5 ms·

> The USA could be gone and bitcoin would still work. If the USA vanished tomorrow, the global Internet would collapse, and Bitcoin in fact would not still wor

> The USA could be gone and bitcoin would still work. If the USA vanished tomorrow, the global Internet would collapse, and Bitcoin in fact would not still work. You very literally cannot transact without an Internet connection, the thing that is maintained by... governments and the USD and fiat currency. Also: > And yet bitcoin works just fine in countries where the central government collapses and their currency is worthless. Does it? Bitcoin is terrible at regular transactions, to the point where I've got another Bitcoin proponent further up the thread complaining to me that I shouldn't be comparing Bitcoin to a currency (I wish y'all would get your story straight on that by the way). One big problem is that the price fluctuates way too much and the community is actively hostile to attempts to stabilize the price. Transaction fees are another issue; the best method that's been proposed to minimize transaction fees is to take transactions off of the blockchain and then consolidate them. Which sure, honestly I agree with that strategy, but it should give people pause that making a currency usable involves avoiding the underlying technology behind it. And so you bring up countries like China, but Bitcoin really hasn't thrived in China. Yeah, some people use it, but restricting it for everyday purchases has pretty much worked out the way the government hoped. The coin is not really that censorship resistant, you end up kind of needing to go through the same money-laundering steps that you'd use anyway to get it into a usable currency. But all of that is kind of besides the point, because once again, in a world with an unstable power grid or disrupted Internet, the currency stops functioning. That is not a good disaster currency. But go ahead, prove me wrong. Go set up a Bitcoin mine in Gaza. To the extent that Bitcoin has been able to function in any collapsed region, it's only because other countries like the US, China, EU, etc maintain Internet connections to collapsed regions that users can piggyback on. And those Internet connections are maintained using military and national resources.

greyface- 3y ago
Regarding continuity of Bitcoin's functionality without a stable power grid or Internet, take a look at Blockstream's satellite constellation.
- danShumway 3y ago
  So, two things. First, this is a technically that changes nothing about the underlying problem. The issue is not that Bitcoin is specifically reliant on the ability to make an HTTP request, the issue is that is a network that requires global connectivity. Transacting requires a connection to a global network, which is an inherently fragile basis for a coin that is supposedly going to function in disaster situations. Second, I'm sorry, your idea to reduce reliance on governments and military is to maintain satellites?
  - greyface- 3y ago
    No, I don't bring the satellites up as a means to reduce reliance on governments and military. I bring them up to mitigate the risks of disruptions to Internet connectivity. Personally, I think the Internet is decentralized and durable enough that this won't be an issue, thanks to the excellent engineering decisions made by our (military!) forebears at DARPA. I brought the satellites up specifically because your parent comment said that "with an unstable power grid or disrupted Internet, the currency stops functioning" which they render false.
    - danShumway 3y ago
      > I brought the satellites up specifically because your parent comment said that "with an unstable power grid or disrupted Internet, the currency stops functioning" which they render false. I don't know, I would say that a globally connected network that digitally transmits information is effectively an internet regardless of whether it is transmitting data over ocean cables, satellite connections, telephone lines, or pigeons. I disagree that a satellite system changes anything about that point; technically I guess it's different, but it feels a lot like quibbling over linguistic technicalities when the actual meat here -- that transactions require global consensus and network connectivity -- is unchanged. And to be honest, even that linguistic distinction feels slightly like an "in theory" argument anyway, because Blockstream doesn't appear to be a separate self-contained network, the most charitable interpretation of the system I can see is that it is a bridge to the Internet to increase connectivity. Blockstream does not get rid of the requirement to get transactions onto the Internet, it just provides a way to sync the blockchain to places that don't have direct access. I still think it's accurate to say that transactions on Bitcoin must be synced over the Internet with the entire network. Many miners are only connecting to the network through the Internet, and Blockstream is still ultimately going to be synchronizing with those miners. If I hand someone a piece of paper describing the transaction I want them to perform, and then they drive to their house and log into their computer and perform the transaction for me, my take would be that we have not actually gotten rid of the Internet requirement. Delegating transactions or providing bridged access to the network does not mean that Internet access is not still ultimately a requirement for transactions, or at least that's the way that I interpret an Internet requirement.

greyface- 3y ago

Regarding continuity of Bitcoin's functionality without a stable power grid or Internet, take a look at Blockstream's satellite constellation.

danShumway 3y ago
So, two things. First, this is a technically that changes nothing about the underlying problem. The issue is not that Bitcoin is specifically reliant on the ability to make an HTTP request, the issue is that is a network that requires global connectivity. Transacting requires a connection to a global network, which is an inherently fragile basis for a coin that is supposedly going to function in disaster situations. Second, I'm sorry, your idea to reduce reliance on governments and military is to maintain satellites?
- greyface- 3y ago
  No, I don't bring the satellites up as a means to reduce reliance on governments and military. I bring them up to mitigate the risks of disruptions to Internet connectivity. Personally, I think the Internet is decentralized and durable enough that this won't be an issue, thanks to the excellent engineering decisions made by our (military!) forebears at DARPA. I brought the satellites up specifically because your parent comment said that "with an unstable power grid or disrupted Internet, the currency stops functioning" which they render false.
  - danShumway 3y ago
    > I brought the satellites up specifically because your parent comment said that "with an unstable power grid or disrupted Internet, the currency stops functioning" which they render false. I don't know, I would say that a globally connected network that digitally transmits information is effectively an internet regardless of whether it is transmitting data over ocean cables, satellite connections, telephone lines, or pigeons. I disagree that a satellite system changes anything about that point; technically I guess it's different, but it feels a lot like quibbling over linguistic technicalities when the actual meat here -- that transactions require global consensus and network connectivity -- is unchanged. And to be honest, even that linguistic distinction feels slightly like an "in theory" argument anyway, because Blockstream doesn't appear to be a separate self-contained network, the most charitable interpretation of the system I can see is that it is a bridge to the Internet to increase connectivity. Blockstream does not get rid of the requirement to get transactions onto the Internet, it just provides a way to sync the blockchain to places that don't have direct access. I still think it's accurate to say that transactions on Bitcoin must be synced over the Internet with the entire network. Many miners are only connecting to the network through the Internet, and Blockstream is still ultimately going to be synchronizing with those miners. If I hand someone a piece of paper describing the transaction I want them to perform, and then they drive to their house and log into their computer and perform the transaction for me, my take would be that we have not actually gotten rid of the Internet requirement. Delegating transactions or providing bridged access to the network does not mean that Internet access is not still ultimately a requirement for transactions, or at least that's the way that I interpret an Internet requirement.