scenarios if US Govt tried to take down bitcoin?

[jbreher]

Thanks for the answers, to diverge again as to why:  ...

You have asked important questions, and even more important details about such questions. Any consideration of any one aspect of any identified attack vector could be a lengthy discussion unto itself. You may wish to avoid letting the conversation derail into whys and wherefores, lest the signal get buried in the noise.

[crumbs]

If the US government finds bitcoin disruptive enough, they will outlaw it, using any of the already mentioned  reasons as justification.
1. Once bitcoin becomes illegal in US, the country's trade partners will likely follow suit.
2. Existing bitcoin  money exchanges will shutter, tanking the bitcoin dollar price.  
3. Money speculators and money launderers, interested in fiat exchange rather than ideology, lose interest.
4. Bitcoin mining, already centralized & commercialized, will become easy prey for law enforcement.  Profitability, already shot due to (1), will not justify operating under the radar.  Hash rate plummets.
5. Possible protocol/packet filtering at tier-1 provider level, likely unnecessary.
6. Diehards keep the network alive, but with fiat flowing out instead of in, it becomes irrelevant.
TL;DR:  Nothing high-tech needs to happen, no 51% attacks, no crypto-cracking. 

None of this is likely to happen, i'm not cashing out  

[Mike Christ]

Yes, I believe it'll take a hit, but I don't believe Bitcoin will be taken down;

Yes, I agree with that too. Also, that no matter what happens Bitcoin will be operational.
However, in peoples' mind torrent'ing music is not the same as torrent'ing money.
From an early age we are taught that doing anything illegal with money is really bad.
Unlike sneaking into a movie or copying your friends music.
Psychologically these actions are NOT on the same level of "illegal".
 
If government convinces public that Bitcoin is illegal, that would be the end of "mainstream" Bitcoin.

This is why I proselytize liberty

[tvbcof]

If the US government finds bitcoin disruptive enough, they will outlaw it, using any of the already mentioned  reasons as justification.
1. Once bitcoin becomes illegal in US, the country's trade partners will likely follow suit.
2. Existing bitcoin  money exchanges will shutter, tanking the bitcoin dollar price.  
3. Money speculators and money launderers, interested in fiat exchange rather than ideology, lose interest.
4. Bitcoin mining, already centralized & commercialized, will become easy prey for law enforcement.  Profitability, already shot due to (1), will not justify operating under the radar.  Hash rate plummets.
5. Possible protocol/packet filtering at tier-1 provider level, likely unnecessary.
6. Diehards keep the network alive, but with fiat flowing out instead of in, it becomes irrelevant.

None of this is likely to happen, i'm not cashing out  

I don't know the likelihood, but I would not expect a significant clamp-down on unauthorized currencies absent a crisis in fiat currency frameworks as well.  The latter seems to me to be the most likely inducement for the former as there would be an enormous amount of collateral damage which would be best avoided unless it is the least bad option.

I mention it because to gauge the likely trajectory of Bitcoin (and related efforts) under an attack like this, the disposition of the mainstream monetary framework would probably be playing the largest factor.  And I wouldn't anticipate it being all peaches-n-cream in USD land either.

[jeppe]

They can not take it down as they cant take Torrents down because they are peer to peer and no CEO to arrest 

[vqp]

A government will spend a few billion dollars on paperclips or prison overtime or endless wasteful projects.  The easiest way for any government to take down Bitcoin is to invest a few billion in mining kit and hoard all they produce.  They would force up the difficulty while having the ability to flood the market so other miners would be pushed out.

Or they could just buy all Bitcoin.  Again, a few billion is peanuts to a government.

Well, I can say that my last bitcoin is gonna cost them ALOT!

[vqp]

the million dollar question is what the government and big organizations think of Bitcoin ? in which position Bitcoin stands ? is bitcoin a threat for them ? will they ever regulate bitcoin ?

it is a serious matter that should be discussed but when you have the answers to these questions it will be easier to imagine the 51% attack.

First, you have to ask who is "the government". Big corporations, capitalists and other criminals including several lawmakers and politicians from all countires in the world sent billions to tax havens for decades. Now the FED and the governments are raining their parade by printing zillions and blocking capital movements. Bitcoin could be seen as a new "haven". And these guys were able to convince DC that wiring money to a dubious corporation in "Cayman Islands" is lawful, I don't doubt that they can lobby DC and Berlin in favor of bitcoin, even if bitcoin is bad for the government is good for the elites that run the show.

[Lauda]

If the US government finds bitcoin disruptive enough, they will outlaw it, using any of the already mentioned  reasons as justification.
1. Once bitcoin becomes illegal in US, the country's trade partners will likely follow suit.
2. Existing bitcoin  money exchanges will shutter, tanking the bitcoin dollar price.  
3. Money speculators and money launderers, interested in fiat exchange rather than ideology, lose interest.
4. Bitcoin mining, already centralized & commercialized, will become easy prey for law enforcement.  Profitability, already shot due to (1), will not justify operating under the radar.  Hash rate plummets.
5. Possible protocol/packet filtering at tier-1 provider level, likely unnecessary.
6. Diehards keep the network alive, but with fiat flowing out instead of in, it becomes irrelevant.
TL;DR:  Nothing high-tech needs to happen, no 51% attacks, no crypto-cracking. 

None of this is likely to happen, i'm not cashing out  

All of these points are incorrect.
They can't do anything.

[mogrith]

You want to focus on technical attacks to bitcoin. I don't think it will be that kind of attack.




