Goverment can literally destroy bitcoin whenever they want

[pixie85]

Thank God, or whoever higher power you believe in, that there is no world government.

The power of your government is very limited and if it destroys Bitcoin in your country, you can always move somewhere else. By destroy I mean limit access by blocking the Internet and outlaw it.

If you're afraid that a government will waste money on 51% attacks you should find something better to do. Have you got a hobby?

Don't worry about the things you cannot control. Of course a government can attack the Bitcoin network, but it can also take all your property which is by law called a seizure. Now that you know it's possible, will you be able to sleep at night?

[Rafael_Carrero]

In theory it sounds a bit easier than it really may be. None government would spend billions on organizing 51% attack, they can just ban Bitcoin in their own country.

[Ucy]

A well decentralized and secure Bitcoin will be very hard to destroy by normal humans.
By the way,  destroying the assets and transactions of innocent people for being on a good and safer system is immoral and definitely not legal in any just society. I wonder what "government" would do that.

[lyka]

Any digital coin must be accepted by economic entities. This is a lot of small and large companies. For a company to accept a coin, banks must accept it. For banks to accept a coin, the state must accept it, or at least not prohibit it.
The most optimal way to control digital money today is their control by banks. And today it is visible to everyone very well.

[KrisAlex18]

Well said, it is quite possible that government could control the crypto currency and the can do whatever they want on it but it would cost a lot of money for them so I don't that they will do it because there are something more productive spending the government money compared of controlling the cryptocurrency, they have more projects to prioritize first before that, they should spend the money regarding to the needs of their people.

It has to be an expensive attack so if officials in the government can see the benefit of doing it and are willing to spend that much, we don't know if they can afford to spend that much.
There's more other things that they can point focus to spend that amount with their projects than use it with an attack on bitcoin's network.

Well said, they wouldn't mind first owning the crypto world because they have something to do first before that, they should Open some projects first like government schools, bridges, highways, etc.

[passwordnow]

It has to be an expensive attack so if officials in the government can see the benefit of doing it and are willing to spend that much, we don't know if they can afford to spend that much.
There's more other things that they can point focus to spend that amount with their projects than use it with an attack on bitcoin's network.

Well said, they wouldn't mind first owning the crypto world because they have something to do first before that, they should Open some projects first like government schools, bridges, highways, etc.

They can make their own if they want to and force the citizens to have it. But, I doubt it that citizens who are already into bitcoin will start thinking about what they will implement just to try to get the attention that the people are giving to bitcoin.
They are also intelligent and they are aware that it will be worth a lot of money because if it's not, they have already done it a few years ago or even in our time.

[Taskford]

if there's no opposition coming from the public who use bitcoins and cryptocurrency for sure the government can destroy it, but if all people will oppose and explain what is the benefits of blockchain technology together with cryptocurrency for sure the government will think about it. Remember unity can also destroys those drafted plans if the people will unite to defend on what is good to them.

[Lucius]

It's still partial destruction as everyone'd get out of BTC the moment they say declare it illegal so price would crash.

Well, the vast majority of people still unquestioningly obey the laws, whatever they may be, so if Bitcoin were to be declared illegal, there is no doubt that it would be disastrous for the entire crypto system. That's why I say that it doesn't make much sense to discuss the possibility of someone going with a 51% attack, when there are much cheaper measures to make a much bigger effect for much less money.

In the months of the Libra debate, I remember a statement from a US congressman (Brad Sherman) who said Bitcoin was actually still a small baby, and that means it poses almost no threat to the U.S. dollar or any other currency in the world. Compared to the stock, real estate, gold or fiat money markets Bitcoin is really just a small baby that is subject to any manipulation and control.

[coolcoinz]

I know that sometimes it looks like the government is trying to suppress this or that or go against a certain group of people or a certain trend, but most politicians care only about their public image. Banning Bitcoin would show them as puppets to bankers or as people who are afraid of outflow of capital from their country. In other words, it would make them look weak. It's better to tax the shit out of Bitcoin than ban it, as it will automatically scare some people away from it and bring some money to the treasury.

[huu78]

if indeed the government wants to do it then they will do it from the past, now they might also realize the presence of bitcoin can benefit people and the economy of each country, some people also use bitcoin as a commodity or asset to avoid inflation, I am sure there are also individuals from the government who save bitcoin.

[NotATether]

I would like to talk in this thread about the 51% attack and correct me if I'm wrong below.

So let's assume that I have the 51% control of the network. I made a transaction that has been confirmed only 1 time and the last block is 1000.
My transaction will be inside the 999th block. What exactly I have to do in order to reverse that transaction? Rebuild the blockchain? Or building again the 999th block, then again the 1000th block and then I'll have to be the first that mines the 1001st block?

But even if it's too expensive and too unprofitable it's still possible. And I know that none of us would want that, because of the loss of fortunes (bitcoin price would drop). Some goverments tho, would want to destroy the bitcoin network and of course they can easily afford it.

Thoughts? Do you believe that goverments can control it? And please correct me if I'm wrong about the 51% attack, because I haven't fully understood it.

I will repeat what I saw in a Bitcointalk ad slot somewhere, even if a government performs a 51% attack they can only alter the transactions they perform, they have no control over other users' transactions.

[bitbunnny]

I know that sometimes it looks like the government is trying to suppress this or that or go against a certain group of people or a certain trend, but most politicians care only about their public image. Banning Bitcoin would show them as puppets to bankers or as people who are afraid of outflow of capital from their country. In other words, it would make them look weak. It's better to tax the shit out of Bitcoin than ban it, as it will automatically scare some people away from it and bring some money to the treasury.

