Could China (or similar) take control of Bitcoin?

[legiteum]

Yes, and that should scare the hell out of Bitcoin investors because that means he knows cryptocurrency is a way he can make money.

I wouldn't argue that Trump endorsing Bitcoin is beneficial for investors, but why should it terrify them?  He's simply another public figure attempting to capitalize on it.

LOL, because Donald Trump doesn't play the game that way.

Trump won't pump Bitcoin because Trump doesn't own Bitcoin. He would make far more money by destroying Bitcoin and forcing everybody to use his thing instead. Trump could make trillions doing this, which is far more than he could make with almost any other sort of corruption.

And with the full power of the US presidency--and his absolute control of Congress which he seems to have--he could very easily "push the button" on Bitcoin in favor of "TrumpCoin" or whatever.

Bitcoin went up 500% under President Biden. The safe bet here is to stick with the stable state, not take a chance on somebody erratic and corrupt like Trump.

Any entity that took over 51% of the hashrate controls Bitcoin.

If you possess 51% of the hashrate and utilize it for Bitcoin mining, you're not controlling Bitcoin; you're *simply* earning significant profits.  If you own 51% of the hashrate and use it to censor or reverse transactions, you're effectively undermining Bitcoin, which, in my opinion, doesn't constitute control but rather destruction.  If Bitcoin suffers from 51% attack(s), there is no longer a Bitcoin to control.  

That's not how blockchain works. The network is effectively a majority vote. There is no "center" of the network ("decentralized"). There is no "person" in charge, no committee, no non-profit group, no "community" who would "object" to this takeover. That's not how it works. If it worked that way, then Bitcoin would be effectively centralized.

Bitcoin is simply an algorithm that holds a vote on hashrate. Anybody with 51% could hard-fork Bitcoin, holding everybody's blocks hostage.

And in a hostage situation, most people would simply want their money to be safe, and they would bow to the new owner.

As others have discussed here, there's no evidence that any major government would want to do this, but they absolutely could do it.

[cryptosize]

Anybody with 51% could hard-fork Bitcoin, holding everybody's blocks hostage.

And in a hostage situation, most people would simply want their money to be safe, and they would bow to the new owner.

As others have discussed here, there's no evidence that any major government would want to do this, but they absolutely could do it.

Give me a detailed financial analysis of how they're going to do it.

For starters, they'd need 3 fabs like TSMC (Taiwan) to solely manufacture ASIC chips and nothing else...

Do you realize how expensive it is to create a state-of-the-art 3nm fab from scratch?

Do you realize TSMC is already chock full of wafer orders from Apple, nVidia, AMD etc?

They're not going to abandon their loyal, long-time customers just to manufacture ASIC chips and perform a hypothetical 51% attack, because even if they could (I explained you the impossible logistics), chances are they would want to mine and hodl a guaranteed income of 3.125 BTC (+ fees) every 20 minutes on average (half the hashrate, half the blocks).

[cryptosize]

Do you believe that Blackrock, the world's largest asset manager with over $10 trillion in assets, would tolerate another country attempting to undermine their own assets like that? 

I agree with you (and others) that this would be no big deal to the world economy, but... Blackrock? Do they have a nuclear arsenal that I am unaware of? I'm pretty sure they are in no position to tell the CCP what to do...

WEF & BlackRock closely cooperate with China. Apparently it's their "role model" (yes, they'd love a technocratic dictatorship being imposed in the West):

https://blog.independent.org/2022/12/01/klaus-schwab-china/

They don't like democracy, it's too... "messy":

https://x.com/JunkScience/status/1626220779766710273

Klaus Schwab himself has admitted that they built China the last 30+ years.

I suggest to wake up, before it's too late... the game is rigged (West vs East, good vs bad cop). BRICs are a controlled opposition by WEF and they plan to serve SDG/Agenda 2030.

[legiteum]

Klaus Schwab himself has admitted that they built China the last 30+ years.

I suggest to wake up, before it's too late... the game is rigged (West vs East, good vs bad cop). BRICs are a controlled opposition by WEF and they plan to serve SDG/Agenda 2030.

Closely cooperating with China is very different than controlling China.

I closely cooperate with my local police when I obey their traffic signs. That doesn't mean I run the police department.

Give me a detailed financial analysis of how they're going to do it.

For starters, they'd need 3 fabs like TSMC (Taiwan) to solely manufacture ASIC chips and nothing else...

