Topic: The Feds Are Terrified Of Cryptocurrencies... But They&#039;re Powerless To Stop Them (Read 1642 times)

Quote from: jaysabi on August 09, 2017, 05:22:23 PM

But that distinction can in fact make a tremendous difference

In other words, it may be quite feasible and doable to disrupt the PoW network provided enough resources are put into mining, and you are sort of guaranteed to succeed at bringing the network down. At the same time, the mission of accumulating enough coins in the PoS model may be virtually impossible since as soon as you start buying up, the price is set to spike exponentially. And whatever the price might be, you still might not be able to make it simply because some holders won't sell at any price. And then you are stuck

But again, this operates on the notion that the only way to disrupt a PoS system is to seize control of it, rather than disrupting it's ability to propagate a network by attacking or taking offline the computers that make it up, does it not? Even under PoW, you don't have to seize control of it to render it unusable, you just have to destabilize it to the point that blocks can be corrupted. (I say "just" knowing this would be a technical feat.) But I would think that you could hamper the system the same way by disrupting the network activity in PoS. Theoretically, what happens if a wallet with 51% of a PoS coinbase is not connected to the network? I would think they don't get to solve any blocks, otherwise the network would grind to a halt. If 51% of the coinbase in PoS is not connected to the network, doesn't that degrade network security the same way as taking out a large portion of the mining power making up PoW? My guess would be yes, but I don't know, which is why I'm asking.

Strictly speaking, I don't know

Since there are many varieties of the PoS model out there, and some of them can surely address that point in a coherent way. Personally, I'm inclined to think that if 51% of all nodes just plug off from the network without doing anything nasty behind the scenes, nothing particularly dangerous is going to happen. Regarding your other point (that of crushing part of the network), indeed if you shut down the whole Internet (or some part thereof) or just divide it into independent segments, this won't bode well for any coin, but this is certainly beyond the scope of issues addressed by these models. It is like saying that you could severely damage a coin by starting an all-out nuclear holocaust but this certainly won't be a blow aimed against this coin specifically (which is sort of assumed)

Do you own any PoS personally? I dabbled in Clams for awhile but found I didn't particularly like it as a currency. The fast blocks are a nice thing to have, but the inflation rate I didn't find particularly beneficial. Although I suppose that over time, the inflation rate becomes more and more insignificant as a proportion of the overall coinbase, but that also requires a more robust use-case than Clam had at the time I stopped following it. Perhaps it's still the case, but at the time its main utility was as a gambling token for Just-Dice.

No, I don't have any PoS coins

But if I'm not mistakes clams were specifically intended as a sort of substitute for bitcoins in gambling since online gambling is prohibited in Canada (Just-Dice and its owner dooglus seem to be from Canada). I don't know how well it worked out since I'm not much into gambling anyway (at least, not after the PrimeDice times). That said, I still hope that Litecoin (which I'm slowly moving my cryptowealth to) will switch to this model eventually

Clams pre-seeded everyone who had a btc, doge, or litecoin address as of a certain date I believe with a certain amount of clams. It kind of went nowhere for awhile until it became the official token of JD. I don't know if it was always intended that way or if he just capitalized on a new coin that he liked the distribution method of. Doog is from Canada, but it's unclear to me how he expected Clams to be legal where bitcoin wasn't on his dice site. I claimed all the clams I was entitled to and followed it for awhile. I eventually sold out of it because it's just another alt with no utility outside of JD in my opinion.

Interesting though, why do you want Litecoin to switch to PoS?

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3486

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: deisik on August 08, 2017, 04:34:50 PM

Quote from: jaysabi on August 04, 2017, 06:47:07 PM

Quote from: deisik on August 08, 2017, 04:34:50 PM

But that distinction can in fact make a tremendous difference

In other words, it may be quite feasible and doable to disrupt the PoW network provided enough resources are put into mining, and you are sort of guaranteed to succeed at bringing the network down. At the same time, the mission of accumulating enough coins in the PoS model may be virtually impossible since as soon as you start buying up, the price is set to spike exponentially. And whatever the price might be, you still might not be able to make it simply because some holders won't sell at any price. And then you are stuck

But again, this operates on the notion that the only way to disrupt a PoS system is to seize control of it, rather than disrupting it's ability to propagate a network by attacking or taking offline the computers that make it up, does it not? Even under PoW, you don't have to seize control of it to render it unusable, you just have to destabilize it to the point that blocks can be corrupted. (I say "just" knowing this would be a technical feat.) But I would think that you could hamper the system the same way by disrupting the network activity in PoS. Theoretically, what happens if a wallet with 51% of a PoS coinbase is not connected to the network? I would think they don't get to solve any blocks, otherwise the network would grind to a halt. If 51% of the coinbase in PoS is not connected to the network, doesn't that degrade network security the same way as taking out a large portion of the mining power making up PoW? My guess would be yes, but I don't know, which is why I'm asking.

Strictly speaking, I don't know

Since there are many varieties of the PoS model out there, and some of them can surely address that point in a coherent way. Personally, I'm inclined to think that if 51% of all nodes just plug off from the network without doing anything nasty behind the scenes, nothing particularly dangerous is going to happen. Regarding your other point (that of crushing part of the network), indeed if you shut down the whole Internet (or some part thereof) or just divide it into independent segments, this won't bode well for any coin, but this is certainly beyond the scope of issues addressed by these models. It is like saying that you could severely damage a coin by starting an all-out nuclear holocaust but this certainly won't be a blow aimed against this coin specifically (which is sort of assumed)

Do you own any PoS personally? I dabbled in Clams for awhile but found I didn't particularly like it as a currency. The fast blocks are a nice thing to have, but the inflation rate I didn't find particularly beneficial. Although I suppose that over time, the inflation rate becomes more and more insignificant as a proportion of the overall coinbase, but that also requires a more robust use-case than Clam had at the time I stopped following it. Perhaps it's still the case, but at the time its main utility was as a gambling token for Just-Dice.

No, I don't have any PoS coins

But if I'm not mistaken clams were specifically intended as a sort of substitute for bitcoins in gambling since online gambling is prohibited in Canada (Just-Dice and its owner dooglus seem to be from Canada). I don't know how well it worked out since I'm not much into gambling anyway (at least, not after the PrimeDice times). That said, I still hope that Litecoin (which I'm slowly moving my cryptowealth to) will switch to this model eventually

audaciousbeing

hero member

Activity: 1330

Merit: 569

Even though government by default always want to be in control if everything to the point of what we are thinking, I am not sure they are terrified about bitcoin because over here, its what you know and understands that can terrify you bhf it seems the enforcement agencies to know or what to talk about bitcoin which therefore .sans, how will they be scared of what they don't know?

