Would World War instantly destroy Bitcoin?

[NordicMoose]

Ever had one of those moments that someone asks a question and the answer is too obvious so you draw a puppy blank rather than go into excruciating detail to back up your point?

Every fracking day.

I'm holding in tears.

All the freaking time.

Looks like you could do with a KitKat.

[knightcoin]

distributed protocols like TCP/IP , OSI, etc actually was designed to survive to a possible next WW, without a single central point of failure ...

[DieJohnny]

distributed protocols like TCP/IP , OSI, etc actually was designed to survive to a possible next WW, without a single central point of failure ...

No design can survive cutting the wire. I think you would need a distributed, decentralized satellite based internet, with so many satellites it would be cost prohibitive to attack even a fraction of the network, then maybe...

[pjviitas]

distributed protocols like TCP/IP , OSI, etc actually was designed to survive to a possible next WW, without a single central point of failure ...

No design can survive cutting the wire. I think you would need a distributed, decentralized satellite based internet, with so many satellites it would be cost prohibitive to attack even a fraction of the network, then maybe...

I think what he was trying to get at here is that bank transactions are relatively centralized leaving them vulnerable to attacks while with Bitcoin, the transactions are distributed making them less vulnerable.

Then there is the question of "the books".  Banks would have a record keeping system for all their transactions which again would be relatively centralized while with Bitcoin, anyone with a wallet has a copy of "the books" (Usually called the block-chain).  To destroy the blockchain, every single computer containing an up to date copy of the blockchain would need to be destroyed.

[deisik]

distributed protocols like TCP/IP , OSI, etc actually was designed to survive to a possible next WW, without a single central point of failure ...

No design can survive cutting the wire. I think you would need a distributed, decentralized satellite based internet, with so many satellites it would be cost prohibitive to attack even a fraction of the network, then maybe...

As I explained before, the whole satellite system can be destroyed pretty fast in a matter of hours (if not minutes). A blown satellite at an orbit makes this orbit effectively unusable. Garbage in the near Earth space has already become a problem...

[johnytelevision]

World war would instantly destroy everything....

who cares about bitcoin when we would have nuclear 100 year long winter....

[Erdogan]

The blockchain would not be split. New blocks will be smuggled across the frontline, hidden in the truth deception pills.

[deisik]

World war would instantly destroy everything....

who cares about bitcoin when we would have nuclear 100 year long winter....

Gold and other shiny metals would remain and retain their value (well, to a degree while there is some form of commerce out there)...

[Ibian]

Couldn't an isolated country just turn its fork into a new coin? Isolacoin. Then when the fighting stops and global networking is restored people can trade back and forth like with any other coin. It would still be crypto, just a national one coexisting alongside the global one.

[DieJohnny]

Couldn't an isolated country just turn its fork into a new coin? Isolacoin. Then when the fighting stops and global networking is restored people can trade back and forth like with any other coin. It would still be crypto, just a national one coexisting alongside the global one.

I am not a blockchain expert, but what you are suggesting is that each country could have its own registry of bitcoins. So couldn't I then spend 10 bitcoins in Isolacoin country #1, then cross the border and spend the same bitcoins in Isolacoin country #2?

[Ibian]

Couldn't an isolated country just turn its fork into a new coin? Isolacoin. Then when the fighting stops and global networking is restored people can trade back and forth like with any other coin. It would still be crypto, just a national one coexisting alongside the global one.

I am not a blockchain expert, but what you are suggesting is that each country could have its own registry of bitcoins. So couldn't I then spend 10 bitcoins in Isolacoin country #1, then cross the border and spend the same bitcoins in Isolacoin country #2?

Depends, can you buy $1000 worth of stuff with bitcoin and then doublespend it in litecoin? Separate coins, separate networks.

[DieJohnny]

Couldn't an isolated country just turn its fork into a new coin? Isolacoin. Then when the fighting stops and global networking is restored people can trade back and forth like with any other coin. It would still be crypto, just a national one coexisting alongside the global one.

I am not a blockchain expert, but what you are suggesting is that each country could have its own registry of bitcoins. So couldn't I then spend 10 bitcoins in Isolacoin country #1, then cross the border and spend the same bitcoins in Isolacoin country #2?

Depends, can you buy $1000 worth of stuff with bitcoin and then doublespend it in litecoin? Separate coins, separate networks.

A valid Litecoin address is not the same as a valid bitcoin address. So if you want to create a separate coin I think minimally you would have to create a new type of address for your Isolacoin Bitcoin fork.

[Ibian]

Couldn't an isolated country just turn its fork into a new coin? Isolacoin. Then when the fighting stops and global networking is restored people can trade back and forth like with any other coin. It would still be crypto, just a national one coexisting alongside the global one.

I am not a blockchain expert, but what you are suggesting is that each country could have its own registry of bitcoins. So couldn't I then spend 10 bitcoins in Isolacoin country #1, then cross the border and spend the same bitcoins in Isolacoin country #2?

Depends, can you buy $1000 worth of stuff with bitcoin and then doublespend it in litecoin? Separate coins, separate networks.

A valid Litecoin address is not the same as a valid bitcoin address. So if you want to create a separate coin I think minimally you would have to create a new type of address for your Isolacoin Bitcoin fork.

Supposedly one of the early coins was a bitcoin fork. Don't know the code in detail but I imagine Satoshi took these scenarios into account.

Also worth noting for the discussion in general, a world war does not have to include widespread use of nukes, or any at all. It's not really productive for anyone to toss them around.

[deisik]

Couldn't an isolated country just turn its fork into a new coin? Isolacoin. Then when the fighting stops and global networking is restored people can trade back and forth like with any other coin. It would still be crypto, just a national one coexisting alongside the global one.

I am not a blockchain expert, but what you are suggesting is that each country could have its own registry of bitcoins. So couldn't I then spend 10 bitcoins in Isolacoin country #1, then cross the border and spend the same bitcoins in Isolacoin country #2?

Depends, can you buy $1000 worth of stuff with bitcoin and then doublespend it in litecoin? Separate coins, separate networks.

A valid Litecoin address is not the same as a valid bitcoin address. So if you want to create a separate coin I think minimally you would have to create a new type of address for your Isolacoin Bitcoin fork.

Supposedly one of the early coins was a bitcoin fork. Don't know the code in detail but I imagine Satoshi took these scenarios into account.

Also worth noting for the discussion in general, a world war does not have to include widespread use of nukes, or any at all. It's not really productive for anyone to toss them around.

Sometimes people go crazy and do not care about "productivity" or being "productive". So it is hardly possible to unleash a hot world war without taking to nukes...

[bythesea]

If you destory power supply lines, infrastructure that will support BTC trade and everything else, then Yes it will die. During war you dont trade with virtual currency you trade with gold, services and good that you can use to prolong your life and life of your family.

[ryanmnercer]

That's an awfully big assumption another World War is going to happen.

one will, it might be tomorrow, it might be in a thousand years, but 'world wars' have been around for thousands of years.

[deisik]

That's an awfully big assumption another World War is going to happen.

one will, it might be tomorrow, it might be in a thousand years, but 'world wars' have been around for thousands of years.

Weapons of mass destruction have not been. An important factor not to be written off...

[bitcoinforhelp]

i think personally, that price would skyrocket of bitcoin, easiest and safest value store ever

[Bit_Happy]

No more World Wars.
We have had enough.

[harkonnen]

I am curious to those of you in the blockchain engineering side of Bitcoin what would happen to Bitcoin if a large scale war developed.

Unless there are features I am unaware of it seems that Bitcoin would not survive as certainly internet access across the globe would be regulated and controlled the moment war broke out resulting in forked blockchains everywhere.

And doesn't this mean that eventually Bitcoin will die because another World War most certainly will happen some day...

Next WW will either annihilate mankind, or send us back to the stone age while apes and cyborgs will rule the world using bitcoins for payment.