[est31]

Cryptocurrencies can still be subject to hard forks which allow seizure transactions. Likely in the future governments will demand such changes, if they don't outlaw cryptocurrencies entirely. Furthermore, bitcoin's value is highly volatile. So your initial investment of $100 might be worth $5000 or $0.10 in 3 years. You might not have to trust the network itself, but you have to trust the value of the asset to remain stable enough. Which it isn't due to multiple factors.

[fastball]

Not sure how you think governments could demand changes from major cryptos. They're not currently beholden to governments, and it seems unlikely they'll become more beholden as they grow larger.

Volatility is ameliorated by stablecoins pegged to fiat currencies. Furthermore, the long-term goal is to not need an "interface to the real world", because you will be paid in crypto and you will pay for things in crypto. Even then, who exactly do you mean when you say "the people providing the interface"? I don't need a middle-man to agree to exchange crypto for fiat with someone. You can use one, sure, but it's not required.

[est31]

Cryptocurrencies are in the process of becoming more beholden, or at least more outlawed: https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/what-do-turkey-s-cryptocur...

Governments have the guns. I doubt that cryptocurrencies will win in the long run, unless they provide hooks for governments to project their power, which includes asset seizure transactions.

As for the people providing the interface, I've since edited my comment. My point used to be that exchanges like coinbase engage in massive market manipulation to aid their own goals, but it's not the only cause for the volatility of cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, so I edited it out.

[meltedcapacitor]

Several governments can trivially do a 51% attack and take over Bitcoin if they so wish, for example:

- The Chinese government can get all the main pool/farm owners (all self-doxed) in a room, offer them the choice between being executed or send all blocks their way for central validation. If they choose execution, send government employees to reboot the farms with new code.

- The Taiwanese government can cease the next batch of mining kit as it comes out of TSMC and lol all the way to the (central) bank.

- The US government can tell Coinbase "regulate this thing as told or die". Then all the suits who now own crypto via suit-friendly custodians will in a panic coordinate and fund a 51% attack to save their "investment".

Just a few ideas :-).

[aaronax]

A government could easily mandate block lists. All legitimate businesses dealing with cryptocurrencies would be required to not consider "blocked" coins as valid. I can even realistically envision broad support for such a change, when some "character" who is sufficiently evil becomes known (via non-stop media targeting I suspect) to be empowered by a certain cryptocurrency.

I suppose there are some blockchains where it is not possible to follow balances between transactions. I'm not sure what would happen with those.

[bingbong70]

Coinjoins and whirpooling bitcoin is becoming cheaper, easier, and more widely adopted...chain hopping is also becoming easier thanks to decentralized exchanges and atomic swaps. If the government wants to censor transactions they have to expend many times more energy than any person with a free wallet and 5-10 minutes. Enforcement becomes cost prohibitive as the network grows and more people use these tools.