6 ms·

statistically, so few people use bitcoin, that one might as well round to zero, so governments do not need to care. FB has 2.5B users whom they can easily manip

statistically, so few people use bitcoin, that one might as well round to zero, so governments do not need to care. FB has 2.5B users whom they can easily manipulate, hence governments care.

xyzzyz 7y ago
Yeah, but those who are sanctioned by governments have much more incentive to use Bitcoin, so the fact that most don't use it is not important, what is important is its existence as an option.
- dmitrygr 7y ago
  It's not really an option. The hard (and VERY low) cap on transaction volume is a joke. If you think a Bitcoin is actually an option for actual banking for actual people (not just the current set of a few thousand gamblers), you are delusional. The current financial system DOES process more transactions in a millisecond than Bitcoin CAN in a week.
  - cossatot 7y ago
    No need to call anyone delusional.
  - xyzzyz 7y ago
    That's irrelevant. People who want to use Bitcoin to evade SWIFT sanctions don't need to do thousands transactions, they only need to do one.
cwkoss 7y ago
I don't think governments 'dont care' but rather they are powerless to act effectively against Bitcoin. A ban would legitimize its utility to people skeptical of central banking. Because Satoshi is anonymous, there is no person or team to attack with legal or extralegal coercion. Only way to effectively take down bitcoin is to spend ~$1B building a huge mining operation with the purpose of launching a 51% attack, but even that could be mitigated.
- root_axis 7y ago
  > A ban would legitimize its utility to people skeptical of central banking i.e. a tiny irrelevant niche. I don't think banning bitcoin is a good idea, but a ban would be highly effective because nobody cares enough to risk fines or jail time over something they have no use for anyway.
  - cwkoss 7y ago
    A government can ban BTC<>fiat exchanges within their country fairly effectively. A ban on transacting on the Bitcoin network would be extremely difficult to enforce - VPN to a different country and they've lost you. Cyberpunks could still cross borders to cash out, or just purchase digital goods/services.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      > A ban on transacting on the Bitcoin network would be extremely difficult to enforce 1. I disagree. There are many effective methods a government could utilize to enforce a ban on transacting on the Bitcoin network. I could think of many technical examples, like the use of weaponized malware and 0-days to spy on the population and uncover users. Yes, some technical people could evade detection, but most people (including most programmers) would be caught up quickly due to opsec mistakes. There is also violence, which would be very effective unfortunately. 2. Even if they couldn't effectively ban transacting on the bitcoin network, the network itself is useless if the state makes it illegal for businesses to accept bitcoin. 3. Strong enforcement isn't necessary since the masses are already uninterested in blockchain tokens except as a vehicle for speculation. If the government made it illegal most people wouldn't think twice about it. Why bother?
      - twox2 7y ago
        "like the use of weaponized malware and 0-days to spy on the population and uncover users" this is not a thing. nation state don't burn 0days on this nonsense.
m3kw9 7y ago
It’s all about if fb can print money and able to compete with USD money supply

statistically, so few people use bitcoin, that one might as well round to zero, so governments do not need to care. FB has 2.5B users whom they can easily manipulate, hence governments care.

xyzzyz 7y ago

Yeah, but those who are sanctioned by governments have much more incentive to use Bitcoin, so the fact that most don't use it is not important, what is important is its existence as an option.

dmitrygr 7y ago
It's not really an option. The hard (and VERY low) cap on transaction volume is a joke. If you think a Bitcoin is actually an option for actual banking for actual people (not just the current set of a few thousand gamblers), you are delusional. The current financial system DOES process more transactions in a millisecond than Bitcoin CAN in a week.
- cossatot 7y ago
  No need to call anyone delusional.
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  That's irrelevant. People who want to use Bitcoin to evade SWIFT sanctions don't need to do thousands transactions, they only need to do one.

cwkoss 7y ago

I don't think governments 'dont care' but rather they are powerless to act effectively against Bitcoin. A ban would legitimize its utility to people skeptical of central banking. Because Satoshi is anonymous, there is no person or team to attack with legal or extralegal coercion. Only way to effectively take down bitcoin is to spend ~$1B building a huge mining operation with the purpose of launching a 51% attack, but even that could be mitigated.

root_axis 7y ago
> A ban would legitimize its utility to people skeptical of central banking i.e. a tiny irrelevant niche. I don't think banning bitcoin is a good idea, but a ban would be highly effective because nobody cares enough to risk fines or jail time over something they have no use for anyway.
- cwkoss 7y ago
  A government can ban BTC<>fiat exchanges within their country fairly effectively. A ban on transacting on the Bitcoin network would be extremely difficult to enforce - VPN to a different country and they've lost you. Cyberpunks could still cross borders to cash out, or just purchase digital goods/services.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    > A ban on transacting on the Bitcoin network would be extremely difficult to enforce 1. I disagree. There are many effective methods a government could utilize to enforce a ban on transacting on the Bitcoin network. I could think of many technical examples, like the use of weaponized malware and 0-days to spy on the population and uncover users. Yes, some technical people could evade detection, but most people (including most programmers) would be caught up quickly due to opsec mistakes. There is also violence, which would be very effective unfortunately. 2. Even if they couldn't effectively ban transacting on the bitcoin network, the network itself is useless if the state makes it illegal for businesses to accept bitcoin. 3. Strong enforcement isn't necessary since the masses are already uninterested in blockchain tokens except as a vehicle for speculation. If the government made it illegal most people wouldn't think twice about it. Why bother?
    - twox2 7y ago
      "like the use of weaponized malware and 0-days to spy on the population and uncover users" this is not a thing. nation state don't burn 0days on this nonsense.

m3kw9 7y ago

It’s all about if fb can print money and able to compete with USD money supply