Bitcoin millionaire lists 3 reasons most will never be rich

[Jubei_Kibagami]

Here's the thing - BTC is and always has been skating on thin ice. Yes, miners are a target. But that would have to be handled on a state by state (state as in country) basis. Mining USED to be decentralized, but as you point out China is the big player. Some suspect nothing is happening in China in of any scale (and mining is an every larger energy sink) so the CCP in some form may already be profiting off of mining operations (for example, payoffs).

Nevertheless, the true issue is what the US decides to do, which so far is mostly apathy - though the tax law keeps getting revised retroactively to have to report gainz from BTC, so lol good luck not reporting profits. However, keeping on the up-and-up with paying your fair share of capital gains is a small price to pay for the appreciation in value the digital currency has.

The biggest liability BTC has (among others, and as with many other altcoins), is where the rubber meets the road for usage (think - buying that pizza with BTC). Tax issues aside, the US govt could issue laws against the usage of BTC as tender since it is being used as a competition to the FRNs. Legally, it has full authority to do so. Dominos, for instance, won't want to go against the govt to accept your BTC as payment.

But that's only domestically (in the US). A huge hit to the value of BTC, but not always a death knell. Although, if swings from mere Musk tweets get 10-15% losses or more than this would be damn near catastrophic.

STILL, one could offshore money from the US like a siphon (some think TPTB are 'allowing' digital currencies to run rampant to take pressure off elsewhere, for instance the PM markets). One could practice smart moves like using dark wallets (only once, never online again from any device), laundering accounts at whatever exchanges are popular and thought to be secure (lol), watching their 'investment' 'gain' in 'value' etc, but what about USING IT? It's only useful when you sell or use it - that's the ONLY time profit is able to be taken from the otherwise completely digital gains on a screen.

So then the BIGGEST threat is then if the US decides to leverage the SWIFT banking system, which it and the BOE pretty much run (in effect - although ownership is considered to be collaborative by CB's and other mega-institutions). We've seen the US do this before to attempt to enforce sanctions (Russia and Iran come to mind).

And SWIFT does comply with sanctions and financial crimes laws. Particularly US-based. As with most things (like NATO) the US runs the show. And almost any banking institution worldwide with few exceptions would not allow for BTC to be transacted - largely by proxy of the businesses that settle their accounts at those banks. No company that banks in the Western world (and mostly beyond, very little actual SWIFT competition) would risk accepting BTC as payment.

BTC value would irreparably fall to 0.

But for some reason the US has been accepting by silence of what is an obvious competition to their ability to issue (control) currency.

Which is why, combined with the fact that transaction history (tied to wallets) is never truly anonymous (and wallets are easily enough tied to individuals - from a Big Brother perspective, or so the thought goes...), many are highly suspicious of what the US govt is thinking in allowing the continued use of cryptos. A honeypot operation (many think the origins of BTC is CIA-based)? A banking system pressure-release valve (from the bubble of all things, or PM or bond markets?)? A way to profit internally until they've made enough to pull the plug?

Other altcoins seek to 'fix' BTC shortcomings (privacy being a large one like Dash and Monero) but face shortcomings of their own (even greater volatility, delisting due to law enforcement pressure, instamining - another sign of a a TYPE of pyramid scheme, etc).

But none of that can bypass SWIFT enforcements.






Then, there's also the increasingly high cost of 'mining' and proving blockchain transactions. It becomes so energy-intensive (toward the end-use/last coins mined) - and some would say we're their already - that to actually transfer or use BTC in a purchase transaction is unsustainable energy-consumption-wise. I've seen nothing, personally, that solves for the increasing need for energy (at an exponential rate greater than our ability to squeeze out more energy production from limited sources) for BTC to realistically be adopted widespread as a alternative way to purchase good and services. (let alone merchants wanting price stability and to stay compliant). BTC proponents largely bury their heads in the sands at the thought of future energy usage to continue to support value appreciation (lol, it's going to 500k!). Many 'investors' of the most recent generation have been spoiled with CB-backed currency inflation-based bull runs in the markets, and speculation-based price increases in cryptos. They can't see past any investment only going up (to tha moon). Musk kind of touched on the energy perspective (only from a so-called 'clean' energy source virtue-signal when he walked back the energy sink problem with BTC) and many an 'investors' head near exploded.

