{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-09-19\n📝 Original message:\u003e\n\u003e Your argument is that the state is not a threat to a system designed to\n\u003e deprive the state of seigniorage, because the state will see that system\n\u003e as too important?\n\u003e\n\nAnd so we get to one of the hearts of the debate.\n\nThe axiom upon which you and NxtChg disagree is this: he/she believes\ngovernments can crush Bitcoin if they want regardless of how decentralised\nit is, and you don't.\n\nIf one believes governments have the power to end Bitcoin no matter what,\nthen the only true protection comes from popularity. Governments find it\nhard to ban things that are wildly popular with their voters. This is the\nUber approach: grow fast, annoy governments, but be popular enough that\nbanning you is politically risky.\n\nIf you don't believe that governments can end Bitcoin because of\ndecentralisation, then the opposite conclusion is logical: growth can be\ndangerous because stateless money will be inherently opposed by the state,\ntherefore if growth == less decentralisation, growth increases the risk of\nstate shutdown.\n\nI don't think we have to choose between decentralisation and growth\nactually - computers are just amazingly fast. But that's irrelevant here.\n\nThe point is, your disagreement is summed up by your statement:\n\n\n\u003e Bitcoin cannot be both decentralized and reliant on being, \"too important\n\u003e to close\". If it can be closed there is insufficient decentralization.\n\u003e\n\nI believe this statement is wrong because governments can shut down Bitcoin\nat any point regardless of its level of decentralisation. This is true\nbecause:\n\n   - Most governments can easily spend enough money to do a 51% attack,\n   especially if they can compel chip fabs to cooperate for free. This attack\n   works regardless of how decentralised Bitcoin is.\n\n   - Any government can end Bitcoin usage in its territory by jailing\n   anyone who advertises acceptance/trading of bitcoins, or prices in BTC.\n   Because merchants *must* advertise in order to alert customers that\n   trades in BTC are possible, this is an attack which is unsolvable. If\n   ordinary people can find such merchants so can government agents.\n\nIt may appear that trade cannot be suppressed because merchants can all\nbecome anonymous too, a la Silk Road. However, if use of Bitcoin is banned\nthen it becomes impossible to convert coins into local currency as that\nrequires cooperation of banks ..... making it useless for even anonymous\nmerchants. An outlaw currency is useless even to outlaws.\n\nBecause Bitcoin's existence ultimately relies on government cooperation and\nacceptance, the best way to ensure its survival is growth. Lots of it.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150919/67222559/attachment.html\u003e"}