My idea about this is that there's a very visible irony here. Governments may resist Bitcoins decentralization, they still recognize its value as a key and rising financial asset.

What we're seeing from Bitcoin is that it gives people more. Not just being a key reserve or just for transactions, it gives people an alternative to systems controlled by central authorities.

Governments can regulate exchanges and restrict assets, but controlling Bitcoin itself is a different challenge!

You forgot El Salvador that adopted bitcoin as a legal tender on the 7th of September, 2021 to the 30th of January, 2025. That didn't stop Nayib Bukele from teaching students in El Salvador bitcoin and encouraged them to use it.

I believe that many more countries also recognize bitcoin which is why in some places in the world you can pay for hotel and eat in their restaurant with bitcoin. A country mustn't make bitcoin a legal tender before it's been recognized as a currency. You can read this thread

That was the beginning mindset of some government early on. That's why there are governments that don't recognized Bitcoin at all or what we call countries that are pro-Bitcoin like El Salvador who made it a legal tender.

But I don't think that Satoshi created Bitcoin to challenge the control of the government. No, it was just a p2p, but it has evolved a lot that it became an asset and been traded and many of us are making money out of it. So it's a win-win for us and for the government as now even the banking systems and institutions are recognizing Bitcoin as a financial instrument.

If government use bitcoin as a means through which they steal public funds and hide it in bitcoin without the people knowing so when they must have leaved the position of authority they can spend it, it only means that they are the abusers of the decentralized nature that bitcoin possesses.

Both from an individual usage and the government usage, bitcoin should not be used for the wrong cause. some government and nationality are anti bitcoin because of these possibility and if they become the people that are not going into same thing are supposed to fight against, they become worse of than what they describe as the weakness in bitcoin. the main issue the government has with bitcoin is that they want to regulate it and bitcoin in it nature is not meant to be regulated in the manner the government is trying to do.

I'm trying to understand how democracy fit in this discussion but I can't grab it yet. The democracy I know is a form of government that recognises rule of law and freedom of speech. Bitcoin is a decentralized asset that doesn't need government permission so whether government recognises it or not, it existence does not depend on any system of government. Democracy even make it more harder for bitcoin because people don't have financial freedom.


Government is well aware that bitcoin is a key financial asset. They can't ignore that fact but holding it as a reserve is their usual strategy and they do that with any assets that have future potential.

Forget about democracy OP when we talk about Bitcoin, as it is completely different. You'd better be thankful that it was not controlled by someone else. Otherwise, you won't be able to see its price today. Everyone has the freedom to own Bitcoin. And much more have controlled what they want for them. Some countries buy Bitcoin for a reason, and that is probably for future development.


While the other countries and leaders see its potential. Very unfortunate that our government leaders remain blind and hopeless. Well, not to wonder, for a government governs by corrupt officials.

Since a first Bitcoin Spot ETF application in 2013 till 2024 when Bitcoin Spot ETFs were approved in the USA, and some months later began to operate until now, Bitcoin has very long history with ETFs, and so far we can say Bitcoin Spot ETFs gained success, so Bitcoin got more support for its adoption and value growth too.

Many companies, institutions applied for Bitcoin Spot ETFs but only after Grayscale won a lawsuit against SEC, BlackRock felt like they will have very high rate of approval for their Bitcoin Spot ETF application, they decided to apply that one. Big companies are like BlackRock, they don't want to take too much risk and if they join Bitcoin market after about 14 or 15 years without participation, they actually had big reasons to do that. Nothing bigger is their belief that governments and regulations have changed to accept Bitcoin, legally.

What doesn’t mean recognised in your post? You know, even El Salvador accepts Bitcoin as legal tender, and some other countries have approved Bitcoin ETFs that allow retail investors to invest in Bitcoin? Isn’t that a recognition? You can replace 'recognise' with 'control'.

The government or anyone won’t control Bitcoin. Because it’s decentralised, democracy is the source of centralised power. People apply votes to select centralised governments. On the other hand, sometimes we have been hearing about vote manipulation, where Bitcoin can’t be manipulated. You can’t compare Bitcoin with democracy.

The same thing i think. People manipulate manipulate democracy and i wonder why op thinks it is the same with bitcoin.  It is only people who are in power that benefit from democracy and the common people dont really feel the impact of democracy,  this is to tell you it is just meant for one particular set of people.  Nobody controls bitcoin, and all bitcoiners are the same and no one is more a bitcoiner than the other this is why their is nothing that can be used to compare with bitcoin. Looking at democracy in every aspect i dont see how it is related to Bitcoin.