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1115

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

Quote from: jaysabi on August 04, 2017, 06:47:07 PM

Quote from: Shamie1002 on August 05, 2017, 04:54:25 AM

But that distinction can in fact make a tremendous difference

In other words, it may be quite feasible and doable to disrupt the PoW network provided enough resources are put into mining, and you are sort of guaranteed to succeed at bringing the network down. At the same time, the mission of accumulating enough coins in the PoS model may be virtually impossible since as soon as you start buying up, the price is set to spike exponentially. And whatever the price might be, you still might not be able to make it simply because some holders won't sell at any price. And then you are stuck

But again, this operates on the notion that the only way to disrupt a PoS system is to seize control of it, rather than disrupting it's ability to propagate a network by attacking or taking offline the computers that make it up, does it not? Even under PoW, you don't have to seize control of it to render it unusable, you just have to destabilize it to the point that blocks can be corrupted. (I say "just" knowing this would be a technical feat.) But I would think that you could hamper the system the same way by disrupting the network activity in PoS. Theoretically, what happens if a wallet with 51% of a PoS coinbase is not connected to the network? I would think they don't get to solve any blocks, otherwise the network would grind to a halt. If 51% of the coinbase in PoS is not connected to the network, doesn't that degrade network security the same way as taking out a large portion of the mining power making up PoW? My guess would be yes, but I don't know, which is why I'm asking.

Strictly speaking, I don't know

Since there are many varieties of the PoS model out there, and some of them can surely address that point in a coherent way. Personally, I'm inclined to think that if 51% of all nodes just plug off from the network without doing anything nasty behind the scenes, nothing particularly dangerous is going to happen. Regarding your other point (that of crushing part of the network), indeed if you shut down the whole Internet (or some part thereof) or just divide it into independent segments, this won't bode well for any coin, but this is certainly beyond the scope of issues addressed by these models. It is like saying that you could severely damage a coin by starting an all-out nuclear holocaust but this certainly won't be a blow aimed against this coin specifically (which is sort of assumed)

Do you own any PoS personally? I dabbled in Clams for awhile but found I didn't particularly like it as a currency. The fast blocks are a nice thing to have, but the inflation rate I didn't find particularly beneficial. Although I suppose that over time, the inflation rate becomes more and more insignificant as a proportion of the overall coinbase, but that also requires a more robust use-case than Clam had at the time I stopped following it. Perhaps it's still the case, but at the time its main utility was as a gambling token for Just-Dice.

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1115

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

I think they are not really afraid. They have the legal power and I know that they can do what they want. Bitcoin is a big money and I am sure that they are just waiting for the right time to attack. We should all be ready for any situations.

The SEC has acted quite slowly in response to crypto. They are not looking for the right time to "attack" or do any such nonsense. They are on the record (and their actions reinforce this) that they are taking a deliberate and measured approach to cryptocurrency so as not to needlessly squash innovation with regulatory overreach. They're in a tough position though, as their mandate is to protect individual investors and devise rules to enforce existing securities laws, so they (rightly) are continuing to study developments in this space.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3486

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: jaysabi on August 04, 2017, 06:47:07 PM

Quote from: NUKE911 on August 05, 2017, 04:58:19 AM

But that distinction can in fact make a tremendous difference

In other words, it may be quite feasible and doable to disrupt the PoW network provided enough resources are put into mining, and you are sort of guaranteed to succeed at bringing the network down. At the same time, the mission of accumulating enough coins in the PoS model may be virtually impossible since as soon as you start buying up, the price is set to spike exponentially. And whatever the price might be, you still might not be able to make it simply because some holders won't sell at any price. And then you are stuck

But again, this operates on the notion that the only way to disrupt a PoS system is to seize control of it, rather than disrupting it's ability to propagate a network by attacking or taking offline the computers that make it up, does it not? Even under PoW, you don't have to seize control of it to render it unusable, you just have to destabilize it to the point that blocks can be corrupted. (I say "just" knowing this would be a technical feat.) But I would think that you could hamper the system the same way by disrupting the network activity in PoS. Theoretically, what happens if a wallet with 51% of a PoS coinbase is not connected to the network? I would think they don't get to solve any blocks, otherwise the network would grind to a halt. If 51% of the coinbase in PoS is not connected to the network, doesn't that degrade network security the same way as taking out a large portion of the mining power making up PoW? My guess would be yes, but I don't know, which is why I'm asking.

Strictly speaking, I don't know

Since there are many varieties of the PoS model out there, and some of them can surely address that point in a coherent way. Personally, I'm inclined to think that if 51% of all nodes just plug off from the network without doing anything nasty behind the scenes, nothing particularly dangerous is going to happen. Regarding your other point (that of crushing part of the network), indeed if you shut down the whole Internet (or some part thereof) or just divide it into independent segments, this won't bode well for any coin, but this is certainly beyond the scope of issues addressed by these models. It is like saying that you could severely damage a coin by starting an all-out nuclear holocaust but this certainly won't be a blow aimed against this coin specifically (which is sort of assumed)

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3486

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

The feds just visited the dash developers recently but the y refused to talk to them claiming they had no more information than any user did.
I heard they are going to try and make vpn's illegal in russia. They also say there going to try and make tor illegal in the usa

The law was signed by Putin a few days ago

But as it always happens in such cases, people haven't been told the whole truth about the matter. And the half truths are sometimes (in fact, oftentimes if not always) worse than outright lies. In this case specifically, VPN's haven't been outright banned in Russia, that's bullshit. The law basically requires the providers of such services (VPN's, proxies, anonymizers, etc) to block access to banned resources. And it is only after they decline or refuse to block the access to such resources they are to be banned as well

That is, individual providers only, not all such services in their entirety

gentlemand

legendary

Activity: 2590

Merit: 3014

Welt Am Draht

Quote from: aTriz on August 05, 2017, 05:28:04 AM

Why would they be afraid? They have the legal power and technology to prevent anyone from using Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency for the matter.

Other than turning off the internet they really don't. They do however have absolute control over the fiat aspect of things and that's more than enough to keep a lid on it if they really wanted to. There'll always be people who route around that, but the majority they want to turn away from it would do so.

pentaboginja

newbie

Activity: 2

Merit: 0

Quote from: NUKE911 on August 05, 2017, 04:58:19 AM

The feds just visited the dash developers recently but the y refused to talk to them claiming they had no more information than any user did.
I heard they are going to try and make vpn's illegal in russia. They also say there going to try and make tor illegal in the usa.

Yea, I heard that too (Russia part) but VPN-s are rooted deeply into businesses all around the world, and many of them big, powerful companies, so I'm not so sure a bank or retailer that has thousand of VPN connections to remote offices will be pleased about that. Evem state owned companes use VPN-s a lot, it's so common now days that it would be tectonic shift if it was baned.

aTriz

hero member

Activity: 1232

Merit: 683

Tontogether | Save Smart & Win Big

The federal government is no match for innovation. This is something lawmakers have always known, and it is the reason state and federal regulations exist. But innovation, by its very nature, will always find a way around those regulations, resulting in the implementation of more regulations for creative minds to learn to evade — which they will. This results in the over-regulation we see in America today.

Nothing scares the government more than something it can’t control, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) revealed this week that it is terrified of cryptocurrencies — as well it should be. See, all those lawmakers and bureaucrats sitting around regulating everything depend on taxpayer money to pay their salaries so they can keep writing regulations. Since cryptocurrencies allow people to keep all of their money, this is a big problem for the lawmakers. Soon, people may even start to realize they can buy, sell, and trade freely without any government intervention. The horror.

Zerohedge

Why would they be afraid? They have the legal power and technology to prevent anyone from using Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency for the matter. They shouldn't be afraid of crypto currencies, the American government has already embraced them and legalized them for use in America. Instead of being afraid of Bitcoin, they should be working on how to use the blockchain to catch criminals who use Bitcoin, for example:

Say they have information on a transaction that is exactly 2.5 Bitcoin. They should look at the blockchain for any amount of transactions that add up to that number, and then they would have caught a criminal.

NUKE911

newbie

Activity: 1

Merit: 0

The feds just visited the dash developers recently but the y refused to talk to them claiming they had no more information than any user did.
I heard they are going to try and make vpn's illegal in russia. They also say there going to try and make tor illegal in the usa.

Shamie1002

full member

Activity: 406

Merit: 102

I think they are not really afraid. They have the legal power and I know that they can do what they want. Bitcoin is a big money and I am sure that they are just waiting for the right time to attack. We should all be ready for any situations.

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1115

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

Quote from: jaysabi on August 03, 2017, 10:52:36 AM

Quote from: deisik on August 03, 2017, 05:21:07 AM

Quote from: jaysabi on August 02, 2017, 05:33:46 PM

Quote from: jaysabi on August 03, 2017, 10:52:36 AM

I disagree with even this minor point of view

Not for the sake of disagreement obviously, but because you are missing an ever important distinction here (which conceptually distinguishes between the PoW model and the PoS model). This important distinction lies in the fact that with the PoS approach to securing network, you have to literally own the network before you can successfully attack it (i.e. get hold of the majority of coins), but in that very case you essentially become the owner of the whole shebang itself. This is totally different with the PoW model since in the latter case you just need enough hashing power to ruin such a coin

Perhaps I'm not as familiar with how PoS coins work then. How does ownership over coins factor into control over the network? Are there miners solving the blocks in the same manner as PoW? (If so, could you not just disrupt the miners solving the blocks to interfere with the system? Not to take it over, mind you, but to disrupt it and make it unusable.)

You may want to read the Wikipedia article on the PoS model

There are no miners in the sense mining works in Bitcoin. As per article (emphasis added), "in PoS-based cryptocurrencies the creator of the next block is chosen in a deterministic (pseudo-random) way, and the chance that an account is chosen depends on its wealth". In other words, your voting rights (which roughly corresponds to hashing power in Bitcoin) are directly proportional to the amount of coins you have (i.e. your stake). So if you want to take down or otherwise damage the coin, you have to outright accumulate more coins than anyone else (in general case, 50% plus 1 coin). But that would amount to acquiring the controlling stake in a company or firm, i.e. you essentially become an owner of it. After that, you can do with the company whatever you might want to do, but this is kinda natural course of events

I guess I'm just trying to understand how cryptography figures into it then. In PoW, everyone is "mining" to solve a cryptographic puzzle, and the person who does it gets the reward of new coins. But there are still computers hashing an algorithm in PoS, even if that's not how the blocks rewards are chosen. But in any event, it seems like targeting the computers decentralizing the network (miners in PoW and hashers or whatever they're called in PoS) would have the same effect in both systems. It would be a horribly inefficient way to try to disrupt the system, but it should have the same effect on both. This operates differently from the notion that the only way to disrupt the currency is to seize control of it (by owning majority in PoS or the majority of the hashing power in PoW).

But that distinction can in fact make a tremendous difference

In other words, it may be quite feasible and doable to disrupt the PoW network provided enough resources are put into mining, and you are sort of guaranteed to succeed at bringing the network down. At the same time, the mission of accumulating enough coins in the PoS model may be virtually impossible since as soon as you start buying up, the price is set to spike exponentially. And whatever the price might be, you still might not be able to make it simply because some holders won't sell at any price. And then you are stuck

But again, this operates on the notion that the only way to disrupt a PoS system is to seize control of it, rather than disrupting it's ability to propagate a network by attacking or taking offline the computers that make it up, does it not? Even under PoW, you don't have to seize control of it to render it unusable, you just have to destabilize it to the point that blocks can be corrupted. (I say "just" knowing this would be a technical feat.) But I would think that you could hamper the system the same way by disrupting the network activity in PoS. Theoretically, what happens if a wallet with 51% of a PoS coinbase is not connected to the network? I would think they don't get to solve any blocks, otherwise the network would grind to a halt. If 51% of the coinbase in PoS is not connected to the network, doesn't that degrade network security the same way as taking out a large portion of the mining power making up PoW? My guess would be yes, but I don't know, which is why I'm asking.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3486

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: deisik on August 03, 2017, 05:21:07 AM

Quote from: jaysabi on August 02, 2017, 05:33:46 PM

Quote from: deisik on August 03, 2017, 05:21:07 AM

I disagree with even this minor point of view

Not for the sake of disagreement obviously, but because you are missing an ever important distinction here (which conceptually distinguishes between the PoW model and the PoS model). This important distinction lies in the fact that with the PoS approach to securing network, you have to literally own the network before you can successfully attack it (i.e. get hold of the majority of coins), but in that very case you essentially become the owner of the whole shebang itself. This is totally different with the PoW model since in the latter case you just need enough hashing power to ruin such a coin

Perhaps I'm not as familiar with how PoS coins work then. How does ownership over coins factor into control over the network? Are there miners solving the blocks in the same manner as PoW? (If so, could you not just disrupt the miners solving the blocks to interfere with the system? Not to take it over, mind you, but to disrupt it and make it unusable.)

You may want to read the Wikipedia article on the PoS model

There are no miners in the sense mining works in Bitcoin. As per article (emphasis added), "in PoS-based cryptocurrencies the creator of the next block is chosen in a deterministic (pseudo-random) way, and the chance that an account is chosen depends on its wealth". In other words, your voting rights (which roughly corresponds to hashing power in Bitcoin) are directly proportional to the amount of coins you have (i.e. your stake). So if you want to take down or otherwise damage the coin, you have to outright accumulate more coins than anyone else (in general case, 50% plus 1 coin). But that would amount to acquiring the controlling stake in a company or firm, i.e. you essentially become an owner of it. After that, you can do with the company whatever you might want to do, but this is kinda natural course of events

I guess I'm just trying to understand how cryptography figures into it then. In PoW, everyone is "mining" to solve a cryptographic puzzle, and the person who does it gets the reward of new coins. But there are still computers hashing an algorithm in PoS, even if that's not how the blocks rewards are chosen. But in any event, it seems like targeting the computers decentralizing the network (miners in PoW and hashers or whatever they're called in PoS) would have the same effect in both systems. It would be a horribly inefficient way to try to disrupt the system, but it should have the same effect on both. This operates differently from the notion that the only way to disrupt the currency is to seize control of it (by owning majority in PoS or the majority of the hashing power in PoW).

But that distinction can in fact make a tremendous difference

In other words, it may be quite feasible and doable to disrupt the PoW network provided enough resources are put into mining, and you are sort of guaranteed to succeed at bringing the network down. At the same time, the mission of accumulating enough coins in the PoS model may be virtually impossible since as soon as you start buying up, the price is set to spike exponentially. And whatever the price might be, you still might not be able to make it simply because some holders won't sell at any price. And then you are stuck

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1115

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

Quote from: jaysabi on August 02, 2017, 05:33:46 PM

I disagree with even this minor point of view

Not for the sake of disagreement obviously, but because you are missing an ever important distinction here (which conceptually distinguishes between the PoW model and the PoS model). This important distinction lies in the fact that with the PoS approach to securing network, you have to literally own the network before you can successfully attack it (i.e. get hold of the majority of coins), but in that very case you essentially become the owner of the whole shebang itself. This is totally different with the PoW model since in the latter case you just need enough hashing power to ruin such a coin

Perhaps I'm not as familiar with how PoS coins work then. How does ownership over coins factor into control over the network? Are there miners solving the blocks in the same manner as PoW? (If so, could you not just disrupt the miners solving the blocks to interfere with the system? Not to take it over, mind you, but to disrupt it and make it unusable.)

