japanese gov(courts) had control of more coin than US, and from just one source (mtgox bankruptcy)

It's indeed concerning to see reports of the US government seizing Bitcoin assets and exerting control over a significant portion of the circulating supply. These actions raise questions about the balance between individual ownership and government authority in the realm of digital currencies. The concept of Bitcoin was founded on principles of decentralization and autonomy, yet incidents like these highlight the challenges it faces in the real world.

While governments have legitimate concerns about illicit activities involving cryptocurrencies, such as money laundering and terrorism financing, it's crucial that any measures taken to address these issues respect individuals' rights and the core tenets of privacy and property ownership. Transparency and accountability are paramount in ensuring that government actions in the cryptocurrency space are justified and ethical.

The idea of any single entity, especially a government, controlling a significant portion of a decentralized currency like Bitcoin raises red flags regarding centralization and manipulation. Such actions could potentially undermine the trust and credibility of the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem, affecting its long-term viability and adoption.

The notion of "blood money" associated with Bitcoin transactions involving seized assets underscores the ethical dilemmas posed by government interventions in the cryptocurrency market. It's essential for users to be aware of the origins of the assets they acquire and the implications of supporting entities involved in questionable practices.

As governments around the world navigate the complexities of regulating cryptocurrencies, finding a balance between safeguarding against illicit activities and preserving individual freedoms is paramount. Collaborative efforts between regulatory authorities, industry stakeholders, and the broader community are necessary to develop effective and fair policies that uphold the principles of decentralization and financial sovereignty.

In the face of government intervention and control, Bitcoin's resilience lies in its decentralized nature and the widespread adoption and support it enjoys from a diverse community of users, developers, and advocates worldwide. The inherent transparency and immutability of the blockchain provide a level of accountability that traditional financial systems often lack, offering a beacon of hope for those seeking alternatives to centralized authority.

While incidents of government seizure and control may cast a shadow over the cryptocurrency landscape, they also serve as a reminder of the importance of remaining vigilant and proactive in defending the principles of decentralization, privacy, and individual sovereignty. Ultimately, the future of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies will be shaped by the collective actions and decisions of its users and supporters, who strive to uphold its founding principles in the face of adversity.

If the United States wanted to take over Bitcoin, it would not be difficult for them to print $2 trillion. I mean, they do that annually.
Also, the Bitcoins that are confiscated are resold in auctions within 2 to 5 years, and I do not think that the laws will allow them to keep them as a reserve. If that happens, Bitcoin is not a POS. Even if the United States were able to collect 2 million Bitcoins, it would not make any change other than increasing the value of Bitcoin.

I don't see how it would matter where you buy your BTC and you have no idea whether you ever bought from Uncle Sam or not. Whether they auction it in several lots publicly or whether they deposit it on some exchange and sell it there, it doesn't make a whole lot of a difference.

Apart from that, I doubt that they arbitrarily put people into jail. There have been some questionable cases for sure, but I would say the vast majority of confiscated BTC was rightfully confiscated according to existing law.

But one thing is clear here: BTC seizures have become a profitable business for government authorities. It's a many birds with one stone situation as they need to stock up their cybersecurity agencies anyway and they know they need to develop capabilities and capacities as they sector and its relevance will be growing further and further. Understanding how digital assets work, can be stored and hidden and used is a must no matter what. Pursuing cases like hacks and theft will be the bread and butter in the future and if they develop the understanding and the tools how to best locate and seize digital assets, they can grow their security agencies while financing the expansion with seizures. At the same time they gain influence over the most important financial network in the world.

from my memory the mtgox creditors wanted all payouts converted to BTC
this meant that the ~141k btc + dollar found + all forked coin airdrops get converted to BTC
(bankruptcy administrator buys btc with dollar and converts forked air-drops to btc to be a total far bigger then the ~141k btc base amount the bankruptcy found) so total BTC accumulated/held by bankruptcy administrator could be way higher than reported, but they have to release based on japanese gov(court order)

But it really matters who wins it. If the countries win in this game, it wouldn't really matter to commoners like us whether Bitcoin is at the top or not. Because then we will not be in a position to use it in our favour and the entire system will become centralised. It is definitely not ideal.

But countries like United States will continue to play their dirty games. Some Bitcoins they have seized, are from criminals and hackers so those should be fine. But if us is really snatching from the common people, then it's a matter of concern.

Bitcoin is a viable Investment which entails that the US government is making the right decision to keep the coin. From time to time we have seen the government auction some of the confiscated coins to fund its crusade against crypto criminals and payment to people who have suffered from crypto scams. China would have had the opportunity to stockpile enough Bitcoin but they missed the opportunity when they started making anti Bitcoin policies.

Most of the crypto currencies which the US government has seized were connected to fraud, hacks, or scams. I might not be correct, I don't know any case where the government confiscated people's funds without them being connected to criminal activities.

The money they hold is not something they stole from people. It's the money confiscated from hackers (from people who actually stole it). The historical chart in the article shows that they're not accumulating coins to have some control over the market or whatever. They just confiscate illegally obtained coins from scams and hacks and regularly sell them on auctions. While it's true that they're holding 200k BTC, it's also likely that they will sell a significant amount, so even this 1% is temporary. Not to mention that 1% isn't that much.

You said it yourself. The US government does not want to keep its bitcoins because they want (what they call) "liquid cash". That's why they auction off their bitcoins like crazy, sometimes vastly deviating from the market price of Bitcoin at the time it is sold.

It's a good opportunity for arbitrage though. Either way, those USA bitcoins usually end up in the hands of exchanges. So it's not like the US is going to control an ever-increasing amount of bitcoin. As long as they keep auctioning it that is.

you don't know that for sure though.

i don't know that to be the case to be honest. i have no way of knowing that.

now that i do agree with because it seems reasonable.

yes, probably so. the same thing that happens with someone who loses their private key there is no refund, no passing go no collecting $200. sorry if you don't see it that way.

people should be responsible for securing their bitcoin that's the premise of bitcoin if not then don't use it but if you want to use it then accept the risks and act accordingly.

that's right. you can let him go free and he will be an example of what happens when people are dumb and trust someone else with their bitcoin. that way they learn not to do it again.

when are people going to understand that once bitcoin is transferred to a new address, there is no reversing it. and there is a new owner. all the bitcoin miners have to go with that and the government can't reverse it no matter what they do because if they could, which seems to be something you would agree with, then they would be taking complete control of bitcoin and it would not be decentralized anymore.