Do you realize how expensive it is to create a state-of-the-art 3nm fab from scratch?

Do you realize TSMC is already chock full of wafer orders from Apple, nVidia, AMD etc?

They're not going to abandon their loyal, long-time customers just to manufacture ASIC chips and perform a hypothetical 51% attack, because even if they could (I explained you the impossible logistics), chances are they would want to mine and hodl a guaranteed income of 3.125 BTC (+ fees) every 20 minutes on average (half the hashrate, half the blocks).

Why exactly would they need to buy a single machine? They could simply appropriate the hardware already sitting within their borders. Servers in China once accounted for far more than 51% of the Bitcoin hashrate. They could do so again with a single executive order from Xi.

Regardless, what seems like a lot of money to us civilians is pennies to a major government like China. $20 trillion buys you a lot of computers (again, that's assuming a country with a 1M strong army needs to "buy" anything).

And presumably the prize would not be the mining fees, but rather a percentage of the 1.5 trillion in Bitcoin.

[Medusah]

Anybody with 51% could hard-fork Bitcoin, holding everybody's blocks hostage.

Do you even understand the concept of a hard fork?  It's unrelated to hashrate.  A hard fork occurs when the consensus rules are altered, allowing a previously invalid transaction to become valid.  For example, if you validate a block subsidy of 100 BTC, you've initiated your own hard fork.  Good luck persuading others to follow you. 

And no, it's not possible for someone malicious with 51% of the hashrate to validate invalid transactions.  Miners are only capable of arranging the sequence of transactions.  If a malicious miner controls over 51%, they could opt to mine empty blocks or reverse transactions, effectively undermining the fundamental principles and game theory behind the system.  If Bitcoin were subjected to such an attack, it would cease to function.  There would be no remaining mechanism for control.  Get it now? 

[Renampun]

It’s definitely possible and knowing China, I know they will do everything to get it done especially if it is the way to get something they want (and they want a lot of things). I can see China doing this for political gain, how? That I am not sure but one thing’s for sure if China were to take control of 50% of bitcoin investors might lose some confidence on the coin.

Until now I still can't think and believe that China will be able to control Bitcoin, even 50% of Bitcoin investors, Bitcoin has a strong community and also loyal Diamond Hand, if China wants to control Bitcoin then they must have at least half of the number of Bitcoins in circulation. and this is impossible, how much money do they have to spend, so the percentage of China controlling bitcoin for me is only 1%.

[Woodie]

This came up as a side discussion in another thread, and I thought it would be interesting as a top-level discussion here.

The notion is this: although taking over 50% of the Bitcoin hashrate would be a practical impossibility for any private actor or even a small country, China, as a country, has at times hosted over 50% of Bitcoin's hashrate, and it's thus plausible they could make this happen again if they wanted to.

Its technically possible to control that 50% and requires huge investments to achieve, and btw in the case of China you make this sound like it's one state owned entity running the show when in reality it's several independent entities that represent this virtual control under the umbrella of being labeled China

And whomever controls over 50% of the hashrate can dictate the software in use, and/or dictate the contents of the blockchain. As the theory goes, if China wanted to wreak havoc on the world economy, or if it wanted to extract a ransom, or if it simply wanted to profit by inserting its own blocks, then... it could. They could do anything.

It's actually more complicated that you make it sound, think of it like a car.. For a car to be functional several systems have to work for it to move, say the fuel system, the oil system, suspension etc and when it comes to Bitcoin... miners are one such system that contribute to its smooth running of it and for the record are not independent but are dependable on other systems such as nodes, etcetera. So this havoc you talk of is not possible as they need to also own a huge amount of bitcoin for a coordinated attack on the network otherwise if they had miners and owned a huge chunk of BTC they would have a shot at this...

Perhaps China could decide that Satoshi's blocks should be given away to charity. Maybe they change the architecture so that it worked better in China, or conformed to their "laws" or something.

This now sounds liked a forked Bitcoin which would make it an altcoin and by the way before a fork happens a consensus has to be reached and not some dictator move to make things happen!

[legiteum]

Anybody with 51% could hard-fork Bitcoin, holding everybody's blocks hostage.

Do you even understand the concept of a hard fork?  It's unrelated to hashrate.  A hard fork occurs when the consensus rules are altered, allowing a previously invalid transaction to become valid.  For example, if you validate a block subsidy of 100 BTC, you've initiated your own hard fork.  Good luck persuading others to follow you.  

