{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub12wy7cgfuvkfp40c0xvgfyyfcr40a3mqklk0t2ucq5qqeewdapjuqwshp94","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub12wy7cgfuvkfp40c0xvgfyyfcr40a3mqklk0t2ucq5qqeewdapjuqwshp94","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-09-19\n📝 Original message:Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e Governments find it hard to ban things that are wildly popular with\n\u003e their voters. This is the Uber approach: grow fast, annoy governments,\n\u003e but be popular enough that banning you is politically risky.\nGovernments do not find it hard to ban things that threaten their\nauthority, least of all their authority to control money, and they also\ndo not find it hard to ban things which are popular. I'm sure the\nmillions of people with felony drug charges for the possession of\nmarijuana, a plant, understand this better than you appear to. Also, in\nthe US, despite overwhelming resistance on a broad scale, legislation\ncontinues to be presented which would violate the 2nd amendment right to\nkeep and bear arms.\n\nBitcoin does not enjoy nearly the popularity that marijuana and guns do,\nand likely never may. But even if it did, the government can be relied\non to outlaw it once it understands the true extent to which Bitcoin can\nundermine its ability to control stores of value. A mining network that\nanyone can contribute to would enable Bitcoin to stay alive in spite of\nthis, much like torrents have enabled people to continue pirating music\nregardless of how many websites have been taken down.\n\u003e\n\u003e If you don't believe that governments can end Bitcoin because of\n\u003e decentralisation, then the opposite conclusion is logical: growth can\n\u003e be dangerous because stateless money will be inherently opposed by the\n\u003e state, therefore if growth == less decentralisation, growth increases\n\u003e the risk of state shutdown.\nI think there's a difference between natural growth and the kind of\ngrowth that's being proposed by bank-backed start-ups and pro-censorship\nentities.\n\u003e\n\u003e I don't think we have to choose between decentralisation and growth\n\u003e actually - computers are just amazingly fast. But that's irrelevant here.\n\u003e\n\u003e The point is, your disagreement is summed up by your statement:\n\u003e  \n\u003e\n\u003e     Bitcoin cannot be both decentralized and reliant on being,\n\u003e     \"too important to close\". If it can be closed there is\n\u003e     insufficient decentralization.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e I believe this statement is wrong because governments can shut down\n\u003e Bitcoin at any point regardless of its level of decentralisation. This\n\u003e is true because:\n\u003e\n\u003e   * Most governments can easily spend enough money to do a 51% attack,\n\u003e     especially if they can compel chip fabs to cooperate for free.\n\u003e     This attack works regardless of how decentralised Bitcoin is.\n\u003e\n\u003e   * Any government can end Bitcoin usage in its territory by jailing\n\u003e     anyone who advertises acceptance/trading of bitcoins, or prices in\n\u003e     BTC. Because merchants /must/ advertise in order to alert\n\u003e     customers that trades in BTC are possible, this is an attack which\n\u003e     is unsolvable. If ordinary people can find such merchants so can\n\u003e     government agents.\n\u003e\n\u003e It may appear that trade cannot be suppressed because merchants can\n\u003e all become anonymous too, a la Silk Road. However, if use of Bitcoin\n\u003e is banned then it becomes impossible to convert coins into local\n\u003e currency as that requires cooperation of banks ..... making it useless\n\u003e for even anonymous merchants. An outlaw currency is useless even to\n\u003e outlaws.\nA ban on Bitcoin would lead to a rise in p2p markets. The government is\nan inefficient sinkhole at its very best and it has never successfully\neradicated anything."}