Preparation for the inevitable

[lebing]

If the amount of people using bitcoin continues to go up as it has along with corresponding increase in services, at some point it will become an honest threat to the sovereignty of the state. At this point, the states (the powerful ones anyway) will have no choice but to intervene and shut down all of the services (mtgox, glbse, bitinstant, this forum etc) that users depend on in order to facilitate exchange within and between currencies. My question is: Is it possible for this decentralized currency to build out an equally robust and decentralized service infrastructure? If not, what is the contingency plan for when this happens?

[Carlton Banks]

I believe the touted solution is Mesh Networks

[Severian]

I believe this is why .bit and namecoin were created. Only some people will use it if the scenario you describe goes down, but it's an option.

[cbeast]

What's even worse than that is if exchanges will intentionally manipulate the market in order to grab more Bitcoin. This is why I've been advocating for a math based fiat denomination for Bitcoin. Bitcoin can have the currently traded price encoded into the blockchain based on analyzing trades reported.

[justusranvier]

If the amount of people using bitcoin continues to go up as it has along with corresponding increase in services, at some point it will become an honest threat to the sovereignty of the state. At this point, the states (the powerful ones anyway) will have no choice but to intervene and shut down all of the services (mtgox, glbse, bitinstant, this forum etc) that users depend on in order to facilitate exchange within and between currencies. My question is: Is it possible for this decentralized currency to build out an equally robust and decentralized service infrastructure? If not, what is the contingency plan for when this happens?

One government acting alone could not take down all the websites, since they could just be moved to other countries and/or run as Tor hidden services.

The US government could make it difficult or impossible for companies like Mt Gox, BitInstant, and BitPay to operate with USD bank accounts but that wouldn't neecessarily mean the end of those services - there is more than one currency in the world. An adverse legal climate in the US might only have the effect of making those services devote more of their efforts towards expanding other markets like Europe, China, Japan, India, Brazil, etc.

[lebing]

If the amount of people using bitcoin continues to go up as it has along with corresponding increase in services, at some point it will become an honest threat to the sovereignty of the state. At this point, the states (the powerful ones anyway) will have no choice but to intervene and shut down all of the services (mtgox, glbse, bitinstant, this forum etc) that users depend on in order to facilitate exchange within and between currencies. My question is: Is it possible for this decentralized currency to build out an equally robust and decentralized service infrastructure? If not, what is the contingency plan for when this happens?

One government acting alone could not take down all the websites, since they could just be moved to other countries and/or run as Tor hidden services.

The US government could make it difficult or impossible for companies like Mt Gox, BitInstant, and BitPay to operate with USD bank accounts but that wouldn't neecessarily mean the end of those services - there is more than one currency in the world. An adverse legal climate in the US might only have the effect of making those services devote more of their efforts towards expanding other markets like Europe, China, Japan, India, Brazil, etc.

Who said anything about one government acting alone? Just take a look at what happened to Assange and you will see that in the world today when something threatens even just one nation state (the US in this case), they can exert very heavy diplomatic pressure to ensure that it is a coordinated shutdown takes place (and in this case, many governments will be acting in their own interest, together). Make no mistake about it, when it happens it will be come without warning and be so swift that the market will not even have time to react. It's clear that there are other safehavens in the world that might become a haven for such businesses to continue, but at the moment, the businesses are simply not there. They are exposed in a huge way simply by residing in developed countries with interests in keeping trade in their own currencies. At the least this means a bottoming of the price and stagnation until these businesss can relocate to setup elsewhere. My question revolves on how to avoid such a scenario by creating a resilient infrastructure now.

[cbeast]

If the amount of people using bitcoin continues to go up as it has along with corresponding increase in services, at some point it will become an honest threat to the sovereignty of the state. At this point, the states (the powerful ones anyway) will have no choice but to intervene and shut down all of the services (mtgox, glbse, bitinstant, this forum etc) that users depend on in order to facilitate exchange within and between currencies. My question is: Is it possible for this decentralized currency to build out an equally robust and decentralized service infrastructure? If not, what is the contingency plan for when this happens?

One government acting alone could not take down all the websites, since they could just be moved to other countries and/or run as Tor hidden services.

