Role of Crypto/Cybercurrencies in the PTB's loss of control?

Developers are easier to control, while the miners around the world are not - or at least not a sufficient number of them.

True. My video above talks about how Developers are compromised.

Now Banksters are working to consolidate the Mining into their control.

They do this with publicity campaigns characterizing Mining as bad for the environment, and in need of more government regulation.

Regulatory Capture is how Banksters control most industries. They make the regulations so burdensome it drives out small competitors who cannot afford the huge fleets of Lawyers necessary to maintain legal compliance. That expense for a mega-corporation is inconsequential. Monopoly is soon achieved.

All the Bitcoin Mining is currently being bought up by Wall Street-owned corporations. In Texas where I live, it's Riot, Inc.

 
You are exiting bitcoin, so that answers your questions about currency and store of value.
I apologize. I misspoke because I can type a lot faster than I can think due to many years in I.T. but now entering my dotage.

When I said "I'm exiting out of Bitcoin, but the calculation of when, and at what speed to get out is super-difficult."

I meant to say "I will exit...".

Now you can help both of us achieve harmonic balance by acknowledging all the things you asserted above that were in error. 🙂
 
Last edited:
You should research sanctions on bitcoin.
According to this article (March 2024) Bitcoin is only banned in approximately 20 countries, mostly Muslim and Middle-Eastern ones, with the notable exception of China. However, China has been investigating regulated crypto via the Hong Kong 'special financial zone' for some time, and there are now several licensed crypto exchanges based there.

Saying that Bitcoin is "sanctioned" is hyperbolic at best; in the case of El Salvador we have an example of a country that is actively championing Bitcoin as an alternative currency. One would presume that a President capable of cleaning up a country with El Salvador's recent history would be careful about making such significant economic changes.

On the subject of attempts to control Bitcoin however, the US still appears to have a majority share of global Bitcoin hashpower:

But for how long?
 
According to this article (March 2024) Bitcoin is only banned in approximately 20 countries, mostly Muslim and Middle-Eastern ones, with the notable exception of China. However, China has been investigating regulated crypto via the Hong Kong 'special financial zone' for some time, and there are now several licensed crypto exchanges based there.

Saying that Bitcoin is "sanctioned" is hyperbolic at best; in the case of El Salvador we have an example of a country that is actively championing Bitcoin as an alternative currency. One would presume that a President capable of cleaning up a country with El Salvador's recent history would be careful about making such significant economic changes.
Office of Foreign Assets Control
1 example https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0126

Remember Tether is a big part of this scam. Tether is created from nowhere and nothing, and then Tether is used to buy billions of bitcoin and other cryptos. You know Tether is a scam, so think about the vulnerability of all cryptos when Tether is used to buy them up.
 
Are you sure that’s the right link? The word “Bitcoin” is not even on that page. Also, sanctions are placed on countries, organisations or individuals, not assets themselves.

You know Tether is a scam, so think about the vulnerability of all cryptos when Tether is used to buy them up.
I don’t follow your line of thinking at all here. That’s like saying a real estate mogul is sanctioning real estate because he’s capable of building enough houses to devalue the price of mine.
 
Are you sure that’s the right link? The word “Bitcoin” is not even on that page. Also, sanctions are placed on countries, organisations or individuals, not assets themselves.
Get ready for a surprise. OFAC goes after crypto wallets. No wallet is safe.
As part of today’s listing of SES on OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List), OFAC is also identifying digital currency addresses used by SES
In a follow up release, the Treasury published a list of the individuals and entities added to its SDN list, which included 28 digital currency addresses, some of which have transacted significant amounts of bitcoin.

I don’t follow your line of thinking at all here. That’s like saying a real estate mogul is sanctioning real estate because he’s capable of building enough houses to devalue the price of mine.
The mention of Tether is unrelated to the sanctions. It is a reminder that there is no scarcity in crypto when Tether is unlimited and can buy any amount of any crypto, and therefore also sell any amount of any crypto when they want to crash it.
 
On the topic of Satoshi Nakamoto, the enigmatic persona behind the original Bitcoin concept, I find your question very (too ?) specific. Perhaps instead of focusing on a name it would be better to ask about whether it was a person or a group of people. And if they were connected to a human governmental or a 4D operation for instance.
Agree 100% here. Also, agree that the digital sphere is risky because it seems like it would be so easy to wipe out, lock up or even in a loss of power situation like a warrington even or even something more nefarious. That said, the design of the blockchain with its interlinking network seems to have some STO characteristics.
 
OFAC goes after crypto wallets. No wallet is safe.
Neither is any bank account. In fact, OFAC cannot access any of the blacklisted crypto wallets - all they can do is force centralized exchanges in the US and maybe elsewhere to no longer do business with those wallet addresses.

And considering that there are ways to anonymize your Bitcoin holdings ("mixers" or going into Monero and back), even this blacklisting is not as effective as you think.

It is a reminder that there is no scarcity in crypto when Tether is unlimited and can buy any amount of any crypto, and therefore also sell any amount of any crypto when they want to crash it.
Tether is a centrally controlled "stablecoin", not a decentralized cryptocurrency. The scarcity of there being no more than 21 million Bitcoin has nothing to do with what can be done to manipulate its price.

Tether is used for price manipulation, but is not even necessary since any amount of money can be converted into crypto, either on exchanges or in private "over the counter" (OTC) transactions.
 
Get ready for a surprise. OFAC goes after crypto wallets. No wallet is safe.
No surprise there, they've been doing that for ages. Anything with any value is subject to sanctions, because they're not about going after a specific asset class, but the target's wealth in general. It's no different to the giant yachts owned by Russian billionaires that were illegally seized in response to the Ukraine SMO. You said:

You should research sanctions on bitcoin.
There are no "sanctions on Bitcoin". What you said smacks of US exceptionalism: "The US is seizing the Bitcoin of sanctioned targets, so therefore Bitcoin in general is being sanctioned", as if the US had jurisdiction all over the world. Well, they may believe that, but current events are teaching them otherwise.
 
Yesterday Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) officially introduced the BITCOIN Act of 2024 in the Senate to establish a "Strategic Bitcoin Reserve".

I want know what kind of skull-duggery they are planning with this "forks of Bitcoin and airdrops" language.

Forked Bitcoin is not Bitcoin, and Bitcoin doesn't get "air-dropped". This is weird and suspicious. 🤔



btc reserve.png
 
Bitcoin as a strategic reserve, and Trump's recent speech, is discussed by Whitney Webb in her piece on the Bitcoin-Dollar.


Thus, any policy that unites bitcoin and the dollar – whether under Trump or another future president – would most likely be aimed at enabling the same monetary policy that currently threatens the dollar. The most likely outcome under Trump, as outlets like CNBC have speculated, would be making bitcoin a reserve asset and, as a consequence, a sink for the inflation caused by the government’s perpetual expansion of the money supply. Ironically, bitcoin would then become the enabler of the very problem it had long been heralded as solving.

Not only that, but bitcoin would then become the anchor that would allow the U.S. government to weaponize the dollar against economies where local currencies fail to withstand the pressures of an increasingly unstable economy, effectively supplanting the local currency with digital dollars. This phenomenon, already under way in countries like Argentina, brings with it significant opportunities for the U.S. government to financially surveil the “billions and billions of people” to be brought onto dollar stablecoin platforms, some of which have already onboarded the FBI and Secret Service and frozen wallets at their request.

Considering that “private” stablecoin platforms are already so intertwined with a government known to warrantlessly surveil civilians both domestically and abroad, the surveillance concerns are analogous to the surveillance concerns around central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). In addition, with stablecoins being just as programmable as CBDCs, the differences between stablecoins and a CBDC would revolve largely around whether the private or public sector is issuing them, as both would retain the same functionality in terms of surveillance and programmability that have led many to view such currencies as threats to freedom and privacy. Thus, Trump’s rejection of CBDCs but embrace of dollar stablecoins on Saturday shows a rejection of direct digital currency issuance by the Federal Reserve, not a rejection of surveillable, programmable money.

So the question remains, why wouldn’t the U.S. government just make a retail-facing CBDC? For starters, there are likely more limitations for a public sector entity on who and what they can restrict on their platforms. However, the main reason is mostly an economic one: they need to sell their debt to someone else to perpetuate the U.S. Treasury system.

There's more detail in her piece about how the Bitcoin-Dollar will be built:
The idea of The Bitcoin-Dollar is a parallel to the petro-dollar system, which was upheld from the gold window closing via the Nixon shock in 1971 until only somewhat recently. By creating a de facto monopoly on the in’s and out’s of oil to U.S. dollars, the U.S. was essentially able to re-peg their inflating dollar to an ever-demanded energy commodity, and create a mass buyer of dollars. Every country that wanted to industrialize needed oil to do so, and thus every country that wanted to compete on the world stage first needed to buy some dollars.