And no, it's not possible for someone malicious with 51% of the hashrate to validate invalid transactions.  Miners are only capable of arranging the sequence of transactions.  If a malicious miner controls over 51%, they could opt to mine empty blocks or reverse transactions, effectively undermining the fundamental principles and game theory behind the system.  If Bitcoin were subjected to such an attack, it would cease to function.  There would be no remaining mechanism for control.  Get it now?  

Do you even understand how software works? Code can be changed.

And China would absolutely "persuade others to follow them" because they would be "persuading" a bunch of servers running in computer room. There are no people involved in the Bitcoin system, which is the whole point. You have this wrong-headed notion that Bitcoin is some kind of "community", which, while on a daily basis it is in places like here, that "community" could be overridden by an entity with more servers. Bitcoin's "consensus" is not among human beings, it's among anonymous servers. Plug in a majority of those to the network, and whoever or whatever controls those systems controls Bitcoin.

If there was a "central governing body" of Bitcoin, like you keep implying there is, then Bitcoin would not be decentralized in the way it's advertised to be. That committee could simply be compelled to do whatever governments wanted them to do.

And yes, if China (or whomever or whatever) took over Bitcoin, people would grumble a lot, but most would be so terrified of losing their holdings that they'd do anything the entity wanted. The price would surely go down, but every major holder of Bitcoin would be running advertisements 24/7 saying, "everything is okay". (So in a way, Bitcoin is a PoS model after all ).

Its technically possible to control that 50% and requires huge investments to achieve, and btw in the case of China you make this sound like it's one state owned entity running the show when in reality it's several independent entities that represent this virtual control under the umbrella of being labeled China

Yes, but at some level China comes down to one controlling entity, and even one man. Think of their nuclear weapons, for instance. There's not some rogue faction somewhere in China who could launch some of those.

And whomever controls over 50% of the hashrate can dictate the software in use, and/or dictate the contents of the blockchain. As the theory goes, if China wanted to wreak havoc on the world economy, or if it wanted to extract a ransom, or if it simply wanted to profit by inserting its own blocks, then... it could. They could do anything.

It's actually more complicated that you make it sound, think of it like a car..

Yes, I get that such an attack would be an extremely complicated operation, which is why it's implausible that some "small" country could pull this off. But China's GDP is $18T, their military budget is $230B, and they have over one million personnel in their army, some of whom would surely be pretty good at reading Bitcointalk to see what would need to be done . (Of course in reality they'd probably recruit a major Bitcoin mining company or maybe a few of them to go along, using bribery or extortion or whatever).

Perhaps China could decide that Satoshi's blocks should be given away to charity. Maybe they change the architecture so that it worked better in China, or conformed to their "laws" or something.

This now sounds liked a forked Bitcoin which would make it an altcoin and by the way before a fork happens a consensus has to be reached and not some dictator move to make things happen!

As I said above, if something like this were to happen to Bitcoin, the first thing an average investor would hear is, "remain calm and HODL". Nobody would want the price of their Bitcoin to go down, so they would live whatever fiction they'd need to live in order for its price to stay up. Major holders would buy TV ads and stuff.

Again, in a way, Bitcoin is a PoS model, too .

[stompix]

It's actually more complicated that you make it sound, think of it like a car.. For a car to be functional several systems have to work for it to move, say the fuel system, the oil system, suspension etc and when it comes to Bitcoin... miners are one such system that contribute to its smooth running of it and for the record are not independent but are dependable on other systems such as nodes, etcetera. So this havoc you talk of is not possible as they need to also own a huge amount of bitcoin for a coordinated attack on the network otherwise if they had miners and owned a huge chunk of BTC they would have a shot at this...

Sorry to bring this to you but you don't understand how mining and Bitcoin work.
Miners mine blocks, and nodes can only choose to refuse them, they can't create blocks,  if a miner has 51% of the network there is no way for a node to know whether the blocks come from a good or bad miner, the nodes must follow the protocol, them refusing the longer chain is a breach of that protocol.

Somebody controlling more than 51% of the hash rate has control over the transactions, while he can't spend you funds he will always be able to invalidate your confirmed tx by broadcasting a longer chain without your tx or without any tx, and there is not a thing that you can do to stop him, you can't even properly identify the blocks as coming strictly from him, he could disguise his hashrate as being owned by 10 pools.

