What is the evidence for the "regular citizens" claim? Is there data on which social groups are over-/underrepresented in Bitcoin holding compared to non-Bitcoin wealth holding? My guess is that groups low in regular wealth/income are disproportionally low in Bitcoin wealth.
Government activities such as defense, education and infrastructure will still need funding. If some resource A shifts to Bitcoin and, assuming for argument, thereby becomes non-taxable won't some other non-Bitcoin resource B be taxed instead, with no net "hands off" effect?
A switch to PoS like ETH2 is not going to make it lose value, decentralization and might even be an opportunity to go beyond the ridiculous 4-7 transactions/sec limit.
Going beyond the 4-7 transaction/sec would make so that exchanges stop asking you to give up control of the money, thus making it even more decentralized.
I see only positive benefits in switching to Pos. Lose nothing, gain everything
> * environmental issues
Might want to take a gander at who is really using all that energy mining Bitcoin: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1200477/bitcoin-mining-b...
The environmental impact argument to me seems like more of the same: China wastes energy and pollutes on a massive scale and western countries are the ones getting a stern talking to. Give me a break, it’s a convenient argument, but at the end of the day Bitcoin is a way for regular citizens to (mostly) keep the government’s hands off their wealth.