You may want to read the Wikipedia article on the PoS model

There are no miners in the sense mining works in Bitcoin. As per article (emphasis added), "in PoS-based cryptocurrencies the creator of the next block is chosen in a deterministic (pseudo-random) way, and the chance that an account is chosen depends on its wealth". In other words, your voting rights (which roughly corresponds to hashing power in Bitcoin) are directly proportional to the amount of coins you have (i.e. your stake). So if you want to take down or otherwise damage the coin, you have to outright accumulate more coins than anyone else (in general case, 50% plus 1 coin). But that would amount to acquiring the controlling stake in a company or firm, i.e. you essentially become an owner of it. After that, you can do with the company whatever you might want to do, but this is kinda natural course of events

I guess I'm just trying to understand how cryptography figures into it then. In PoW, everyone is "mining" to solve a cryptographic puzzle, and the person who does it gets the reward of new coins. But there are still computers hashing an algorithm in PoS, even if that's not how the blocks rewards are chosen. But in any event, it seems like targeting the computers decentralizing the network (miners in PoW and hashers or whatever they're called in PoS) would have the same effect in both systems. It would be a horribly inefficient way to try to disrupt the system, but it should have the same effect on both. This operates differently from the notion that the only way to disrupt the currency is to seize control of it (by owning majority in PoS or the majority of the hashing power in PoW).

hatshepsut93

legendary

Activity: 3024

Merit: 2148

And how are you going to fight with the miners in practice?

Okay, you remove a huge mining farm, and that wouldn't be difficult obviously, but in less than no time ten smaller mining operations will immediately spring up in different quarters of the world to fill the void. If you take down these, a few hundred even smaller miners will soon emerge, so you will be essentially fighting with windmills uselessly and fruitlessly wasting your resources. That would be a perfect example of an immortal hydra

Sprouting cut parts faster than you chop them off

It's not about shutting down every miner in the world, it's about preventing growth of cryptocurrencies. In free environment, like we have now, hashrate follows the price, so 51% attacks can't be profitable for private parties, and also very expensive for governments. But when mining is banned globally and hashrate drops to very low levels and can't grow freely, it becomes a natural limit to the price, because disproportionally high price would make malicious mining profitable. Also, in this scenario governments could use seized mining equipment to further disrupt cryptocurrencies with 51% attacks. Successful attacks further drop the price and cause miners to quit.
But for this to work, all governments in the world need to treat cryptocurrencies as a terrorism, to make sure that some countries won't become safe havens.

Yuuto

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 501

Quote from: jaysabi on August 02, 2017, 05:33:46 PM

The federal government is no match for innovation. This is something lawmakers have always known, and it is the reason state and federal regulations exist. But innovation, by its very nature, will always find a way around those regulations, resulting in the implementation of more regulations for creative minds to learn to evade — which they will. This results in the over-regulation we see in America today.

Nothing scares the government more than something it can’t control, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) revealed this week that it is terrified of cryptocurrencies — as well it should be. See, all those lawmakers and bureaucrats sitting around regulating everything depend on taxpayer money to pay their salaries so they can keep writing regulations. Since cryptocurrencies allow people to keep all of their money, this is a big problem for the lawmakers. Soon, people may even start to realize they can buy, sell, and trade freely without any government intervention. The horror.

Zerohedge

I think that no doubt the government is scared of what bitcoin can bring to the table but really what can they do against it? Ban all bitcoin exchanges? Stricter KYC and AML laws? Or just completely outlaw bitcoin altogether?

Governments around the world have basically tried everything to stop people from using bitcoin and very few has actually encouraged their citizens to use bitcoin by reducing or eliminating taxes(australia, japan etc.).

What's the result? people keep on using bitcoin because it can't be stopped by a central point.... To shut down the entire bitcoin network you'd need to either shut down the internet, or shut down every single computer that runs bitcoin. Both of which is close to impossible. That is why centralized fintech is bound to fail, whilst decentralized ones will thrive.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3486

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

I disagree with even this minor point of view

Not for the sake of disagreement obviously, but because you are missing an ever important distinction here (which conceptually distinguishes between the PoW model and the PoS model). This important distinction lies in the fact that with the PoS approach to securing network, you have to literally own the network before you can successfully attack it (i.e. get hold of the majority of coins), but in that very case you essentially become the owner of the whole shebang itself. This is totally different with the PoW model since in the latter case you just need enough hashing power to ruin such a coin

Perhaps I'm not as familiar with how PoS coins work then. How does ownership over coins factor into control over the network? Are there miners solving the blocks in the same manner as PoW? (If so, could you not just disrupt the miners solving the blocks to interfere with the system? Not to take it over, mind you, but to disrupt it and make it unusable.)

You may want to read the Wikipedia article on the PoS model

There are no miners in the sense mining works in Bitcoin. As per article (emphasis added), "in PoS-based cryptocurrencies the creator of the next block is chosen in a deterministic (pseudo-random) way, and the chance that an account is chosen depends on its wealth". In other words, your voting rights (which roughly corresponds to hashing power in Bitcoin) are directly proportional to the amount of coins you have (i.e. your stake). So if you want to take down or otherwise damage the coin, you have to outright accumulate more coins than anyone else (in general case, 50% plus 1 coin). But that would amount to acquiring the controlling stake in a company or firm, i.e. you essentially become an owner of it. After that, you can do with the company whatever you might want to do, but this is kinda natural course of events

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1115

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

Quote from: jaysabi on August 02, 2017, 03:07:34 PM

Quote from: jaysabi on August 02, 2017, 12:33:43 PM

Quote from: hatshepsut93 on August 02, 2017, 06:52:25 AM

Governments can't destroy cryptocurrencies in one swing, like it happened with private payment systems previously, but if major forces (the US, EU, China, Russia) would act together, they can make sure that cryptocurrencies adoption will never reach mainstream levels. The weakest link of cryptocurrencies is mining - if cryptocurrencies were completely outlawed globally, most large scale mines would be forced to close, meaning lower network hashrates, meaning it would be easier for governments to attack crypto networks with 51% attacks. But there are many reasons why it hasn't happened yet and unlikely to happen in the future.

I disagree with the emphasized part

This is true only to a certain extent and (as it seems) only with regard to PoW coins. But even in the latter case, shutting down major mining operations won't change anything in particular over long times. Mining difficulty will readjust in a couple of weeks, and the efforts and resources spent to close down mining farms will be wasted for the most part. As to me, the weakest link is exchanges themselves since most people are there for profits alone, and shutting down them will have a by far more devastating and disastrous effect on cryptocurrencies than raiding mining facilities all over the world. That's why the introduction of decentralized exchanges (as well as some metaexchange embracing these exchanges) is so urgent nowadays

PoS coins fall victim to the same problems as PoW coins without a robust and diversified mining base. In PoW everyone mines for their own profit and coins are awarded to those who solve the blocks, but in PoS everyone mines to keep the network functioning and coins are awarded based on proportional ownership of existing coins. In both cases, if you target the miners, the coin is in jeopardy

And how are you going to fight with the miners in practice?

