What would happen if ISPs start blocking cryptocurrency data?

[btcusury]

Say the USG calls an "emergency" meeting with the UNSC and they all agree that Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are now the "largest threat to the world economy"... They adopt as a UN Resolution the American proposal "Anti-Counterfeiting Measures Emergency Act of 2014". So each member nation-state has to legally "force" ISPs to "log and discard" all packets that match certain strings.

What happens then? Would it be the end of Bitcoin? The end of cryptocurrencies? What's the response of the Bitcoin dev team?



edit:

Got this idea from monsterer:

That's the whole POINT of bitcoin.  Once the network gets big enough, they won't have the *ability* to decide to "allow" it or not.  They don't "allow" pirating or The Pirate Bay, and of course nobody pirates any more and the Pirate Bay website has been shut down for good.

This is a fundamental fallacy shared by many bitcoiners. Governments can easily 'not allow' bitcoin (for all intents and purposes) by simply passing a new law saying any ISP relaying bitcoin related traffic will be shut down.

That move alone vastly reduces the number of miners and nodes probably to the point where a 51% attack becomes easy, and the currency crumbles.

Don't get me wrong, I'm extremely positive about bitcoin but you have to understand how vunerable it is.

Cheers, Paul.

[yatsey87]

Not gonna happen. They gonna ban computers and the internet next?

[msc]

Change the port number, and perhaps alter the protocol slightly, and it won't be blockable.  Bitcoin clients could even communicate on the HTTPS port so that ISP's wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Bitcoin and a secure Web site.  It's not a big deal.

The real issue is making sure that we can continue to trade Bitcoin for fiat money.  

[Jerfer]

Bitcoin developers will just start encrypting the data to prevent ISPs from knowing what the data is I suppose.

If that's not already being done.

[hilariousandco]

The real issue is making sure that we can continue to trade Bitcoin for fiat money.  

That could be a problem for some countries, but either way, there's always ways around it and people will still find a way to use it.

[btcusury]

Port blocking? We're talking sophistication here.

Notice I said that when following the ACME Act, packets are discarded when "matching certain strings"... This is much more computationally expensive than blocking traffic by port, but note who and what we're talking about here.

Can blockchain data be detected based on examination of the data (strings or regexes) by ISPs? If yes, is there a viable encryption/scrambling method that could defeat this measure?

[ineedit]

Say the USG calls an "emergency" meeting with the UNSC and they all agree that Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are now the "largest threat to the world economy"... They adopt as a UN Resolution the American proposal "Anti-Counterfeiting Measures Emergency Act of 2014". So each member nation-state has to legally "force" ISPs to "log and discard" all packets that match certain strings.

What happens then? Would it be the end of Bitcoin? The end of cryptocurrencies? What's the response of the Bitcoin dev team?



...

Not beyond the whit of man or even a good techhie 

All the virtual coin currencies would move to port 80 with SSL enabled with the Trusted Root SSL certificates self singed and issued by the Pool Operators. Traffic can be relayed via some other country to stop host countries knowing what server is a pool server.

[btcusury]

Sounds good. Are you sure that would be enough though? Is there such a type of backup plan already? Or is it just one of the obvious things that could be done in response? I mean, how fleshed out is this idea?

The ACME Act would also make pool operators outlaws, in the same way someone operating a US Dollar printing press would be (other than the Fed).

Would the Pool Operators need to reveal their identities when issuing the self-signed SSL certs? How could Pool Operators remain hidden?

[Morbo]

There's a guy on this forum who already managed to make bitcoin work over I2P.

[justusranvier]

You write a transport protocol wrapper that makes Bitcoin traffic look like Xbox Live traffic, or something like that.

[ineedit]

Sounds good. Are you sure that would be enough though? Is there such a type of backup plan already? Or is it just one of the obvious things that could be done in response? I mean, how fleshed out is this idea?

The ACME Act would also make pool operators outlaws, in the same way someone operating a US Dollar printing press would be (other than the Fed).

Would the Pool Operators need to reveal their identities when issuing the self-signed SSL certs? How could Pool Operators remain hidden?