The US government could make it difficult or impossible for companies like Mt Gox, BitInstant, and BitPay to operate with USD bank accounts but that wouldn't neecessarily mean the end of those services - there is more than one currency in the world. An adverse legal climate in the US might only have the effect of making those services devote more of their efforts towards expanding other markets like Europe, China, Japan, India, Brazil, etc.

Who said anything about one government acting alone? Just take a look at what happened to Assange and you will see that in the world today when something threatens even just one nation state (the US in this case), they can exert very heavy diplomatic pressure to ensure that it is a coordinated shutdown takes place. Make no mistake about it, when it happens it will be come without warning and be so swift that the market will not even have time to react. It's clear that there are other safehavens in the world that might become a haven for such businesses to continue, but at the moment, the businesses are simply not there. They are exposed in a huge way simply by residing in developed countries with interests in keeping trade in their own currencies. At the least this means a bottoming of the price and stagnation until these businesss can relocate to setup elsewhere. My question revolves on how to avoid such a scenario by creating a resilient infrastructure now.

Making the entire network operate through TOR may hide the exchange servers. But would you trust such hidden servers?

[lebing]

If the amount of people using bitcoin continues to go up as it has along with corresponding increase in services, at some point it will become an honest threat to the sovereignty of the state. At this point, the states (the powerful ones anyway) will have no choice but to intervene and shut down all of the services (mtgox, glbse, bitinstant, this forum etc) that users depend on in order to facilitate exchange within and between currencies. My question is: Is it possible for this decentralized currency to build out an equally robust and decentralized service infrastructure? If not, what is the contingency plan for when this happens?

One government acting alone could not take down all the websites, since they could just be moved to other countries and/or run as Tor hidden services.

The US government could make it difficult or impossible for companies like Mt Gox, BitInstant, and BitPay to operate with USD bank accounts but that wouldn't neecessarily mean the end of those services - there is more than one currency in the world. An adverse legal climate in the US might only have the effect of making those services devote more of their efforts towards expanding other markets like Europe, China, Japan, India, Brazil, etc.

Who said anything about one government acting alone? Just take a look at what happened to Assange and you will see that in the world today when something threatens even just one nation state (the US in this case), they can exert very heavy diplomatic pressure to ensure that it is a coordinated shutdown takes place. Make no mistake about it, when it happens it will be come without warning and be so swift that the market will not even have time to react. It's clear that there are other safehavens in the world that might become a haven for such businesses to continue, but at the moment, the businesses are simply not there. They are exposed in a huge way simply by residing in developed countries with interests in keeping trade in their own currencies. At the least this means a bottoming of the price and stagnation until these businesss can relocate to setup elsewhere. My question revolves on how to avoid such a scenario by creating a resilient infrastructure now.

Making the entire network operate through TOR may hide the exchange servers. But would you trust such hidden servers?

Potentially, yes I would. But there are still at least two issues with this:

1. User adoption goes back to the old days because people had a hard enough time figuring out how to use bitcoin, now they have to know how to use Tor as well... not an ideal situation.
2. Wire transfers and other traditional forms of transferring (large amounts) of money to such services becomes prohibitively difficult and adds yet another layer blocking user adoption.

[Severian]

Who said anything about one government acting alone?

They can't even shutdown Pirate Bay. Bitcoins will be hard for them to stop without shutting down the entire internet.

Should a government act against bitcoin, it would drive the price through the roof.

[justusranvier]

Who said anything about one government acting alone? Just take a look at what happened to Assange and you will see that in the world today when something threatens even just one nation state (the US in this case), they can exert very heavy diplomatic pressure to ensure that it is a coordinated shutdown takes place (and in this case, many governments will be acting in their own interest, together). Make no mistake about it, when it happens it will be come without warning and be so swift that the market will not even have time to react. It's clear that there are other safehavens in the world that might become a haven for such businesses to continue, but at the moment, the businesses are simply not there. They are exposed in a huge way simply by residing in developed countries with interests in keeping trade in their own currencies. At the least this means a bottoming of the price and stagnation until these businesss can relocate to setup elsewhere. My question revolves on how to avoid such a scenario by creating a resilient infrastructure now.

If you're worried about it start competing services in one of those safe haven countries. You'll either encourage the current market leaders to diversify their risk similarly or else they won't and you'll end up with all their business.