And all this is coming from an early, early adopter. I don't even want to say when I first read the whitepaper, it's embarrassing as I'm not a super-millionaire right now. Though, I've done alright moving in and out at times.

 

[Sanity Check]

Bitcoin hit an all time high of around $1,000 in 2013. Then crashed. Many declared it dead.

Bitcoin hit another all time high around $20,000 in 2017. Then crashed. Many declared it dead.

Bitcoin hit another all time high around $60,000 in 2021. Then crashed. Many are declaring it dead.

Notice a pattern forming?

Those declaring bitcoin's untimely demise can't have been involved with it long. Else they might have noticed bitcoin price moves trend around 4 year boom and bust cycles. Correlated with its algorithmic reward halving, creating deflationary driven demand.

Today there are many myths and legends revolving around cryptocurrencies and even stock market trading. Equities trading has existed for more than a century. Yet it may as well be a black and arcane art in many respects. Given the inability of most traders to explain fundamental and easy to explain market trends involving names like gamestop. Best information regarding crypto and markets is not being widely disseminated.

Moore's law doubling the number of transistors will continue to make crypto mining profitable, as long as the trend continues. It will also decrease the electrical consumption of mining rigs. Crypto mining is overwhelmingly powered by low carbon emission based energy. Wind, solar and hydroelectric power being cheaper per watt than coal or nuclear. Crypto mining in china being fossil fuel based is primarily due to state subsidizing of coal based energy.

Elon Musk said years ago colonists on mars could use bitcoin or another cryptocurrency for financial transactions. He was always pro bitcoin. I get the feeling pressure was put on him to be on SNL and parrot the media's narrative about bitcoin being "bad for the environment". Previous tweets on Elon's social media acknowledged the majority of bitcoin mining being powered by hydroelectric, wind or solar energy. As well as the trend of bitcoin miiners throwing mountains of money at green power contributing to the expansion of low carbon emission based energy around the world.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

Moore's Law is dead though.

And the discussion of what energy source is cheaper, or better for the environment, is a red herring.

It doesn't address that energy is being diverted from typical, actually functional uses to shore up the BTC blockchain.

BTC blockchain proving is wildly energy-inefficient, by design, and continues to be so at a rate that exceeds our ability to produce energy - from any source.




I'm not saying that BTC is dead, but it will be - its use is ultimately unsustainable (if the US govt does not act first). Blockchain tech will continue though. Largely in proprietary currencies 'issued' by CB's around the world, and to message (I think SWIFT will ultimately utilize blockchain tech). But, China for instance wants to standardize it's own digital/crypto currency. That puts it in direct competition with BTC. China, if anything, does not like competition.

Cheaper energy/more efficient processors is an assumption - when in reality we are seeing a bottleneck of both. While that's another conversation entirely (until the next breakthrough), legislation is a looming threat. Don't confuse inactivity with the inability to legislate BTC out of existence, that's naive. Govts in general hate competition.

 

[Sanity Check]

The only requirement to mine bitcoin, is an internet connection. This makes mining ops flexible and mobile. They can go anywhere in the world to target the best climates and cheapest sources of electricity. Surplus energy carries lower demand in markets, leading to lower cost. Taking a path of least resistance, most miners would target surplus sources of electricity which are not in demand thanks to greater affordability. Which would not do much to strain existing power grids.

