here is another perspective..
lets use the scenario of the 2014 bit licence and also the 1900's alcohol prohibition..
if something is previously open and has no laws. a government cant just offer licences/permits to it.. they first need to outlaw/ban/prohibit it. .. to then bring it into their purview (jurisdiction) to then set terms of use in their licence/permits which hey can later sell/offer.
i dont see this as a "permanent ban" scenario.. i see this as phase one of establishing a permit/licencing scheme
Good point, but what if "the prohibition" isn't as
short as 1900's alcohol prohibition? What if they, and many others like "they", make it a long "mining prohibition" as a strategy to weaken the network/protocol/technology that could weaken them?
i think you mean.. what if the prohibition is not as short as the bitlicence (literally hours with pre planned deadline)
where they done a scheme where they banned exchanging in new york after X date.. but months prior told businesses to get prepared and apply for a licence which became active hours after the date.. thus it felt like (for those businesses that applied for licence) as if there was no ban, no delay of service.
i do not see this as being that short(hours) .. but i also do not see this as being as long (over decade) as the 'prohibition' of 1920-1933
i see this as a upto 2 year delay/halt.. with a looming 'threat' where mining is could be permanently banned will be made.. after the 2 year period is up..
but within the two year "delay/halt" they will introduce licences for mining companies that can prove the source of their power is renewable to be active by the end of the 2 year delay/halt period(or sooner).. giving the government upto 2 years to set up the licence application department and regulations departments to over see mining operations.
(it takes time to train new staff in new tech, so dont expect licences being offered in the next few months)
after all if it was just a temporary thing. where 'open/unlicenced uncontrolled mining was allowed after 2 years. mining farms wont care about wanting to legitimise themselves to comply with any temporary delay/halt
..
NY state(local government) used to entice companies in via tax breaks and grants.. this way instead of giving real money away or avoid taking money away from treasury.. they can invent a new 'product'(licence) that comes at a huge fee when they dont want the business as much. and offer discounts/free licences when they want the business.. that way they can control how much mining comes into NY using up the renewable excess capacity, further controlling how much mining happens in NY
(.. all this is my opinion based on what a savvi business man would do if he was a politician)
What if they, and many others like "they", make it a long "mining prohibition" as a strategy to weaken the network/protocol/technology that could weaken them?
The cartelization, and specialization of mining which brought massive hashing power, making the network robust, is also an attack vector.
Thus regulating the BTC miners which "they" might have some rules in the end how and who are the people allowed to mine BTC. This is really not making the cryptocurrency as a whole a decentralized system. Interesting things might happen in the near future as to who's running this show.
But we shall see what other countries have to possibly dodge this regulation like El Salvador or Russia.
this is just about NY.. a state that doesnt even tickle the needle on the scales of how much hashpower is distributed world wide
NY is not a big deal. but. that said. if all U.S states followed suit and copied. then that could affect 30% of the network TEMPORARILY.
and just like china. and then russia.. well. temporary hashpower drop. and then recovery within 6 months..
yep we are at higher hashrate now even though mining was banned in china september (9 months ago)
and china was a bigger land mass, bigger population and far bigger mining hashrate source than silly little NY state
