4 ms·

> So prosecutors really are powerless. I think. Am I wrong? Yes, you're wrong. > Sure you could shut down some nodes, but not all of them. And even then new n

> So prosecutors really are powerless. I think. Am I wrong? Yes, you're wrong. > Sure you could shut down some nodes, but not all of them. And even then new nodes would pop up vastly more quickly than you can kill them. Your error is here. If prosecutors actually decide to start shutting down nodes because of CP and make successful prosecutions, it will deter people from running new nodes in that jurisdiction. If hosting a copy of the Etherium blockchain had a high chance of landing you in jail for CP possession, would you start up a new node to replace one that was shut down? Instead of "new nodes ... pop[ping] up vastly more quickly than you can kill them," most operators would get scared and quickly shut down their nodes and wipe their HDs, and the rest would get prosecuted. Maybe you'd have a few stragglers hiding out on Tor, but at that point the network is unusable for any legitimate use. Don't believe me? There's even been a recent example of something like that. China banned Bitcoin mining, and the miners there shut down or GTFO of China: https://fortune.com/2021/11/17/china-bitcoin-mining-ban-crypto-holdouts-ether-solana-price/ https://fortune.com/2021/11/17/china-bitcoin-mining-ban-cryp... > Available data shows that crypto mining no longer exists in China and that China's crypto mining ban completely upended the global Bitcoin mining industry. China went from controlling up to two-thirds of all Bitcoin mining in the world in April to not contributing to the industry at all as of July 2021, according to data compiled by the University of Cambridge’s Centre for Alternative Finance. And anecdotal evidence suggests that the vast majority of Chinese Bitcoin miners relocated their operations to places like Kazakhstan, the U.S., and Canada or simply sold off their equipment at discounted prices and left the industry.

dataangel 5y ago
You don’t need nodes hosted in your jurisdiction to use the network though, so preventing running nodes in one jurisdiction accomplishes very little.
soco 5y ago
And I really hope that there wouldn't be that many with such a vested interest in CP to fight against those shutdowns.
notch656a 5y ago
Bitcoin survival isn't predicated on mass mining farms of the sort that are easily shutdown in china and elsewhere. Running nodes yields more revenue the higher proportion of the hash rate you have. Making it illegal just makes it that much more profitable to run nodes in difficult to shut down ways, such as a cell phone powered by a solar array running tor and a miner. The market will provide.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  You're missing the point. It's not about Bitcoin mining per se, it's about people's willingness to run illegal services. > The market will provide. Nope, sorry. The market doesn't guarantee whatever random distributed thing you like will be resilient.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    >it's about people's willingness to run illegal services. Which looks to be quite high. >Nope, sorry. The market doesn't guarantee whatever random distributed thing you like will be resilient. While I'm sure 'nope, sorry' felt gratifying for you to type, the market cares very little about your individual opinion. Even illegal drugs, tangible items that a drug dog might sniff out, can't be choked off. >whatever random distributed thing you like The 'whatever random distributed thing I like' is something with a market cap of 2.21 Trillion dollars, which is like 1/10th the GDP of the united states. You make it sound like it's my random pet individual project.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > While I'm sure 'nope, sorry' felt gratifying for you to type, the market cares very little about your individual opinion. Even illegal drugs, tangible items that a drug dog might sniff out, can't be choked off. Lol. Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies aren't illegal drugs, and thinking they would be as resilient as them is missing many important differences. For one, networks are far easier to surveil than physical spaces. For another, about the only thing cryptocurrencies are actually good for is speculation, so there'd be few incentives to keep them going in the face of severe penalties. That quite unlike drugs, which get you high and in some cases can get you addicted, so there's some natural demand. > The 'whatever random distributed thing I like' is something with a market cap of 2.21 Trillion dollars, which is like 1/10th the GDP of the united states. You make it sound like it's my random pet individual project. Speculators driving up the price is not proof of resilience. Bitcoin is a technology in search of a real problem to solve, not an actual good solution to anything.
kragen 5y ago
Funny thing is, I've done Bitcoin transactions since then, and the transaction fees and confirmation times (which are the fees charged by and service provided by the miners) were pretty normal. So the Bitcoin network seems to have totally avoided the "unusable for any legitimate use" fate you predict, even though half the hashrate went offline over the course of a few weeks.

dataangel 5y ago

You don’t need nodes hosted in your jurisdiction to use the network though, so preventing running nodes in one jurisdiction accomplishes very little.

soco 5y ago

And I really hope that there wouldn't be that many with such a vested interest in CP to fight against those shutdowns.

notch656a 5y ago

Bitcoin survival isn't predicated on mass mining farms of the sort that are easily shutdown in china and elsewhere. Running nodes yields more revenue the higher proportion of the hash rate you have. Making it illegal just makes it that much more profitable to run nodes in difficult to shut down ways, such as a cell phone powered by a solar array running tor and a miner. The market will provide.

tablespoon 5y ago
You're missing the point. It's not about Bitcoin mining per se, it's about people's willingness to run illegal services. > The market will provide. Nope, sorry. The market doesn't guarantee whatever random distributed thing you like will be resilient.
- notch656a 5y ago
  >it's about people's willingness to run illegal services. Which looks to be quite high. >Nope, sorry. The market doesn't guarantee whatever random distributed thing you like will be resilient. While I'm sure 'nope, sorry' felt gratifying for you to type, the market cares very little about your individual opinion. Even illegal drugs, tangible items that a drug dog might sniff out, can't be choked off. >whatever random distributed thing you like The 'whatever random distributed thing I like' is something with a market cap of 2.21 Trillion dollars, which is like 1/10th the GDP of the united states. You make it sound like it's my random pet individual project.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > While I'm sure 'nope, sorry' felt gratifying for you to type, the market cares very little about your individual opinion. Even illegal drugs, tangible items that a drug dog might sniff out, can't be choked off. Lol. Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies aren't illegal drugs, and thinking they would be as resilient as them is missing many important differences. For one, networks are far easier to surveil than physical spaces. For another, about the only thing cryptocurrencies are actually good for is speculation, so there'd be few incentives to keep them going in the face of severe penalties. That quite unlike drugs, which get you high and in some cases can get you addicted, so there's some natural demand. > The 'whatever random distributed thing I like' is something with a market cap of 2.21 Trillion dollars, which is like 1/10th the GDP of the united states. You make it sound like it's my random pet individual project. Speculators driving up the price is not proof of resilience. Bitcoin is a technology in search of a real problem to solve, not an actual good solution to anything.

kragen 5y ago

Funny thing is, I've done Bitcoin transactions since then, and the transaction fees and confirmation times (which are the fees charged by and service provided by the miners) were pretty normal. So the Bitcoin network seems to have totally avoided the "unusable for any legitimate use" fate you predict, even though half the hashrate went offline over the course of a few weeks.