I do not understand why the owners of the communications infrastructure will provide access to it to cryptocurrencies in order to facilitate their defeat in a contest to control money. It is obvious that censorship is trivially available to them. Absent communications infrastructure owned and in the possession of cryptocurrencies themselves, all cryptocurrencies are dependent on commercial availability of communications infrastructure owned by corporations that are effecting the global economic reset. I am unaware of any reason they would have to allow cryptocurrencies to be transacted on their infrastructure.
Can you suggest some I may be unaware of?
Thanks!
So within the context of a crypto city-state built from the ground up: you can't use the Internet without getting permission from Comcast? And in this Scenario, said city-state has also been cutoff by Starlink or other satellite options? And in the face of this adversity the entire community just rolls over and dies like a little bitch with zero resistance? Yeah sorry I'm not going to do thought experiments on events that will never happen; ones that completely ignore the chaos theory associated with such events and the political ramifications and all the little details that go with it.
Crypto is profitable.
It will be allowed because people are greedy and they are making money off of it.
Those who aren't making money off of it will fight, and they will lose.
The Luddites are never going to win. Ever.
Even if it was only allowed to exist within a single country that would be enough to tilt the scales and open the floodgates.
The fact that there will be a fight and it will be a struggle is irrelevant.
You give this movement zero credit in terms of its ability to react to a changing environment.
And yet it will probably evolve faster than anything we've ever seen.
Correct. Whoever provides your access to the internet sells it to you. It is public knowledge that the USG is conspiring with major social media corporations to censor speech. When CBDCs are issued and we are required by law to use them, as will happen, it is a simple matter to censor any communications on the internet that enable cryptocurrency transactions. The Restrict act provides for 20 years in prison for using a VPN to access sites deemed threats to national security, or some such blather.
If they want us using CBDCs, they're not going to provide the means to use other money.
Would you?
There are dozens of reasons why what you say is going to happen can't happen.
I count about a dozen of them in this video alone.
None of that matters. They're issuing CBDCs and gaining that control of our economic assets. Cryptocurrencies won't be allowed to enable people to escape CBDCs. @taskmaster4450 points out they have been working to achieve this for decades. They didn't stop working on this when BTC was created, and they're still working on it today. BTC is not a problem for them because they can just turn it off by censoring encrypted communications, or unencrypted BTC transactions. The Restrict Act makes it a crime with a sentence of 20 years to access sites that threaten national security using a VPN. When CBDCs are issued, cryptocurrencies will be threats to national security.
Without it's own network, BTC is just digital data that can be censored. You point out rich people are greedy and BTC is profitable, so they won't ban it. Well, gold was profitable back in the 1930s, and they banned it. CBDCs are more profitable to multi-billionaires, because unlike BTC or dollars, CBDCs can keep people off their beaches, and out of their parks. They can keep people from traveling, from buying good food, or investing. Billionaires don't want to share those things and if they let cash or cryptocurrencies persist, they have to keep sharing with plebs. That makes CBDCs a lot more valuable to them than BTC or dollars, and they're the people that run the world.
That's the bottom line.
CBDC is not real.
The restrict act applies to one country and is also not real yet.
What point will you argue next?
That people aren't going to do drugs because it's illegal and they could go to prison for twenty years?
This entire line of thinking is dead on arrival.
CBDCs are also dead on arrival.
Nobody wants them except for the dozen people that control it.
It is untested tech with zero consensus across the board.
Retail bankers don't want it.
Corporations don't want it.
Other countries will not accept it.
It's a hot pile of garbage with zero extra utility compared to what we have.
The infrastructure does not exist and no one has a reason to allow it to flourish.
In the magic fairytale scenario where I'm wrong on all counts it will be implemented a decade from now.
So why are we speculating about it now.
This is not a now problem.
So many worse things need to happen first to pave the way.
You are under the impression that demand for an asset can be eliminated with threats and violence. When has this ever been the case? Did the war on drugs make drugs more valuable or less? The demand for crypto can not go down from here. All that can be reduced is the supply via the outlets it flows though.
But again you just reiterate that supply will be reduced by 100% with draconian internet controls. I do not live in this alternate reality where the war on drugs and the war against pirating IP had a 100% success rate. And even if I did: who gives a fuck? Such information is completely useless. Playing chess against a grandmaster with the realization that you have a 100% chance of losing the game is not helpful in any way. The end result can not change, only how we get there.