full member
Activity: 206
Merit: 100
All these comments about 51% attacks are very weird to me. The most straightforward way that a government would go after bitcoin is simply ban the exchanges on the pretext of stopping illegal gambling and illegal drug dealing (which, one will notice, are pretty major parts of the bitcoin economy). I've posted on this before:
Consider what happened to the poker rooms. What's really wild about that action is poker is probably not illegal in many states that ban gambling; it's not a banking game, skill has a significant impact, etc. Moreover, poker is not even asserted to illegal in all the states. The reason they dropped the hammer on Poker Rooms is the passage of UIGEA, which made financing poker room illegal, even though the underlying activity was not necessarily illegal.
Can you imagine something similar happening to bitcoin? Yes, easily. Without the ability to get checks, wire transfers, ACH, Dwolla, etc., bitcoin becomes very difficult to use--not just for drug dealers, but for everyone.
Lots of people have said that bitcoin would survive the loss of Silk Road, but I think it depends. If Silk Road is infiltrated by law enforcement and coordinated high-profile arrests made, I think the site might become too scary for customers to use, and that is dries up in the US. In that case, I think Bitcoin survives. But if they go after it with something like and anti-bitcoin UIGEA (call it ABU), I think Bitcoin could honestly die out.
Maybe you think that an ABU would not pass because there are legitimate for it, I say bullocks. Judging by Silk Road and this forum, the top three uses of bitcoin seem to be illegal drugs, gambling, and Ponzi schemes. It's not as if they are commonly accepted on eBay, for example. Bitcoin desperately needs high-profile legitimate uses. Moreover, compared to Poker Rooms, Silk Road (and the Armory) are terrifying to ordinary citizens. Most people didn't see anything wrong with poker, and UIGEA itself probably would not have passed without land-based casinos lobbying for it. It is true a lot of people think pot should be legal, but just the splash screen of Silk Road shows a whole lot more. If a politician demagogues on Silk Road, I bet something even more draconian than UIGEA gets passed, no problem.
But would this destroy bitcoin? I mean, it would still be tradeable overseas. I think it does kill bitcoin as a real currency (as opposed to quirky hobby). We'd see the mother of all bank runs as US bitcoiners cash out. When this happens, not only with the price drop precipitously, but some of the exchanges will not have enough cash on hand and won't be able to cover claims. This will terrify non-US bitcoiners as well, and at the end of the day I think bitcoin is trading in the range of pink sheets, and the exchanges may all be belly-up. It won't make sense to mine, rigs will be sold off, and bitcoin becomes a cute novelty susceptible to attacks--kinda like Litecoin. And unlike bitcoin circa 2010, there isn't much of a chance for it to rise from the ashes--not with an an anti-bitcoin UIGEA in place, stifling the US market.
I'm pro-bitcoin, so I hope (1) flashy legal uses come to fruition quickly, and (2) the Silk Road is seriously compromised by LEO so that it doesn't become an excuse for demagoguery.