The ACME Act is only in the US, the US is not the centre of the universe. There are 6.5 billion other people on this rock, some 92% of the population who are not US. So the US outlaws US Pool Operators and miners but the rest of the planet will continue.

The Pool Operator doesn't need to reveal their identity, they just generate a self-signed cert for an IP address or URL, you as a miner add their public certificate to your certificate store and now your browser trusts them and can setup and SSL channel. To break it you will need to crack either their or your own private key. Alternately and even better would be the use of a Bitcoin address as part of the miner code that communicates with the pool as Bitcoin which already has an equivalent public and private addresses built in which are essentially the same as public and private certificates or keys, technically it would be very easy to do.

[Soros Shorts]

You write a transport protocol wrapper that makes Bitcoin traffic look like Xbox Live traffic, or something like that.

Or like one of the many proprietary encrypted protocols out there used in financial services, e.g. Bloomberg Anywhere.

[btcusury]

Sounds good. Are you sure that would be enough though? Is there such a type of backup plan already? Or is it just one of the obvious things that could be done in response? I mean, how fleshed out is this idea?

The ACME Act would also make pool operators outlaws, in the same way someone operating a US Dollar printing press would be (other than the Fed).

Would the Pool Operators need to reveal their identities when issuing the self-signed SSL certs? How could Pool Operators remain hidden?

The ACME Act is only in the US, the US is not the centre of the universe. There are 6.5 billion other people on this rock, some 92% of the population who are not US. So the US outlaws US Pool Operators and miners but the rest of the planet will continue.

The Pool Operator doesn't need to reveal their identity, they just generate a self-signed cert for an IP address or URL, you as a miner add their public certificate to your certificate store and now your browser trusts them and can setup and SSL channel. To break it you will need to crack either their or your own private key. Alternately and even better would be the use of a Bitcoin address as part of the miner code that communicates with the pool as Bitcoin which already has an equivalent public and private addresses built in which are essentially the same as public and private certificates or keys, technically it would be very easy to do.

Remember, we're talking future worst-case scenario here. I wrote that the UNSC member states also adopted ACME, and we can imagine that they would be pressuring non-member states to go along with its provisions under subtle threat of violence (because not complying would make them part of the "threat to the world economy").

I guess the key is not so much getting around the restrictions, for that is easy from a technological standpoint. What's harder is to avoid losing too many users. We can't ask the average user to "just switch to port 80" or something like that. Software updates should be as simple as possible... I'd say they should be automatic by default.

[ineedit]

Sounds good. Are you sure that would be enough though? Is there such a type of backup plan already? Or is it just one of the obvious things that could be done in response? I mean, how fleshed out is this idea?

The ACME Act would also make pool operators outlaws, in the same way someone operating a US Dollar printing press would be (other than the Fed).

Would the Pool Operators need to reveal their identities when issuing the self-signed SSL certs? How could Pool Operators remain hidden?

The ACME Act is only in the US, the US is not the centre of the universe. There are 6.5 billion other people on this rock, some 92% of the population who are not US. So the US outlaws US Pool Operators and miners but the rest of the planet will continue.

The Pool Operator doesn't need to reveal their identity, they just generate a self-signed cert for an IP address or URL, you as a miner add their public certificate to your certificate store and now your browser trusts them and can setup and SSL channel. To break it you will need to crack either their or your own private key. Alternately and even better would be the use of a Bitcoin address as part of the miner code that communicates with the pool as Bitcoin which already has an equivalent public and private addresses built in which are essentially the same as public and private certificates or keys, technically it would be very easy to do.

Remember, we're talking future worst-case scenario here. I wrote that the UNSC member states also adopted ACME, and we can imagine that they would be pressuring non-member states to go along with its provisions under subtle threat of violence (because not complying would make them part of the "threat to the world economy").

I guess the key is not so much getting around the restrictions, for that is easy from a technological standpoint. What's harder is to avoid losing too many users. We can't ask the average user to "just switch to port 80" or something like that. Software updates should be as simple as possible... I'd say they should be automatic by default.

