the title.. What will happen to the Bitcoin network if Russia blocks access to the internet? kinda gives away the scenario

there was no chainsplit when kazahkstan blocked access to the internet on riot week.

because no internet means no ability to broadcast beyond the walls of the building you create data in

THERE WAS NO INTERNET in kazahkstan
it wasnt a choice to not fork. it was NO CHOICE.

ill word it another way.
if a government turns off your electric. you have no electric.. its not a choice that you decide not to have your lights on.. you simply HAVE NO LIGHTS.

no internet means NO communication between nodes. meaning no fork
its a simple piece of common sense logic..
if you have no internet then your miners are doing nothing but burning electric for no reason
as there is no broadcasting
you are not broadcasting anything to anyone because your data is not leaving YOUR BUILDING

why would anyone continue mining if the only place their data goes is in their internal building LAN..

no WAN = no fork.
no one would be mining their own chain that is only seen on the computers in the same office as the miner. because that is just an expensive future orphan when the internet gets turned on again.

i know you might be thinking that russia will magically send smoke signals across many different asic farms across russia so that they combine their own separate chain within russia. but that is not the case.
imagine russia having say 20 asic farms of 200petahash..
its not a case of russia having a sub-net/fork of 4exahash.. instead if they are stupid enough to waste electric. they would have 20 chains of 0.2exa. meaning 1000x behind the mainnet
so instantly rejected

understand what no internet means. it means no broadcasting.
and knowing they cant broadcast, they are just waiting electric knowing that their many different chains at very very low hashrate will get rejected when the internet comes back.

ther would be no way to spend coins with merchants or exchanges while there is no internet. so no way to cash out any rewards. because no one outside of the warehouse of their asics will see those blocks

this is not a EO to do anything, .. apart from make a risk report..
its not really making any new laws. its more about biden asking for an investigation into possible financial risks.

they want to concentrate on stable coins, and be more inclusive without opening themselves up to competition which can remove government/institutions out of the equation.

what they might be concerned about is if stable coins(measured in dollars) were to become mainstream established. and then the crypto markets change route and value stable coins differently. (de-pegging/fractional reserving)

yep many people think that a stable coin is somehow by law/code fixed as a peg of dollar 1:1. but its not. its just a mutual understanding of current agreement to treat 1stable coin as 1 dollar on the markets.

markets could decide to instead peg it to 0.1 hour of minimum wage labour or another fiat overnight. so the SEC would probably need to put laws in place that enforce that markets always keep a stable coin pegged to a dollar and also that the markets actually keep a 100% reserve rate of coin to dollar. to prevent off-market fractional reserving a stable coin

there are other risks like the normal stuff about AML/KYC which they will probably want to ramp up. but this topic is not about changing laws now/soon, this is about reporting possible risks so that maybe sometime in the future laws might change like some i just mentioned

if the russians have no internet they would both not see any blocks because they have no internet. AND they wont be producing any blocks because.. yep THEY HAVE NO INTERNET

having no internet means no fork, no different chain. it just means no competition from russia. they are just dead/stalled. not part of the network or any network
basically not receiving. not broadcasting anything.

EG
there was no chain split when kazahkstan went dark last year. because no internet means NO INTERNET

ADSL and fibre routers dont 'dial out' to a ISP telephone number, so its not like you can dial-up to a new ISP .. well unless you want to use old dial-up speeds with a 56k modem

they work by 'switches' which direct certain data along the cable going to certain places. when you sign up to an ISP, THEY switch the switches to the particular provider. its not something you can control at your wall socket end

yes you can use satalite tech. EG Elon musk has redirected his starlink to move on a path that allows ukraine to be inline, but then there is the issue of elon getting 'base station' dishes into ukraine for them to communicate with starlink. same would apply to russia. having the orbital satalites on a path and having the base station dishes to communicate with it.