I don't know if CBDCs (central bank digital currencies) will be in demand. China's CBDC yuan is the one most promoted by international banking cartels. Their blueprint is a currency that comes with an expiration date, so that it can't be used as a savings asset. If CBDC yuan is not spent within a certain timeframe, its value falls to zero. There are many controversial stories in the news involving china, I don't know if anyone trusts them enough to use their CBDC. In addition to its design being inferior to existing cryptocurrencies and even paper fiat. But it is the only option as it will be the only one released with the CBDC rollouts of other countries suspended indefinitely.

The thing most appear to be missing is bitcoin being an algorithmically limited, deflationary, inflation protected asset. While CBDCs and most assets are inflationary with a potential to be overprinted and hyperinflated. Bitcoin will be in demand as inflation and stimulus spending mount. Similarly inflation oriented assets like CBDCs might not.

I don't know if its fair to say moore's law is dead. The timeline and frequency of it has adjusted over time. But the implications could remain. Future chips with greater processing capability coupled with reduced power consumption. Other innovations like the multi megawatt hour grid tied lithium battery Elon Musk built for south australia which claim to cut electrical production costs by millions could also factor in over the long term.

While governments might hate bitcoin. Its claimed that 1.7 billion unbanked around the world use bitcoin to conduct financial transactions. There could be 1.7 billion people in the world who couldn't qualify for a bank account or a credit card who use bitcoin on a regular basis. I don't know if they would have other options if governments cracked down on btc. In that regard governments could be treading lightly.

If governments killed bitcoin, I think they would prefer to do it in a way that didn't make it obvious they were behind it. Rather than have 1.7 billion pissed off people show up on their doorstep.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

The only requirement to mine bitcoin, is an internet connection. This makes mining ops flexible and mobile. They can go anywhere in the world to target the best climates and cheapest sources of electricity. Surplus energy carries lower demand in markets, leading to lower cost. Taking a path of least resistance, most miners would target surplus sources of electricity which are not in demand thanks to greater affordability. Which would not do much to strain existing power grids.

But, we are seeing a centralization, not a decentralization in mining efforts. As the costs (energy and real costs) increase to effectively mine, you basically have to have something akin to a GPU farm right next to a coal plant to see any returns worth mentioning - and that's exactly what we're seeing. Still, wasted energy is wasted energy - to prove the increasingly complex blockchain. To what end? For what worth? Again, other altcoins have solutions to this that are much more efficient, but they aren't nearly adopted nor ready for full-scale implementation, if they ever break into use thresholds anything like BTC or Etherium.

I don't know if CBDCs (central bank digital currencies) will be in demand. China's CBDC yuan is the one most promoted by international banking cartels. Their blueprint is a currency that comes with an expiration date, so that it can't be used as a savings asset. There are many controversial stories in the news involving china, I don't know if anyone trusts them enough to use their CBDC. In addition to its design being inferior to existing cryptocurrencies and even paper fiat. But it is the only option as it will be the only one released with the CBDC rollouts of other countries suspended indefinitely.

China has notoriously sought currency control (running into OUR demand to control currency markets - we're in a currency war if anything with China). Their internal digital yuan will be used for the natives if the CCP deems it so. It's not a demand issue; it's a lack of supply sources. If any country keeps a tight fist on citizen capabilities (to include but not limited to banking activities) that is China. They are also eyeing reserve currency options for foreign states, but that's a long game of course. That expiry date is just another example of their willingness to exert control pressures on their own population. If BTC utilization hinders the rollout, best bet is BTC will be hit with limits internal to China.

The thing most appear to be missing is bitcoin being an algorithmically limited, deflationary, inflation protected asset. While CBDCs and most assets are inflationary with a potential to be overprinted and hyperinflated. Bitcoin will be in demand as inflation and stimulus spending mount. Similarly inflation oriented assets like CBDCs might not.