[matthewh3]

I believe the touted solution is Mesh Networks

The FreedomBox - https://www.freedomboxfoundation.org/goals/index.en.html - has just been released and that can operate in ad-hoc mesh networks although I think that solution is a long way off if ever possible.  Exchanges could be hosted as hidden services within the I2P or Tor networks but you still have to get the fiat cash into those exchanges.  Maybe Pecunix could be used or Ripple -http://ripple-project.org/ - if it gained enough traction. 

[ElectricMucus]

I believe the touted solution is Mesh Networks

yes, and it's even more important than the success of bitcoin that this happens. Not only as means of resilience against an attack but also as a motor for a less hierarchical society.

[lebing]

Who said anything about one government acting alone? Just take a look at what happened to Assange and you will see that in the world today when something threatens even just one nation state (the US in this case), they can exert very heavy diplomatic pressure to ensure that it is a coordinated shutdown takes place (and in this case, many governments will be acting in their own interest, together). Make no mistake about it, when it happens it will be come without warning and be so swift that the market will not even have time to react. It's clear that there are other safehavens in the world that might become a haven for such businesses to continue, but at the moment, the businesses are simply not there. They are exposed in a huge way simply by residing in developed countries with interests in keeping trade in their own currencies. At the least this means a bottoming of the price and stagnation until these businesss can relocate to setup elsewhere. My question revolves on how to avoid such a scenario by creating a resilient infrastructure now.

If you're worried about it start competing services in one of those safe haven countries. You'll either encourage the current market leaders to diversify their risk similarly or else they won't and you'll end up with all their business.

If it didnt mean dropping everything to move to a country where I know noone (and likely don't speak the language), believe me, I would. This thread more than anything is an appeal to those who might already reside in one of those countries.

[justusranvier]

It wouldn't hurt to ask Bitcoin websites, especially those with registered with a .com TLD, for Tor hidden service support.

[niko]

I think this issue is blown out of proportion. If certain exchanges are shut down, there will be others. There will be classifieds, craigslist, etc. for in-person exchange. Besides, shutting down exchanges would likely drive up adoption of btc as direct medium of exchange, without intermediate conversion to government fiat. Finally, more and more people - including smart individuals in governments have vested interest in Bitcoin. They see its value for personal reasons, but also in the bigger picture.  Bitcoin in itself is not that big of a danger to anyone, it is more of an opportunity. Think Internet.

[Kazimir]

If not, what is the contingency plan for when this happens?

The sites move to TOR. Problem solved.

[Kazimir]

Making the entire network operate through TOR may hide the exchange servers. But would you trust such hidden servers?

By all means, yes. Much more than I would trust governments.

[Kazimir]

2. Wire transfers and other traditional forms of transferring (large amounts) of money to such services becomes prohibitively difficult and adds yet another layer blocking user adoption.

Not if they use a trading system like bitcoin.de: buyers transfer money to sellers directly.

Obviously this requires users trusting eachother (the site works with a trust / rating system, which works pretty well btw) but there are no fiat transactions to or from the service provider anymore. Their fees are entirely paid in bitcoins. The sire could operate completely anonymously.

[matthewh3]

I believe the touted solution is Mesh Networks

yes, and it's even more important than the success of bitcoin that this happens. Not only as means of resilience against an attack but also as a motor for a less hierarchical society.

Look into using http://projectmeshnet.org/ a Bitcoin Blackjack site can be accessed through it at http://[fc9e:a3c:7e4a:91f2:38fe:9968:d637:2620]

Yes looks good that project.  I just wished they sold plug (in to your modem/router) and play (Ad Hoc'able) hardware that could also act as local MeshNetworks.  With Pirate Boxes and RaspberryPi's available I think someone will start selling them sooner or later.

[Mike Hearn]

See here for how to build a peer-to-peer currency exchange:

  https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Ripple_currency_exchange

That said, I think it's unlikely that action against Bitcoin exchanges would last for long unless they were done very early (like in the next year or two). If there are enough people who campaign politically for it to be allowed to grow and breathe, politicians will respond to that, as they are desperate to find some convincing story around banking that is stronger than just the endless cycle of "add some rules/remove some rules/limit bonus sizes".