Topic: Do you really think governments will allow a 500 billion dollar crypto-economy? (Read 8807 times)

Not you, I don't engage in petty insults unless I am both inebriated and well provoked. That comment was aimed at the reason people fear Bitcoin.

   Why you think I'm hating?...I'm not hating, I'm just stating reality from my view.

Haters gonna hate. It's hilarious.

Certainly not but prohibition was done against the majorities wishes.  Bitcoin does not have the majority of the population on its side as of yet.  Merely a sliver at best.  Hell, at the moment, most are terrified of Bitcoin.

Mama don' 'low no bitcoin payin' here
Big brother don't allow no crypto payin' here
We don't care what mama want allow
We're gonna use our bitcoins anyhow
Mama don't allow no crypto using here

Yeah, prohibition without justification has always worked.

Bitcoin needs fiat to survive and grow.  All government has to do is block funds at the source.  The banks.  The same way they did for online poker.  It's not difficult at all.  If they really wanted to get nasty, they could make it illegal for businesses to accept it.  Mass adoption = dead.

That said, I think they will allow a $500 billion Bitcoin economy because that's a lot of tax revenue to be had.  They'll regulate exchanges and any sources of money in and out of the network to get their cut and I think that's a good thing as long as regulations are fair and aren't hindering startups.

The Government isn't some omnipotent god-like overlord of the people. The Government is limited to work with certain enumerated powers. Destroying Bitcoin is not one of the powers they possess...

Cryptography isn't new and it's already withstood the government's attempt to destroy it. The government attempted to regulate cryptography as "munitions" in 1993. They lost... The Judicial Branch of the US Government has already safeguarded cryptography. Combine Bitcoin with the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination and Bitcoin is pretty much secured. You cannot be compelled to reveal your private key if you choose not to... DPR was facing a laundry list of charges; no doubt he was compensated in some way for that private key, he agreed to the deal; whatever it was...

"Two federal appeals courts have established the rule that cryptographic software source code is speech protected by the First Amendment (the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Bernstein case and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Junger case)."

Bitcoin regulation is not possible; USD regulation pertaining to Bitcoin transactions is within the regulatory authority of the Government but it's thin ice because it's illegal to restrict USD transactions for political protest. Bitcoin by nature is a protest against the current financial system. Choosing to use Bitcoin is political protest as protected by the First Amendment; using a competing product is protest be it subtle or not...

The Government destroying Bitcoin is equally as likely as the Government declaring Martial Law and throwing political protesters in FEMA camps... It's just not a fight they're in a position to win and it's not within the scope of power that they possess.

They would need to change several previously existing laws, the Judicial branch would need to reverse its stance on the First Amendment, and then to make matters more complicated, any laws that restrict Bitcoin would also restrict other digital tokens of common use, the digital marketplace would essentially collapse and that's a huge financial sector in itself.

"In the abstract, spending money can be considered a form of speech in the same way that throwing a brick through a window can be considered a form of speech. The issue is a question of balance. Nobody believes in protecting the right of the brick thrower to “speak” by committing an act of violence over the right of the window owner to be secure from destructive acts." --http://www.amendmentgazette.com/how-spending-money-became-a-form-of-speech/

lol, you're the deluded one by diminishing the impact of piracy,which costs the music books tv and film industry a combined loss of well over a quarter of a billion in lost revenue each year. If it was possible to put a end to torrents , they would have done it by now. No different for cryptos, the genie is well and truly out of the bottle.

Governments can go to extreme lengths to stifle innovation. Copyright was invented to restrict the free flow of information after the invention of the printing press. The industrial revolution still happened within 300 years.

Bitcoin proves that financial restrictions are also simply restrictions on the free flow of information. The powers that be will probably try to stop it, but the computer revolution will also happen within 300 years (if we don't kill ourselves first).

The computer revolution has not happened yet. Today's computer systems barley scratch the surface of what computers can do. It is slowly changing, but for the most part, computers emulate the technologies from the last century.

So after two and a half months.....are people still very confident that crypto will not 'allow' a government or oversight entity to interfere in its operations?


So many people did a 180 and started singing a different tune after they got fucked by Gox LOL


How does this topic apply today?

Re-discuss

it's trivially easy to route bitcoin and mining through a proxy.  the reduction would be from the people who don't want to "risk" disobeying the government-- it would NOT be a technological barrier.  of course that reduction would reduce the network hashrate, and probably a price crash, but given that bitcoiners are by and large a freedom loving ideologically driven group, i dont think the reduction would be as great as i think you think it would be.

there would be so many ways around this, look at emunie for instance, also not everyone rely's on mining systems

Controlled opposition?

Trading relatively ambiguous IP of films, images, and songs are not the same as directly challenging the financial system of the nations.

You are seriously deluded if you think internet is some kind of safe haven from others. People run these things. People are very much more vulnerable than most like to admit.

DPR might have a thing to two to say about trying to play at being in over your head.

Just because somebody lets a small fish flap its gums doesn't mean you should get ahead of yourselves.

More people than you think.

Suppose such a defense existed and bitcoin was able to continue under majority-of-countries ISP ban. Who exactly would still be using it?

Oh, no. An attack for which we couldn't possibly deploy any countermeasures. I'm scared now.

I think bitcoin and government could work out very nicely together, and I think people in various branches of governments will eventually realize this.  For example, imagine how we could streamline VAT collection and accounting.  The tax authority could give a coffee shop a small discount on the VAT rate if the merchant chose to accept retail payments to a BIP32-encoded address chain that the tax authorities could monitor.  The coffee shop's payment system would automatically deduct the VAT and remit it to the tax authorities in real time.  If the merchant's suppliers were set-up in a similar way, then the coffee shop would receive its input tax credits instantly as well.  If everyone was using such a system, it would completely eliminate VAT accounting since the process would be automatic and auditable in the blockchain.  No end-of-the-year paperwork!

This doesn't invade privacy either: the coffee shop owner can still have private addresses that he can do with as he likes.

This is a fundamental fallacy shared by many bitcoiners. Governments can easily 'not allow' bitcoin (for all intents and purposes) by simply passing a new law saying any ISP relaying bitcoin related traffic will be shut down.

That move alone vastly reduces the number of miners and nodes probably to the point where a 51% attack becomes easy, and the currency crumbles.

Don't get me wrong, I'm extremely positive about bitcoin but you have to understand how vunerable it is.

Cheers, Paul.