This might be the first time I somewhat agree with you. What you're talking about is imo a big part of the bet I am making. Bitcoin is designed in a way that it assumes governments will not turn over control of their monetary policy. It is to be seen if Bitcoin is decentralized enough and useful enough to withstand government force. I'm not sure myself.

If it can survive against several major governments and not be killed, the upside is enormous. For me it is objectively clear that Bitcoin is better money than everything else we have now, the big question is if it can survive vs. serious force.

They can't even shut down pirate bay which is breaking the law in basically every country and you think they have a shot at shutting down bitcoin?

It's too late.

Its possible, just expensive. I don't know the numbers but I recall someone posting the cost per day of 51% attacks against btc and it was in the $10s of millions/day.

If btc ever gets the the point where central banks and governments start getting really concerned, then imo the probability of this grows.

They wouldn't even have to spend this every day, just have the hardware setup and turn it on every so often to shake confidence in the system so it gets abandoned.

Mining is becoming less centralized over time, but due to economies of scale it's still quite a centralizing activity. Governments could for example take over big mining operations and start censoring or mining empty blocks.

Pirate bay is not attacking their monopoly on money, this fight will be worth more to them. I do think they have a shot, but I like our odds.

But fundamentally, a goverment could get enough hashpower to disrupt the chain. They could already disrupt it with like 25-30% of the hashpower and regularly mine empty blocks. They could in theory get 51% and kill the chain. The way to fight this, is with fees. Eric Voskuil has written/talked a lot about this.

You are misrepresenting the technology. Owning the majority of mining hashpower absolutely does NOT allow you to change the money supply. This was a ruse perpetuated by the Ver brigade. If we want we can get a core dev in here to explain.


The attack you are talking about is a double spend and it would do nothing but get identified as the wrong chain. The tens of millions would be simply wasted on a (negative) publicity stunt.

Once again, governments do not need to "shut down" bitcoin. All they need to do is create conditions that make it unattractive for users.

Is it wrong to say that whoever has the majority of the hash rate can do all sorts of harm? Isn't that why a group of miners split up when they were approaching 51% a few years ago?

Imagine big brother builds a series of mining warehouses and attains >51% hash rate with the intention of hijacking the system. Does the market not then completely dump? Its not even something they would have to leave running 24/7/365, just having that capacity would cause a panic and no one would trust that system ever again.

Not really, to achieve that they would need to run a ton of Asics and it s always possible for the community to hard fork into a new mining algorithm.
No matter what users and node operator have the final say.
Let s say the government attempt that, they can easily fork and use litecoin pow and have a pretty secured network or whatever monero is currently using.
The result would most likely be a few days of uncertainty and another proof that attacking bitcoin is super hard.

So big brother can ruin one proof of work chain and/or one mining algorithm, but the others are perfectly safe after such an attempt?

each algorithm require specific equipment, if the goal is destroying bitcoin

Yeah I get that. But who is better financed, the Chinese government (soon to be the worlds biggest economy) or all crypto miners combined?

As with any "currency", all you need to do is destroy confidence.

The problem is that China did ban bitcoin a few times and every time it raised the long-term confidence, I m sure it s possible but difficult and dangerous

I don't see China being able to do it alone, but what could be possible is similar to when the US pulled out of the international poker market and then other countries followed suit, ring-fencing.

If there is a global recession, and EU confidence weakens further, major countries could look to ban bitcoin out of desperation to maintain control of their currencies.

India is more important to watch than China imo.

The Finance Ministry of India already labelled BTC a ponzi scheme a year and a half ago.

India banning bitcoin is so last year

This discussion has been had several times now. Most bitcoin Asics are still in China. China can confiscate them all tomorrow and then have fun with mining empty blocks, double spends, orphaning blocks other miners created, mess with fees, etc. It would kill bitcoin. Switching algorithms is not a solution as that would require miners to produce new Asics starting from scratch just like the Chinese government. Guess who would win that battle.

Luckily this is never going to happen. Despite what some people think bitcoin is not a threat to China or the dollar. It will keep its niche and in there its valuation can still make plenty of people rich.

Yes. It is wrong and misleading.

What the propaganda brigade will/would say is "Mining is centralized" and "If you have 51% (or a supermajority) you can [do a whole bunch of bad things]"

but in the place of the [ ] I want you or anyone here to try to write a bad thing that would hurt the markets confidence in bitcoin. Not just FUD. Put in the specific things you think a mining cartel could do.

Can't recall the source but I strongly remember data and writing saying that if there is a leading competitor they would have a head start on any POW changes. But its correct to say that the nodes can veto any significant attacks based on a mining monopoly advantage.

Yes bitcoin is more dear to a citizenry who's government wants to ban it. And this would certainly reflect in the exchange price the more illegal it is. Hard to understand why people don't see this. The empirical evidence is mounting (just needs to be separated from the bootstrap/speculation phase)

Competing countries then could start buying bitcoin in order to support a reasonable counter measure to being subordinate.

John Q Grandpa would love this. Nothing helps confidence and stability in money like being under constant governmental assault.

It doesn't matter as long as it's a niche product, but if bitcoin or any other crypto actual gained some measure of adoption, or became a real threat to the US monetary policy (a real threat, not a novelty), they would regulate it into the ground faster than you can say "Neckbeard Pesos".

Really? Explain how and what agency... cause you kinda sound like a clueless cuck here.

This is why it's so tough to "debate" with you people.

YOUR STATEMENT HERE IS FALSE. ITS PULLED OUT OF YOUR ASS. IT HAS NO TRUTH TO IT.

Fact is mining is one of the most competitive industries in the world, and will only be more so.

Nice try with your hilarious rock solid counter argument though. Rofl.

Don't worry, Calvin's got this hedged:

If it's one of the most competitive industries in the world, then it only stands to reason that it's subject to economies of scale, just like others industries. Economies of scale always lead to consolidation as large players are able to push out small players.

Hasn't this already happened with btc mining? Isn't it difficult to be profitable mining btc unless your part of a large coop or whatever? Don't small miners have difficulty getting the newest chips, at the best prices, in comparison with the large mining groups?