3 ms·

Without arguing for or against such a ban - it is literally in the purview of governments. Control and regulation of financial mechanisms is a key part of state

Without arguing for or against such a ban - it is literally in the purview of governments. Control and regulation of financial mechanisms is a key part of state sovereignty. So, such a ban would is much more "the government's job" than banning a product like beanie babies. It's also not the equivalent of banning the Internet; perhaps - similar to banning gambling through the Internet. In the sense that it may be impossible to properly enforce, but can certainly happen and in some world states: https://www.nodeposit365.com/features/countries-that-have-banned-online-gambling/ https://www.nodeposit365.com/features/countries-that-have-ba... Again, none of this is to say cyptocurrencies should or shouldn't be banned; or even that governments should or shouldn't ban things at all, or exist at all etc.

smeej 6y ago
You're right that the political case is easy to make. Governments do already claim the authority to control and regulate these things. The interesting question about Bitcoin is whether it could ever be robust enough that they couldn't successfully regulate or control it, even if they very much wanted to and most people agreed it would be appropriate for them to do so.
- einpoklum 6y ago
  > The interesting question about Bitcoin is whether it could ever be robust enough that they couldn't successfully regulate or control it, Oh, I doubt that. I mean, if it were banned by most world states, then you wouldn't have reputable exchanges operating legally and openly. So established investment firms and investors would probably stay away from it. And of course, no person or business could officially accept BitCoin, and it would be risky to accept it even unofficially, since it would be admitting to a crime.