As for the second article, it says “Bitcoin is unstoppable without end-user prosecution.” Well, duh,…
It’s not quite “duh”—the original Napster and eGold died because the US Government could prosecute those who ran the services, at much lower cost (both monetary and electoral) than prosecuting enough users of those systems to kill them. It’s a point worth making that Bitcoin doesn’t have a single central hub that can be killed easily.
Unless you’re a rare expert ready to go to extraordinary lengths, there is no anonymity on the internet if the government is decided to come after you.
But there’s practical anonymity in a large enough crowd. I would be surprised to learn that most Bittorrent pirates took reasonable security measures, yet Bittorrent piracy is hard to kill due to its popularity and its decentralised design.
It’s a point worth making that Bitcoin doesn’t have a single central hub that can be killed easily.
Things that can’t be shut down centrally may continue indefinitely under crackdown, but their scope will be drastically reduced, and they will be done only by a handful of very seedy and/or reckless individuals. Even mild and sporadic enforcement (such as e.g. that practiced against drug dealing) is enough to make the activity out of bounds for respectable people and legal businesses. Really severe enforcement would make even the seediest people think twice.
Thorough and effective law enforcement is an easy problem for modern governments as long as there is the political will to do what is necessary. This is often not the case for a variety of reasons, but you can bet there will be plenty of political will if Bitcoin ever becomes subversive on a large scale.
It’s a point worth making that Bitcoin doesn’t have a single central hub that can be killed easily.
Couldn’t the government simply declare trading in Bitcoins illegal—if it so chose? If someone publicly says they accept Bitcoins, the government could do a sting-operation on them, to verify this—and then punish them. Users would pretty quickly be driven underground.
It’s not quite “duh”—the original Napster and eGold died because the US Government could prosecute those who ran the services, at much lower cost (both monetary and electoral) than prosecuting enough users of those systems to kill them. It’s a point worth making that Bitcoin doesn’t have a single central hub that can be killed easily.
But there’s practical anonymity in a large enough crowd.
I would be surprised to learn that most Bittorrent pirates took reasonable security measures, yet Bittorrent piracy is hard to kill due to its popularity and its decentralised design.
Things that can’t be shut down centrally may continue indefinitely under crackdown, but their scope will be drastically reduced, and they will be done only by a handful of very seedy and/or reckless individuals. Even mild and sporadic enforcement (such as e.g. that practiced against drug dealing) is enough to make the activity out of bounds for respectable people and legal businesses. Really severe enforcement would make even the seediest people think twice.
Thorough and effective law enforcement is an easy problem for modern governments as long as there is the political will to do what is necessary. This is often not the case for a variety of reasons, but you can bet there will be plenty of political will if Bitcoin ever becomes subversive on a large scale.
Couldn’t the government simply declare trading in Bitcoins illegal—if it so chose? If someone publicly says they accept Bitcoins, the government could do a sting-operation on them, to verify this—and then punish them. Users would pretty quickly be driven underground.