We are at 30% death risk for #Bitcoin so says #o1

To properly analyze the likelihood of Bitcoin being stopped in a democratic society, we need to consider both the historical opportunities when governments could have intervened and the influence that current and future Bitcoin stakeholders (individuals, institutions, companies) have. As Bitcoin grows and gains further integration into the global economy, the probability of effectively halting or severely curtailing it continues to diminish.

Probability Distribution Overview

The probability distribution will cover different time periods from Bitcoin’s launch to the future. Each period reflects the evolving nature of Bitcoin’s adoption, regulation, and societal influence, estimating how likely it was or is that Bitcoin could be significantly restricted or stopped. The key events and trends during each period will inform these probabilities.

X-Axis (Time Points):

1.2009-2013: Bitcoin’s Early and Vulnerable Stage
2.2014-2020: Mainstream Adoption and Initial Regulatory Responses
3.2021-2025: Institutional Integration and Regulatory Framework Development
4.2026-2030: Competition with CBDCs and Environmental Regulations
5.2031 and Beyond: Long-Term Technological and Social Risks

Probability Distribution Chart Overview

Time PeriodEvent TypeProbability (%)
2009-2013Full Ban or Heavy Regulation70%
2014-2020Moderate Regulation & Taxation50%
2021-2025Regulatory Pressure, CBDCs, Environmental Push30%
2026-2030Further Regulation and Quantum Computing Threat20%
2031 and BeyondTechnological Disruption (Quantum Computing)10%

Breakdown of Each Time Period and Probability Estimate

1. 2009-2013: Bitcoin’s Early and Vulnerable Stage (70% Probability)

•Probability: ~70% that Bitcoin could have been banned or heavily regulated if governments had acted decisively.
•Reasoning: Bitcoin was small, unknown, and used primarily by tech enthusiasts. Governments had the opportunity to label it as a threat early on and block exchanges, outlaw mining, or ban cryptocurrency use entirely when its network and adoption were not yet resilient.
•Outcome: The window for a ban or severe restriction was missed because governments either lacked awareness or saw Bitcoin as a niche experiment rather than a financial threat. The low number of users and transactions made it easier to ignore.

2. 2014-2020: Mainstream Adoption and Initial Regulatory Responses (50% Probability)

•Probability: ~50% chance that Bitcoin could have been curtailed through regulation if a coordinated global effort was launched.
•Reasoning: Bitcoin’s 2017 bull run and increasing usage for illicit activities (e.g., on platforms like Silk Road) drew regulatory attention. Governments began introducing KYC/AML regulations for exchanges, and some, like China, banned Bitcoin mining.
•Stakeholder Influence: During this period, Bitcoin investors, developers, and companies advocating for cryptocurrency became more influential. These groups could lobby against harsh regulations, emphasizing economic benefits and innovation potential. The number of users and Bitcoin’s price volatility brought significant media coverage, making public support for Bitcoin stronger and regulation more difficult to enforce without backlash.
•Outcome: While some countries increased regulation, Bitcoin’s growing acceptance and increasing institutional involvement (e.g., Coinbase, PayPal) made it less politically feasible for democracies to ban it outright.

3. 2021-2025: Institutional Integration and Regulatory Framework Development (30% Probability)

•Probability: ~30% chance that governments, through regulatory pressure, competition from CBDCs, or environmental policies, could marginalize Bitcoin.
•Reasoning: Bitcoin has achieved a high level of institutional support. Large entities like Tesla, MicroStrategy, and payment providers have integrated Bitcoin. Additionally, countries like El Salvador adopted it as legal tender. This period is marked by greater regulatory scrutiny (e.g., the U.S. Infrastructure Bill requiring tax reporting for crypto transactions) and the development of CBDCs as competing digital currencies.
•Stakeholder Influence: With influential corporations and investment firms like BlackRock owning Bitcoin, there is now a powerful lobby against harsh regulations. Bitcoin’s stakeholders are increasingly involved in lobbying efforts to shape regulation favorably. This significantly reduces the likelihood of a total ban.
•Outcome: Governments are unlikely to fully ban Bitcoin but may regulate it to ensure tax compliance, prevent illicit activity, and create a regulatory framework that coexists with CBDCs. Bitcoin remains resilient but might face environmental and energy usage scrutiny that could limit mining in specific regions.

4. 2026-2030: Competition with CBDCs and Environmental Regulations (20% Probability)

•Probability: ~20% chance that regulatory measures or the rise of CBDCs could limit Bitcoin’s utility as a mainstream currency.
•Reasoning: The deployment of CBDCs by major economies (e.g., U.S., EU, China) may provide more efficient and stable alternatives, reducing the appeal of Bitcoin as a medium of exchange. At the same time, environmental regulations might target Bitcoin’s Proof-of-Work (PoW) model if it continues to rely heavily on fossil fuels.
•Stakeholder Influence: The growing influence of institutional Bitcoin investors and advocates in politics and business would likely push back against any measures that severely restrict Bitcoin. Furthermore, Bitcoin’s supporters could promote renewable energy solutions or migrate mining to jurisdictions with favorable policies.
•Outcome: Bitcoin may not become a dominant global currency, but it could persist as a “digital gold” or store of value. Its role might shift depending on how CBDCs are accepted and how Bitcoin adapts to environmental pressures.

5. 2031 and Beyond: Long-Term Technological and Social Risks (10% Probability)

•Probability: ~10% chance that technological advancements (e.g., quantum computing) or unforeseen social dynamics could significantly disrupt Bitcoin.
•Reasoning: The primary threat to Bitcoin beyond 2030 could be the development of quantum computers capable of breaking Bitcoin’s cryptographic algorithms. However, given the slow but steady development of quantum-resistant cryptography, Bitcoin could adapt. Social or economic changes (e.g., major economic crises leading to distrust in decentralized assets) could also affect its adoption.
•Stakeholder Influence: Bitcoin’s well-established network of developers, miners, and users would likely work proactively to update the protocol if a quantum threat emerged. The community’s decentralized nature ensures multiple groups would contribute to solutions, making it unlikely that such risks would fully stop Bitcoin.
•Outcome: Bitcoin remains part of the global financial landscape, adapting as necessary, though it may never achieve dominance over other financial systems, given competition from CBDCs and evolving technologies.

Summary and Visual Representation

The overall probability of stopping Bitcoin or severely restricting its growth declines over time:

•2009-2013: High probability (70%) of effective regulatory intervention. Missed opportunity due to lack of awareness.
•2014-2020: Reduced probability (50%) due to increased adoption and public support. Regulatory responses became fragmented rather than coordinated.
•2021-2025: Further decline (30%) as institutional players strengthen Bitcoin’s position, making it difficult for democracies to ban it outright.
•2026-2030: Even lower probability (20%) as Bitcoin’s presence becomes entrenched. Regulation and competition from CBDCs may limit its scope, but not eliminate it.
•2031 and Beyond: Minimal probability (10%) of stopping Bitcoin, mainly due to long-term technological threats. Bitcoin’s resilience and adaptability ensure it remains relevant.

Conclusion

The best opportunity for democracies to stop Bitcoin was during its early years (2009-2013). As of now, the probability of a successful ban or severe curtailment is increasingly unlikely, given the immense social, financial, and political investment in Bitcoin’s infrastructure. The community’s influence, institutional involvement, and global distribution mean that Bitcoin is becoming more resilient and entrenched, decreasing
#Bitcoin #o1