Meh, BTC is only 'limited' nominally; by total supply. The fact that it is infinitely divisible (as opposed to, say, FRNs) makes it functionally more of a threat to be hyperinflationary (money supply-wise, not CPI-wise, an important distinction). At least CB-issued currencies have centrally-controlled money supplies (something poo-poo'd by BTC fans, but actually has function in cooling market bubbles or heating stagnant markets). There is no check on how much BTC can be divided as value theoretically increases. Fractions of fractions of a BTC just replace the buying power of a BTC proper. It's functionally the same as a never-ending increase in M2. And, an increasingly greater value for BTC doesn't solve the first-issue problem. If I make a days' wage in BTC, as it increases I'm getting paid in greater fractions to approximate the same inherent value of labor. Meanwhile, a host of full BTC's exist and are exchanged, affecting the market even more (let alone value swings). Talk about creating a divide between the rich and the poor! The parable of the laborers in the vineyard (well, in this case an inverse version) was supposed to convey a different message - not be a viable way to compensate employees.

I don't know if its fair to say moore's law is dead. The timeline and frequency of it has adjusted over time. But the implications could remain. Future chips with greater processing capability coupled with reduced power consumption.

Chip shortages aside (and that's not a simple aside really), the tech community is pretty much in unison that we are running into a brick wall of physical limitations with traditional chip-making, of which no economical alternative exists. We'll always have breakthroughs, but the assumption that Moore's Law as being reliable is coming to a real end. Sort of like the limitations with energy storage in batteries. We've squeezed about as much as we can without a true breakthrough, we've plateaued.

Other innovations like the multi megawatt hour grid tied lithium battery Elon Musk built for south australia which claimed to have cut electrical production costs by millions could also factor in over the long term.

Ah, his ego project (one of a billion). That superbattery actually underscores the need to keep and retain energy production to use efficiently - as opposed to the increasing problem with BTC proofs which is inefficient and functionally a dead-end. It's the definition of needlessly pissing away produced energy, and it's set to increase in consumption demands. This doesn't address energy sources either, which have bottlenecked unless we can get some cheap throrium reactors or solve fusion 1nput:0utput (or other issues like long-term containment) (looks like the Chinese are closest... but still so far away).

The fact remains that the energy input needed to keep crypto viable (particularly as it increases in popularity) is increasing at a much greater rate than our ability to make chips that don't overheat or, more importantly, produce energy (yes, even considering the benefits and limitations of 'green' sources). BTC will need energy and computational power exceedingly greater than our ability to improvise an increase in either. Hopium is not an energy source, unfortunately.

Governments might hate bitcoin. Its claimed that 1.7 billion unbanked around the world use bitcoin to conduct financial transactions. There could be 1.7 billion people in the world who couldn't qualify for a bank account or a credit card who use bitcoin on a regular basis. I don't know if they would have other options if governments cracked down on btc. In that regard governments could be treading lightly.

Not every DESERVES credit. Credit limitations are a good thing. When they are relaxed, we have issues like in 2007/2008. And, we're seeing it again. Banks are now offering creditless credit cards (no, I don't mean prepay either). Creditors are running out of places to get a new squeeze. Subprime is back on the table.

Every wonder WHY those that are unbanked are so? I'm not even talking about credit-worthiness, I'm alluding to criminal behavior.

But, I find it a bit funny you imply govt's are treading lightly with crypto legislation - for the little guys' sake. When, in the entirety of history, has that been the case that the govt is largely looking out for the little guy (as opposed to something more nefarious, or at least the innocuous in governing for the majority's sake rather than the lowest common denominator)

 

[Sanity Check]

But, we are seeing a centralization, not a decentralization in mining efforts. As the costs (energy and real costs) increase to effectively mine, you basically have to have something akin to a GPU farm right next to a coal plant to see any returns worth mentioning - and that's exactly what we're seeing. Still, wasted energy is wasted energy - to prove the increasingly complex blockchain. To what end? For what worth? Again, other altcoins have solutions to this that are much more efficient, but they aren't nearly adopted nor ready for full-scale implementation, if they ever break into use thresholds anything like BTC or Etherium.

