Topic: Bitcoin faces risk of protocol-level censorship as miners under increasing regul (Read 543 times)

so that's whose administration it happened under. that was about as harmful a thing you could do to the crypto ecosystem as anything. so i think i understand your issue. that's my main issue too is how they want to tax it even though you didn't cash it out. that was when holding crypto became alot less attractive to me. if you can't even do like exchanges WITHOUT REPORTING IT AND PAYING TAXES ON THE "EXCHANGE". Do i have to pay taxes when i exchange a $100 bill for 5 $20s ? I don't think so.  

that's insane. i can't imagine people abiding by something that ridiculous. i bet alot of them just don't do it. period.

yeah i do agree. that like kind law was kind of the death blow to using crypto.

me too. the only thing you can hope for is for these geezers to get put away into their nursing homes and some new young people who see things differently to revert the laws back to how they should be. but that's another thing that sucks about the usa, is how they can't stop making new laws. you would think that every law that should be on the books already would be but that's not the case, they are constantly trying to make more and more laws on EVERYTHING. to make society more and more restrictive.

some laws i understand come about because of new technologies and thats not what i'm talking. it's like they think that by making more and more laws about issues that have existed since the dawn of man, they can make a perfect society. and the only solution is to make more laws.

next step will be trying to tax unrealized capital gains on crypto. that's when holding bitcoin will really become a pain the ass...

he ended like kind exchange policy which is just about as anti crypto as you can get.

I file two hundred page returns because he passed that law that only allows like kind exchanges for real estate. no other thing for that alone he should stroke out as I am typing this.

btw biden sucks for a long list of reasons but none of them touch the trump like kind law.


to edit this liz warren is far more anti btc then biden maybe she could stroke out too. as she is not very young.  edit she is 74.

still quite a bit older then me at 67.

I have never had the disgust of american politicians that I do  now.

how do you figure that?

that wasn't intentional. the biden administration has tried to put more controls on bitcoin than any government in any country in history i would guess. the ath is because of INFLATION of the us dollar becoming more worthless thanks to biden's bailing out student loans, supporting illegal immigrants, etc. just a side affect of a socialist regime...

i definitely agree biden does not belong running the us government. but who would you rather see in power? what person?

Trump is anti bitcoin bigly.

While you rip biden and bitcoin all ath were done during his administration.


personally I wish that the two of them would stroke out tonight and not run at all.

they are 158 years old between them. a mother fucking joke

Im not into politics but it evident now that whoever is from the US and supports bitcoin while voting for Biden has some sort of massive cognitive dissonance of Stockholm syndrome going on, otherwise I don't get it. This people have a clear agenda to tie Bitcoin and crypto as something that funds terrorism and "white supremacy" while forgetting about how everyone that lives in countries where inflation is making everyone poor uses BTC to survive. They don't care, they are mad that people got rich from getting in early and they didn't, so now they want to ban it.

If anyone wants BTC to survive at a mainstream level, then pro-Bitcoin lobbying is non negotiable. We need people supporting BTC and miners at the political level, otherwise we are going to see Biden, Warren, AOC and co make Bitcoin unusable for US citizens and miners kicked out of the country, again, at a mainstream level. Obviously BTC will survive no matter what, but if we want huge valuations, we need institutional support. The ETFs are a good step in this direction, but don't forget that the ETFs can be used against self-sovereign BTC users that do self-custody, since they can concentrate the funds there then ban BTC from the hands of individuals. Stay alert because that is coming. It just happened in the EU.

I can't agree with you because it matters. If the majority of miners and nodes support a new Bitcoin fork, then that Bitcoin fork will become a standard Bitcoin. That new Bitcoin fork will be supported, adopted and the most traded. Old Bitcoin fork, the ones that we use now, will not be supported and it will become dead compared to some altcoins and supported fork.

Those who are into Bitcoin because of the US gov or are supported by US gov, will benefit from damaging Bitcoin.

A few simple points:

1) Even if it does happen, it wont be Bitcoin, so it wont matter.
A fork of Bitcoin is not Bitcoin.
Bitcoin works no matter what the price, and even a large drop in hash rate has no real effect on that - as expected, and as we saw, when china shutdown mining.

2) The magic 51% number rears it's head yet again
Pools mining against lower points in the active chain will be obvious.
So it would become immediately clear what pools not to mine on.
Excluding higher paying transactions means less mining reward in your block.
Excluding the lowest paying transactions, when block space is at a premium, is how Bitcoin works.
Messing with that means less bitcoin reward for mining.
(Which is what StratumV2 is trying to make happen - stay away from V2 - they're probably backed by the gov't since they are helping to do this)

3) It's the current us gov't that's trying to damage Bitcoin, not sure why anyone in Bitcoin would want to keep them in power lol

There are a lot of miners, and when there are enough transactions with high commissions in the mempool, the miners will organize a solo pool to mine such a block, and then switch back to the main pools. This is a crappy POS algorithm, where everything is decided by the consensus of validators.