Okay, you remove a huge mining farm, and that wouldn't be difficult obviously, but in less than no time ten smaller mining operations will immediately spring up in different quarters of the world to fill the void. If you take down these, a few hundred even smaller miners will soon emerge, so you will be essentially fighting with windmills uselessly and fruitlessly wasting your resources. That would be a perfect example of an immortal hydra

Sprouting cut parts faster than you chop them off

I'm not saying that targeting miners is a technically effective way undermine a cryptocurrency, just that PoS coins are not immune to such a disruption if one were to happen. Since your original statement said this was only a concern for PoW coins, I'm broadening that to include PoS coins, since both require miners to diversify and protect the network. A mining disruption would impact both (not only PoW), but I do not believe either is in significant danger from having their operations disrupted by a targeting of the mining population.

I disagree with even this minor point of view

Not for the sake of disagreement obviously, but because you are missing an ever important distinction here (which conceptually distinguishes between the PoW model and the PoS model). This important distinction lies in the fact that with the PoS approach to securing network, you have to literally own the network before you can successfully attack it (i.e. get hold of the majority of coins), but in that very case you essentially become the owner of the whole shebang itself. This is totally different with the PoW model since in the latter case you just need enough hashing power to ruin such a coin

Perhaps I'm not as familiar with how PoS coins work then. How does ownership over coins factor into control over the network? Are there miners solving the blocks in the same manner as PoW? (If so, could you not just disrupt the miners solving the blocks to interfere with the system? Not to take it over, mind you, but to disrupt it and make it unusable.)

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3486

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: jaysabi on August 02, 2017, 03:07:34 PM

Quote from: jaysabi on August 02, 2017, 12:33:43 PM

Quote from: hatshepsut93 on August 02, 2017, 06:52:25 AM

Governments can't destroy cryptocurrencies in one swing, like it happened with private payment systems previously, but if major forces (the US, EU, China, Russia) would act together, they can make sure that cryptocurrencies adoption will never reach mainstream levels. The weakest link of cryptocurrencies is mining - if cryptocurrencies were completely outlawed globally, most large scale mines would be forced to close, meaning lower network hashrates, meaning it would be easier for governments to attack crypto networks with 51% attacks. But there are many reasons why it hasn't happened yet and unlikely to happen in the future.

I disagree with the emphasized part

This is true only to a certain extent and (as it seems) only with regard to PoW coins. But even in the latter case, shutting down major mining operations won't change anything in particular over long times. Mining difficulty will readjust in a couple of weeks, and the efforts and resources spent to close down mining farms will be wasted for the most part. As to me, the weakest link is exchanges themselves since most people are there for profits alone, and shutting down them will have a by far more devastating and disastrous effect on cryptocurrencies than raiding mining facilities all over the world. That's why the introduction of decentralized exchanges (as well as some metaexchange embracing these exchanges) is so urgent nowadays

PoS coins fall victim to the same problems as PoW coins without a robust and diversified mining base. In PoW everyone mines for their own profit and coins are awarded to those who solve the blocks, but in PoS everyone mines to keep the network functioning and coins are awarded based on proportional ownership of existing coins. In both cases, if you target the miners, the coin is in jeopardy

And how are you going to fight with the miners in practice?

Okay, you remove a huge mining farm, and that wouldn't be difficult obviously, but in less than no time ten smaller mining operations will immediately spring up in different quarters of the world to fill the void. If you take down these, a few hundred even smaller miners will soon emerge, so you will be essentially fighting with windmills uselessly and fruitlessly wasting your resources. That would be a perfect example of an immortal hydra

Sprouting cut parts faster than you chop them off

I'm not saying that targeting miners is a technically effective way undermine a cryptocurrency, just that PoS coins are not immune to such a disruption if one were to happen. Since your original statement said this was only a concern for PoW coins, I'm broadening that to include PoS coins, since both require miners to diversify and protect the network. A mining disruption would impact both (not only PoW), but I do not believe either is in significant danger from having their operations disrupted by a targeting of the mining population.

I disagree with even this minor point of view

Not for the sake of disagreement obviously, but because you are missing an ever important distinction here (which conceptually distinguishes between the PoW model and the PoS model). This important distinction lies in the fact that with the PoS approach to securing network, you have to literally own the network before you can successfully attack it (i.e. get hold of the majority of coins), but in that very case you essentially become the owner of the whole shebang itself. This is totally different with the PoW model since in the latter case you just need enough hashing power to ruin such a coin

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1115

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

Quote from: jaysabi on August 02, 2017, 12:33:43 PM

Quote from: hatshepsut93 on August 02, 2017, 06:52:25 AM

Governments can't destroy cryptocurrencies in one swing, like it happened with private payment systems previously, but if major forces (the US, EU, China, Russia) would act together, they can make sure that cryptocurrencies adoption will never reach mainstream levels. The weakest link of cryptocurrencies is mining - if cryptocurrencies were completely outlawed globally, most large scale mines would be forced to close, meaning lower network hashrates, meaning it would be easier for governments to attack crypto networks with 51% attacks. But there are many reasons why it hasn't happened yet and unlikely to happen in the future.

I disagree with the emphasized part

This is true only to a certain extent and (as it seems) only with regard to PoW coins. But even in the latter case, shutting down major mining operations won't change anything in particular over long times. Mining difficulty will readjust in a couple of weeks, and the efforts and resources spent to close down mining farms will be wasted for the most part. As to me, the weakest link is exchanges themselves since most people are there for profits alone, and shutting down them will have a by far more devastating and disastrous effect on cryptocurrencies than raiding mining facilities all over the world. That's why the introduction of decentralized exchanges (as well as some metaexchange embracing these exchanges) is so urgent nowadays

PoS coins fall victim to the same problems as PoW coins without a robust and diversified mining base. In PoW everyone mines for their own profit and coins are awarded to those who solve the blocks, but in PoS everyone mines to keep the network functioning and coins are awarded based on proportional ownership of existing coins. In both cases, if you target the miners, the coin is in jeopardy

And how are you going to fight with the miners in practice?

Okay, you remove a huge mining farm, and that wouldn't be difficult obviously, but in less than no time ten smaller mining operations will immediately spring up in different quarters of the world to fill the void. If you take down these, a few hundred even smaller miners will soon emerge, so you will be essentially fighting with windmills uselessly and fruitlessly wasting your resources. That would be a perfect example of an immortal hydra

Sprouting cut parts faster than you chop them off

I'm not saying that targeting miners is a technically effective way undermine a cryptocurrency, just that PoS coins are not immune to such a disruption if one were to happen. Since your original statement said this was only a concern for PoW coins, I'm broadening that to include PoS coins, since both require miners to diversify and protect the network. A mining disruption would impact both (not only PoW), but I do not believe either is in significant danger from having their operations disrupted by a targeting of the mining population.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3486

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: jaysabi on August 02, 2017, 12:33:43 PM

Quote from: hatshepsut93 on August 02, 2017, 06:52:25 AM

Governments can't destroy cryptocurrencies in one swing, like it happened with private payment systems previously, but if major forces (the US, EU, China, Russia) would act together, they can make sure that cryptocurrencies adoption will never reach mainstream levels. The weakest link of cryptocurrencies is mining - if cryptocurrencies were completely outlawed globally, most large scale mines would be forced to close, meaning lower network hashrates, meaning it would be easier for governments to attack crypto networks with 51% attacks. But there are many reasons why it hasn't happened yet and unlikely to happen in the future.

