Topic: What happens when the US makes crypto-currency illegal? (Read 8850 times)
I fear the day, man
The fat old men that control the US Government are trying to figure out how to get their hands into our collective bitcoin pockets. They smell the money and recognize the potential, but they have yet to figure out how to gain control of it.
pitchforks and torches time!
I could see the government imposing licenses for crytography, but drug dealers ...ect......would still probably get them.
I have not read the entire thread, but one scenario would be US makes it a felony to use cryptography without a license. You know, because terrorists and drug dealers are using cryptography. Banks, software companies that provide back doors, browser companies that play ball, registered Bitcoin exchanges, etc. would get licenses.
I'm thinking even if the US government pulled out the big guns and Somehow managed to shut down bitcoin, there's 100's of other currencies they can't just shut down because they shut bitcoin down. What do you think
Got any candidates? (Not snark, I mean it. I hate what the USA has become. It doesn't even resemble the nation I grew up in, and I am only middle aged.)
Although I agree significantly, I'm not really completely convinced that the US has ever been all that angelic. The Vietnam war and the Latin American activities which transpired during at least part of my early lifetime were pretty repulsive. It is true, however, that the spoils of our 'activities' have been more evenly distributed in times past. Of course that does not excuse morally wrong activities, but it does add incentive to not wish to participate. And as sure as eggs are eggs, an increase in income gap brings with it the need for enhanced internal security apparatus.
The Assange thing knocked Sweden way down no my list of interesting options and elevated Ecuador to near the top. As best I can tell the actual people of Ecuador themselves had some understanding of the Wikileaks/Assange details, and support their government's actions. To me this says a lot about the people. Like most folks though, I've mostly thought about such thing and have made little concrete action.
Agree thoroughly with the 1st paragraph. I too am old enough to remember the Southeast Asia War games. Was very young, but old enough to remember. But the domestic police state and it's broad acceptance is pretty new. Kids didn't get arrested for having a plastic steak knife or a heated argument when I was a young adult, let alone a kid. Hell, most of us brought our rifles to school on the opening day of hunting season as late as 1980 in Wyoming.
Now, SAYING that could get you arrested.
Land of the free, my Cherokee ass!
I hope saying it didn't get you arrested. The biggest challenge of the FUD right now is convincing all the "Citizens" that they have the right and the power to tell them all what to do. I'm not suggesting you say things to get arrested, I'm saying that people like this SEC character are just here to stir up controversy, he probably is from the SEC and this is their best plan of attack, shout scary stories in the Forums!
Do you actually have any evidence there are such mysterious objects in this universe as citizens?
Do me a favour and tell what a citizen is factually.
A citizen is an undead cartoon of a human, an enslaved payer of protection money to the state/church mafia, farmed in monogamous pairing families.
This is an opinion. I asked for facts. I wanted him to tell me what a citizen is factually.
BTW, I find your opinion on what a citizen is 99% in concordance with mine
I thought it was fact. Perhaps if you read it again you might discover why you question the fact of this. I find it quite strange that Zombies have been created by the state. I'm not using it as a derogatory term but as factual.
Calling a Zombie an "undead cartoon of a human" might be a good euphemism, or an incredible accurate description, I'm not sure which.
Do you actually have any evidence there are such mysterious objects in this universe as citizens?
Do me a favour and tell what a citizen is factually.
A citizen is an undead cartoon of a human, an enslaved payer of protection money to the state/church mafia, farmed in monogamous pairing families.
Hooray, for the awakening, let's trade freely without middlemen. I'd like to meet in Perth to trade BTC for what have you?
Quote
What happens when the US makes crypto-currency illegal?
China, Russia, India, etc adopt it as a new world reserve currency. We all get filthy rich. US is massively hurt.
Americans tend to think they're the center of the world, but they're not the whole world.
that blows my mind! a sentient program can own property!
Wow, that is incredible. Satoshi IS the Cyberchrist. He given to A.I. Property!!!
Having online property that does not require the "protection" of government.
I wish those who would like to discuss semantics would "fork" off in a different thread, and leave this one for the original topic - about the implications of crypto-currency being made illegal.
