is "wasteful"
but just like with covid hysteria, and the recent anal swab test out of beijing, they are taking advantage of stupid westerner sjw mindset
if china says they are restricting crypto mining farms then it actually means they are encouraging it.
binance is the premier trading and derivitives/futures platform for crypto.
guess what country it is based in? China. they even have insurance for margin traders backed by presumably their own banks or assets?
china #1
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
its runaway from them

Has it, though?

Are you just saying this because you see that Bitcoin is valued around $50,000 right now? It's still a tiny asset class. Go look at the visual capitalist visual I linked above.

And then go look at the value of Berkshire Hathaway stock. It's valued at about $369,000 right now. Did that run away from them, too?
 

jnklheimer

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2021
Messages
356
Has it, though?

Are you just saying this because you see that Bitcoin is valued around $50,000 right now? It's still a tiny asset class. Go look at the visual capitalist visual I linked above.

And then go look at the value of Berkshire Hathaway stock. It's valued at about $369,000 right now. Did that run away from them, too?
they didnt take it seriously enough to make energy deals in the americas and europe to set up mining farms . electricity is very cheap in china hydropower regions and i guarantee you the operations have tacit approval of the party, not to mention the manfacturing of the asic miners is in the same country. obviously. good luck jumping over regulative , environmental, beaurucratic stuff to catch up now, thats what i mean it has gotten away from them. and i am not one to focus on the single whole unit price. its essentialyl slightly deflationary because people die and wallets get locked up forever and keys get lost. once the max capacity is mined thats it, theres no more bitcoins being made, just the network to upkeep. its too late to control it like they want, thats why its in media now talking of banning, why major banks are making it difficult to cash out in their SWIFT systems. its still easy still to take a flight somewhere and open a bank account and get an international debit card.

even including network fees and maintenance of the farms etc, the associated bloat costs with any crypto currency are neglible compared to berkshire hathaway employment payroll and leases on office space etc. its not the same thing.
 

Fred

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2013
Messages
487
Bitcoin will NOT be banned. It is clearly being promoted by MSM, which is an arm of the NWO. Bitcoin is likely going to be a key part of the cashless society dreamed of by the NWO. A cashless society allows for total control ... if you don't behave, your digital wallet is disabled and you have no hard currency/black market activity to fall back on. Here's a terrifying excerpt from Microsoft's 2020 patent - patent no. WO/2020/060606 (see anything interesting in that number?):
"Body activity data may be generated based on the sensed body activity of the user. The cryptocurrency system communicatively coupled to the device of the user may verify if the body activity data satisfies one or more conditions set by the cryptocurrency system, and award cryptocurrency to the user whose body activity data is verified."
 

ALS

Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
204
There's a reason 'tech cities' are being set up in the Nevada desert where everything will be digital, including currency. It's the oligarch's dream to
have everything you do tracked. Bitcoin is not going away, or at least digital is not going away. Cash is the true crypto, and they're making that disappear.

Kim Dotcom was trying to make a case for BitcoinCash as cash is still in use in most parts of the undeveloped world.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
that's wrong though.

What you posted didn't refute anything I said in that quote. Is there something specific I said that you dispute?

One thing to note..... the legal definition of "person" does not cover living men and women. This is, of course, done for the purpose of confusion. Still, living men and women were not required to turn in their gold.
 

gaze

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
2,270
What you posted didn't refute anything I said in that quote. Is there something specific I said that you dispute?

One thing to note..... the legal definition of "person" does not cover living men and women. This is, of course, done for the purpose of confusion. Still, living men and women were not required to turn in their gold.

"All Americans were required to turn in their gold on or before May 1, 1933 to the Federal Reserve in return for $20.67 of paper money per troy ounce. Americans who did not turn in their gold were subject to arrest on criminal charges and faced up to 10 years in federal prison. An exception was made for dentists, who could own up to 100 ounces. Proclamation 6102 also prohibited the use of gold in contracts. This was upheld by the Supreme Court on March 1935, in what were called the Gold Clause Cases. Millions of Americans waited in long lines to hand in their gold. Many photos from this era are often cited as examples of people getting their money out of the banks when in fact, they were simply turning in their gold in accordance with FDR’s new laws."

that is a pretty clear ban of gold. Even the small amounts people were allowed to keep, they couldn't trade with. Either your definition of "banning" is completely different than mine or you're reading information i'm not
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131

"All Americans were required to turn in their gold on or before May 1, 1933 to the Federal Reserve in return for $20.67 of paper money per troy ounce. Americans who did not turn in their gold were subject to arrest on criminal charges and faced up to 10 years in federal prison. An exception was made for dentists, who could own up to 100 ounces. Proclamation 6102 also prohibited the use of gold in contracts. This was upheld by the Supreme Court on March 1935, in what were called the Gold Clause Cases. Millions of Americans waited in long lines to hand in their gold. Many photos from this era are often cited as examples of people getting their money out of the banks when in fact, they were simply turning in their gold in accordance with FDR’s new laws."

that is a pretty clear ban of gold. Even the small amounts people were allowed to keep, they couldn't trade with. Either your definition of "banning" is completely different than mine or you're reading information i'm not

But Huffington Post writers clearly aren't legal experts.

Where, in the Executive Order, is the word "Americans?" It doesn't say that. It says the word "persons." Now you are just claiming the Executive Order (which itself, isn't a law, as the Executive Branch can make laws) is saying something it doesn't, and citing someone who clearly doesn't understand the difference in specifically chosen words (as most people don't).

Again, if you re-read my quote, you will see nothing in the order contradicts it. Interpretations from Huffpo contributors several decades after the fact aren't relevant to the text of the Executive Order.
 

gaze

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
2,270
But Huffington Post writers clearly aren't legal experts.

Where, in the Executive Order, is the word "Americans?" It doesn't say that. It says the word "persons." Now you are just claiming the Executive Order (which itself, isn't a law, as the Executive Branch can make laws) is saying something it doesn't, and citing someone who clearly doesn't understand the difference in specifically chosen words (as most people don't).

Again, if you re-read my quote, you will see nothing in the order contradicts it. Interpretations from Huffpo contributors several decades after the fact aren't relevant to the text of the Executive Order.
oh wait yea my bad as I read more about it your're right. it seems they targeted the sellers and large scale gold traders instead of individuals.
 

gaze

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
2,270
however the way it's written seems like they could take gold from normal people if they wanted to, but it would be political suicide if they tried it basically. i still think technically it is appropriate to say gold was "banned"
 
Back
Top Bottom