I disagree with the emphasized part

This is true only to a certain extent and (as it seems) only with regard to PoW coins. But even in the latter case, shutting down major mining operations won't change anything in particular over long times. Mining difficulty will readjust in a couple of weeks, and the efforts and resources spent to close down mining farms will be wasted for the most part. As to me, the weakest link is exchanges themselves since most people are there for profits alone, and shutting down them will have a by far more devastating and disastrous effect on cryptocurrencies than raiding mining facilities all over the world. That's why the introduction of decentralized exchanges (as well as some metaexchange embracing these exchanges) is so urgent nowadays

PoS coins fall victim to the same problems as PoW coins without a robust and diversified mining base. In PoW everyone mines for their own profit and coins are awarded to those who solve the blocks, but in PoS everyone mines to keep the network functioning and coins are awarded based on proportional ownership of existing coins. In both cases, if you target the miners, the coin is in jeopardy

And how are you going to fight with the miners in practice?

Okay, you remove a huge mining farm, and that wouldn't be difficult obviously, but in less than no time ten smaller mining operations will immediately spring up in different quarters of the world to fill the void. If you take down these, a few hundred even smaller miners will soon emerge, so you will be essentially fighting with windmills uselessly and fruitlessly wasting your resources. That would be a perfect example of an immortal hydra

Sprouting cut parts faster than you chop them off

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1115

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

Quote from: hatshepsut93 on August 02, 2017, 06:52:25 AM

Governments can't destroy cryptocurrencies in one swing, like it happened with private payment systems previously, but if major forces (the US, EU, China, Russia) would act together, they can make sure that cryptocurrencies adoption will never reach mainstream levels. The weakest link of cryptocurrencies is mining - if cryptocurrencies were completely outlawed globally, most large scale mines would be forced to close, meaning lower network hashrates, meaning it would be easier for governments to attack crypto networks with 51% attacks. But there are many reasons why it hasn't happened yet and unlikely to happen in the future.

I disagree with the emphasized part

This is true only to a certain extent and (as it seems) only with regard to PoW coins. But even in the latter case, shutting down major mining operations won't change anything in particular over long times. Mining difficulty will readjust in a couple of weeks, and the efforts and resources spent to close down mining farms will be wasted for the most part. As to me, the weakest link is exchanges themselves since most people are there for profits alone, and shutting down them will have a by far more devastating and disastrous effect on cryptocurrencies than raiding mining facilities all over the world. That's why the introduction of decentralized exchanges (as well as some metaexchange embracing these exchanges) is so urgent nowadays

PoS coins fall victim to the same problems as PoW coins without a robust and diversified mining base. In PoW everyone mines for their own profit and coins are awarded to those who solve the blocks, but in PoS everyone mines to keep the network functioning and coins are awarded based on proportional ownership of existing coins. In both cases, if you target the miners, the coin is in jeopardy. I fully agree with you that the weakest point is not mining though, it's the exchanges. If you cripple the point of exchange between fiat and crypto by targeting websites that allow for easy transfer, you can cripple the economy. It will stop new funds from coming in, and create price crash as people rush to get out fearing being stuck holding a worthless coin. Online exchanges more than anything have allowed crypto to grow to the point it has.

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1115

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

Quote from: hatshepsut93 on August 02, 2017, 06:52:25 AM

The federal government is no match for innovation. This is something lawmakers have always known, and it is the reason state and federal regulations exist. But innovation, by its very nature, will always find a way around those regulations, resulting in the implementation of more regulations for creative minds to learn to evade — which they will. This results in the over-regulation we see in America today.

Nothing scares the government more than something it can’t control, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) revealed this week that it is terrified of cryptocurrencies — as well it should be. See, all those lawmakers and bureaucrats sitting around regulating everything depend on taxpayer money to pay their salaries so they can keep writing regulations. Since cryptocurrencies allow people to keep all of their money, this is a big problem for the lawmakers. Soon, people may even start to realize they can buy, sell, and trade freely without any government intervention. The horror.

Zerohedge

This post is full of absurd premises. The government is no match for innovation. Government's role is not to obstruct innovation, your bias notwithstanding. If you view that as government's primary and intended function, you're not living in any type of reality that resembles the real world. But innovation, by its very nature, will always find a way around those regulations resulting in the implementation of more regulations for creative minds to learn to evade... The people actively attempting to skirt regulations are exactly the people regulations are designed to stop. Those people are the REASON regulations exist. It has nothing to do with "stopping innovation" and everything to do with stopping bad actors who harm others without regard or recompense. ... and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) revealed this week that it is terrified of cryptocurrencies... Substantiation? Where does this come from? I bet wherever you're extrapolating from, the conclusion will prove as baseless as the rest of these ideas when you provide the context that brought you to this conclusion. See, all those lawmakers and bureaucrats sitting around regulating everything depend on taxpayer money to pay their salaries so they can keep writing regulations. Epic lol. Not only do you not understand the purpose of the SEC, the mandate of the SEC, or the historical reasons the public demanded the SEC exist, you seem to think their existence is predicated on writing regulations. Pro-tip: Congress creates financial regulation, and the SEC's mandate is to create rules to enforce the law that already exists. Your understanding of any of this is exactly what I'd expect for a reader of Zerohedge.

olubams

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 503

I wont say they are terrified because they can actually stop it when taken to an extreme length but the issue is at what costs exactly are they willing to go? I am sure Satoshi does not create this to limit the basic function of government which means for government to meet that function, it needs to be able to generate revenue and that is why although government cannot stop crypto-currency but they can frustrate its penetration by ensuring that exchanges are made to face extreme conditions and also tax them to death which will fall back on us.

Lancusters

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 263

Governments can't destroy cryptocurrencies in one swing, like it happened with private payment systems previously, but if major forces (the US, EU, China, Russia) would act together, they can make sure that cryptocurrencies adoption will never reach mainstream levels. The weakest link of cryptocurrencies is mining - if cryptocurrencies were completely outlawed globally, most large scale mines would be forced to close, meaning lower network hashrates, meaning it would be easier for governments to attack crypto networks with 51% attacks. But there are many reasons why it hasn't happened yet and unlikely to happen in the future.

I think that now all the governments are studying what is best for them to accept crypto currency and take taxes from them or start a war but they do not believe in the victory. In addition each country has its own interests so they will never unite.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3486

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: hatshepsut93 on August 02, 2017, 06:52:25 AM

Governments can't destroy cryptocurrencies in one swing, like it happened with private payment systems previously, but if major forces (the US, EU, China, Russia) would act together, they can make sure that cryptocurrencies adoption will never reach mainstream levels. The weakest link of cryptocurrencies is mining - if cryptocurrencies were completely outlawed globally, most large scale mines would be forced to close, meaning lower network hashrates, meaning it would be easier for governments to attack crypto networks with 51% attacks. But there are many reasons why it hasn't happened yet and unlikely to happen in the future.

