Oddbean

I don’t think Bitcoin needs a politician. I think politicians need Bitcoin. 2/3 candidates are pro-bitcoin and they teamed up together. Why vote for the party that is actively hostile towards Bitcoin?

both parties are the censorship party. the real change is locally. advocate for bitcoiners to run in local elections, you have a lot of power as a citizen in america if you take advantage of the local government. bitcoin can succeed if we start locally, city by city, state by state. presidents, republican politicians, and democrat politicians are not going to do anything for bitcoin, no matter what they say to grift for your vote. the grifting obviously seemed to work for trump. we all know he doesn’t give a. damn about bitcoin.

He’s tapping Elon Musk for help with government efficiency/reduction. Elon reduced the Twitter staff by 80%. I doubt they come anywhere near this number though.. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve- He won’t sell the 200k the government currently holds and possibly will buy more. Firing Gary Gensler Banning CBDCs Wants Energy Dominance (nuclear) Creating a Bitcoin advisory council Freeing Ross Ulbricht

I just feel as though you're being too gullible when it comes to believing everything Trump has promised. Maybe not the energy dominance part but... pretty much all else seems like a slick way to increase his approval rating.

It’s not gullible. I don’t know if he’ll do all of this but at least there is a chance some of this is happening. Harris has been nothing but hostile towards Bitcoin. It seems like an easy vote for me.

Finally someone seems to be thinking the same way. I'm still new to nostr so maybe I'm just not following the right-minded people but I've been saying this for years. The decentralized component of the Bitcoin network has immense potential, which could play a huge role in the adoption of Bitcoin as a payment system throughout more local economies. Doing so could, theoretically, lead to a continuous reduction for the need of federal assistance. If this does occur, then the state loses almost all relevance.

I’ll bite. Can you expand knowing how it is currently interwoven with kyc on/offramps, IRS taxation requirements, etc. I’m not sure this can be decoupled. I could see it in other counties but not here in the US.

This is great and all, but they already have. Operation Checkpoint, veto of SAB121, what they put forth in FIT21, IRS taxing it as property, mining/energy, so on and so forth. If you think that we can now form a parallel economy with Bitcoin now while it has now penetrated tradfi via ETFs, that is some pie in the fucking sky thinking. They aren’t just going to turn their heads and look the other way. That said, you are 100% right on Trump at the same time. However, I do think someone like Cynthia Lummis does get it and cares.

I agree Trump isn’t a bitcoiner yet. He still talks “crypto” a ton. I hope Lummis, RFK Jr, and others help him through the orange pill journey. Lummis’s bill proposal to acquire a million bitcoin would be game changing 🔥

This stance makes sense and I understand the reasoning behind it given how broken the political systems in our world are, however he is an alternative perspective to consider; while it’s likely that voting on its own generally doesn’t change much, policy is set at the federal level for the most part especially economic policy. This will have an effect no matter how good policies at the local level are. Granted both parties will ultimately defer to the Fed in some way and print more and more, but ultimately It comes down to whether you want a gvt that will accelerate or slow walk the inevitable the inevitable economic collapse. In 2021 we saw the Fed gvt push vaccine mandates and many people either lost their jobs for not complying or got injured after taking them. Of course there were some who are fine after taking the shots, but the point is that was a policy that was determined federally & perhaps it didn’t affect you individually but it’s something to think about. While No politico is able to stop bitcoin or to influence its direction, there is a huge difference between policies that are hostile to the industry and policies that are more neutral to favourable. It doesn’t matter Whether or not a politico supports or understands bitcoin, the ultimate test is their hostility or lack thereof towards it. It’s plainly obvious that the industry would be better off with Elizabeth Warren and her crypto army defanged and having zero influence over the sec on this issue. This is something that can’t be determined locally unfortunately. Just my two sats

Exactly. Bitcoin wins either way. It’s simply the path of least resistance. https://media2.giphy.com/media/kwCLw42hH2cxvIywIi/giphy.gif?cid=9b38fe91j0ix2vcxfabfoo89a7xqpgrp2hjcjexov9oi9794&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g

True, but democracy in the U.S. died centuries ago, imo. Power-hungry politicians have, over time, consolidated too much power in the U.S. Senate since its formation. As this slow-forming transition has progressed, our votes have continued to lose the value that democracy demands they have. Now, it just seems like whichever candidate receives the most from lobbyists becomes president. 🤷‍♂️ Life goes on.