I am honestly bored of the Trump and Bitcoin talk, but I can also admit that the Biden administration with Kamala Harris as vice has been anti-bitcoin for the most part of it. There has been to many policies designed to frustrate bitcoin mining, privacy and decentralization. It would have been an ironic surprise for her to speak at a bitcoin conference.

The 4 years of Trump was better than the last 4 years but was also not exactly pro-bitcoin. Leaving nothing to suggest that he will push the network forward if he wins.

- Jay -

While Trump is happy to take money from suckers who will donate to his campaign in hopes of special favors after he's elected, the "Bitcoin vote" doesn't exist in any significant quantity in this election.

This year's election in the USA is going to be about abortion and whether it should remain legal like it has been or whether it should be criminalized nationwide.

Republicans think abortion is "baby murder", and would do anything to stop it, including voting for somebody who would ban Bitcoin that's what it took.

Democrats see the abortion criminalization Republicans want as a fundamental attack on their bodily autonomy, and more practically speaking, the end of safe sex in the United States because there's no recourse if one's birth control fails--so every act of sex in the country Republicans want must necessarily consider the possibility of there being a baby. And most people aren't in the position to have (another) baby. So hence Republicans are basically trying to... outlaw sex.

So it's "baby murder" versus the end of sex. Compared to those stakes, Bitcoin isn't even remotely on any voter's radar.

If she speaks at the conference then she has to be in favor of BTC and otherwise, there is no reason for her to be there. Avoiding this event is better for her campaign than speaking at this conference. It's obviously for people who like BTC. It's not believable in any way if Kamala starts to become a Bitcoiner too.

A big percentage of US voters are crypto users so there's that which is like Trump securing his win. The social media people are just streaming Trump.

Never in good taste to try and curry favour with someone, and then when it fails, turn on them. Come on, we're better than this, aren't we? If she were imprisoning developers, why would you invite her in the first place?

Surely we're supposed to be better than this (I know we're not, but heh).

The way I see it now, it is Trump who needs Bitcoin more. It fits into the attempt to sell himself as a progressive candidate. Bitcoin will be fine for 4 years whoever is the president during that period.

She should have not been invited at all, except it was an attempt to hurt her campaign by asking her some tough, difficult to get out of questions.

- Jay -

I agree. This looks like a money grab by the organizers. They want to kiss everyone's asses so much only to get their names on the list. Since inviting Trump paid off, why not invite Kamala, right? While we're at it, let's invite Brad Sherman and Elizabeth Warren. There's freedom of speech. If people like that want to attend and speak their mind they should be allowed to do so, but I wouldn't invite them.

I like politics, but I feel like we could use less politics in bitcoin.

The fact that he wasn't a Pro-Bitcoin supporter duruing his tenure doesn't mean he isn't now. Bitcoin have come a long way in the last 4 years, withstanding plenty of attacks even though the policies have been terrible to say the least. I know politicians usually lie during their campaigns and flip upon winning but it's worth noting that among all recent US president, Trump has been the most informed about crypto. I think the guy already has about 3 NFT collections so far.

With politicians or not, bitcoin market continues to exist. However, with the endorsement of the next US President would create further demand and so the increase of price is imminent. Trump may be pro-crypto but once he is elected, do you really think it would be easy to pass a crypto-related bill?

At the end of the day, whether the leader is pro-crypto or not, you are the one shaping your life and so it is still on you how you will deal with your everyday life to improve your economic status.

Yeah I do agree uneng...

However what we should not forget is that at least sows another seed of "safety" or perhaps "acceptance". I'm all in for Bitcoin going a bit more mainstream, it will be safer for all of us.

And then lightning please, the legal uncertainty pertaining lightning for private operators in the US has to stop!

Not sure why Trump would go speak at a Bitcoin conference, which are mostly attended by libertarians, when he was loudly booed and jeered at the last libertarian conference he want to.

It would not be political suicide, but you would have to say it would be a very poor campaigning choice from Trump's staff. The news would be all over it.