This now sounds liked a forked Bitcoin which would make it an altcoin and by the way before a fork happens a consensus has to be reached and not some dictator move to make things happen!

Consensus? Nope! Has anyone asked for your vot e don't he implementation of segwit or taproot?
Show me your voting id!

Until now I still can't think and believe that China will be able to control Bitcoin, even 50% of Bitcoin investors, Bitcoin has a strong community and also loyal Diamond Hand, if China wants to control Bitcoin then they must have at least half of the number of Bitcoins in circulation. and this is impossible, how much money do they have to spend, so the percentage of China controlling bitcoin for me is only 1%.

Seriously, you've been around 2017 and you still don't know Bitocin is PoW not PoS?

For starters, they'd need 3 fabs like TSMC (Taiwan) to solely manufacture ASIC chips and nothing else...

Lol, so the whole world stopped producing chips while we built this 600exahash of gear that runs now? 
TSMC revenue is 70 billions, producing 12 million wafers a year, the needed gear is worth (with other components and retail price) 8 billion, only using their 7nm capacity to produce chips it would take then 2 and a half months to produce that gear, again only for 7nm chips.

[Medusah]

And China would absolutely "persuade others to follow them" because they would be "persuading" a bunch of servers running in computer room.

It's clear that you're not familiar with the mechanics of the system.  You can't sway others to your side without presenting valid arguments.  Discussions, proposals, social interaction are necessary for consensus.  China could acquire a significant portion of the hashrate, but it doesn't grant them the ability to dictate protocol rules unilaterally.  Consider this: if hashrate grants this control, why don't the miners simply increase the block size or create new bitcoins arbitrarily?  It's their power, right?   

If there was a "central governing body" of Bitcoin, like you keep implying there is, then Bitcoin would not be decentralized in the way it's advertised to be. That committee could simply be compelled to do whatever governments wanted them to do.

Once again, you're not getting it.  Sorry. 

How you see things working is closely tied to the idea of centralization.  If control over protocol rules is solely determined by possession of computational power, then it's this dynamic that centralizes the network.  What makes Bitcoin remarkable is that anyone, regardless of whether they are mining or not, can fork the code and choose to participate in a new network governed by their own rules.  It's then their responsibility to persuade others to join their network.  This is decentralization. 

[legiteum]

And China would absolutely "persuade others to follow them" because they would be "persuading" a bunch of servers running in computer room.

It's clear that you're not familiar with the mechanics of the system.  You can't sway others to your side without presenting valid arguments.  Discussions, proposals, social interaction are necessary for consensus.  China could acquire a significant portion of the hashrate, but it doesn't grant them the ability to dictate protocol rules unilaterally.  Consider this: if hashrate grants this control, why don't the miners simply increase the block size or create new bitcoins arbitrarily?  It's their power, right?    

If miners representing 51% of the hashrate all decided to do something, then that would be the reality of Bitcoin.

Again, what is stopping them? What central authority can you point to who would stop them from doing anything they wanted?

Now imagine an entity like China either directly or indirectly controlled those miners. Now China controls Bitcoin. It's as simple as that. The "community" here on Bitcointalk or whatever could scream as loud as they want, but they don't control the hashrate, the nodes do. What "we" decided doesn't mean anything at all. It's a proof-of-work model, not a proof-of-how-cool-you-are-on-social-media model.

If there was a "central governing body" of Bitcoin, like you keep implying there is, then Bitcoin would not be decentralized in the way it's advertised to be. That committee could simply be compelled to do whatever governments wanted them to do.

How you see things working is closely tied to the idea of centralization.

How I see things is closely tied to the evidence.

If control over protocol rules is solely determined by possession of computational power, then it's this dynamic that centralizes the network.  

Well, in the case of Bitcoin, control over protocol rules is solely determined by possession of computational power. That's how Bitcoin works. It's called a Proof-of-Work model.

I wouldn't say that factor by itself centralizes the network, but the network is absolutely, positively able to be centralized by a single entity controlling 51% of the computing power. That's always been a risk for Bitcoin. Today it's arguably a small risk, but it is absolutely not zero. A Bitcoin takeover by a large entity is technically possible and even financially plausible, at least on the first order of things. Ironically, the entity who would actually defend Bitcoin against this sort of attack from a state actor would almost undoubtedly have to be... the US government.

