[asmos7]

It's odd to me that people think Bitcoin can be free of "force" long term. Bad guys can point a gun at your head and demand you login into Coinbase to transfer coins to them. What happens if the government makes Microsoft give them admin accounts to the Bitcoin repo? What happens if there is a fork and China doesn't like it and prohibits miners from adopting it? BTC is way more susceptible to traditional military and government might then people make it out to be.

[nelsontodd]

I don't think it will eliminate the need for the military or police force entirely. I have seen a lot of bold bitcoin claims but I don't think anyone really does.

My post was referring to how the US has killed lots of people to keep strong dollar. I think its feasible that a true global currency (possibly bitcoin) could prevent violence like this.

[zepto]

People will kill each other over the energy resources needed to run the Bitcoin network.

[Aunche]

Exactly. Fossil fuels and rare earth metals are already considered to be a national security risks. Depending on a currency with huge energy requirements only multiplies this risk, which further incentivizes war.

[threevox]

Energy scarcity is a thing of the past for anyone who wants it to be. Between solar and nuclear, it's a helluva lot easier to get basically unlimited renewable energy than it is to go to war. Malthus hasn't been right about the way the world works in 200 years

[jfim]

Keep in mind that the US government has an incentive to keep the US dollar as the currency used for most of the international trade.

If Bitcoin would become a risk to that status, would the US government just give up and admit defeat or would it outlaw usage of it?

[nelsontodd]

I doubt they would just roll over yeah. If you consider the dollar as a weapon/tool for US hegemony, bitcoin functions as almost like a terrorist entity. Not clear what to do with this information

[jfim]

It's just a risk that the value of it drops to near zero if it's outlawed.

Or it could become highly regulated and be much less useful for trade due to onerous compliance requirements. For example, how do you prove that wallet X that one is sending money to isn't going to someone who's in an embargoed country?

[nelsontodd]

It's a big risk. But, to answer your second question, its a public ledger. Its significantly more conducive to surveillance than cash. Just punish people if they send money to an unverified address.

I think that's a gross possibility, and I hope no governments take this measure, but I don't think it would be difficult.

[jfim]

I don't disagree with you, I just don't personally believe that it will become a major instrument of trade due to it removing a major component of economic policy. I believe that most countries would rather have their citizens use their national currency as opposed to a foreign or electronic one, since that allows them a lot more control on inflation.

From that perspective, it seems to follow that most governments would want to regulate cryptocurrencies, and probably not in the way that Bitcoin bulls would like it to be.

I could definitely be wrong on this though. I thought in the past that the ad model of Facebook and Google would go nowhere, and look where they're at now.

[fogof]

I grant the other points, but if the government took over the bitcoin repo and changed it, why wouldn't people just keep using the old version of the software?