The gold ban was more nuanced and therefore not really a parallel to bitcoin.
First, the government forced people to sell gold to government and forbade hoarding it.
Bitcoin market cap today is $1 trillion. It would cost US government a pretty penny to re-purchase BTC owned by US citizens. That's today. Within a year market cap could be $2 trillion.
What if they just ban it without purchasing current Bitcoin? Even a two bit lawyer would immediately sue such law as unconstitutional. To me it's clearly "unreasonable seizure" under "unreasonable search and seizure" clause.
You think taking guns away is hard? Try taking hundrends of billions of dollars from tens of thousands of Americans.
Second, apparently the reason they did is: FED wanted to print money but they had a stupid rule of pegging us dollar to gold so to print more money they needed more gold.
This doesn't apply to Bitcoin (and I'm guessing the rule is long gone).
So in my opinion outright banning of Bitcon by U.S. Government would be unconstitutional and buying it out is already too expensive to be politically viable. Imagine a bill that would set hundreds of billions of dollars on fire.
The US government could make transacting with, or trading in, Bitcoin anywhere in the world illegal for US citizens and then offer $75,000/coin domestic redemption exclusively for those citizens. Offering a premium like this is exactly what the US did with Gold in 1934.
To prevent inflows from outside of its borders it could simply require that anyone redeeming prove that they are 1) a US citizen, 2) purchased the coins prior to a certain date and 3) did so with their own capital/earnings.
Sure the Fed would have to print a lot of dollars, but the Gov could then sell any coins it reaped in foreign markets, crashing the price overseas and only losing the premium they paid. The crashing price would drive further domestic redemption.
The market cap may be $1T but the trading volumes are tiny ($80bn/day peak), so the US could easily take it down with a concerted effort, particularly if other major nations (like the EU) were also in the game.
You're naive if you think the US and the EU simultaneously banning Bitcoin (and other decentralized cryptocurrency) wouldn't render it an interesting historical footnote. It's a speculative asset that doesn't have enough real world utility for anyone to go to war over.
>Bitcoin market cap today is $1 trillion. It would cost US government a pretty penny to re-purchase BTC owned by US citizens. That's today. Within a year market cap could be $2 trillion.
I don't see how you'd argue that the government has to pay the imaginary value that bitcoin fans ascribe to their currency. If the government removes or adds laws, it can create or destroy business models and tank stock and commodity prices. As of right now, BTC are just securetized CO2-waste. If the price drops after the US bans it for environmental damage, well it's the market. You are free to transact BTC in the rest of the world after all.
First, the government forced people to sell gold to government and forbade hoarding it.
Bitcoin market cap today is $1 trillion. It would cost US government a pretty penny to re-purchase BTC owned by US citizens. That's today. Within a year market cap could be $2 trillion.
What if they just ban it without purchasing current Bitcoin? Even a two bit lawyer would immediately sue such law as unconstitutional. To me it's clearly "unreasonable seizure" under "unreasonable search and seizure" clause.
You think taking guns away is hard? Try taking hundrends of billions of dollars from tens of thousands of Americans.
Second, apparently the reason they did is: FED wanted to print money but they had a stupid rule of pegging us dollar to gold so to print more money they needed more gold.
This doesn't apply to Bitcoin (and I'm guessing the rule is long gone).
So in my opinion outright banning of Bitcon by U.S. Government would be unconstitutional and buying it out is already too expensive to be politically viable. Imagine a bill that would set hundreds of billions of dollars on fire.