2 ms·

On the contrary, I think China is a good example of how the government can have its cake and eat it, too. When you say, "lots of people," how many are we talki

by xapata 6y ago

On the contrary, I think China is a good example of how the government can have its cake and eat it, too. When you say, "lots of people," how many are we talking about? The majority? If so, you'd think the government would just give up trying to have control, it wouldn't be worth the effort. Remember, we're not talking about trying to have a technology that a few hobbyists can use. The goal is widespread usage, enough that it prevents governments from controlling currency.

stale2002 6y ago
> When you say, "lots of people," how many are we talking about? Enough that this whole original idea that you stated which was "Can't the government simply shut down the internet", is obviously not true. The real world examples of real world countries, show that places like china are not "shutting down the internet", and that such an idea is obviously stupid. There are tons of stories that you could make up in your head, about why China would want to shut down the internet right now. And yet, the fact of the matter is, that China is not "shutting down the internet". Thats the facts. Countries are simply not doing that. Despite many motivations to do so. > you'd think the government would just give up trying to have control, it wouldn't be worth the effort And yet we see that the governments of the world are not successfully cracking down on the internet enough to shut down crypto. Thats not happening. Despite the fact that crypto is often used for illegal purposes. And yet countries aren't enacting authoritarian control over all of the internet to shut it all down. We do not need to consider hypotheticals here. Just look at the real world, right now, and all the illegal activity that happens using crypto, and yet we are seeing that the world governments are not willing to enact measures to shut it all down. Apparently, it is not worth the effort to shut down that illegal activity, right now. That is already the state of the world.
- xapata 6y ago
  I'll ignore the "obviously stupid" comment and let you Google for examples. I agree that it's not worth the effort for governments to shut down Bitcoin, at the moment. The US just confiscated $1 billion in coin. They're pretty happy with the pseudonyms it seems.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    What some people don't seem to understand here, is that I could make a bitcoin transaction, by make a phone call to someone, for example. In order to truly prevent people from making bitcoin to transactions, a government would have to enact absolute authoritarian control over every single bit of information that goes into and out of the country. If I could even send a text message to someone outside the country, then I can send my bitcoin. Governments are not going to shut down all methods of ever sending text information to everyone permanently. > let you Google for examples. There are no examples of governments having absolute authoritarian perfect control over the internet, for any extended lengths of time. In every example of countries that have internet restrictions, there are many people who are still able to get information into and out of the country, through numerous methods. The original statement was "What's nearly impossible to stop?". And I maintained that it absolutely is nearly impossible for a government to enact perfect authoritarian control over every single person in a country. That is just obviously false. So no, governments cannot "simply shut down the internet to stop Bitcoin". Because no government in existence today, has enacted perfect authoritarian control, over the internet, or shut down their internet permanently and stopped every single VPN, satellite phone, ect. > it's not worth the effort for governments to shut down Bitcoin It will never be worth it for governments to permanently shut down all of the internet now and forever, as well as stop all of the vpns, satellite phone, ect. This kind of a permanent shutdown is something that no government has ever done. Every single example of governments trying to control the internet, still has many ways of getting information in and out of the country.
    - xapata 6y ago
      I think we're talking past each other, because you're thinking of your own (and similar people's) ability, whereas I'm thinking of broad majority usage.

by xapata 6y ago

stale2002 6y ago

> When you say, "lots of people," how many are we talking about? Enough that this whole original idea that you stated which was "Can't the government simply shut down the internet", is obviously not true. The real world examples of real world countries, show that places like china are not "shutting down the internet", and that such an idea is obviously stupid. There are tons of stories that you could make up in your head, about why China would want to shut down the internet right now. And yet, the fact of the matter is, that China is not "shutting down the internet". Thats the facts. Countries are simply not doing that. Despite many motivations to do so. > you'd think the government would just give up trying to have control, it wouldn't be worth the effort And yet we see that the governments of the world are not successfully cracking down on the internet enough to shut down crypto. Thats not happening. Despite the fact that crypto is often used for illegal purposes. And yet countries aren't enacting authoritarian control over all of the internet to shut it all down. We do not need to consider hypotheticals here. Just look at the real world, right now, and all the illegal activity that happens using crypto, and yet we are seeing that the world governments are not willing to enact measures to shut it all down. Apparently, it is not worth the effort to shut down that illegal activity, right now. That is already the state of the world.

xapata 6y ago
I'll ignore the "obviously stupid" comment and let you Google for examples. I agree that it's not worth the effort for governments to shut down Bitcoin, at the moment. The US just confiscated $1 billion in coin. They're pretty happy with the pseudonyms it seems.
- stale2002 6y ago
  What some people don't seem to understand here, is that I could make a bitcoin transaction, by make a phone call to someone, for example. In order to truly prevent people from making bitcoin to transactions, a government would have to enact absolute authoritarian control over every single bit of information that goes into and out of the country. If I could even send a text message to someone outside the country, then I can send my bitcoin. Governments are not going to shut down all methods of ever sending text information to everyone permanently. > let you Google for examples. There are no examples of governments having absolute authoritarian perfect control over the internet, for any extended lengths of time. In every example of countries that have internet restrictions, there are many people who are still able to get information into and out of the country, through numerous methods. The original statement was "What's nearly impossible to stop?". And I maintained that it absolutely is nearly impossible for a government to enact perfect authoritarian control over every single person in a country. That is just obviously false. So no, governments cannot "simply shut down the internet to stop Bitcoin". Because no government in existence today, has enacted perfect authoritarian control, over the internet, or shut down their internet permanently and stopped every single VPN, satellite phone, ect. > it's not worth the effort for governments to shut down Bitcoin It will never be worth it for governments to permanently shut down all of the internet now and forever, as well as stop all of the vpns, satellite phone, ect. This kind of a permanent shutdown is something that no government has ever done. Every single example of governments trying to control the internet, still has many ways of getting information in and out of the country.
  - xapata 6y ago
    I think we're talking past each other, because you're thinking of your own (and similar people's) ability, whereas I'm thinking of broad majority usage.