Strong statement but if you have a valid argument then I can be convinced.
> Cryptocurrencies are scam and outright bubble that will bring down the world economy.
And that's not an argument, that is purely speculation as well.
> There is no currency without an authority to guarantee its value.
There is now, they're called cryptocurrencies.
> Cryptos are pure bubble.
2 things:
1. What's the difference between a pure and impure bubble?
2. Why is it a bubble?
> If there is any good in this thing, it's ease of transaction, which is a question of underlying technology - it has nothing to do with lack of authority or decentralized scheme that cryptocurrencies tout as so important (and fail to deliver).
? This doesn't seem to mean anything. Please explain?
Does your portfolio account for nuclear war?
You're being tolerated because most of the people here seem very nice and they allow that sort of thing, but I felt spouting insanity like you do over and over, well, that sort of thing should be called out. Apologies to the offended.
Bitcoin has many problems. That it's somehow bad because "you can buy for just a dollar" is not even close.
The argument could be made to say that statement isn't even realistic. Why would someone pay $1 for Bitcoin and then $10-20 in transaction fees? Pragmatically, this would be an immediate, minimum 80% loss of value. One would think that to be enough of a disincentive to "buy for just a dollar", no?
Serious question: how would you go about “banning” cryotocurrencies? The most you can do is close exchanges which would make crypto harder to acquire and liquidate.
Basically, declare cryptocurrencies to be similar to hard drugs or something and follow the same playbook. Obviously the real hardcore crypto lovers will still keep using it, and it will also not deter criminals who were outside of the 'regular' system anyway. But if you have a functioning law enforcement system like most western countries, you could certainly keep cryptocurrencies from playing any large role in your economy.
Many people seem to want drugs. Banning them often increases the price, due to the supply going down or being more costly to obtain versus a constant demand. To follow the same playbook, there seems to be a non-zero chance that Bitcoin would become rarer, and therefore more valuable, and therefore more attractive than fiat, increasing demand even more. I think it's a crap-shoot what role cryptocurrencies would play after a large-scale ban.
But, yeah, _if_ I wanted to do that, and I was a government, that would probably be the way I'd do it.