This might slow down Bitcoin, but it wouldn't stop it.
Military grade cryptography changes the rules of the game forever, just as nuclear weapons did, though in a completely peaceful way. It exists, there are open source implementations in the hands of the public, it cannot be uninvented, and it has many legitimate purposes. It leaves society with a stark choice: either we allow it, in which case its tremendous power has far-reaching consequences, both good and bad, or we try to suppress it, in which case we need draconian measures and will likely at most succeed in taking it away from honourable citizens rather than criminals, who will not be deterred. Radical liberty or tyranny. There are of course less dramatic compromises in between, but I think we'll find that the power of cryptography makes these compromises unenforceable.
See: Untraceable Digital Cash, Information Markets, and BlackNet
Military grade cryptography changes the rules of the game forever, just as nuclear weapons did, though in a completely peaceful way. It exists, there are open source implementations in the hands of the public, it cannot be uninvented, and it has many legitimate purposes. It leaves society with a stark choice: either we allow it, in which case its tremendous power has far-reaching consequences, both good and bad, or we try to suppress it, in which case we need draconian measures and will likely at most succeed in taking it away from honourable citizens rather than criminals, who will not be deterred. Radical liberty or tyranny. There are of course less dramatic compromises in between, but I think we'll find that the power of cryptography makes these compromises unenforceable.
See: Untraceable Digital Cash, Information Markets, and BlackNet
For me this is a significant post. I'm Impressed to see someone else express this opinion in such a logical manner. Clearly I agree strongly enough to add my support for this position.
This thread is going offtopic. I suggest you leave the racial discussion behind.
US Gov going to war with crypto-currencies - a lost battle.
US Gov going to war with crypto-currencies - a lost battle.
Think so? I don't think the government would waste time outlawing it if it wanted Bitcoin gone.
US Goverment contracts with Intel for $50M to develop a buttload of 22nm SHA-256 ASICs. 51% attacks the living hell out of the network; the loss of profitability causes miners to drop out and the government gains proportionally more and more of the blocks.
Game over.
Things like Linux have vast infrastructures of people who provide hardware and code because they believe in the concept. Is it not optional for miners to confirm transactions regardless of profit?
Sure, but the government has access to technology and production on a scale that individual miners - and even small companies like ASICMiner - do not. If they're serious about killing bitcoin, they just leave the ASICs running and the network is constantly under 51% attack. They could double spend and send coins to random addresses that were used previously in the blockchain. It'd be chaos.
Lets assume you are right; if they did that, is an altcoin that is immune to the 51% attack possible?
It's a good question. I've seen some efforts to make coins that are much more resistant to 51% attacks, yes, but I haven't done enough reading to give you an answer.
The combination of scrypt and one of those 51%-attack resistance schemes might be sufficient. But you can't underestimate a government that feels its money is threatened. They could turn all the supercomputers at national labs on the network, rent out every Amazon cluster, whatever it takes... $100M is not a lot of money for a government to protect its currency.
Also, China has a lot to lose from Bitcoin. They would have an even easier time doing what I'm describing, since they have most of the electronics manufacturing and are not above telling companies what to do. Hell, they could take over ASICMiner now if they wanted to.
This thread is going offtopic. I suggest you leave the racial discussion behind.
US Gov going to war with crypto-currencies - a lost battle.
US Gov going to war with crypto-currencies - a lost battle.
Think so? I don't think the government would waste time outlawing it if it wanted Bitcoin gone.
US Goverment contracts with Intel for $50M to develop a buttload of 22nm SHA-256 ASICs. 51% attacks the living hell out of the network; the loss of profitability causes miners to drop out and the government gains proportionally more and more of the blocks.
Game over.
Things like Linux have vast infrastructures of people who provide hardware and code because they believe in the concept. Is it not optional for miners to confirm transactions regardless of profit?
Sure, but the government has access to technology and production on a scale that individual miners - and even small companies like ASICMiner - do not. If they're serious about killing bitcoin, they just leave the ASICs running and the network is constantly under 51% attack. They could double spend and send coins to random addresses that were used previously in the blockchain. It'd be chaos.
Lets assume you are right; if they did that, is an altcoin that is immune to the 51% attack possible?
This thread is going offtopic. I suggest you leave the racial discussion behind.
US Gov going to war with crypto-currencies - a lost battle.
US Gov going to war with crypto-currencies - a lost battle.
Think so? I don't think the government would waste time outlawing it if it wanted Bitcoin gone.
US Goverment contracts with Intel for $50M to develop a buttload of 22nm SHA-256 ASICs. 51% attacks the living hell out of the network; the loss of profitability causes miners to drop out and the government gains proportionally more and more of the blocks.
Game over.
Things like Linux have vast infrastructures of people who provide hardware and code because they believe in the concept. Is it not optional for miners to confirm transactions regardless of profit?
Sure, but the government has access to technology and production on a scale that individual miners - and even small companies like ASICMiner - do not. If they're serious about killing bitcoin, they just leave the ASICs running and the network is constantly under 51% attack. They could double spend and send coins to random addresses that had been used previously in the blockchain. It'd be chaos.
This thread is going offtopic. I suggest you leave the racial discussion behind.
US Gov going to war with crypto-currencies - a lost battle.
US Gov going to war with crypto-currencies - a lost battle.
Think so? I don't think the government would waste time outlawing it if it wanted Bitcoin gone.
US Goverment contracts with Intel for $50M to develop a buttload of 22nm SHA-256 ASICs. 51% attacks the living hell out of the network; the loss of profitability causes miners to drop out and the government gains proportionally more and more of the blocks.
Game over.
Things like Linux have vast infrastructures of people who provide hardware and code because they believe in the concept. Is it not optional for miners to confirm transactions regardless of profit?
Zarathustra + Loozik - if you want to pursue your thesis that most people are subhumans because they rejoice in being citizens, then the Politics and Society board awaits you.
What have you smoked today?
Hmmm. A German saying other people are "so called 'humans' which they are not."
I did not say I am a German. My native language is German only. That does not necessary mean that I am a German.
Perhaps the word you want for these "so called 'humans' which they are not" is untermenschen?
No. Don't put words in my mouth. As I explained already: glückliche und unglückliche Sklaven (happy and unhappy Slaves), Mafiosi (protection money payers), Kollektivisten (collectivists), Bürger (citizens), domestizierte Menschen (domesticated humans).
I'm sure if you search your history,
My history???
... you will find lots of people with solutions to the problem of "so called 'humans' which they are not." Perhaps you, being the smart little man you are, can find a final solution?
Yes, that would be easy: Don't accept orwell speak of the common anymore, don't accept to be ruled, civilized, domesticated and brainwashed anymore. If everybody would do that: problem solved.
Both you guys are at war with the English language. Its pathetic that you think you are superior to everyone else because you refuse to accept words in their common meaning. I wonder if you two have redefined 'sex' to include wanking and if you think that makes you better lovers than anyone else?
Yes, the English language is not my native language. It is the language of the hegemonial giga-collective of so called 'humans', which they are not, and which (most of them) do not speak any other language. But also my native language, the German language is an orwellian language.
WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, CITIZENS (SLAVES, DOMESTIC PIGS/HUMANS) ARE HUMANS etc.
Hmmm. A German saying other people are "so called 'humans' which they are not."
Perhaps the word you want for these "so called 'humans' which they are not" is untermenschen? I'm sure if you search your history, you will find lots of people with solutions to the problem of "so called 'humans' which they are not." Perhaps you, being the smart little man you are, can find a final solution?
This thread is going offtopic. I suggest you leave the racial discussion behind.
US Gov going to war with crypto-currencies - a lost battle.
Fair enough. Zarathustra + Loozik - if you want to pursue your thesis that most people are subhumans because they rejoice in being citizens, then the Politics and Society board awaits you.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=34.0
I agree with Moebius327 - a government can't ban Bitcoin. It will make things difficult as Bitcoin is the type of disruptive innovation that causes people to freak out but it can't stop people using it.
Jump to: