6 ms·
It's not resilient to such a thing. If you think _anything_ widely used can be, you are woefully underestimating the power of a modern major state. This isn't
by nullc 14y ago
It's not resilient to such a thing. If you think _anything_ widely used can be, you are woefully underestimating the power of a modern major state.
This isn't a question about technology; as much as the geeks love to obsess over it. Technology is just one part. Non-technology attacks are simply much more powerful. E.g. "Anyone caught using Bitcoin will be executed on the spot by large caliber fire from attack helicopters flying far enough away that you can't see or hear them targeting you", and suddenly Bitcoin is only some obscure and irrelevant thing— even outlaws have no use for outlaw 'money'. There is no question of _ability_ to suppress it, only a question of sufficient motivation.
And motivation is where it comes up short. Bitcoin is just another thing people can barter. Not different from beanie babies or lumps of coal, and it shouldn't be legally or politically different. This whole weird concept of something being unlawful until proven otherwise must be some kind of crazy fallout from the drug and copyright wars, and I fear that thinking will greatly harm society in the long run.
If Bitcoin turns out to be an efficient 'money' then sane and efficient governments should support it: because a more efficient money will make everyone more prosperous. Some people love to feel all counter-culture and subversive with their hobbies, but as disruptive a technology Bitcoin is it's just not politically disruptive. Most of the few establishment risks that go along with Bitcoin apply doubly to cash, the others apply to other valuable commodities that goverments can't just create out of thin air. The motivation to attack just isn't there.
- kmm 14y ago> Non-technology attacks are simply much more powerful. E.g. "Anyone caught using Bitcoin will be executed on the spot by large caliber fire from attack helicopters flying far enough away that you can't see or hear them targeting you", and suddenly Bitcoin is only some obscure and irrelevant thing That's still a technology problem. Make the use of it undetectable. A sufficiently technology savvy Bitcoiner would just wrap his stuff with some encryption and with minimal hassle, you would need to be much faster and harsher to stop them. Besides, if we're assuming civilian execution without trial, then we're not talking about the modern major states. Not a single of the major states could even remotely do such a thing without consequences. The harshest punishments for comparable offences would be for the distribution and possession of child pornography and that is not stopping the offenders, on the contrary.
- nullc 14y agoThe widespread use of a money like thing _can't_ be undetectable by its very nature. If you have to keep it between trusted parties it's not money, it's hawala. :)
- hatcravat 14y agoI don't think the state even needs to go that far. Just have a (gradually increasing) number of press conferences where serious-looking men in uniforms talk gravely about the dangers of Bitcoin and how it is used by criminals to facilitate drugs/human-trafficking transactions. Then have a think-tank with a respectable-sounding name release a report saying that very few law-abiding people use Bitcoin and that there are $X billion of criminal transactions annually. Then a concerned politician can sponsor a bill that makes owning Bitcoins prima-facie evidence of criminal intent to sell drugs/contriband/whatever as part of his/her "tough on crime" initiative. This will result in a positive feedback loop: The utility of Bitcoins for "regular" people will fall and for "criminals" remain about the same, increasing the criminal fraction of the Bitcoin economy. It won't kill Bitcoin outright, but it will prevent Bitcoin from being anything more than a marginal player.
- richcollins 14y agoHow long would the US government last if it started summarily executing people for possessing bitcoins?
- bluedanieru 14y agosane and efficient governments Name one.