I disagree with the emphasized part

This is true only to a certain extent and (as it seems) only with regard to PoW coins. But even in the latter case, shutting down major mining operations won't change anything in particular over long times. Mining difficulty will readjust in a couple of weeks, and the efforts and resources spent to close down mining farms will be wasted for the most part. As to me, the weakest link is exchanges themselves since most people are there for profits alone, and shutting down them will have a by far more devastating and disastrous effect on cryptocurrencies than raiding mining facilities all over the world. That's why the introduction of decentralized exchanges (as well as some metaexchange embracing these exchanges) is so urgent nowadays

Hydrogen

legendary

Activity: 2562

Merit: 1441

I can think of cases where large financial institutions were found guilty of fraud, money laundering with drug cartels & terrorists, crimes far worse than ICO's.

They were deemed too big to fail and never answered for their crimes.

Regulation only punishes small players. It doesn't make things fair or equal the way its supposed to.

pearlmen

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

The federal government is no match for innovation. This is something lawmakers have always known, and it is the reason state and federal regulations exist. But innovation, by its very nature, will always find a way around those regulations, resulting in the implementation of more regulations for creative minds to learn to evade — which they will. This results in the over-regulation we see in America today.

Nothing scares the government more than something it can’t control, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) revealed this week that it is terrified of cryptocurrencies — as well it should be. See, all those lawmakers and bureaucrats sitting around regulating everything depend on taxpayer money to pay their salaries so they can keep writing regulations. Since cryptocurrencies allow people to keep all of their money, this is a big problem for the lawmakers. Soon, people may even start to realize they can buy, sell, and trade freely without any government intervention. The horror.

Zerohedge

And that is exactly their fear because the moment government is not getting money to run its activities then its stops functioning which might leads to anarchy because it then mean the police will stop working, public hospitals will also stop working, public transport will also stops, other government agencies will stop as well. You now see the fall out if crypto-currency is going without control and why they wont allow it? But the best for every government is to provide a framework to accommodate for the future.

hatshepsut93

legendary

Activity: 3024

Merit: 2148

Governments can't destroy cryptocurrencies in one swing, like it happened with private payment systems previously, but if major forces (the US, EU, China, Russia) would act together, they can make sure that cryptocurrencies adoption will never reach mainstream levels. The weakest link of cryptocurrencies is mining - if cryptocurrencies were completely outlawed globally, most large scale mines would be forced to close, meaning lower network hashrates, meaning it would be easier for governments to attack crypto networks with 51% attacks. But there are many reasons why it hasn't happened yet and unlikely to happen in the future.

xypos

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 250

Quote from: skyline247 on August 02, 2017, 12:29:34 AM

The federal government is no match for innovation. This is something lawmakers have always known, and it is the reason state and federal regulations exist. But innovation, by its very nature, will always find a way around those regulations, resulting in the implementation of more regulations for creative minds to learn to evade — which they will. This results in the over-regulation we see in America today.

Nothing scares the government more than something it can’t control, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) revealed this week that it is terrified of cryptocurrencies — as well it should be. See, all those lawmakers and bureaucrats sitting around regulating everything depend on taxpayer money to pay their salaries so they can keep writing regulations. Since cryptocurrencies allow people to keep all of their money, this is a big problem for the lawmakers. Soon, people may even start to realize they can buy, sell, and trade freely without any government intervention. The horror.

Zerohedge

Spot on, and this is exactly why bitcoin in my opinion is gaining some sort of traction. People after seeing Libertyreserve, e-gold, and now BTC-e seized and shut down by the government finally realises that anything centralized has a single point of failure, and only decentralized cryptocurrencies which bitcoin is the first of will be able to combat this.

It would be an interesting situation indeed once people really start dumping their fiat into bitcoin. Then what will happen? Obviously bitcoin will get banned pretty soon but there is nothing they can do because they can't seize bitcoin. They can seize exchanges, they can seize wallet sites, but a p2p network cannot be stopped.

That's the beauty of bitcoin and why it is so useful in a collapse scenario, imo.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3486

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

"Powerless"

Grin

Feds are NOT powerless to stop Cryptocurrencies. All it would take is seizing a few Bitcoin-related domains and the entire industry will collapse in on itself within a month.
No one in their right mind would hold on to Bitcoin if this were to happen. And the rest of the alt/crap coins would follow suit shortly thereafter. Look at what happened to BTC-e in the span of 1 week!!!

We all know what happened to Btc-e

Well, strictly speaking, we know next to nothing but in respect to your point this is in fact irrelevant. Btc-e was one of the top 5 Bitcoin exchanges and seizing its domain as well as suspending its operation should have caused if not immediate collapse but at least severe price correction of Biitcoin (according to your logic). But somehow this didn't happen. therefore you can't possibly claim that just taking over a few Bitcoin-related domains would be anywhere near enough to make the whole Bitcoin industry to implode

HeRetiK

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 2166

Playgram - The Telegram Casino

Quote from: skyline247 on August 02, 2017, 12:29:34 AM

The federal government is no match for innovation. This is something lawmakers have always known, and it is the reason state and federal regulations exist. But innovation, by its very nature, will always find a way around those regulations, resulting in the implementation of more regulations for creative minds to learn to evade — which they will. This results in the over-regulation we see in America today.

Nothing scares the government more than something it can’t control, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) revealed this week that it is terrified of cryptocurrencies — as well it should be. See, all those lawmakers and bureaucrats sitting around regulating everything depend on taxpayer money to pay their salaries so they can keep writing regulations. Since cryptocurrencies allow people to keep all of their money, this is a big problem for the lawmakers. Soon, people may even start to realize they can buy, sell, and trade freely without any government intervention. The horror.

Oh boy. The government is not always out to get you. Sometimes. But not always.

Real innovation is not about simply evading regulations, as this post makes it out to be. Real innovation happen outside existing regulatory frameworks, that's true. But usually that's merely a side-effect of being an unprecedented solution to a previously unsolved problem.

There's a reason why regulations exists. Just look at all the scams and pump'n'dumps happening in crypto. That's other edge of the sword. Not saying that I don't love crypto the way it is. It's an amazing wild west out there. But there's a reason for regulations.

omonuyak

sr. member

Activity: 882

Merit: 269

Very nice write up I think governments is actually "powerless" to stop or regulate crytocurrency! Most of their fears to me is push crytocurrency to be sold through black market. The may come from several front to attack crytocurrency but in million way the coins will find their way out.

pinkflower

sr. member

Activity: 868

Merit: 259

Dont ever underestimate the power of the governments around the world. They may not stop cryptocurrencies but they have shown that they can cooperate with each other and stop services that accept cryptocurrencies and have tagged as illegal. A good example is the take down of Alphabay and Hansa darknet markets.

freeyourmind

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 252

"Powerless"

Grin

Feds are NOT powerless to stop Cryptocurrencies. All it would take is seizing a few Bitcoin-related domains and the entire industry will collapse in on itself within a month.
No one in their right mind would hold on to Bitcoin if this were to happen. And the rest of the alt/crap coins would follow suit shortly thereafter. Look at what happened to BTC-e in the span of 1 week!!!

I agree they're definitely not powerless, but having an explicit strong resistance towards cryptocurrencies will give power the the opposition, which they'd probably rather not have.

$ wise, central banks are still several magnitudes beyond Bitcoin. The entire market cap is very small compared fiat currencies in circulation.

skyline247

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

"Powerless"

Grin

Feds are NOT powerless to stop Cryptocurrencies. All it would take is seizing a few Bitcoin-related domains and the entire industry will collapse in on itself within a month.
No one in their right mind would hold on to Bitcoin if this were to happen. And the rest of the alt/crap coins would follow suit shortly thereafter. Look at what happened to BTC-e in the span of 1 week!!!

pitham1

legendary

Activity: 1232

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Pearls Before Swine on August 01, 2017, 09:19:08 PM

Sir!

First, zerohedge is a tinfoil whackjob website that panders to
the lowest instincts of man. Second, any government could
easily outlaw or otherwise cripple crypto by legislating the
crap out of it. Don't believe for a minute that it couldn't happen.
It could. But I don't think the U.S. government is going to do anything
right now. They're probably in cahoots with satoshi, so wait for
some more major scams...then it'll happen.

That is correct. If the government does legislate against cryptocurrencies, most people would want to stay on the right side of the law. They won't care about whether the laws are just or whether they are implementable.

iamTom123

hero member

Activity: 490

Merit: 501

Quote from: Pearls Before Swine on August 01, 2017, 09:19:08 PM

Sir!

First, zerohedge is a tinfoil whackjob website that panders to the lowest instincts of man. Second, any government could
easily outlaw or otherwise cripple crypto by legislating the crap out of it. Don't believe for a minute that it couldn't happen.
It could. But I don't think the U.S. government is going to do anything right now. They're probably in cahoots with satoshi, so wait for some more major scams...then it'll happen.

I believe that the US government is still not that very interested to regulate cryptocurrency as of now. This unofficial stand can changed in the future though. I am agreeing with you that the government is not really powerless so they can not regulate cryptocurrency. It has all the power it needs just in case one day it would decide to outlaw the use of cryptocurrency. The thing is they can not stop cryptocurrency but they can outlaw its use within the jurisdiction of USA and they can enjoin all of their citizens anywhere not to touch any of this cryptocurrency thing. Those who think that cryptocurrency is untouchable must be living in the cave or just into the cryptocurrency fantasyland.

Pearls Before Swine

sr. member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 306

Sir!

First, zerohedge is a tinfoil whackjob website that panders to
the lowest instincts of man. Second, any government could
easily outlaw or otherwise cripple crypto by legislating the
crap out of it. Don't believe for a minute that it couldn't happen.
It could. But I don't think the U.S. government is going to do anything
right now. They're probably in cahoots with satoshi, so wait for
some more major scams...then it'll happen.

Yuhee

sr. member

Activity: 546

Merit: 250

Quote from: xuan87 on August 01, 2017, 07:38:33 PM

A lot of countries already realize the potential of Bitcoin that is why some of the country start to legalized Bitcoin and they are trying to regulate Bitcoin, some of the governments already feared that most of his citizen using Bitcoin and that can caused the taxed to be decreasing, a lot of them is thinking how to make Bitcoin into centralized, but still haven't find anything that can stop crypto yet

And i think the more government threatens cryptocurrency the more people are enticed to invest in btc than government banks. Think of the tax if you are in a 3rd world country especially if it's 30% and up and you will really have doubts and you would really try btc. With growing population of investorsainvestors and the new current update btc will even become more famous than this past years.

xuan87

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1001

A lot of countries already realize the potential of Bitcoin that is why some of the country start to legalized Bitcoin and they are trying to regulate Bitcoin, some of the governments already feared that most of his citizen using Bitcoin and that can caused the taxed to be decreasing, a lot of them is thinking how to make Bitcoin into centralized, but still haven't find anything that can stop crypto yet

whaawh

sr. member

Activity: 714

Merit: 251

Quote from: Hydrogen on August 01, 2017, 05:43:36 PM

In some eras of history, the western world is known for being on the cutting edge of innovation, research and development.

Its bizarre to me how historically "innovative" nations like the united states seem to oppose innovation and progress in the form of crypto currencies while "repressive" nations like russia embrace crypto.

Traditional historical roles and script may have flipped at some point.

If crypto is the future, if it represents innovation and progress... why would anyone want to stop it? Isn't that like trying to prevent people from using cars instead of horse driven carriages?

Everything will depend on how federals are interested in crypto currency. If there is a very large percentage of the use of criminals in crime, then this business will take a broader turn.

Hydrogen

legendary

Activity: 2562

Merit: 1441

In some eras of history, the western world is known for being on the cutting edge of innovation, research and development.

Its bizarre to me how historically "innovative" nations like the united states seem to oppose innovation and progress in the form of crypto currencies while "repressive" nations like russia embrace crypto.

Traditional historical roles and script may have flipped at some point.

If crypto is the future, if it represents innovation and progress... why would anyone want to stop it? Isn't that like trying to prevent people from using cars instead of horse driven carriages?

epitome

sr. member

Activity: 246

Merit: 250

I think they will come up with a solution to control crypto currencies or either try to understand who is behind all these projects and will try to make rules strict for exchanges so that they will collect all the information they can from the exchanges all over the world and might work with governments all over to control these things,who knows how this market will be five or ten years from now.

soham

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

its not just the federal government but any other enforcement agencies will be worried, because crypto currency is some thing which is beyond their control. they can't control the generation of the coins neither the circulation.

As a controller, it worries them because they don't want free money to be distributed to the economy..they will always want to control your money, but crypto currency is something they can't entirely stop.

Posted From bitcointalk.org Android App

Gotottack

hero member

Activity: 882

Merit: 506

Quote from: Proton2233 on August 01, 2017, 04:26:08 PM

Anonymity is only an excuse. Actually bitcoin the feds are afraid because it's a serious competitor to the US dollar. The farther away the more bitcoin will take away from the dollar and the potential of Americans to lose such a convenient mechanism, as the issue of the dollar. Soon it will be just paper.

Not really, bitcoins to be honest, cannot replace any sort of fiat in existence.

If bitcoins were able to, then there should have been countries that did it already. The problem is that bitcoin supply is too low, hence it the volatility will cause a lot of problems in commerce. Bitcoins will only live if there are fiat currencies ready to buy bitcoins and trade it.

Proton2233

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 252

Anonymity is only an excuse. Actually bitcoin the feds are afraid because it's a serious competitor to the US dollar. The farther away the more bitcoin will take away from the dollar and the potential of Americans to lose such a convenient mechanism, as the issue of the dollar. Soon it will be just paper.

yoseph

sr. member

Activity: 868

Merit: 266

The federal government is no match for innovation. This is something lawmakers have always known, and it is the reason state and federal regulations exist. But innovation, by its very nature, will always find a way around those regulations, resulting in the implementation of more regulations for creative minds to learn to evade — which they will. This results in the over-regulation we see in America today.

Nothing scares the government more than something it can’t control, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) revealed this week that it is terrified of cryptocurrencies — as well it should be. See, all those lawmakers and bureaucrats sitting around regulating everything depend on taxpayer money to pay their salaries so they can keep writing regulations. Since cryptocurrencies allow people to keep all of their money, this is a big problem for the lawmakers. Soon, people may even start to realize they can buy, sell, and trade freely without any government intervention. The horror.

Zerohedge

Even though that the anonymity of bitcoins is great for its investors, I believe that it can also be a problem, just look at what happens one lots of bitcoins are stolen and due to its high anonymity there is no way to track the perpetrators and at times they seem to get off scotfree. I still believe that bitcoins don't need no regulation from anyone.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3486

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services