Bitcoin Forum

Maybe this is something that has been discussed before, but, what if a government, any government really, for any reason, decided to take down the bitcoin network or simply DOS the hell out of it ?

My calculation might be incredibly naive, but if I take the figures from bitcoinwatch[1], and fiddle a bit with the bitcoin calculator[2] :
 - Right now (block 88894), 180 blocks generated during last 24h
 - that's a block every 8 minutes on average
 - average of 8 minutes for block generation would require 25 ghashes/s

So if my logic isn't flawed, the network as a whole crunches at approximately 25,000 mhashes/s

So, that's 42 Radeon 5970 graphic cards if i take the advertised figures here[3].

So anyone with a little spare money (let's say 100k$) can successfully :

1. generate at full speed with tweaked client,
2. stop right after difficulty increase, significantly slowing down the block generation and transaction handling
3. repeat after difficulty decrease,
4. sell generated coins,
5. increase crunching power
6. finish by undermining trust in bitcoins, (advertise your attack, refuse to include transaction in generated blocks etc.)

I don't think there's much incentive for regular people to donate CPU time which would make such an attack really hard :
 - On regular computers, with most widespread OS, generating gets the fan to be really noisy (might seem like nothing, but I personnally hate loud computers)
 - Generation rate is really slow unless you know how to get your GPU to do the work

I think bitcoin security could come from millions of people donating a few khashes/s and not a few people giving a bunch of mhashes/s. My point is that I don't really see an incentive for regular people to generate.

Is my logic completely flawed or should I just dump my wallet on mtgox and run ? =)

I like this idea.

Perhaps the client should generate khashes by default, using 25% of computer's cores (or 25% power of GFX cards) ?
This could strenghten the network a lot.

So everybody that downloads and starts bitcoin would automatically strenghten the network. Of course generation could be easily turned off, but a warning popup saying "are you absolutely sure to do that" should show up.

Also if the generation is OFF, a popup asking if You want to turn the generation on (because it strenghtens the network and is generaly advisablew) at 25% of PC's power should show every time the client is started.

With more people, myself included, doing dedicated mining on GPUs, this will become more difficult, now that an OpenCL miner has been made public.

Also, if we get to the point where we've got that much notice from the government, we'll have bigger problems.

At least it should be said somewhere how important it is to mine, not just to get some bitcoins, but above all to contribute to network security.

There is a problem with that. Once BTC goes mainstream, this will happen:
- 75% of people won't even notice such notice
- 20% of people will, but still won't give a fuck about helping the network OR won't understand what it is about
- 2% will read the notice and turn generating on, but then turn it off later and forget about it.
- Remaining 3% will be either the people wanting to help the network OR miners.

So IMHO it is very important to do it by default. The 75% casual computer users won't mind it. Things work this way everywhere.

The available transaction fees will accumulate. Whoever generates the next block might get 2000+ BTC. This will encourage a return to something close to a normal rate of generation. Bitcoin won't become unusable, just more expensive.


This would never work in the long-run. In a few years, being a generator will require amounts of disk space and bandwidth that are unreasonable for most users.

PayPal does 382,000 transactions per minute. If we want Bitcoin to do 100,000 per minute, every generator would need at least a 5.76 megabit (upload and download) connection.

If some irrational and wealthy organization (such as a government) wants to take Bitcoin offline, there's nothing that can be done to stop them. It will be very expensive for them to maintain this, though.

Interesting. This seems to be a weakness of the protocol.
So after bitcoin crosses let's say 500.000 transactions per minute barrier, generating coins will be only avaiable to rich bastards with 100mbit symmetrical connections ? This is actually not so good.

Also, somebody with lot of CPU/GPU power, money & bandwidth will be able to easily paralyze the network.

People should not focus that much on mining anyway.  Mining is just a marginal way to get bitcoins.   As it has been said many times here, it's the the same as for gold :  yes gold mines exist, and they allow some people to make a lot of money just by digging ground.  But the mined amount of gold in a year will always be ultra small compared to the overall existing amount of gold in circulation.