The united states closed down more than 50 coal power plants since 2016. Building zero new coal or nuclear plants during that time. Meanwhile billions of dollars were being thrown at building new wind and solar power plants due to them being more affordable, healthier and cost effective. Markets and investors know what works in the real world better than media sources pushing political narratives do. Proving coal and nuclear power are endorsed by the media for purely political reasons, rather than economic or financial ones.

If bitcoin mining was profitable in 2013 when the price of 1 bitcoin was around $1,000. How much more profitable might it be in 2021 with 1 bitcoin being worth $60,000. There are a number of fundamental factors driving the profitability and viability of mining. Its premature to be writing eulogies for the industry imo.

There are governments in the world announcing plans to construct more than 700 new coal power plants. Despite them being more expensive and less friendly to the environment than solar, wind or hydroelectric power. States subsidizing expensive coal based energy, for political reasons, is the only reason it is still being heavily utilized. Markets and private investors avoid coal and nuclear energy as worst options.

Bitcoin mining can't be blamed for rolling blackouts in california or texas. Crypto mining doesn't rank in the top 100 threats to the environment or planet. Its not an issue as far as energy generation or consumption go. Every "negative" related to crypto mining is heavily exaggerated imo.

China has notoriously sought currency control (running into OUR demand to control currency markets - we're in a currency war if anything with China). Their internal digital yuan will be used for the natives if the CCP deems it so. It's not a demand issue; it's a lack of supply sources. If any country keeps a tight fist on citizen capabilities (to include but not limited to banking activities) that is China. They are also eyeing reserve currency options for foreign states, but that's a long game of course. That expiry date is just another example of their willingness to exert control pressures on their own population. If BTC utilization hinders the rollout, best bet is BTC will be hit with limits internal to China.

Nations which embrace emerging inventions and technologies generally benefit from the economic growth they provide. The way the united states became wealthy & prosperous through silicon valley. China's repressive stance towards emerging technologies like bitcoin could carry an opposite effect.

China's attempt to merge closed minded, unimaginative, authoritarianism with contradictory ideology relating to capitalism could be flawed on a fundamental level. Capitalism revolves around new imaginative ideas, inventions and innovations. Which will undoubtedly conflict with the closed minded, one dimensional, nature of its ruling state. Yes they can tighten their grip, but it could be to their own detriment.

Meh, BTC is only 'limited' nominally; by total supply. The fact that it is infinitely divisible (as opposed to, say, FRNs) makes it functionally more of a threat to be hyperinflationary (money supply-wise, not CPI-wise, an important distinction). At least CB-issued currencies have centrally-controlled money supplies (something poo-poo'd by BTC fans, but actually has function in cooling market bubbles or heating stagnant markets). There is no check on how much BTC can be divided as value theoretically increases. Fractions of fractions of a BTC just replace the buying power of a BTC proper. It's functionally the same as a never-ending increase in M2. And, an increasingly greater value for BTC doesn't solve the first-issue problem. If I make a days' wage in BTC, as it increases I'm getting paid in greater fractions to approximate the same inherent value of labor. Meanwhile, a host of full BTC's exist and are exchanged, affecting the market even more (let alone value swings). Talk about creating a divide between the rich and the poor! The parable of the laborers in the vineyard (well, in this case an inverse version) was supposed to convey a different message - not be a viable way to compensate employees.

Bitcoin does have 8 places to the right of its decimal point. 1 bitcoin is 1.00000000 btc. A discussion could be had on whether that divides bitcoin, or allows it to scale towards mass adoption. In the year 2012 1 bitcoin was 1.00000000. In the year 2021 a single bitcoin is still 1.00000000. The format doesn't change. People simply use smaller fractions of it, as its value increases?