Bitcoin, too, is an energy commodity, and the U.S. dollar system has once again established a de facto monopoly on the volume of bitcoin sales across the globe, not to mention that the country also holds more bitcoin on its balance sheet than any other nation in the world. The U.S. could easily print $35 trillion dollars in freshly issued Treasuries and pay off its debt, especially now that it has found a buyer with an insatiable demand in the aforementioned stablecoin issuers, but the inflationary effects would be catastrophic on the purchasing power of the dollar and, thus, the net purchasing power of the U.S. economy.

This is where Bitcoin comes in. Bitcoin is the only commodity to break the pressures of increasing demand on inflating supply. For example, if gold doubles in price, gold miners can send double the miners down the shaft and inflate the supply twice as fast, thus decreasing demand and thus eventually decreasing the price.

Yet, no matter how many people are mining bitcoin, no matter how high the hash rate increases this month, the supply issuance remains at, as of April 2024, 3.125 bitcoin per block. This capped eventual supply of 21 million –– set via a disinflationary rate of token issuance hardcoded in the protocol within Bitcoin’s monetary policy at network launch –– allows the U.S. to massively inflate the dollar into this demand inelastic energy commodity without, for example, making nationstate-holders of gold wealthy or oil-rich nations even richer.

As the price of bitcoin goes up worldwide, the large reserves held within the borders of the U.S. will increase the relative wealth of the country.

"How can we continue to keep up demand for the dollar while still pumping the money supply to pay off our compounding debts?…By creating an infrastructural on-ramp to Satoshi’s protocol that is denominated in dollars, in effect, we have recreated the same, ever-present demand for an inflating supply of dollars demonstrated in the petrodollar system. By expanding the Tether market cap to [$115 billion] during the first dozen-or-so years of Bitcoin’s life, when [94%] of total supply was issued, the U.S. market made sure the value being imbued into the now-disinflationary protocol would forever be symbiotically related to the dollar system…

Tether isn’t simply “tethering” the dollar to bitcoin, but permanently linking the new global, permissionless energy market to the United States’ monetary policy. We have recreated the petrodollar mechanisms that allow a retention of net purchasing power for the U.S. economy despite monetary base expansion."

She also gives examples of Tether freezing assets - including a recently announced plan to freeze assets tied to Venezuelan oil, ostensibly because Maduro is a dictator and doesn't want to open up the veins of his country for the vampire oligarchs.

The Bitcoin-dollar has everything to do with not just the Pentagon and foreign policy blob, but also BlackRock and the Federal reserve, according to Webb. BlackRock was the recipient of a blank check of taxpayer dollars during the plandemic, which the folks at the Solari Report called 'the Going Direct Reset'.

Under the Trump administration, BlackRock took the levers of capital creation to enrich their shareholders during a crisis, all done under the guise of a necessary solution to a viral emergency. However, BlackRock had designed this very “crisis response” plan well before Covid-19 and, critically, the Fed had begun implementing it well before Covid-19 was even declared a pandemic. The end result was a historical wealth transfer from regular Americans to a handful of billionaires. This wealth transfer, which was heavily premeditated and provably used the Covid-19 crisis as cover, should be treated as unprecedented theft from the American taxpayer; yet few Americans know that it even happened.

And BlackRock is the largest Bitcoin fund in the world with its IBIT ETF. This was established using the funds made available during the plandemic.
The government lockdowns in 2020 crushed economic demand while the Fed, Treasury, and their private partners like BlackRock used emergency resolutions to create trillions of dollars to purchase assets for pennies on the dollar. Now that economic activity has been allowed to resume, the same actors plan to hyperinflate the dollar into those assets acquired during Covid, likely enabling yet another massive wealth transfer once the “next downturn” makes itself known.

With Saturday´s speech, it seems our likely next president intends to formerly ring in a new financial system upon his commencement by delivering on his now-articulated promise to make America and the dollar “great again” with Bitcoin and private sector stablecoins.

Bitcoin is undoubtedly a financial revolution, it just may not be the one you signed up for.

So that looks like the US' monetary gambit for the 4th Industrial Revolution, a shift from the petrodollar to the Bitcoin-dollar. Tom Luongo made a good point about all this a little while ago - we won't see the collapse of the US dollar due to the rise of BRICS+ and its digital currency (mBridge). Instead, there will be a new competition for the dollar.

It's pretty much above my pay grade to really understand it all, but I think it'll be fascinating to watch as the Bitcoin-Dollar is pitted against 'mBridge'.
 
Back
Top Bottom