Personnaly I don't care if some people generate a lot of bitcoins.  I don't care at all.  I actually consider that those people are working for me, since I will buy their generated bitcoins.

I think generation should always remain on, the only thing that should be tweakable is the CPU usage.


People will do GPU mining until they realize that it isn't that profitable anymore with difficulty ramping up, electricity bills coming in, and an unexplainable urge to turn the loud fans onf their computers off.

I think that getting noticed enough, for a government to dedicate a 100k$, budget probably doesn't take as long as you'd imagine, and then I don't really see what the bigger problems would be.



If the difficulty ramps up a lot, and the attacker stops generating suddenly, having to wait hours between each block might be a problem. Transactions will be slowed down a lot and might get very expensive.




You're making two assumptions :
 - In the future you won't be able to generate without the complete block chain
 - In the future every transaction will hit the bitcoin network

I think both are wrong :
 - There seem to be lots of solutions around that address the disk space problem
 - In the future, most transactions will go through service providers, like when bitcoins are bought or sold on mt gox, no transaction happens, happens only at withdrawal/funding time.



My point is that, it is, and will certainly remain dangerously cheap to do so. Much cheaper than what seems to be thought around here.

I don't know how you are missing it, but the flip side of "very expensive" transactions is "huge incentive to process transactions".

Maybe the government will torture you to death or rape your daughters, but they are not going to attack you by generating blocks that don't include your transactions.

You're missing my point, I'm just saying it would be pretty easy to overpower the network as a whole, and even make money doing that.

And yes, maybe a couple of geeks will run to the store get a couple extra GPUs to get the fat transaction fees, but my opinion is that the network would be much safer with mandatory generation on the client with at least 10% CPU dedicated with low priority.

I think generation should always be off by default, on a fresh install.

Otherwise, people will start complaining in public "bitcoin makes your computer go really slow", "bitcoin sends your privatez across the internetz" etc, and bitcoin's reputation will go downhill.

It's much better that people, in their own good time, discover how to turn on generation and think "wow that's really cool, I'm helping the system to operate AND if I'm lucky I might get some cons".

"Mandatory" generation is silly since people who don't want to generate will just close it and like it less since it's annoying. Not to mention that anyone can write a client that doesn't do it automatically anyway.

+1

There is a problem with this approach.

Sooner or later, when generating coins becomes too expensive in both bandwidth & processing power, network will be easily overrun by governments, botnets, crackers & other attackers with powerful connection & hardware.
They will also try double spending attacks & different attacks.

The problem will only get worse as there are more and more transactions. So it is better to think of a solution now, instead of cry when the crisis hits.

We don't need to worry about those with commercial interests (such as the controllers of the botnets currently being used to send spam). For those people, it will always be more profitable to mine for bitcoins than to try tricks like double-spending.

And if those "bad guys" are mining bitcoins it helps protect against the other "bad guys" (those with political motives).

You have it backwards. The government of Tuvalu could run a double spend attack right now, I don't know their exact resource situation, but I'd bet that they won't be able to do it in 6 months. As generating becomes more difficult it will be that much more difficult to overtake the whole network.

We don't have to worry about governments for now because you can't get your name in the papers for taking care of a non-problem that no one cares about. If you want to do anything in government you need an ad campaign first (Yemen?). The ad campaign will ironically boost usage. If there ever is an attack there will be huge forces rallied for good (and profit). Government thrives when it can divide and conquer the population (first they came for... and then...). Maybe they will crush bitcoin, but they will have to beat every one at the same time.

The solution is built in. Pay people to generate and pay them even more if transactions pile up.

Ok agreed, i haven't thought of that.

Your arguments satisfy me for today, thank You ;)

It's possible for non-generators to store almost nothing. However, the purpose of the network is to verify that transactions are not double-spending, and this is only possible if the generators know all of the current unspent transactions.

Yep, assuming block generation reward won't decrease, and that the bitcoin economy will be very liquid with lots of transactions...

In my view, if bitcoin gains momentum and credibility, most transactions will take place inside dedicated services (some BTC bank credits the merchant account while charging the customer for example) and won't be going inside a block.

I don't really see how suggesting that a program, running in the background, and taking 10% CPU on really low priority is a silly idea. If 20% of the people actually close it, 80% will just click the cross, send it in the task bar and help secure the network without even knowing it. As long as the fan doesn't go nuts and my desktop remains responsive I personnaly don't care about 10% CPU more or less. So I'd be really interested in some elaboration on the sillyness of this idea.
And when I'm speaking about mandatory, I'm obviously speaking about the default widespread client, not about what the protocol should enforce.


Why would a generator need to check for double spending ? Actually, a client needs more disk space than a generator.
The only thing a "pure" generator needs is the hash of the previous block whereas a client that receives payments needs to actually check for double spending, be it with a trusted balance sheet or with the complete block chain.
So that's a non-issue.

EDIT : Well I guess a generator needs to check for double-spending when including incoming transactions, but that doesn't really change much since that could be solved with balance sheets, simply by network rejection of blocks that contain invalid transactions after they've been generated, or by a much smarter solution =) I didn't think of.

To be able to say, "No other transaction has spent these coins," you need to know the contents of every other transaction. There's simply no way around this. Balance sheets would reduce the space required for each transaction, but this would remove the useful script functionality, since every transaction would need to be sent to exactly one public key or hash.

Balance sheets are basically "simple transactions":

Even with balance sheets, you'd still have 100-200 bytes per transaction, which doesn't help the network end (the real problem).

I don't really see how a trusted list of PK's and their balances isn't sufficient to decide whether a transaction is valid or not.
You wouldn't be able to go check each individual transaction relevant to a single balance, but as long as the balance sheet is signed by some trusted authority, or some hash of it is spread on the network I would be ok running such a generating client.

I'm assuming that when a transaction is made, both public keys are somehow broadcasted to the network so a complete credit list can be computed incrementally.

amirite or am i still missing something here ?

You're currently allowed to make complex transactions that can, for example, be redeemed by either of two public keys (whoever gets it firsts wins). This would be impossible in a balance sheet system unless you also record the transaction script, and if you do that you're right back at full transactions.

You don't need to know the contents of every other transaction. You need to have a current list of all the unspent coins and to keep abreast of the changes when they are spent. Spent transactions can be forgotten forever. The advantage of balance sheets over lightweight clients is that lots of the block chain can be forgotten and there are not merkle tree stubs hanging around which are a non-trivial size.

No. Balance sheets are script friendly as they would store the scriptPubKeys of all the unspent coins. I'll admit that when I came up with the scheme I was hazy about how scripts work.


Could you please explain what the real problem is? Balance sheets was intended to enable a fully featured mining-capable client while considerably reducing storage requirements. I believe that hard disk space will become a problem for average users long before network bandwidth or cpu usage.

I'm sorry I didn't notice both your continuations of this thread until today.

ByteCoin

This topic needs it's own thread, but I don't understand what is being argued here, if your client is using a trusted server, then it's already a thin client, which only really needs the transactions that pertain to the chain of custody that leads to your balance, so that you can create the transactions to spend them.  If you are using a trusted server to verify the validity of transactions, your client doesn't even need a balance sheet at all.  Using balance sheets, your client cannot independently verify a transaction of a sender at all.

Lightweight clients only need to store the parts of the Merkle trees that pertain to them. So if I am storing nothing but the block headers (no trees), someone sending me a Bitcoin transaction can send me the new transaction plus the required "branch transactions" in that block (usually not many extra transactions would be required). I can then reconstruct the Merkle root and verify the network's acceptance of the transaction without downloading a single entire Merkle tree.

This relies on the network's verification ability only. Such a lightweight client would not be trusting anyone.


I don't care about the requirements for mining. The average person should not be mining. The sooner dedicated organizations are doing all the mining, the better.

With the Bitcoin system, lightweight clients only need to download and store 80 bytes per block, plus temporarily a few extra transactions for every transaction they receive. Balance sheets requires storing and downloading a lot more data.

Sounds like you would be trusting that the peer that sent you the relevant transactions to your new transaction to not be sending you a doctored set.  There would be no way to be certain that what you received were real transactions without the complete blockchain, but you could increase confidence if you could download one or more copies of the relevant blocks from random peers not currently engaged in trading with you.  Does the protocol permit a lightweight client to download a specific block from a random peer, or does it have to download them in order?

Not at all. The transactions form a hash tree, and the root of this tree is in the block header. The headers, of course, are verified through the Bitcoin proof-of-work block chain system. The attacker would have to break SHA-256 in order to give you fake transactions.


Yes. You can also request specific transactions by hash, which would be useful in this scheme. If two lightweight clients are dealing with each other, they might want to rely on the network to provide the transactions required for the Merkle tree.

I don't understand this, but I'm not a programmer.

Good, that makes my concerns irrelevent.  Even if there were a way to fake a set of transactions without breaking sha256, the ability of the lightweight client to reach out and find another opinion makes any such future exploit pointless.

If there was a malicious takeover, you could opt to hold your BTC until a solution is figured out.  Maybe something like coming up with new client software that accepts as valid only Bitcoin that was held pre-freeze (i.e, only as-of a certain block, ... anything traded after was ignored).

If that is a solution, then maybe this same tactic is like an insurance policy against a massive theft.  Lets say somehow mtgox loses their entire store of BTC holdings.  Lots of unhappy folks I presume.  Build a new client so that blocks occuring after the theft are ignored.  Put out a call to the general public to use the new client so that 50% + 1 of node hashing is on the good side, and Bitcoin is back in business.

But you are right.  Could become a new type of arms escalation.

Attacking bitcoin with CPU power is one of the most stupid, expensive, difficult way to destroy a currency.

The mistaken notion here is the perception that governments necessarily are so powerful and have access to unlimited resources.  While on a personal level you may have that perception and it may generally be true when government officials gang up on an individual, there is strength in groups that stick together.  That is the reason you have a coup d'etat which happens from time to time in various parts of the world.

"The government" and banks can't take over Bitcoins through a brute force attack as they really don't have the computing power to do so, and what computing power they have is usually devoted to many other far more "important" tasks.  Of greater concern if you live in a democratically elected government is over the growth of the government, but then again my personal political philosophy is that government ought to be small for many reasons including the ability of the citizens to keep the government in check.

I really don't see how some entity like the Federal Reserve or even the Department of Defense, even if it devoted 100% of their computing power to mining bitcoins would be a threat as the citizens of America alone have access to far more computing power on a collective basis.  That kind of attack simply wouldn't happen, and a dedicated server farm with a blank congressional check spending billions of dollars to subvert Bitcoins would also get noticed eventually by the participants of Bitcoins too.

While the network is small it may be vulnerable to attack, but then again we are flying under the radar of the government here too and not being noticed.  It isn't something for the government to worry about.  As long as there are different governments around the world, even that minor threat is even more diminished as long as some governments perhaps might even support the aims and goals of Bitcoins turning such a brute force attack into an international incident bordering on an act of war.

The real threat is legislation that could potentially make using Bitcoins illegal, or a series of legal disputes in the judicial system, in any country for that matter.  There have already been attacks against peer to peer software in a number of situation, including what appears to be a current take-down attempt on the BitTorrent network in particular.  The same legal tools being used against that network may also be applied to Bitcoins, so it is a bit of a concern.

When you consider that, if successful, Bitcoin will have the world's most powerful special interests (governments and banks) arrayed against it, it is not unreasonable to make self-defense planning a top priority.  I think there should be an active group dedicated to thinking up "what if" scenarios, war gaming, development of alternative network topologies, etc.  In my view, P2P cryptocurrency is the most significant freedom-promoting development in our lifetimes, other than the internet itself.  Those who control their money control their destiny.  It will very likely accelerate the demise of the old-school hierarchical institutions (government and large corporations), but not without them waging an epic battle.  Things could get quite interesting in the next 10 years.  I agree with RHorning that the most significant threat is legislative, but the agorists among us are already itching to see large portions of the economy go underground.  The time is now to develop a sizable following for Bitcoin, especially among liberty-minded folks who will stick with us even if it becomes illegal to do so.

How is one going to buy let's say a car underground? Cars have to be registered, etc. Transactions above certain amounts have to be registered, etc. How is Bitcoin or an alternative system going to get around that? For digital goods one could use Bitcoin, but most  interesting goods are not digital.

What will government do when it collapse and there's hyperinflation?

It may be also a really dangerous time. So it's definitely crucial to stabilize the world economy at that point, since we are so interdependent now.

My own experience with hyperinflation was while living in Brazil during the mid 1980's, where local inflation was above 1000%.  I was lucky compared to the people I lived with at the time as my assets were mostly dollar denominated and did a monthly foreign exchange of dollars for (at the time) Brazilian Cruzados.

The Brazilians at the time were able to cope as the minimum wage was indexed to inflation (something I think would happen in most western countries if this became a problem).  Interestingly it turned out that most salary negotiations that I remember usually involved either a foreign currency (they demanded dollars, pounds, or deutschesmarks for a salary) or it was in multiples of that "minimum wage".  Using minimum wage as a currency in itself is sort of an interesting monetary unit in a hyperinflation environment that I don't think has been really well explored, particularly when that also becomes inflationary in its own right as it became in Brazil too.

It was rough when the money I had at the beginning of the month was only worth about half that value by the end of the month (sometimes less) and it did impact the kind of purchases that you did.  The most frustrating to me personally was that I couldn't really do price comparisons between one vendor against another for retail purchases, as literally the prices would be changing every day.  Pretty much if you saw something you wanted to buy, you made the purchase based strictly on if you could afford to buy the item or not.  I'm sure for merchants it was an even larger headache.

To give an example of how bad the inflation was, I noticed a huge pile of coins in a cash register that wasn't even being used.  When I asked if I could "buy" some of the coins, the cashier simply handed the whole heap to me thanking me for essentially taking out the trash.  I also knew a few people who literally used the money as a replacement for tissue paper in the bathroom because the tissue paper was more expensive.

I also encountered the situation where dollars as money unto itself simply were being used instead, and the government turning a blind eye to the practice as long as it was kept in relatively small amounts.  If I went to the street markets to buy fresh fruit or other goods and paid for them in dollars, they were gladly accepted and in fact I would usually get more than the typical exchange rate would have purchased instead.  Small denominations were the most useful, as you would only get change in the local currency (typically), but the dollars were certainly accepted and in fact more desirable than even bulk gold bullion.

Comparing this to Bitcoins, I can envision a time in the future where major world currencies are encountering massive inflation where many people will be looking for alternatives.  As a practical matter, if you offered some bitcoins where the merchant realizes that they are stable or even deflationary, they will gladly accept that as currency instead and even make extraordinary efforts to accommodate such a transaction.  Life will go on, governments will continue to collect taxes and commerce will continue to happen.  It will be rough and there will certainly be "winners and losers" in such an environment, but society certainly won't collapse if that was to happen.  The threat to governments under hyperinflation is mainly general hardships for the population as a whole and general discontent that something is wrong needing to be fixed.  That may encourage a coup d'etat or certainly major turn-overs in the political parties running the government, but it doesn't imply that any particular country is going to completely collapse into anarchy in such a situation.  People and countries have gone through this before and survived just fine, even though it was certainly a huge ouch during the hyperinflationary period.

Of concern is of course what happened during the Weimar Republic and the political party which took over in Germany because of the hyperinflation, and the reaction of the German people which happened when that political party was able to bring inflation under control.  That tends to give the leaders of such a government close to a "blank check" to do a great many things that may not be politically acceptable in other environments.

Well, if you want a new Mercedes Benz or something like that, then you will need to buy it in the old economy.  However, I could envision a resourceful agorist buying an old clunker with some national currency and restoring it to like new condition and then selling it for Bitcoins.  When you register the car, which would already have a title, you would only have to pay taxes on its old, unrestored value. 

In the future, there will be a greater availability of desktop manufacturing devices and eventually molecular manufacturing machines, so the percentage of the world economy that can be delivered digitally is only going to increase.

Its easy to spot the government. They are the ones pointing guns at you.


 :)

So commodity markets will be even bigger in the future. Imagine buying exotic matters so that you could print them with your machine.

http://www.makerbot.com/

Seen one in person recently.  Slick little machines.

We do _not_ have a working self-replicating 3D printer yet. reprap.org is often marketed as one, but you still have to do lots of human labour to replicate one. When the day comes that you can replicate the original in a day without human effort, can use more materials than currently supported, have a lot less variance (this is manufacturing!), that will be the day where you can think about printing cars, etc.

Currently, we have hyped technology that can create plastic items (that cannot even contain all liquids without leaking). It's a great project, but to think it will be "done" in 5-10 years is a mistake. If anything, major advances could come from increases in processing power, but they have to be enormous (kind of like how GPUs have been growing in capability in a limited domain of computations), but I don't see it happening. I used to, but progress has been too slow over the past 5 years in this area.

For example we really should have been able to buy memristor based technology by now.

Portland Oregon is working on a community owned laser project

Watch out for copyrights! "You wouldn't copy a car would you?" ;-)

Was anybody here talking about reprap being finished in few years ?
Reprap is probably decades from "completion" meaning when it will be possible to print something complex with it, without the need of any human intervention...

Rerap made possible makerbot. Makerbot make more makerbot operators, who are hacker type. More hackers mean more effort. More effort mean more inventing and innovation.

Currently, you can basically mass produce on a small scale plastic objects.

mass produced small plastic objects. exactly what the world needs more of

I sensed a strong suggestion by some people before me that 3D printing technology is already a miracle technology. Your prediction is closer to what I would predict.

FYI, in various videos they claim literallly "within 5 to 10 years you will all have your own RepRap and you can then just print another one for a friend by pressing a button". That's the marketing I am talking about. That time duration is a unfounded number. As a wise man said "Making predictions is hard, especially about the future".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

Bitcoin can improve the country's government. Most people who own cryptocurrencies think that it is a movement against the government and it's cruel regulations but also keep in mind that,
Both Cryptocurrencies and Government are here to stay
So rather than dissing government, the whole cryptocurrency community should work together in government and help them learn the benefits it will bring.
What we all do can?

Yes, in some countries that are at the stage of not even developed infrastructure, it makes no sense to think about bitcoin. And there are such countries.

It's very cool to invest now at Bitcoin and because this is the only stable currency on the market.

I think the government has an influence on the bitcoin and whether the bitcoin is allowed to exist in that country.

I like this idea, I think there will be some experts here who can help you improve it

Everyone downloading and starting the bitcoin will automatically strenghten the network as it affects the network and is often recommended. 75% of people will not even notice such a message and 3% will want to help the network or the miners.

Governments should even stay out of bitcoin

Most people who own cryptocurabicca, they think that this is a movement against the government and it's cruel rules, but keep in mind that cryptococcinosis and the government are both here to stay here. Instead of confusing the government, the entire cryptoornance community will have to work with the government and Will help to learn the benefits of profit which is not only to the people but the groom Government will bring.

Sadly it's true. countries need to improve and develop more to even look into bitcoin.

If think the government is interested in Bitcoin because it still isn't much regulated. Imagine how huge are the money flows – undoubtedly, the governments want to be able to track all the transactions.

calm down, now cryptocurrency users have a lot, if we strong users maintain it, then the government will give permission to all of us, I am sure that can happen, depending on how our efforts are.

Bitcoin is not the enemy of government neither government but there is a big misunderstanding and that is government want to regulate it but bitcoin is beyond regulation.

Although bitcoin is decentralised currency but still Without government permission bitcoin cannot trading in a country.in country like china Bangladesh Ecuador bitcoin ban by their government because of its decentralised nature and in those countries their economy is affect by bitcoin. Bitcoin affects their country national currency and also affects their bank profits. But in country like japan their government fine with bitcoin. They also encourage their people to use bitcoin. In many developing countries bitcoin is the only source for money transaction.

I think the government has a strong impact on bitcoin. Major regulations may cause the bitcoin market to increase or decrease. Bitcoin prices will fluctuate sharply when the government makes an important decision.

It was really funny reading the earlier posts, and how it would only take a few GPUs to affect the hashrate, costing only about $100k.

Even now, the government could spend 10 billion dollars and make its own dedicated chips to attack bitcoin. Although with the speed and efficiency that government typically does things the chips will somehow cost 10 times the initial amount and be complete by the time they are completely obsolete.


Government is not all powerful. Even the US IRS is horribly underfunded.

As a one of the 2010 posters mentioned, the biggest governmental threat to bitcoin is Judiciary.

I've seen cases on YouTube where people where prosecuted for operating a money transmitting business without a licence, just for selling bitcoin for USD, which is complete bullshit.


Then again, when they haul you off to jail to get locked up with big dick McSqueek that's where government can beat individual Bitcoiners.

But as a whole, I think we can outsmart the government, should it be so unreasonable as to threaten Bitcoin.

We can, switch algorithms or slower block generation speed and switch to a bitcoin protocol through shortwave radio. Or a million different things.

Once bitcoin was first implemented the genie got out of the bottle. As long as there are people who want financial freedom, bitcoin will exist, whether the government likes it, or not.


 

Government and bitcoin is two interrelated thing. Although beis a decentralised currency which means it doesn't under control of any kind of authority or government but still in a particular country the government of that country is superior then that of bitcoin. If a government want it can ban bitcoin trading, market in their country and also influences other country to do the same. In country like Israel, Bangladesh, China sri lanka their government ban bitcoin in their country because bitcoin influence their country economy in a negative way.

Bitcoin and government is still not getting along. Why? Because the government wants to control over the Bitcoin or to regulates this crypto currency which Bitcoin is not into it. A lots of crypto people also wants to remain Bitcoin as it is as a decentralized and anonymous as it is. Moreover, we can say that they are not to what we can say that they were enemies.

government and bitcoin can't really get along. because bitcoin will not be as good now as the preferred bitcoin character is because bitcoin is not regulated and is not held by the state or certain government.
decentralized. without government interference

government and bitcoin can't really get along. because bitcoin will not be as good now as the preferred bitcoin character is because bitcoin is not regulated and is not held by the state or certain government.
decentralized. without government interference

yes, I also think like that. but I feel that it will not always be like that. someday, there will be a time for the government to use bitcoin like big companies use it. of course it can also add prices from fiat currencies.

government and bitcoin can't really get along. because bitcoin will not be as good now as the preferred bitcoin character is because bitcoin is not regulated and is not held by the state or certain government.
decentralized. without government interference

I am sorry sir, but in my opinion it's not really make sense. If government pretend bitcoin as a threat then government was tried to destroy bitcoin since long time ago. I read some news that there are some countries which is embrace blockchain technology so in my opinion bitcoin has very bright future and government don't have a problem with it.

Governments just want to get tax out from bitcoin, other governments have started to learn how to deal with bitcoin because bitcoin will definitely affect the economy of a nation, other governments have banned it already, others regulate it but I hope that one day we will be all unite to use cryptos especially bitcoin.