zlacker

>>mikeyo+(OP)
Shouldn't all true crypto believers hate this news?

It's the government trying to enforce their opinion of who should own those Bitcoins, thereby taking power away from the owner that the network has decided on, which would be "whoever has the cryptographic keys".

>>fxtent+35
no. this is quite bullish for bitcoin. they're showing that bitcoin can't be used for criminal activity, whatever the government decides that should be (usually in favor of the general public). this helps to legitimize bitcoin. Protecting consumers of bitcoin is bullish for bitcoin. helping to prevent fraud in bitcoin is also bullish for bitcoin. All these things increase confidence in bitcoin as a legitimate way of storing wealth.

>>throw8+KC
It sounds like all the good things for bitcoin here are coming from the power of the central authority to provide confidence, legitimacy, protection, and legal recourse.

So why on earth is that a good thing for an asset which is all about the power of decentralized systems?

>>boc+6L
That feels like it's an easy answer:

Human society, for a number of years now, has been governed by central authorities that define the rules in which society has to live. Bitcoin cannot and does not take part in dictating how society is to function, Bitcoin is put forward as an alternative currency that cannot be quantitavely eased / printed and gifted to society's largest entities as reward for criminal behaviours that endangered the very society that the central authorities are meant to be acting in protection of.

Central authority is a basic requirement of society. Bitcoin is an alternative currency. Recognition by the central authority of society is a legitimisation of Bitcoin in its position as an alternative currency.

I don't (sort of I do actually) understand Bitcoin being seen as a replacement for all centralisation / government. Bitcoin has never attempted to make legislation. Currency only (and that's shrunk to 'store of value').

DAO's on the other hand... maybe.