as for radio waves.. well thats like dialup speed stuff.. ok for short messages like a sms or tweet. but not for live streaming or bitcoin mining/block downloading

not really the case, it just means any russians making blocks are not seen, meaning that other nations mining pools get to submit their block result, meaning more rewards for the other nations to share with one less competitor nation
(less people at the party = more slices to pizza to eat amongst the smaller group)

imagine it this way
if there are 10 olympic runners each averaging a time of 9.5-10.5 seconds in a 100metre run.. only 1 can win
take one person off the track does not make the other runners run slower. it just means the chances of the 9 remaining runners winning increases. the average win is still the same average. but now 9 people get more wins when they run regularly

what does cause a speed up or slowdown. is if each of the runners are using more or less muscle(asics) then previous fortnight. meaning the average time over a fortnight has changed to be more or less then the needed average.

taking one competitor out of the race does not impact the speed of the other runners.
if one runner doesnt turn up. the other runners dont suddenly walk the 100m out of compassion for a lost competitor. the other runners still run at their same average speed. and now get a higher chance of winning per race

infact, with the remaining runners winning more often they can afford to build more muscle(asics) and run more faster. so the speed of solves can happen more faster.
OR they can enjoy their easier wins and tone down some muscle(asics) and run more casually. and decrease their speed

---

here is the thing.
if putin wanted to, he could stop the citizen serving ISP's, meaning even if you have a VPN its useless if your router cant even connect to your ISP
whilst still allowing a public sector ISP to service the inner government routers

its not about IP banning certain sites. its about turning off ISP's that citizens subscribe to and have a landline/cellular network connection to that can be switched off.

i doubt putin would stretch that far to P!55 off all his citizens, but then again other countries have(kazahkstan fuel riots). so i wouldnt put it past him

there is more to it than your propaganda.. but thanks for your admission that YOU think bitcoin doesnt work. but thats your opinion..
we know you dont like bitcoin. you made that obvious in many topics.

the capitalist politics of not allowing scaling is whats holding bitcoin back. scaling is not the issue, its the solution.. but again you dont want bitcoin scaling. because you prefer getting people to stop using bitcoin for daily use stuff

go on. admit it.
you started this topic pretending to want to know how to buy daily use stuff at a supermarket with bitcoin.. pretending that was your intent.. , but now you want to say bitcoin cant do that but your favoured other network can..

trustless? (pfft)*
yea combine that with not paying into the merchant direct(pftt)
but instead locking excessive funds up with some random person days before. then having to lock up more funds with another random person incase the first person is offline.
then having to switch off all the autopilot and public announcement defaults to hide from having your liquidity raided before you can spend it yourself..
and then have to plan which bunch of random people to hop through to hopefully find a link to the merchant you intend to use.
oh and then hope along this route none of them are *'turbo' faking channel balance.. to cause issues for you or the merchant

what you describe of having to have a few channels set up with more balance then needed locked up earlier then needed. and the HOPE that the merchant might be involved in the intricate web of hops when needed.. that is what i call inefficient.
heck even your altnet favoured devs have hit that wall hard, and said how the hop-route model is a both chicken and egg failure. it only works if enough idiots are conned into using the network, but then later fails again because everyone is then using the network leaching out the liquidity of possible paths.. thats why they are moving more in directions of the hub-spoke model of directly contracting with the merchants(albeit they still want to be MSB middlemen hubs inbetween ofcourse which has its own flaws)

as for finality/settlement..
especially when none of them are then broadcasting to confirm the payment to settle up. middlemen can then play games punishing each other in a chargeback scam game of fastest scammer wins.. along with all the rebalance games inbetween to empty out liquidity..

seriously. you seem to be stuck in the 2018 utopian glossy advert, and not actually done your research on how impractical your altnet is and how many ways it can be abused for people that just want to buy their lunch on a whim, without anything more then a 10 minute plan during lunchbreak.
(or maybe you do know how many ways it can be abused and thats your actual intent)

your altnet only works sometimes, if you are set up hours/days before hand with excessive funds pre-locked to increase chances of possible paths(still with no guarantees). and then even if you find a path there is no finality to the payment without the risks of middlemen meddling with the system

i prefer what bitcoin was designed for. paying the intended recipient without the silly meddle men 'hop-n-hope' games
(i purposefully spelled it meddle)

yea i know you dont like settling up and finalising. i know you prefer people to lock up and stay locked up so you can play games with their balance. but thats not bitcoin.