Definitely all states and governments will try to censor Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies as much as they can, through whether incentivies or penalties!...But tech cannot be stopped...There are currently Bitcoin-related solutions being worked on in the Bitcoin community, so that it brings high level of privacy into the Bitcoin TXs. For example ZK-rollups for Bitcoin is one solution. It's just matter of time and advocate of the community that make this happen sooner or later. Bitcoin layer-2 solutions are what we really need to support and promote in crypto space bcuz they can bring new set of solutions and tools that will help other developers to innovoate more in this space and even help them enhance the privacy of TXs....So a lot of hope in the space! 
If Zk-rollups can be settled on Bitcoin ecosystem then you cannot easily distinguish TXs and labeling them!....Privacy is not a crime!(It's not dodging law/regulations!).. And it's people right to deploy any tools to keep their privacy as mush as they can.

There's no thing such as validator on Bitcoin. All nodes Bitcoin perform verification, but none of them have authority to tell all other nodes that certain block must be ignored.

cant the validators refuse to change the version of bitcoin they are running if it has some bullshit like that in it?

Perhaps some individuals desire a complete economic overhaul, wishing they could participate from the outset to influence asset distribution like Bitcoin's supply. Given its current value and widespread ownership, however, achieving such control seems unlikely.

This is a very interesting topic, as I've been discussing a catastrophe scenario like "Block Compliant Vs Block not Compliant" and the repercussions this would have on Bitcoin as a whole with others in the local section for a long time.

Unfortunately I'm sad to see that this is the direction it's going to take potentially.

I wonder what role Stratum V2 could play, and if it were to be used, whether pools (US pools for example) could decide to not pay for "not compliant" blocks etc...

Even actual hard fork is hard to pull since it require Bitcoiner to update/change their full node software and some business to update their custom software.



And that's when Bitcoin might die.

If this is enacted, it certainly beats the main purposes behind Bitcoin (to some extent some partially happened already):
- decentralization
- no censorship
- and maybe... pseudonymity (not anonymity)

The especially chilling part is where with over 51% hash power, banned (or approved, as you like) transactions will not get
approved days and maybe weeks. As well as not building new blocks above the block containing banned transactions.

Wow, just wow.

probably. although they don't just want their own version of bitcoin, they want to kill the other version of it so that there is only one bitcoin and it is firmly under their control. then expect them to put in some type of "freezing function" so they can freeze any bitcoin address they want.



the list will just get bigger and bigger, having more categories of what a bad person is. got too many speeding tickets that are unpaid then they might put your addresses on the list. that type of thing. they don't care about the environment as much as you might think. what they really care about is controlling the people and you can't do that without controlling their access to money or its equivalent.

in the usa government's version of bitcoin, there will be 2 types of bitcoin addresses: KYC addresses and no-KYC addresses. they'll want an ID for every bitcoin address. the ones that don't comply will just be frozen.

yes of course they will cause it hurts their own pockets.

In short, they are nicely asking for a hard fork, as the current hashrate percentage is not enough for them to make the OFAC list mandatory. However, if the United States puts pressure on all countries of the world, the percentage of unknown mining pools is less than 2%. If all governments were united, passing such regulations would be easy.




The big question remains: If governments do not unite at the climate summit, something that harms humanity, will they unite in creating a blacklist of addresses for Bitcoin?

yeah, i mean, that's kind of a new idea of attacking bitcoin is to try and make people criminals who build on top of a block that has a blacklisted address. since bitcoin is only pseudoanonymous, usa-based bitcoin miners would need to either build on the usa government's recommended chain or figure out a way to launder their BTC through monero or something so they don't get caught. i guess it all depend on how much hash power they could get under their control as to if bitcoin could survive that or would it split into 2 chains?  

they could make a rule preventing that in one sentence. "If you contribute hashing power to a pool that mines on top of a block that has a blacklisted address, then you are breaking the law." simple as that. not that they would even need to because that would be completely understood. not every law is spelled out in all the things that you are not allowed to do. some of them are just common sense.

That would work for time being. But for U.S. miners, they have to hope government won't create new law which prevent them from doing that.


You missed OP's point. He emphasize about U.S. government idea not to build block on top of block which include blacklisted TX/address which possible if 51% hashrate comply with U.S. government idea.