"The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia." --Malcolm Turnbull, Australia Prime Minister (2015-2018)

There are some people who see attitudes like that in the government and think how can [things backed by math] survive a coordinated government onslaught that'll happen any year now? And then those that just look at such statements as the unlettered nonsense they are. Bitcoin lets you "be your own bank", independent of any KYC laws that may or may not apply to other banks in your jurisdiction.

I definitely think a huge part of the business of government generally is enforcing society's suspension of disbelief, it's a lot cheaper to merely convince everyone that you're all-powerful and resistance is futile than to actually become all-powerful.

And if no one else accepts my bank?

If selling things to US citizens for cryptocurrency is criminal, and enforced?

They're not obligated to, just as I'm not obligated to accept a check from your bank and can demand cash or some other form of payment. Your question is like asking what if no one wants to talk to me with PGP or some other secure message protocol.

What if selling things to US citizens via any means is criminal, and enforced?

Theres one big weakness in the use of cryptocurrencies: swapping back and forth with the local fiat currency at scale. All a government has to do is shut those commercial ventures down, and the value of the $coin will disappear for those residents.

Plus, unlike drugs and prostitution, the ledger is public and permanent… simplifying enforcement against the remaining fringes dramatically.

If they shut down, they will just push even more of their economy to the black markets.

Also, anonymity is not yet something that people care enough. But it already exists - monero, zcash, or the Aztec Network on top of Ethereum. I can bet that any serious attempt from the government at chasing regular people based on their Blockchain activity would lead to a lot to adopt the "truly private" networks.

> All a government has to do is shut those commercial ventures down, and the value of the $coin will disappear for those residents.

So long as any of those residents can travel to another place where they can exchange it for hard money, that's not true. Countries do not exist in isolation.

Carrying large quantities of cash across a border is usually investigated by the border guards. If you don't declare it, you're breaking the law.

This is compounded by how some countries are big enough that traveling across a border is a fairly significant undertaking (Brazil, for example). Not something most folks can or will do on a whim. Plus, you'd have to transfer a fairly significant amount of money to be worth it, making it more likely you'd run afoul of the border patrol.

It doesn't matter. As long as some members of society are willing to cross the border with cash, the availability of liquidity will be preserved (albeit with a slightly higher cost). "Most folks" won't need to deal with it any more than most folks know how to drive a semi full of groceries.

You're saying that the use case for cryptocurrencies is crime, which I agree with, and the world's police won't touch you because they can't, which I think is ridiculous.

If the EU and the US alone said, "In a month, we'll consider every crypto transaction to be criminal in nature, and we're going to enforce it," the market would collapse as everyone stampeded for the door at the same time.

> If the EU and the US alone said, "In a month, we'll consider every crypto transaction to be criminal in nature, and we're going to enforce it," the market would collapse as everyone stampeded for the door at the same time.

True. And yet, cryptocurrencies would still remain useful! A market collapse is not the same as it not having utility. Bitcoin was useful even when it was only pennies, and it will remain so.

This thread is about whether or not cryptocurrencies are useful. They are. Could governments crash their markets? Yes. Could they stop people from using them? No.

>> If the EU and the US alone said, "In a month, we'll consider every crypto transaction to be criminal in nature, and we're going to enforce it," the market would collapse

> True. And yet, cryptocurrencies would still remain useful! A market collapse is not the same as it not having utility.

(Genuine) Q: How many market participants are interested in "the utility" vs the (potential for) "getting rich"?

This would be one way to do this, yes, and I think it would be overall good for society if there was a clear association of cryptocurrencies and crime.

There would still be shady cryptocurrency things (just like we still have illegal drugs and gambling and prostitution), but at least we won't have smart people proudly announcing that they made new crypto system (just like we don't have people proudly announcing they made a new kind of illegal drug today).

Because for each person who genuinely believes into monetary anarchy and/or does not trust the government, there are lots more (thousands? tens of thousands?) people who read about it in New York Times and want to earn their money. It is the second group which is fueling the first, and so getting rid of it will make crypto harmless again.

Except Bitcoin transactions (or any other blockchain transaction) is forever public and forever traceable. It's the complete opposite of a cash transaction.

Once your wallet is in some way connected to you, all your transactions since the beginning of time are now known. This is a wet dream for government enforcement.