5 ms·

I see this argument about censorship resistance a lot but I don't really understand it. If the main purpose of the technology is to evade law enforcement is thi

I see this argument about censorship resistance a lot but I don't really understand it. If the main purpose of the technology is to evade law enforcement is this not a massive reason for governments to ban cryptocurrencies? The user of the technology is presumably committing a crime.

theseatoms 9y ago
I'm certainly not an expert in this domain, but how exactly would a government ban bitcoin? Is it possible to do without banning the Internet? Governments can eliminate centralized services like Coinbase. But that only makes Bitcoin stronger as OP indicated.
- michaelt 9y ago
  You can't 100% eliminate speeding or child poverty or drugs or car accidents or corruption or gambling or unsafe working conditions or prostitution - but that doesn't stop governments trying for a reduction.
  - theseatoms 9y ago
    Oh, I'm pretty sure that governments will try to ban bitcoin, given that it gets more traction as an actual medium of exchange. I'm trying to assess if they'll succeed, and if so, "how?"
    - hndamien 9y ago
      Ban Bitcoin, but leave the futures exchange and taxes. OK.
- skymt 9y ago
  Step 1: eliminate centralized services. This would only make Bitcoin stronger if it's already a functioning economy that doesn't depend on connections to the existing financial system. If you can't buy and sell Bitcoin with traditional currency, it becomes far less practical. Step 2: make use of Bitcoin illegal. You know, "ban" it. It's a plaintext P2P protocol, not exactly magic. If you control the network, you can identify Bitcoin nodes and charge their owners, exactly how law enforcement can enforce laws against other illicit P2P traffic. This would drive any remaining die-hard users to services like Tor. Step 3: if Bitcoin is somehow still popular enough to be considered a problem, block Tor.
  - theseatoms 9y ago
    Helpful. Thanks.
  - hndamien 9y ago
    In this scenario where your Government is doing this do you leave? Subvert? Comply? If your answer is comply, congratulations for your obedience.
    - hndamien 9y ago
      Would love to understand the rationale for the down voting here. It would seem to be that the suggesting of disobedience to Government is immediately wrong. “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.
- BurritoAlPastor 9y ago
  You may misunderstand how laws work. The government can make anything illegal. (Within the constraints of the various checks and balances, but those mechanisms do not turn quickly.) The most obvious way is to make it a crime to exchange bitcoin for USD, goods, or services. (Doesn't even have to be bitcoin specifically; they can say "blockchain-backed digital resources" or whatever.) Scope it under interstate commerce, in the US; who's going to stop them? Obviously that wouldn't kill BTC overnight, but it would kill any legitimate market. If they're really worked up they can compel financial entities to disclose or block payments to/from known BTC exchanges, or compel telcos to do the same for blockchain mining traffic. They could even ban owning bitcoin; delete your keys or you're committing a felony. How wouldn't they ban bitcoin, really?
  - theseatoms 9y ago
    Well when you put it that way... In that scenario I suppose bitcoin's only hope would be that the countries of the world wouldn't coordinate to enforce a global ban. Seems unlikely that they would. But, back to your point, a total US ban might be enough to eventually kill the ecosystem.
xiphias 9y ago
The main purpose of the tech is to limit inflation in a cryptographycally provable way. In theory this is the main role of central banks as well, they just don't have a good track record in doing it.
cesarb 9y ago
Not necessarily. Online payment is currently mediated by a few large companies, the largest of them having their headquarters in a single country. There have been cases where these companies made things difficult for certain classes of sellers (for instance, erotica/pornography), or where pressure from that country's government made these companies block all payments to a specific recipient. In these cases I have read about, the person making the payment (and the person receiving the payment) would be breaking no laws.

theseatoms 9y ago

I'm certainly not an expert in this domain, but how exactly would a government ban bitcoin? Is it possible to do without banning the Internet? Governments can eliminate centralized services like Coinbase. But that only makes Bitcoin stronger as OP indicated.

michaelt 9y ago
You can't 100% eliminate speeding or child poverty or drugs or car accidents or corruption or gambling or unsafe working conditions or prostitution - but that doesn't stop governments trying for a reduction.
- theseatoms 9y ago
  Oh, I'm pretty sure that governments will try to ban bitcoin, given that it gets more traction as an actual medium of exchange. I'm trying to assess if they'll succeed, and if so, "how?"
  - hndamien 9y ago
    Ban Bitcoin, but leave the futures exchange and taxes. OK.
skymt 9y ago
Step 1: eliminate centralized services. This would only make Bitcoin stronger if it's already a functioning economy that doesn't depend on connections to the existing financial system. If you can't buy and sell Bitcoin with traditional currency, it becomes far less practical. Step 2: make use of Bitcoin illegal. You know, "ban" it. It's a plaintext P2P protocol, not exactly magic. If you control the network, you can identify Bitcoin nodes and charge their owners, exactly how law enforcement can enforce laws against other illicit P2P traffic. This would drive any remaining die-hard users to services like Tor. Step 3: if Bitcoin is somehow still popular enough to be considered a problem, block Tor.
- theseatoms 9y ago
  Helpful. Thanks.
- hndamien 9y ago
  In this scenario where your Government is doing this do you leave? Subvert? Comply? If your answer is comply, congratulations for your obedience.
  - hndamien 9y ago
    Would love to understand the rationale for the down voting here. It would seem to be that the suggesting of disobedience to Government is immediately wrong. “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.
BurritoAlPastor 9y ago
You may misunderstand how laws work. The government can make anything illegal. (Within the constraints of the various checks and balances, but those mechanisms do not turn quickly.) The most obvious way is to make it a crime to exchange bitcoin for USD, goods, or services. (Doesn't even have to be bitcoin specifically; they can say "blockchain-backed digital resources" or whatever.) Scope it under interstate commerce, in the US; who's going to stop them? Obviously that wouldn't kill BTC overnight, but it would kill any legitimate market. If they're really worked up they can compel financial entities to disclose or block payments to/from known BTC exchanges, or compel telcos to do the same for blockchain mining traffic. They could even ban owning bitcoin; delete your keys or you're committing a felony. How wouldn't they ban bitcoin, really?
- theseatoms 9y ago
  Well when you put it that way... In that scenario I suppose bitcoin's only hope would be that the countries of the world wouldn't coordinate to enforce a global ban. Seems unlikely that they would. But, back to your point, a total US ban might be enough to eventually kill the ecosystem.

xiphias 9y ago

The main purpose of the tech is to limit inflation in a cryptographycally provable way. In theory this is the main role of central banks as well, they just don't have a good track record in doing it.

cesarb 9y ago

Not necessarily. Online payment is currently mediated by a few large companies, the largest of them having their headquarters in a single country. There have been cases where these companies made things difficult for certain classes of sellers (for instance, erotica/pornography), or where pressure from that country's government made these companies block all payments to a specific recipient. In these cases I have read about, the person making the payment (and the person receiving the payment) would be breaking no laws.