Governments can do whatever they want. The only magic power you have as an individual is voting, and even that assumes you live in a democracy.

[Ben Barubal]

It’s definitely possible and knowing China, I know they will do everything to get it done especially if it is the way to get something they want (and they want a lot of things). I can see China doing this for political gain, how? That I am not sure but one thing’s for sure if China were to take control of 50% of bitcoin investors might lose some confidence on the coin.

     China has always wanted that, but they couldn't do it because there were so many obstacles. They have been doing that for several years, but until now they still haven't been able to do it. That means they can't, and they aren't capable. 

     With the number of people these days who are interested in Bitcoin, especially now that there are other countries and institutional investors who are accumulating it, for sure the country of China will have a hard time.

[bSpend]

Well, I am not a technical guy, and as such, I have no technical knowledge of how bitcoin and the bitcoin network operates, but based on what I've learnt so far about bitcoin hashrate, it's definitely possible for one entity or country to manage to control 50 percent of the bitcoin hashrate, but this is the entity or country will be able to afford the cost of this, and from what I know, we not talking about billions of dollars here, but something much more.

In the end, the entity or country with such motive may have to first of all ask themselves if controlling 50 percent of the bitcoin hashrate is really worth the expense and the hassle, when such one can easily create his or her one coin and try to make it as successful as Bitcoin.

[Franctoshi]

The majority of people have become so attached to the old centralized system of money, the Fiat currency, that they don't understand how truly decentralized that Bitcoin is, And despite the government attacks on Bitcoin, Bitcoin is built in such a way that only fools or blind person would reject it, in fact, if you don't know the major reason why it seems the government is fighting Bitcoin is that they're scared and know that if they allow this technology to thrive that everybody will embrace it and likely abandon the fiat currency, thereby removing the central control or authority that government has from time, that's why they're using various means to try to fight Bitcoin.

So if it is to be something that the government could have easily taken over, This should have happened a long time ago. To me, Bitcoin has gotten to a stage of no return where it's unstoppable where to control the 50 percent Bitcoin hashrate would become difficult.

[tabas]

It's going to cost a lot of money for them to take control of majority of the hash/bitcoin network.

Now imagine an entity like China either directly or indirectly controlled those miners. Now China controls Bitcoin. It's as simple as that. The "community" here on Bitcointalk or whatever could scream as loud as they want, but they don't control the hashrate, the nodes do. What "we" decided doesn't mean anything at all. It's a proof-of-work model, not a proof-of-how-cool-you-are-on-social-media model.

While they might be capable of doing that, I doubt it that they're going to spend a lot of money for it when they're facing a lot of issues geopolitically and economically. They will no doubt spend on military powers and increase their budget there but with Bitcoin, they even have been banning it for years on and off.

[Wakate]

This came up as a side discussion in another thread, and I thought it would be interesting as a top-level discussion here.

The notion is this: although taking over 50% of the Bitcoin hashrate would be a practical impossibility for any private actor or even a small country, China, as a country, has at times hosted over 50% of Bitcoin's hashrate, and it's thus plausible they could make this happen again if they wanted to.

And whomever controls over 50% of the hashrate can dictate the software in use, and/or dictate the contents of the blockchain. As the theory goes, if China wanted to wreak havoc on the world economy, or if it wanted to extract a ransom, or if it simply wanted to profit by inserting its own blocks, then... it could. They could do anything. Perhaps China could decide that Satoshi's blocks should be given away to charity. Maybe they change the architecture so that it worked better in China, or conformed to their "laws" or something.

So this brings up questions:

1. Is this technically possible?

2. What would be the technical implications of China doing this?

3. What would be the geopolitical implications?

4. What would this do the broader cryptocurrency sector?

5. Have major governments e.g. the US and NATO countries ever (publicly) announced any contingency planning around this problem? Putting a $1.5T asset at risk is something that could rattle the entire world economy. This seems like something they would at least think through?

Looking forward to people's thoughts...

I still don't know why the world is so skeptical about China taking over from the United States. Would there be anything bad if China takes over? I don't see anything wrong with that but let's hope to see what would be the out of China eventually becomes the largest holders of Bitcoin. The United States cannot keep controlling everything but I think there would be nothing wrong if we see that China becomes the largest holders of bitcoins as a country. El Salvador is still accumulating more of Bitcoin and we should but be surprised that she has not enough Bitcoin compared to big countries like China and the United States.