 

[Lauda]

You want to focus on technical attacks to bitcoin. I don't think it will be that kind of attack.




 

Nobody said that I know my own password. 

[User705]

Why all this talk about taking it down.  The reality is that it's already been shown not to be so good at covert drug dealing and the only thing left is speculation.  As long as governments get their tax cut they just don't care.  They got the printing press and taxes.  They will gladly support 100 winkelvoss / bitcoin trust etfs and as many exchanges as want to register and track users.  Sure there will be wealth made but real change takes time and mass populace discontent and we just aren't anywhere near that.  Enjoy the riches and be quick on the sell trigger if and when your stash becomes fuck you money.

[lorax2013]

Why all this talk about taking it down.  The reality is that it's already been shown not to be so good at covert drug dealing and the only thing left is speculation.  As long as governments get their tax cut they just don't care.  They got the printing press and taxes.  They will gladly support 100 winkelvoss / bitcoin trust etfs and as many exchanges as want to register and track users.  Sure there will be wealth made but real change takes time and mass populace discontent and we just aren't anywhere near that.  Enjoy the riches and be quick on the sell trigger if and when your stash becomes fuck you money.

I'll try once again to answer this and then go back to the original question.  Bitcoin was set up specifically because the govt took down earlier models which were more vulnerable.  Again, research EGold, Liberty Dollar, etc.  To say the banks/govt will just stand around while they lose control over currency (power) is unrealistic imo, but nonetheless that discussion needs a different thread. 

Could an attack such as a 51% attack succeed in eradicating bitcoin (erasing all or "recent" transactions)?  Could it be done anonymously?  And again, most importantly, is there any solution to this within the bitcoin framework or in a proposed cryptocurrency.  For example what if the blockchain of a new cryptocurrency were hosted only through servers in safe countries run by vetted individuals?  What if the coins were not mined but donated at a given rate to a basket of legal protection & PR entities while the trusted servers ran off transaction fees?  Is anything being considered or constructed as a backup in case bitcoin is taken down by a 51% attack - is there a consensus solution?  Because if there is no backup or solution it makes such an attack far more likely.

[CIYAM]

Could an attack such as a 51% attack succeed in eradicating bitcoin (erasing all or "recent" transactions)?  Could it be done anonymously?  And again, most importantly, is there any solution to this within the bitcoin framework or in a proposed cryptocurrency.  For example what if the blockchain of a new cryptocurrency were hosted only through servers in safe countries run by vetted individuals?  What if the coins were not mined but donated at a given rate to a basket of legal protection & PR entities while the trusted servers ran off transaction fees?  Is anything being considered or constructed as a backup in case bitcoin is taken down by a 51% attack - is there a consensus solution?  Because if there is no backup or solution it makes such an attack far more likely.

Yes a >50% (it isn't 51% btw) can erase all transactions since it forks (the miner can just mine empty blocks) and if that miner keeps winning then the blockchain could be rendered effectively useless as no tx would ever confirm (whilst it is still building the longest chain).

This problem has been discussed before but no solution has yet been proposed other than some sort of manual control (i.e. centralised decision) to be made by the devs.

I would certainly like to see a better method to prevent "unwinding back to the last check point" but seemingly no good (or agreed) method has been proposed.

[niothor]

They can not take it down as they cant take Torrents down because they are peer to peer and no CEO to arrest 

Usual misconception , only the traffic is peer to peer
In order to get either the torrent file or the magnet link you have to go to a website (like piratebay to get it) which can be taken down and that's all folks.
Without the torrent hash you won't be able to download anything.
And don't come back with the childish argument...they are unable to bring tpb down... they can and they will if it would be really threatening.

If they keep low and just sprout non sense about the pirateparty and so , they are left alone , if they start doing things like Kimdotcom , they might end in a car crash.

[techstorm2]

Surely if they tried, the mining community and current users would just switch to another crypto or quickly create a SHA256 bitcoin 2.0, as mentioned short of switching off the internet (impossible) they cant stop it.

[oakpacific]

Let us not forget as long as one copy of the latest blockchain is kept, the entire network is rebootable. Also governments maybe able to shutdown big mining farms, but we could just get it going with the graphics cards and CPUs(they can't just forbid people buying computers, can they?), it may even be beneficial as nobody dares to setup big ASIC farms again, decentralization achieved! About 51% attack, it's entirely preventable, Gavin has posted an idea which seems to work, it's just that it's not an urgent task.

[mmitech]

what if they force ISPs to block 8333 port, it seems stupid but it is a possibility.

[CIYAM]

what if they force ISPs to block 8333 port, it seems stupid but it is a possibility.

Dead easy to change the port - and as Bitcoin traffic is small compared to things like Bittorrent it could also be hidden within other protocols if push came to shove.

[mmitech]

what if they force ISPs to block 8333 port, it seems stupid but it is a possibility.

Dead easy to change the port - and as Bitcoin traffic is small compared to things like Bittorrent it could also be hidden within other protocols if push came to shove.

it will take some time to change that, most nodes wont be able to broadcast/listen other nodes, and changing the port can create two different forks old nodes cant listen new nodes.

Edit: and this can buy them some time....

[CIYAM]

it will take some time to change that, most nodes wont be able to broadcast/listen other nodes, and changing the port can create two different forks old nodes cant listen new nodes.

Edit: and this can buy them some time....

True - I was only meaning that changing the port is technically dead easy (i.e. they would be playing "whack-a-mole").