Okay let's say that the 5 permanent members of the council do so. France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States propose it and the then current temporary members are forced to accept. If they do that then all ASIC's miner manufacturing will stop in those countries and rise in others, think Middle East, Southern Africa, South America, AsiaPac.

Trade using virtual currencies between those countries will happen with greater frequency as it is easier to do so than use the banks in the majority of the smaller countries, even if you pay all local taxes, it also bypasses the majority of the existing banking systems, the countries are now split in two. Soon oil and resources are traded in the virtual currency trading block. China who needs the 3rd world resources has the gold to pay with, so does India. The Western countries excluding Russia have no resources left, Russia has its own oil and gas. Within a few years the Western countries will either get cold or join the virtual currency trade block.

That's my guess of the end state of your scenario.

[jongameson]

besides it won't ever happen.  that would mean we're living in a totalitarian dictatorship..

[btcusury]

That sounds like a wonderful scenario, and I'm all for utopianism, but let's assume the worst-case. Beyond the possible political moves of nation-states, we have to take into account the central banks, who are the real movers, political leaders largely being their puppets. Say all the central bankers get together and decide to do everything they possibly can to stamp out the greatest threat they've ever faced: cryptocurrencies. It would be foolish to think they won't eventually do so, if they haven't already. In fact, ACME would be their baby, their first card. The next measures could be severe persecution of anyone caught "counterfeiting" and the institutionalization/normalization of this anti-digital currencies mentality by means of relentless media propaganda. "Counterfeiters" will be equated with "financial terrorists" and will be dealt with extra-judicially or by any means deemed "necessary" for security, blah blah blah.

The Chinese and Indian central banks have already made some preliminary pronouncements. There's no reason to think they wouldn't fully cooperate with ACME. SE Asia would follow suit behind Thailand. Likewise with Japan and other US-subjugated/client states. In the Middle East no one would step out of this line as it's too easy for the USG and media to label them "terrorists" etc. I somehow can't picture Africans of any sort running ASICs as a means of getting food on the table. The Bolivarian/anti-imperialist nations might be the biggest cryptocurrency adopters at that point, LOL.

We can't assume it won't ever happen. If we want this technology to succeed we need to understand what we're up against and account for worst-case scenarios. Whether you want to call it a totalitarian dictatorship or something else, the difference is largely semantical. The central banksters don't play by the illusory rules of "democracy" that our "elected leaders" supposedly play by. They've been in this for many generations and are not about to give up their monopoly on currency without a fight.

[yatsey87]

besides it won't ever happen.  that would mean we're living in a totalitarian dictatorship..

Some may argue we already are.

[ineedit]

That sounds like a wonderful scenario, ... The central banksters don't play by the illusory rules of "democracy" that our "elected leaders" supposedly play by. They've been in this for many generations and are not about to give up their monopoly on currency without a fight.

Now that is true, they will fight but they will also be very busy with their own fight as not all of the Central Bankers are on the same side.

The Central Bankers of countries with the lack of natural resources, high numbers of jobless and social programs to fund are in deep shit and are on one side. The Central Bankers of the countries with the natural resources often have little of no social programs to fund, resources to sell or manufacture with and are on the other side. One of the only things keeping the whole of this together is the nuclear arsenal of the West and the Western Central Bankers payment system that ties every other country into the $ by forcing the PetroDollar exchange but that system has and will continue to erode as other payment systems are and will be used such as the latest PetroGold exchanges that have occurred.

The addition of virtual currency exchanges just accelerates the process.

[battlescars]

Well if that happens the price of bitcoin will probably decrease a lot..and probably here will be consenquences of the people
that go and continue to use bitcoins, their threats will be punishable and this isnt the first time that we see something
harmless get punished. Even if there is a way around it it will be a bad sign for BTC and businesses will be put to a stop,
ending btc most likely. But there will always be consequences for their actions.

[justusranvier]

Does no one remember what happened when ISPs tried to stop Bittorrent? How well did that work out? How quickly did users adapt to the extra steps necessary to operate compared to how quickly the ISPs acted?