That is all true but most of governments do not want to supress Bitcoin, no matter that some think. To my opinion this whole story with Bitcoin and governments is exaggerated. It's not in their best interest to destroy Bitcoin but they don't want to allow cryptocurrencies to enher the financial and economy system so easy and without proper regulation.
Yes, there were some examples in some countries where governments wanted to ban the Bitcoin but that were countries they supress human rights and freedom anyway.

[Velkro]

Thoughts? Do you believe that goverments can control it?

No, because you focusing only on technical side. Yes they have money to buy a lot of hardware, yes in theory they can manipulate by that but there is one thing you forgot.
People.
People running Bitcoin, combined in 3 power groups, devs, miners, users (bitcoin servers). If people will realize something fishy happening, they will combine force to get rid of the problem right away. Many ways to counter this

[Eugenar]

That is a fact, the government can destroy and control the crypto world but I don't think that it could happen because they will need to spend a lot of money before they destroy it and I think they would not prioritize first destroying the crypto because they to do some other things more productive than destroying bitcoin. They have to spend money on doing some government projects or they may also need to save it for future sake.

Such a scenario, of course, is not destruction - but the relocation of Bitcoin to the underground, where it would be quite inaccessible to most ordinary Internet users.

I don't think so, why they would tend to lessen the user of the bitcoin by just making it inaccessible to the most ordinary internet users if they can do it as a whole?

[obanqueiro]

It has to be an expensive attack so if officials in the government can see the benefit of doing it and are willing to spend that much, we don't know if they can afford to spend that much.
There's more other things that they can point focus to spend that amount with their projects than use it with an attack to bitcoin's network.

still interesting if they decide they can  afford it how much times it would take

[Wind_FURY]

Do you believe that goverments can control it?

Yes. They have a plan.

Keep the Bitcoin block size at 1 MB and move the bulk of transactions to LN node operators who instead of cryptographically proving transactions are exposed to regulatory KYC/AML oversight as custodians and transmitters of user's funds.

But it doesn't change anything to the current status of Bitcoin and regulatory oversight on centralized exchanges, Bitcoin's base layer is still there.

Plus it's simply NOT TRUE, how are Lightning nodes exposed to regulatory oversight as custodians, and where is it happening right now? NONE. The Bitcoins are not "in custody," they're payment channels.

[Lucius]

Such a scenario, of course, is not destruction - but the relocation of Bitcoin to the underground, where it would be quite inaccessible to most ordinary Internet users.

I don't think so, why they would tend to lessen the user of the bitcoin by just making it inaccessible to the most ordinary internet users if they can do it as a whole?

As I have already written in previous posts, the reason is in the money - and if we generally agreed that 51% of the attack costs a lot, then only by applying laws that are almost free they are practically throwing Bitcoin into the sphere of illegal activities. Despite the fact that today Bitcoin is mostly legal, in some countries like Japan or Germany fully regulated, this does not mean that it is widely used. Any negative measure would be multiple counterproductive for the further advancement of Bitcoin as a currency, and all these theories about a 51% attack at this point make no sense.

Bitcoin is not a threat to anyone at the moment, and given the current state of the world, there are much bigger threats that will be the focus of attention in the coming years.

[atjiat]

in order to destroy bitcoin, governments need to act purposefully and the only way to do this is to shorten Bitcoin by fixing its price at $ 1,000 for a long time.  During this time, many cryptocurrency users may lose interest in bitcoin and this will lead to the collapse of the largest cryptocurrency in the world.  but this scenario will not succeed, because no government will donate such a large amount of money, since this idea has rather illusory goals. In addition, a decentralized cryptocurrency system in any case, thanks to an emergency update, will be able to protect itself, which in any case will be supported by a huge number of miners from around the world.

[davis196]

I would like to talk in this thread about the 51% attack and correct me if I'm wrong below.

So let's assume that I have the 51% control of the network. I made a transaction that has been confirmed only 1 time and the last block is 1000.
My transaction will be inside the 999th block. What exactly I have to do in order to reverse that transaction? Rebuild the blockchain? Or building again the 999th block, then again the 1000th block and then I'll have to be the first that mines the 1001st block?

But even if it's too expensive and too unprofitable it's still possible. And I know that none of us would want that, because of the loss of fortunes (bitcoin price would drop). Some goverments tho, would want to destroy the bitcoin network and of course they can easily afford it.

Thoughts? Do you believe that goverments can control it? And please correct me if I'm wrong about the 51% attack, because I haven't fully understood it.

It's theoretically possible,but it's practically pointless,because of the reasons you mentioned.
Spending taxpayer's hard earned money just to destroy the BTC blockchain?Governments aren't that stupid.
Is there a crypto whale(or a group of crypto whales),who will invest billions of dollars just to perform 51% attack and destroy the value of Bitcoin without any clear benefit and without any return of investment?
The governments might hit Bitcoin just by banning cryptocurrency trading and mining,not by a 51% attack.

[passwordnow]

It has to be an expensive attack so if officials in the government can see the benefit of doing it and are willing to spend that much, we don't know if they can afford to spend that much.
There's more other things that they can point focus to spend that amount with their projects than use it with an attack to bitcoin's network.

still interesting if they decide they can  afford it how much times it would take

They will think of it if it's a worth it test. They can do something better with the budget rather than doing the attack. It's not of their priority and the money can be used good in another type of research rather than giving headache to the whole network.
And there's no assurance if they will succeed doing that.