or stick with bitcoin. and instead:
a. accept zero-confirm non rbf
b.  buy one of his giftcards as you walk/drive to their store..
c.  deposit funds into an address of a merchant upfront,
d.  use multisig with merchant upfront and then sign off on a transaction with the merchant at the cashier desk.. that broadcasts
that way you cant RBF/double spend without their signature of any possible second spend you attempt

its the same idea as your altnet.. but without all the flaws.. yep actually performed on the blockchain instead of holding onto and not broadcasting unconfirmed transactions

yep your altnet is one step worse then zero confirm transactions. because they dont even broadcast the transaction that intends to give the merchant a utxo with value dedicated to them.. (adding in all the other flaws of the altnet that can hinder the possibility of the merchant ever getting his intended utxo value)

oh and even the altnet devs have lost value in their altnet more so than the complaints of broadcast zeroconfirms ever has

2% of nodes/ maybe 20% of miners..(if a russian internet ban includes kazahkstan)
 that is all..

BTC is feasible for many things. but whats not obvious to most is that the OP is trying to be subtle with hints of bitcoin being useless for daily use stuff(not his first carousal ride on his merry go round). so that he can subtly hint and suggest other altnets as solutions

recently he was trying to blame bitcoiners for not spending value to lobby governments to stop asking exchanges to perform KYC. even though a smarter person than him knows that the point of KYC is about tax, laundering, crime and terrorist prevention. which no government would decide to take a blind eye to and drop KYC. yet oops, it must be(in his view) bitcoiners fault why exchanges are asking for KYC due to lack of confidence in the bitcoin community having any desires of privacy. thus then advertising that people should move other to things like ethereum to then 'de-fi'
heck he was even trying to raise the anger into making people stop using exchanges which would cause a price crash on bitcoin.. how obvious is that .. too obvious.

he is trying many subtle and not so subtle ways to make people think bitcoin is not useful in peoples daily lives. and that manipulation has not gone un-noticed

i guarantee you within a couple weeks he will make another hypothetical scenario where he pretends that he found another flaw that can benefit from people using a different network
(he and his chums dont like it when i out their campaigns)

the game of advertising altnets has got so ramped up that even in this topic oeleo and blackhatcoiner are pretending to be opposing view points but subtly they are on the same side.. trying to hide their allegiances of an altnet

blackhatcoiner is just less subtle about his preference of altnets. at first i thought oeleo was maybe leaving his chum group and actually becoming a bitcoiner, but his subtle schemes have not been that convincing because he still advertises his favoured altnet as top of his list possible "solutions", pretending the altnet(in many topics) is bitcoin and there is no difference between using the altnet and using bitcoin.. (facepalm)


sorry but im sticking with bitcoin

its fair to not just sling crap around in some tinfoil nutcase rhetoric, but that requires people doing research and understanding how MSB(exchanges operate) and how regulations work in the real world, to know which arguments to actually make and which ones are just tin foil fantasy

EG
idiots hating exchanges with rhetoric of 'government are spying' is incorrect because its the business that collects analyses and stores customer data not the government. the business only reports to government on specific customers it deems as suspect, and to validate their suspicions they need to collect data to cancel out invalid suspicions by knowing who is a clean customer thus no need to report on all acts done by clean customers. lack of knowing things causes more suspicion... not less

but its also fair to highlight the risks of MSB(exchanges) such as when using an exchange as a custodian. you are not under some government insurance that protects your value. so unlike a institutional bank account, a MSB wont get bailed out and there is no consumer protection of value. yes you can try to form a lawsuit to sue a business privately but that then requires proof and accounting and showing you are indeed a customer of theirs in the first place and then prove the value was not lost due to the customer error.

so highlighting to people its safer to not use a exchange as a custodian(savings account) is better then to not inform people and let them lose their value(mtgox case) where they falsely assumed if an exchange closed people would get a cheque in the mail from some insurance/government department

fighting what exactly?
the very fact that its not the government gathering data on every customer and only seeking specific data on suspect criminals when the government receives a report of suspicion, pretty much covers your tin foil concerns of 'government overreach' in regards to privacy against the government.

by the MSB collecting the data and only reporting suspect data, addresses one of your tinfoil concerns

as for fighting to evade the need of collecting any data.
the government concerns are tax avoidance, laundering, criminal funding, and terrorism. and so trying to lobby a campaign to evade all data collection at the business level is like trying to fight "no we wont help fight terrorism, we are not patriots we want criminals in our business' .. see how far that gets them

businesses want to keep making dollar profits. bitcoin is just a product of temporary mechanism to make more fiat profit. and so they will lean to protect the fiat more then protect bitcoin.  especially if they are going to be penalised by $5k a day per violation/customer for every day they dont comply with fiat laws.. thats just not good business.

