4 ms·

Yes but the key difference is with cryptocurrency the person that owns the wallet still has to sign the transaction, there is no other way. It's a push model in

Yes but the key difference is with cryptocurrency the person that owns the wallet still has to sign the transaction, there is no other way. It's a push model instead of pull. Compare this to traditional banking where a 3rd party (the bank) can aquiesce to a government request without your knowledge or approval.

cortesoft 7y ago
They could prevent you from spending the coins, though, by threatening anyone who accepts a transfer of the 'seized' coins.
- silverhunter 7y ago
  Does the crypto community actually stop people from spending stolen coins? No, they send off alerts but the coins still get used.
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    I'm pretty sure that "They" was meant to refer to the Government. The Government could most certainly pass laws (or enforce existing laws) that put people in jail for accepting stolen or "dirty" coins. (Just like the Government could pass a law or re-interpret existing laws to make making owning bitcoins illegal.)
- solotronics 7y ago
  Enforcing illegal torrents failed. I think a cryptocurrency ban would be similar. Also, the US made it illegal to hold gold between 1933 and 1974 but almost nobody turned in gold to the feds. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102
  - cortesoft 7y ago
    They enforce it when you buy something real with the coins. A torrent is the thing you want, it isn't a currency to buy the thing you want.
    - Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
      Both are essentially electronic systems of information on a computing system, a format and a protocol of communication through the internet. In terms of technical difficulty to enforce them it would be very similar.
ineedasername 7y ago
That doesn't stop them from shutting things down. The result is the same: You no longer have it. An offline wallet would help, if you can avoid jail.
- Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
  So you're basically saying that it works with an offline wallet? Wasn't that the original point?
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    Offline wallets have limited utility. Once you want to do anything at all with the money it becomes vulnerable.
Consultant32452 7y ago
I feel confident that any major state actor could completely disrupt the bitcoin market. In traditional banking the government wants to maintain the value of its fiat currency. But the government doesn't care one iota about the value of Bitcoin except potentially for its own nefarious purposes.
- solotronics 7y ago
  This is assuming that Bitcoin wasn't invented by a government in the first place. Cryptos have a strong benefit to central authority in that they are simple to track flows of money, it's impossible to play a shell game if you can check the block chain. It becomes very easy to check the full transaction history of someone if you find out their addresses. Here is an NSA paper on cryptocurrency that came out in 1996 https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/money/nsamint/nsamint.htm https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/mone...

cortesoft 7y ago

They could prevent you from spending the coins, though, by threatening anyone who accepts a transfer of the 'seized' coins.

silverhunter 7y ago
Does the crypto community actually stop people from spending stolen coins? No, they send off alerts but the coins still get used.
- shkkmo 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure that "They" was meant to refer to the Government. The Government could most certainly pass laws (or enforce existing laws) that put people in jail for accepting stolen or "dirty" coins. (Just like the Government could pass a law or re-interpret existing laws to make making owning bitcoins illegal.)
solotronics 7y ago
Enforcing illegal torrents failed. I think a cryptocurrency ban would be similar. Also, the US made it illegal to hold gold between 1933 and 1974 but almost nobody turned in gold to the feds. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102
- cortesoft 7y ago
  They enforce it when you buy something real with the coins. A torrent is the thing you want, it isn't a currency to buy the thing you want.
  - Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
    Both are essentially electronic systems of information on a computing system, a format and a protocol of communication through the internet. In terms of technical difficulty to enforce them it would be very similar.

ineedasername 7y ago

That doesn't stop them from shutting things down. The result is the same: You no longer have it. An offline wallet would help, if you can avoid jail.

Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
So you're basically saying that it works with an offline wallet? Wasn't that the original point?
- ineedasername 7y ago
  Offline wallets have limited utility. Once you want to do anything at all with the money it becomes vulnerable.

Consultant32452 7y ago

I feel confident that any major state actor could completely disrupt the bitcoin market. In traditional banking the government wants to maintain the value of its fiat currency. But the government doesn't care one iota about the value of Bitcoin except potentially for its own nefarious purposes.

solotronics 7y ago
This is assuming that Bitcoin wasn't invented by a government in the first place. Cryptos have a strong benefit to central authority in that they are simple to track flows of money, it's impossible to play a shell game if you can check the block chain. It becomes very easy to check the full transaction history of someone if you find out their addresses. Here is an NSA paper on cryptocurrency that came out in 1996 https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/money/nsamint/nsamint.htm https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/mone...