Topic: What is stopping Gov't from starting their own blockchain... - page 2. (Read 2904 times)
I wouldn't use a government control blockchain, would you?
Why would they?
Govt = central control and currency issue via "trusted" (LOLZ) third party.
Bitcoin = decentralized, and operated without need for "trusted" third party.
Govt = central control and currency issue via "trusted" (LOLZ) third party.
Bitcoin = decentralized, and operated without need for "trusted" third party.
Agree completely. Nothing is stopping anyone from creating a block chain, there are already more running around than have yet to show any practical purpose. Why would a government or for that matter anyone else want to?
This is a topic extensively covered elsewhere on this forum. Appropriate head gear is suggested for the various different premises offered. For example you may want 1890s style sleeve garters and a green eye shade cap in one section of the forum, for another a pillowcase with eye holes cut in it, in another a tinfoil hat, and so on.
It's not like a blockchain is all that useful by itself, you can execute transactions in it; that's nice. Attempts to make it useful have created a lot of centralized infrastructure around Bitcoin in particular, the most prominent examples being the currency exchanges. Who would have ever thought that "Magic The Gathering Online eXchange" would seriously be a large part of something that some people seem to regard as their Armageddon ace-in-the-hole?
So, maybe if the US government created something like The Federal National Second Life Mortgage Administration to rescue all the investors underwater on their Second Life properties, they could throw a blockchain in there just for the effect
thus taking advantage of the utility of bitcoin but leaving all current bitcoin holders with a lesser used (and therefore lower value) currency?
Sorry if this has been asked before.
Sorry if this has been asked before.
I'd say their nature prevents it.
Governments being what they are, some of the key features of Bitcoin (privacy, decentralization, etc.) tend to conflict with their core traits. I doubt any government could resist making slight, then ultimately significant modifications: requiring registration (name, address, SSN) per private key and limiting their number, requiring blocks be verified by a central server, removing the 21M cap, and such.
Even if it was an unmolested clone, once the thing was released, who would use it? And without a supporting infrastructure in place, how could they force anyone to use it?
I don't expect competition from governments to be an issue for Bitcoin anytime soon, if ever.
This is a good argument against it, though. A government couldn't stop itself from meddling.
It makes hoarding less attractive, yes.
dampens your hope for 1k/btc?? The get rich quick scheme not fast enough for ya??
If GovCoin is decentralized like Bitcoin, what would they gain? They just end up with two coins they can't control instead of one.
If GovCoin is centralized, it's just an electronic version of fiat... It's your debit card, but run on the government's network instead of the bank's. That's kind of interesting, but it's not revolutionary.
If GovCoin is centralized, it's just an electronic version of fiat... It's your debit card, but run on the government's network instead of the bank's. That's kind of interesting, but it's not revolutionary.
The government would gain nothing other than use of a superior currency. The GovCoin would be perceived as superior because everyone gets to hear about it at the same time so greedy early adopters don't get to profit.
If GovCoin is decentralized like Bitcoin, what would they gain? They just end up with two coins they can't control instead of one.
If GovCoin is centralized, it's just an electronic version of fiat... It's your debit card, but run on the government's network instead of the bank's. That's kind of interesting, but it's not revolutionary.
If GovCoin is centralized, it's just an electronic version of fiat... It's your debit card, but run on the government's network instead of the bank's. That's kind of interesting, but it's not revolutionary.
I see what you guys are saying, it still dampens my hope for $1000/bitcoin though. If bitcoin is adopted as legal tender and people complain about the unfairness of early adopters, I could see a government chain being implemented as a feel good solution to the "problem".
thus taking advantage of the utility of bitcoin but leaving all current bitcoin holders with a lesser used (and therefore lower value) currency?
Sorry if this has been asked before.
Sorry if this has been asked before.
I'd say their nature prevents it.
Governments being what they are, some of the key features of Bitcoin (privacy, decentralization, etc.) tend to conflict with their core traits. I doubt any government could resist making slight, then ultimately significant modifications: requiring registration (name, address, SSN) per private key and limiting their number, requiring blocks be verified by a central server, removing the 21M cap, and such.
Even if it was an unmolested clone, once the thing was released, who would use it? And without a supporting infrastructure in place, how could they force anyone to use it?
I don't expect competition from governments to be an issue for Bitcoin anytime soon, if ever.
There is no technical reason they couldn't although I am almost certain we will never see any country give up control like that.
Lets say the government is libertarian.
Why would they?
Govt = central control and currency issue via "trusted" (LOLZ) third party.
Bitcoin = decentralized, and operated without need for "trusted" third party.
Govt = central control and currency issue via "trusted" (LOLZ) third party.
Bitcoin = decentralized, and operated without need for "trusted" third party.
thus taking advantage of the utility of bitcoin but leaving all current bitcoin holders with a lesser used (and therefore lower value) currency?
Sorry if this has been asked before.
Sorry if this has been asked before.
Jump to: