Bitcoin Forum

What if the World Bank/IMF decides to create an SDR backed crypcoin run on ASICs and spent billions to install networks? Would it be game-over for Bitcoin?

NO.

There will ALWAYS be a blackmarket.

Would those coins be limited in quantity? I find it hard to believe they would, as this prevents them from printing more money as they like.

Would those coins be pseudo-anonymous? I find it hard to believe they would, as this prevents them from tracing money transfers and controlling.

Would those coins be given out on a 10-minutes basis to miners? I find it hard to believe they would, as this prevents them from holding on to all the coins.

And so on...

The bottom line is, they would like to control the people by the money, and people don't like being controlled, so bitcoin (or another crypto-distributed-anonymous-p2p-virtual thingy) will last as long as people are not happy with being controlled (which is in our DNA)

This.  The idea that the powers that be will simply give up all control if silly.

Lets look a little deeper.  Say they were willing to make a system which is as open and transparent as Bitcoin.  Why?  Why not simply use Bitcoin.  The very fact that they don't means the "GlobalCoin" has some "bad news" attached to it and thus Bitcoin is still superior. 

It won't happen. The World Bank is far to big and bureaucratic to do anything that innovative and disruptive. History for centuries has repeatedly proven that the existing big players are never at the forefront of new and highly disruptive technologies.

I would be really scared if evil governments, central banks, and what have you started playing with BTCs.
They could corner the market in a nanosecond.

It is more likely that they send predators to "take care" of every single person on this forum, than they voluntary lose the power of printing nations money.

I am looking forward to see just how screwed up MintCoin turns out!

Even if somehow, somewhere, a government pushed the magic button on their hidden datacenter and brought a crapload of hashing power online for their sovereign blockchain - there would be little incentive to switch, since all you'd probably use it for is paying taxes of one kind or another. (If you even bothered.)

Also, I don't think banks or governments are too keen on a system that doesn't allow easy money 'printing' or debt issuance. If they changed the underlying premise - perhaps, but then it would make it blockchain fiat, and nobody would be fooled by that. (Well, those that were would deserve the consequences.)

Anyway, interesting mental exercise, but I don't think gov'ts or banks are that progressive.

Dollars and euros already have crypto/numeric representations (inside banks)... just slapping that label on a currency doesn't do much.

"Backing" requires counter-party risk, so while it may be a feature it is also a liability. One of Bitcoin's great achievements is its lack of counter-party risk. Besides, anything "backed" cannot be anonymous, as backing requires potential for redemption of the coin for a good.

If you have billions at your disposal, you can always "buy" bitcoin through mining domination.

However, economic incentives don't really exist at present to motivate big players to destroy bitcoin (== net economic loss).

Is it possible to create USD payment network based on Bitcoin?

• Fork Bitcoin project.
• Change the way new coins created. Instead of coinbased transaction from a miner, new coins can just appear in a block as a transaction from preprogramed set of inputs owned by central authority.
• Create infrastructure where people can exchange their money for crypto USD and back, in a non reversible way.
• Change address generation and validation with an additional step. Normal address gets encrypted with a private key owned by central authority, to send money you would have to first decrypt it then verify that the address is correct. In effect, to get new address you would have to comply with every requirement from central authority e.g. submitting legal documents, that would make it possible to track every transaction to a person.
• Replace the term coin with US Dollar and market it as payment network that has best security model.
• Pay fixed amount to a miner who found last block to bootstrap the network, later on it could be replaced with transaction fees.

This has been discussed on this and other forums under the name of "licensed mining". Basically only those who obtain a mining license can mine. Their mining license is their share of a global partnership that does money transfer or other commerce.

Also, it doesn't have to be centralized. The mining licenses would allow for global voting, so if one (or some) members of the partnership get seized by a local government the global partnership continues to operate under the simple majority of votes.

Sure but pointless.  If you are going to have a central authority simply make all transactions go through the central authority.   The reality is the blockchain and distributed network of miners have a significant cost overhead.   That cost is the PRICE of having a decentralized network.  Having a centralized network with the cost of a decentralized network is simply the worst of both worlds.

One of the selling points of Bitcoin is very low transaction fees compared to credit card and paypal.

I don't want anyone to actually implement it, but I would like to know if it's feasible.

The first rule of Bitcoin is YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT BITCOIN!

Although it would be easy for any central bank to destroy bitcoin, they simply won't do it.  The reason is that, in order for them to destry bitcoin, they would have to create a cryptocurrency with all of the features of bitcoin but also backed by the state's monopoly on force.  The features in Bitcoin are specificly chosen because they make Bitcoin into the ideal Internet currency, but central banks don't want ideal money, or they would never have left the gold standard to start with.  Central banks want control, and they would still desire that in any cryptocurrency that they might create.  That control puts it at a disadvantage against the market leader, Bitcoin.

Judging by their past performance, they would hardly be able to prevent causing their own inflation by raising the amount of crypcoin produced in the world. Bitcoin is limited to 21 million.

That's ok. We will just develop... BITCOIN 2!

I posted this not because it is a threat, but because it is an objection from folks that don't understand Bitcoin. I doubt many people thought America would win its War of Independence either. In fact, it didn't on a financial level. Bitcoin will win because it is the superior money system on every level. Still, there is good discussion here.

I welcome any criticism of bitcoin, any rational analysis of why it might not succeed. I have no problem at all that some don't like bitcoin, or even take it further and rail against it. I think bitcoin, in my opinion, is stronger than the critics.

However, I welcome any point of view that produces rational discussion and debate.

If we can't defend the basic tenets of bitcoin as a protocol and a payment system, then we have no business supporting it. For me, bitcoin is freedom that I never thought I'd see in my lifetime for financial systems that are beholden to their creators and governments.

FTFY

Because Bitcoin already has 43% distributed.