.. but lets say in your utopian tinfoil world. there was a system. try to explain your system of how you see that businesses operate to :
protect against criminals, terrorists, dictator states
protect users funds from being stolen by MSB

EG the freezing of the bitfinex stolen funds and the funds of the virus/hacker groups.. how would you deal with allowing law enforcement to still find and stop this if businesses didnt look into their customers.

take for instance that if businesses never keep logs of which customer makes a bank deposit. then a customer has no claim if a MSB was to go bankrupt or done a 'we been hacked' because there is no trace of their transaction to account for to validate any class action suit against a business

take for instance if a MSB was not to analyse blockchains for clean taint, every taint would have to be treated as suspect. and if a MSB was not to request income/employment status of customers. how can it tell whats a legitimate 'normal' trade based on that customers level, vs a suspicious trade. EG an unemployed hobbiest would look suspicious if moving over $1k a month. but a rich employed person wouldnt get a second glance if moving $10k
however without KYC everyone would be classed as suspicious for moving just $1k a month, thus without analytics and KYC more people would get reported.

so in your world view of utopia, how would you like laws to be wrote and how would you like MSB to operate and still function without real world risks to themselves and customers funds.

please write examples statements of laws and example business policies of customer accounting.

oh and please do not mis-quote the yellen rhetoric where you think yellen is now allowed to implement any policy she pleases. do some research and learn about MSB and the draft bills and realise the latest draft bill you have been indoctrinated into the tinfoil society is actually a change that helps stop yellen from just making policy at a whim

1. measuring against time. does not mean measuring against a fixed amount of time forever
EG instead of changing dollars and cents you change minutes and seconds

2. some argue that it must require some middle man to decide the value..
but that argument is moot because who the F%&k decided everyone needs to measure against dollar

i know people want to keep bitcoin connected to dollar. but then thats actually deciding for people. thus counter-arguing the counter argument

there is nothing stopping this system from being adopted apart from people refusing to adopt it.
the main reasons why wall street would hate this is because

a asian person working 4200hours (Y12.6*4200=Y52920) can get bitcoin. (at forex Y52920=$8376)
and then sell it for 4200hours of america fiat min wage value.($15*4200=$63,000)
 and then use forex wallstreet to swap $63,000 for yuan  Y398,040
basically making the asian 7.5X richer per flip.

ending up with bitcoin actually causing the forex market to then crash and level up where eventually Y1=$1

but dare anyone ever try using bitcoin to cause an effect of the forex market.. hmm.. yea expect alot of hostility and anger if anyone dared thinking outside of the box that bitcoin can actually cause wall street market effect

so you make a topic about de-centralising.. about having each person on planet with their own coin.
and now at your first hurdle. you now want to re-invent central exchanges that choose which coins to add. and all people need to convert to fiat to interact.. um............ you sir have re-invented centralisation

a decentralisation solution is where users can have their own currency and then swap with each others independent currency.
but the flaws of this is that having so many currencies, then requires so many 'swap' orderbooks so that each person can evaluate their coins value against their neighbour, friends, families currency.

my response was not about adding 320million new coins to existing exchanges(centralised).. im talking about the admin of "exchanging"(swapping) between friends and family and neighbours and employers/employees via the admin of your idea's debit card solution. where your debit card system will need to have 320million^320,000,000 order books interconnecting different peoples individual coin so that people can swap value between each other at each others exchange rate(decentralisation)

a system limiting the amount of coins that can swap...... hmm call that more centralisation..

i now see you want to kill off 319,999,000 currencies before you even begun because you want to only manage say a thousand. and then want to kill off the decentralised straight swap between each other by making the last 1000 have to centrally exchange into fiat before then moving value between neighbours, family and friends.. thus.. making people just be playing with fiat all over again when buying stuff and sending value to each other

thus . you have just made your whole concept obsolete

..
if you could have a system where people could swap their individualised/personalised coin between each other direct. then you have decentralisation.. however if you are requiring people to drop their coin and just grab fiat to then move value between each other where the system encourages people dropping their coins so that there are only a few remaining coins and all require dropping their coin to grab fiat before even being able to spend value between each other. then you have centralisation..

