3 ms·
If the bar is that low, this does suggest that, contrary to some conspiracy theories, governments aren't really out to destroy Bitcoin, since they could've done
by mjn 14y ago
If the bar is that low, this does suggest that, contrary to some conspiracy theories, governments aren't really out to destroy Bitcoin, since they could've done so by now if they had really wanted to.
- betterunix 14y agoThere is another possibility: governments just want to control Bitcoin. The same attack that allows double spending can be used to deny transaction confirmations, which effectively denies transactions from happening at all.
- DanBC 14y agoThere's other things they could be doing. Bitcoin isn't intrinsically anonymous, so maybe they're just keeping an eye on anyone not being anonymous. Wait until someone sells polonium or uranium on Silk Road to see if Tor / Bitcoin stand up.
- polarix 14y agoCorrection: bitcoin is only "not anonymous" if the transaction history network contains a contact point with the physical world, that is, if some transaction is associated with a physical good shipment or traditional world identity.
- DanBC 14y agoBitcoin is not inherently anonymous. Users have to do stuff to be anonymous when using Bitcoin. To say otherwise is wrong and dangerous. (http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2011/07/bitcoin-is-not-inherently-anon.html http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2011/07/bitcoin...) (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2800790 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2800790) (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Anonymity https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Anonymity) (http://anonymity-in-bitcoin.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/bitcoin-is-not-anonymous.html http://anonymity-in-bitcoin.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/bitcoin-i...)