[MainIbem]

 I see lots of people in this thread feel that since China holds a good percentage of hashrate of Bitcoin then it means they could manipulated the market in future but I don't think  so, what I think is that Satoshi won't be biased to make Bitcoin a decentralised currency that operates on it's own blockchain and influenced by it's volatility for it to later be controlled by a certain country, business sector cause they hold a good percentage of hashrate in it. That doesn't make sense to me and I believe it would ruin the whole concept of Satoshi towards the creation of Bitcoin.  Many governments are against Bitcoin cause they're not able to manipulate it's blockchain like they do with their various central banks and if they had the power to manipulate Bitcoin they would've done so before now.

[legiteum]

I see lots of people in this thread feel that since China holds a good percentage of hashrate of Bitcoin then it means they could manipulated the market in future but I don't think  so, what I think is that Satoshi won't be biased to make Bitcoin a decentralised currency that operates on it's own blockchain and influenced by it's volatility for it to later be controlled by a certain country, business sector cause they hold a good percentage of hashrate in it. That doesn't make sense to me and I believe it would ruin the whole concept of Satoshi towards the creation of Bitcoin.  Many governments are against Bitcoin cause they're not able to manipulate it's blockchain like they do with their various central banks and if they had the power to manipulate Bitcoin they would've done so before now.

Um, Satoshi doesn't control Bitcoin. Satoshi hasn't even been heard from in over a decade. He has as much to say about Bitcoin as George Washington does about the US elections in November.

The Bitcoin system is a proof-of-work model, meaning that the majority of the hash rate resolves disputes between nodes. If you control the majority, you control Bitcoin. It's as simple as that.

It's going to cost a lot of money for them to take control of majority of the hash/bitcoin network.

Now imagine an entity like China either directly or indirectly controlled those miners. Now China controls Bitcoin. It's as simple as that. The "community" here on Bitcointalk or whatever could scream as loud as they want, but they don't control the hashrate, the nodes do. What "we" decided doesn't mean anything at all. It's a proof-of-work model, not a proof-of-how-cool-you-are-on-social-media model.

While they might be capable of doing that, I doubt it that they're going to spend a lot of money for it when they're facing a lot of issues geopolitically and economically. They will no doubt spend on military powers and increase their budget there but with Bitcoin, they even have been banning it for years on and off.

I completely agree, and I would summarize the consensus of this threads answers to be:

1. Yes, it's completely possible that China or some other major country like them could take control of Bitcoin.

2. There's no evidence today that they would want to do this, and there's even evidence that they wouldn't want to.


But if somebody says, "Bitcoin cannot be controlled by any government", they are not saying the truth...

[CODE200]

They probably can do it, how much would it take to control 51% of the network anyway? Pretty sure that if they put their mind to it, they would probably be able to do it, I mean I have lived long enough to see that countries will do anything they want to as long as those things will serve their interests. The only problem is that would they be able to get the upkeep cost of running those 51% because they need to be able to do that without fail. Maybe the only thing that needs to happen is that we would see this happen, that's it, and then we would see if they can really do it.

[tabas]

It's going to cost a lot of money for them to take control of majority of the hash/bitcoin network.

Now imagine an entity like China either directly or indirectly controlled those miners. Now China controls Bitcoin. It's as simple as that. The "community" here on Bitcointalk or whatever could scream as loud as they want, but they don't control the hashrate, the nodes do. What "we" decided doesn't mean anything at all. It's a proof-of-work model, not a proof-of-how-cool-you-are-on-social-media model.

While they might be capable of doing that, I doubt it that they're going to spend a lot of money for it when they're facing a lot of issues geopolitically and economically. They will no doubt spend on military powers and increase their budget there but with Bitcoin, they even have been banning it for years on and off.

I completely agree, and I would summarize the consensus of this threads answers to be:

1. Yes, it's completely possible that China or some other major country like them could take control of Bitcoin.

2. There's no evidence today that they would want to do this, and there's even evidence that they wouldn't want to.


But if somebody says, "Bitcoin cannot be controlled by any government", they are not saying the truth...

That's pretty much it but with the latter part about telling that Bitcoin can't be controlled by any country or government. I think it's an understandable statement if someone says that because the entire network of it is owned by its community and the hashes are distributed globally. And by that means, no one can control Bitcoin but a huge part of its network can be handled and manipulated by which we called in real life "oligarchs".