..
here is one lesson.
there are already thousands of coins. some are even able to direct swap X coin for Y coin without needing fiat in the middle
heck even in 2012 i was swapping bitcoin for litecoin for namecoin for bitcoin without going through a fiat transfer in the middle.
so we have already played out a system a few steps ahead of what your WERE planning(in the title). even if your plan NOW sounds more centralised than whats actually already happened in the past

so if your aim is to see which coins last the test of time of resilience and commonality.. the answer has already been solved for you
bitcoin, litecoin, ethereum
and they have taken a step further by allowing people to swap value between the currencies direct without having to loop through fiat first. meaning no central fiat exchage
also ontop of that there are dozens of exchanges with different parings that dont flow through fiat first. thus more decentralised than your concept

people use banks and fiat currency not because they dont trust themselves, but more so that its common and convenient

no one would trust a uncommon and inconvenient currency.
its why americans find it convenient and common to use dollars in their area rather than euros.

people just dont want to be messing around with 320million different currencies and trying to calculate if 20 Jarbltatercoins are worth the same as $20 or 20frankycoins

next people dont care about the technicals of which blockchain or app a currency is created using. they will just find one and i mean one that is convenient and common in their area that just gets on with the job of buying goods and services where they can easily see a common value of X currency is worth X minimum wage hours which then buys X/4 loaves of bread

also the administration set up of having a debit card that is then attached to 320million different market order books is a task that is not going to work well.
as is having 320million³²⁰ orderbooks swapping with each other

people just end up finding one common currency that they can all match to and then just stick with the common one.
yep there are thousands of altcoins but all of them match to bitcoin so majority just stick with bitcoin.
markets would not work if each altcoin had its own market exchange order book against the other thousand coins. and each of them thousand coins had orderbooks with the thousands of coins.

not only would it dilute the user participation per orderbook, but it would also just be too confusing.

there is a point where trying to go too decentralised, then becomes a point where it just no longer works.
decentralisation of bitcoin works because people do not need a central point of power to decide things for the masses(well thats the aim). but instead has a common power of the masses agreeing on the same thing.

the foolish thing is though..
only 320mill people use US dollar where as over 1.4billion people use yuan..
yet someone at some time decided we should peg bitcoin to US dollar and we stuck with it.. for CONVENIENCE

we CAN change this convenience. there is no law that says bitcoin needs to be valued to the dollar.

im not saying get all goods in the world to mention a bitcoin price.. im suggesting instead changing how bitcoin is valued. to no longer be stuck against the us dollar

we COULD actually create our own 'measuring stick' instead of measuring to dollar and then from dollar to other forex fiats

like you say we could measure it to apples or say minimum wage hours.
however an apple is not then pegged to other goods/services.. so complicated to use apples as the measure of value

yet take minimum wage law as a more defined value measure. but i dont mean the $ value. i mean the HOURS

where by this would benefit by equalling out the poverty inbalance of the world if a good peg was used where value can be recognised from it.

right now someone in california where min wage is $15 an hour only needs to work 2800 hours to get 1btc ($42k)
where as someone in asia only getting $2 an hour has to work 21,000 hours ($42k) to get 1btc
seems extremely unfair right now for the asian population, right?

but by bitcoin creating its own poverty neutralising 'measuring stick' value as X minwage hours. then this can level everyone.
so lets say that right now btc was 4200 min wage hours. people in california will at first complain that they have to work more. but then in more impoverished countries will work less, a heck lot less, where they both end up working the same number of physical hours to afford to both buy 1btc each.
thus levelling out the geographic wealth gap
where by then people trade in 'minutes' and 'hours' instead of $

EG market exchange rate is 4200h32m12s
where each exchange knows the national amounts and when people deposit their national currency it converts that currency into hours minutes and seconds. and the 'price of bitcoin' fluctuates in minutes and seconds rather then dollars and cents

what physical retailers know is this

those wanting to steal items of under $100, dont bother with chargeback crap. they dont even bother using counterfeit cash or cheques that bounce. because the whole 'witness' thing of security camera's and cashiers and fingerprint identity would get a person in alot of trouble for a small amount.
in those sub $100 amounts the thief would just put the item under their shirt, making sure they are not seen.. and just walk out without trying to pay.
its why the banks do not mind 'swipe and pay'/'tap and pay' apps/cards for items under $100 without need of entering a pin number.
because the likely hood is low of someone defrauding a purchase of low value but done so at a highly evidential/punishable crime if caught,

its why cheques have a 'guarantee card' that backs the balance over a certain amount. its why cards require a pin number over a certain amount. its why retailers do visual and UV light checks on large amounts of cash.
(hand a cashier 1x $10 they dont check it, hand a cashier 20x$10, they check every note twice)

if someone is spending say $5 with bitcoin, at a sit-down table service cafe. and it would cost a $2 tx fee to RBF one tx for another, someone is not going to waste the time and cost him 40% to try to defraud a coffee shop while knowing it takes the waiter 10 minutes to sit the person at a table and then make the coffee order and serve the coffee. especially when its then not only an embarrassment to then be confronted with your malicious act, but gets you in trouble for it too.
..so coffee shops wont worry about zero-confirms for such small amounts.

as for amounts of $20-$200. users dont want to have to pre-plan a months spending ahead of time and organise their funds into fiat accounts or altnet channels hoping that it will be enough to cover all possible spending. and then hope once its in these accounts/channels, they can use it freely.. instead they will find other same-day methods. EG buying a giftcard on their lunchbreak walk to starbucks or local deli/supermarket

these 'faster payment' altnets do have small use-cases and niche utility when all circumstances align and are well pre-planned and organised as to future spending habits. but they should not be seen as the replacement of bitcoin utility.
also these altnets should try better to highlight more of its own flaws, rather then try making bitcoin look useless to subtly mention their altnet

definitely not subtly advertising their altnet as a defacto solution to current issues with bitcoin. instead people need to see that its actually far easier to buy a giftcard using BITCOIN on a lunchbreak. then it is to lock up bitcoin to play on an altnet weeks before you even go to lunch.
and yes even in an altnet. there are ways of doing chargebacks. user refuses to sign its hubs latest commitment. forcing the hub to broadcast an older commitment, which the user can then use the revocation to chargeback on the hub.
as can the hub do the same against its customer

heck there are even "turbo" ways to fake a channel balance and fake a payment that is not backed by locked funds. (serious flaw)

blackmail/scamming/extortion can happen in altnets too. (but shh i been told to not mention flaws of altnets, oops.. they dont like it when i mention their flaws, whilst they are happy to try making bitcoin look bad and useless)

anyway. i dont need altnets and i dont need to exchange to fiat hours/days in advance. i do and can buy things in the real world using my bitcoin while at lunch/putting things in a shopping cart

my gripe with centralised exchanges, is like this
binance has in its terms that it cant serve american/canadian customers.
its HQ is in asia. but its markets revolve around the USD

what exchanges should do is not be so (excuse pun) tethered to the dollar. and instead have separate market order books for different fiat currencies, whereby the markets dont oscillate(move back and forth in a pattern) as a sheep to USD value

for instance OTC/ private exchanges that only operate in asian markets should be at a premium or discount to other markets based on USD.
where the value doesnt peg to USD

 look how sheepish the markets are


again binance does not 'supposedly' service US/canadian customers yet it sheep follows US exchanges.. not closely. but EXACTLY like for like
https://www.binance.com/en/terms

this mimicry is too close to be a fluke. after all people in say asia/europe should have different sentiments and trading patterns than say traders in the US.
the reason the markets look the exact same is not from different sentiments of different traders on different markets, but on the central exchanges arbitraging each other to stay on par with each other, rather then letting their customers just play the orders the customers want to play, with their own separate sentiments in different markets