6 ms·
But what if it's not a conscious forfeit of power. The power is taken out from underneath them and by the time they realize it, they have no recourse. Other tha
by dntrkv 6y ago
But what if it's not a conscious forfeit of power. The power is taken out from underneath them and by the time they realize it, they have no recourse. Other than threatening all countries that use the currency, which I don't see happening.
- almost_usual 6y agoHow could a militarized country have no recourse? You’re saying all militarized countries on Earth will come to a point where Bitcoin is prominent and they will forfeit their power over their citizens without any fight? You’re proposing Bitcoin will bring world peace without conflict?
- dntrkv 6y agoThey have no recourse because the box has opened, and the new economy is up and running. Barring your citizens from participating would put your whole country at a disadvantage. Also, I don't think I agree with the notion that adopting crypto would result in a country forfeiting their power over the citizens. There are plenty of ways to integrate crypto into existing governments while still maintaining control. I'm not claiming this will happen, more of contemplating on how a global decentralized currency can take over. As far as bringing world peace, I don't think a decentralized currency would do any such thing. It's probably one of the required steps towards it, but one of many.
- yazaddaruvala 6y agoFor example, if the rest of the world adopts BTC as the world's reserve currency, the USA would HAVE TO purchase crazy amounts of BTC, and defend against a 51% attack by investing into mining. Meanwhile, the USA could try to preempt this future, but only the USA is incentivized to have USD be the world's reserve currency. As such the USA would need to threaten every other country in the world to stop using BTC, but its not clear if that causes BTC adoption to drop, or the Streisand Effect to kick in. And ofcourse, "mutually assured destruction" stops any large country from employing too large a threat against any other large country.
- ben_w 6y agoWould any nation allow itself to be in a position where a coalition of the willing could perform a 51% attack on their currency? Because if not, only one country could use BTC or anything with the same mining algorithm.
- yazaddaruvala 6y agoIf we are talking about a coordinated aggressive action to cripple the economy of a non-superpower nation, like today it requires a superpower to protect it. If we are talking about a coordinated aggressive action to cripple the economy of a superpower nation, you're basically triggering "mutually assured destruction". As such its most productive to assume that doesn't occur.
- ben_w 6y agoThe first nation to adopt it would be vulnerable immediately, without any real risk to other nations performing a 51% attack. Why anyone out themselves in harm’s way like that?
- ben_w 6y agoNow it is too late to edit, I see an annoying spelling mistake. Should be “put themselves”, not “out themselves”.
- yazaddaruvala 6y agoYeah, that is an interesting question. Probably best to ask Coinbase, Tesla and Square. I don't have a good answer for you. The bad answer is this: Risk isn't inherently a deterrent. If the reward is perceived to be high enough, there will be a first adopter.