I like apple co founder Steve Wozniak's argument about bitcoin mining being more consistent than gold mining. New techniques could be devised to mine gold at a faster rate. While the rate of bitcoin will not shift much no matter what technological breakthroughs are made.

Central control is essentially both a monopoly and a dictatorship rolled into one. These monolithic regulatory and leadership structures have failed monumentally numerous times throughout history. Having forgotten the last catastrophic failure, we still endorse them as the best way of doing business. If central control is a monopoly and totalitarianism. Decentralized control is a republic or democracy. I've noticed many who claim monopolies are a great evil on humanity to justify why they hate google or amazon. But can they explain to me what it means if the state or government is a monopoly.

Chip shortages aside (and that's not a simple aside really), the tech community is pretty much in unison that we are running into a brick wall of physical limitations with traditional chip-making, of which no economical alternative exists. We'll always have breakthroughs, but the assumption that Moore's Law as being reliable is coming to a real end. Sort of like the limitations with energy storage in batteries. We've squeezed about as much as we can without a true breakthrough, we've plateaued.

I remember the tech community being thoroughly convinced moore's law was coming to an end 10 years ago. "Electron tunneling can't be contained. It defies the laws of physics." There are always naysayers who claim the flying spaghetti monster told them man will never fly and the sound barrier will never be broken. Then someone goes out and does it.

Have we hit a wall with lithium batteries? Tesla's new "revolutionary" battery technology is due out in 2022. Its like the people who make these bold predictions pay zero attention to upcoming developments.

Ah, his ego project (one of a billion). That superbattery actually underscores the need to keep and retain energy production to use efficiently - as opposed to the increasing problem with BTC proofs which is inefficient and functionally a dead-end. It's the definition of needlessly pissing away produced energy, and it's set to increase in consumption demands. This doesn't address energy sources either, which have bottlenecked unless we can get some cheap throrium reactors or solve fusion 1nput:0utput (or other issues like long-term containment) (looks like the Chinese are closest... but still so far away).

The fact remains that the energy input needed to keep crypto viable (particularly as it increases in popularity) is increasing at a much greater rate than our ability to make chips that don't overheat or, more importantly, produce energy (yes, even considering the benefits and limitations of 'green' sources). BTC will need energy and computational power exceedingly greater than our ability to improvise an increase in either. Hopium is not an energy source, unfortunately.

Crypto mining outfits are located in industrial areas. They're not tied to residential power grids. They're isolated from increasing demand in a way which affects consumers or households.

There is an exception to that in regions with "free electricity". Venezuelans (I think) in the caracas area had free electricity due to the hydroelectric dam. Which they used to mine bitcoin and insulate themselves from their hyperinflating bolivar. Other areas around the world with free electricity also mine bitcoin. But those are more hobbyist or small scale ops.

Not every DESERVES credit. Credit limitations are a good thing. When they are relaxed, we have issues like in 2007/2008. And, we're seeing it again. Banks are now offering creditless credit cards (no, I don't mean prepay either). Creditors are running out of places to get a new squeeze. Subprime is back on the table.

Every wonder WHY those that are unbanked are so? I'm not even talking about credit-worthiness, I'm alluding to criminal behavior.

But, I find it a bit funny you imply govt's are treading lightly with crypto legislation - for the little guys' sake. When, in the entirety of history, has that been the case that the govt is largely looking out for the little guy (as opposed to something more nefarious, or at least the innocuous in governing for the majority's sake rather than the lowest common denominator)

2007/2008 crisis was more repeal of glass steagall and investment bank derivatives markets than consumer credit. Subprime CDOs were 15% or less of the outstanding debt under TARP if I remember correctly.

Agree on the state not being concerned with low income demographics. But they do usually try to make someone/something else take the blame & not be too obvious about it.

 

[M3J]

I'm sure cartels and other illegal traders largely benefit from bitcoin, and China is known to be vastly using bitcoin to hide their money, which otherwise would be put into the economy in some form or the other.... that and the fact that the mining is consuming so much electricity and causing an impact in the carbon emissions all around the world for something that itself has no inherent value

How would cartels and illegal traders benefit from Bitcoin?

 

[kkck]

How would cartels and illegal traders benefit from Bitcoin?

The concern is the anonymity behind bitcoin along with the ability to move large amounts of money without any oversight can help people involved in shady businesses. You can also throw in there people who look at bitcoin as a way to hide their wealth or avoid taxes.

 

[Sanity Check]

The concern is the anonymity behind bitcoin along with the ability to move large amounts of money without any oversight can help people involved in shady businesses. You can also throw in there people who look at bitcoin as a way to hide their wealth or avoid taxes.

....

Former Secret Service Agent Sentenced for Stealing Bitcoin

Shaun W. Bridges, a former U.S. Secret Service agent, was sentenced to nearly six years in prison and agreed to pay $1.1 million for stealing thousands of bitcoin during an investigation into the now-shuttered website Silk Road.

www.wsj.com

Interesting & relevant case from 2015.

A federal agent thought he could pocket confiscated bitcoin without being caught.

Due to bitcoin being an "anonymous" transaction that couldn't be traced.

 

[kkck]

....

Former Secret Service Agent Sentenced for Stealing Bitcoin

Shaun W. Bridges, a former U.S. Secret Service agent, was sentenced to nearly six years in prison and agreed to pay $1.1 million for stealing thousands of bitcoin during an investigation into the now-shuttered website Silk Road.

www.wsj.com

Interesting & relevant case from 2015.

A federal agent thought he could pocket confiscated bitcoin without being caught.

Due to bitcoin being an "anonymous" transaction that couldn't be traced.

As far as I understand currently bitcoin anonymity basically depends on competency. Transaction information is stored in the blockchain and the option a potential investigator has is to find evidence elsewhere that ties a bitcoin user to real money, accounts, transactions, IP.. in contrasts to transactions used via actual financial institutions which inherently have all your information. Suddenly having funds set up with just shy of a million bucks is usually a red flag... You'd think a guy who was investigating a website that specifically dealt in bitcoin to trade illegal things would know better.

 

[M3J]

The concern is the anonymity behind bitcoin along with the ability to move large amounts of money without any oversight can help people involved in shady businesses. You can also throw in there people who look at bitcoin as a way to hide their wealth or avoid taxes.

hmm, didn't know it was that easy, given I thought you needed real info to even buy stocks

 

[kkck]

hmm, didn't know it was that easy, given I thought you needed real info to even buy stocks

It's not THAT easy (as I said in my previous post) but it is viable. Stocks are an entirely different thing. To buy stocks you need a bank account and broker linked to it. So everything you do is neatly registered with your name and all relevant information. For bitcoin I am not 100% sure of the exact structure but you basically have a pseudonym which gets registered in the blockchain and... that's it. Which authorities would have to find evidence to link to a specific person.

 

[M3J]

It's not THAT easy (as I said in my previous post) but it is viable. Stocks are an entirely different thing. To buy stocks you need a bank account and broker linked to it. So everything you do is neatly registered with your name and all relevant information. For bitcoin I am not 100% sure of the exact structure but you basically have a pseudonym which gets registered in the blockchain and... that's it. Which authorities would have to find evidence to link to a specific person.

Oh. I think my PoV is too narrow as I bought bitcoins via Robinhood and thought you could only get it through a stock exchange app or crypto app

 

[kkck]

Oh. I think my PoV is too narrow as I bought bitcoins via Robinhood and thought you could only get it through a stock exchange app or crypto app

Welp, there are some brokers that can trade bitcoin. Though in those cases your transactions are also neatly recorded. Someone doing this of course probably wouldn't be too concerned about the IRS locking onto him (bitcoin wise). going forward odds are that there will be more options to get and sell them. That said, you don't specifically need a broker to trade bitcoin, there are other alternatives.