The next logical step is that they realise it's economically advantageous to hold the value they receive in bitcoin rather than converting it back into fiat.
And by that you mean sanctions imposed by the US, the EU and some of their allies. I don't think that 15% of the world population living in these countries warrant calling the sanctions "international" as if they are in some way legitimate.
Thanks for that. I need to think about it. From that view, "international" anything isn't legitimate. There are always some country(s) where a given act is okay. The USA hasn't signed that treaty against land mines, for example, and isn't onboard with the ICC in the Hague. Malta and Panama do shell corporations that make Wyoming flinch. Banks in Cyprus, Guernsey and Isle of Man are widely considered to exist merely to launder money.
So a country sanctioning or allowing something is a really weak basis, as you point out.
But "countries with X% of the world population" is just as bad. Saudi Arabia is still an absolute monarchy. No telling what North Korea is, but a sanction from there does not represent the will of its people.
Good point! Maybe no "international" anything is legit.
>a sanction from there does not represent the will of its people
Do they represent the will of the people in democracies? I don't think they had a referendum on that issue.
>Maybe no "international" anything is legit.
Multilateral international treaties that states voluntarily joined are certainly legit, and so are UN GA non-binding votes and UN SC resolutions (although with that one not all people agree).
