but a precedent of a country shutting down Internet is much more interesting. This just shows that currently, until there's resilient decentralized Internet technology, Bitcoin can't be considered a silver bullet for financial freedom at times of tyranny.
The internet can not be shut down for ever, it can only last for a while and peculiar to a country or region like state, town or village, but your bitcoin remain your bitcoin, you are only the one that have the access to its seed phrase if using noncustododial wallet, you only have the control. It is still much better option to others in term of freedom and control.
What would a person who went 100% on Bitcoin do right now in Kazakhstan, when they can't even convert it to fiat? And banks have stopped working there too, so only good old paper money change hands there.
I thought about this. Candidly speaking, some would want to convert to fiat but not possible for now. Both if banks are shot down also, even fiat is worst.
you may see temporary 'delays to service' or curfews or however you can word it. but if a government under UN rule were to permanently cut off access to utilities for all citizens. then that country can get into alot of trouble with the UN.
This is still centralized. Why not decentralized internet? In a way there can be nodes that provide proof of work and receive incentives for their contribution by provide service for robust decentralized internet, or something like that makeup. I just think this might not be possible earlier as the world is divided into countries.