Total BS: "Bitcoin cannot be controlled by governments"

[PepeLapiu]

According to my understanding of international law, the use of force against another state is prohibited except in very specific situations. For this reason, the events in Venezuela are legitimate because the US and Venezuela have long maintained close diplomatic and economic ties as significant oil trading partners. They will undoubtedly take action to safeguard their interests, particularly if regard to oil.

That doesn't make any sense. You say that use of force against an other nation is prohibited, spare some exceptions. And you don't enumerate those exceptions. Than you go on to say that aggression against Venuzuela was legitimate because of those exceptions you haven't named.

So what are those exceptions? Asking for a friend....

[Smartprofit]

I mentioned that in 2021, that is, five years ago, the price of Bitcoin was $69,000. Five years ago, there was no President Donald Trump, no spot Bitcoin ETFs, no Michael Saylor ambitions, no BlackRock acquisitions... In other words, there was no American investment in Bitcoin, and yet the price was $69,000. And that's a fact. Let's adjust the price for inflation over five years, and we'll see what the price would be today without the intervention of American institutional investors. I'm confident the price would be over $100,000.

That was then. Whatever forces that were propping up the price to $69k back then are long gone now, obviously. Now the price is based on a mainstream connection to US and western financial markets. Perhaps the whales all sold for $69k and the western financial markets absorbed it all. Regardless, now the thing that supports Bitcoin's price is access to these markets, not... whatever was around 5 years ago.

Last week Michael Saylor sold a few hundred BTC and the price plummeted by 15%. A US law crafted by lobbyists from the biggest Bitcoin brokers and players and backed by Saylor, Musk, and other big influencers would be a thousand times bigger event.

And meanwhile, the US-backed Bitcoin network would natively handle every single transaction on the planet, replacing credit cards and payment apps. Bitcoin would suddenly be used by almost everybody, every day. That's what changing the architecture would do, so it's not like this fork would be universally hated like everybody seems to think it would.

But this is all just an example. The OP's point was that Bitcoin can be controlled by governments, and it can be if they actually wanted to. They haven't wanted to so far, which is the only reason they haven't done something like this.

No, in my opinion, these forces supporting Bitcoin haven't disappeared! 🙋

It's just that American institutional players are holding Bitcoin's price back with their actions... Incidentally, the same thing happened at the end of 2017, when large American financial companies created a financial instrument called Bitcoin futures. A bear market began immediately afterward. And throughout this bear market, these large financial companies earned fiat currency on the gradual decline in Bitcoin's price. In other words, they literally sucked liquidity and capitalization out of Bitcoin (and other cryptocurrencies).

The same thing is happening now... Bitcoin's price has dropped, and Donald Trump's family has become rich. The head of BlackRock and Michael Saylor aren't exactly broke either.

I believe that large American institutional players don't control Bitcoin, but they are holding it back. How are they doing this? By creating derivatives.  Derivatives can be considered "paper Bitcoin," that is, an artificial inflated supply. For example, if it weren't for Michael Saylor, pension funds would have eventually lobbied to include real Bitcoin in their assets. As it is, they're buying a surrogate (shares in Michael Saylor's company).

This is precisely why American institutional players don't want to create any Bitcoin fork. They're parasites. It's as if tapeworms wanted to create a quantum computer. That can't happen! Tapworms don't work that way. They simply see a living organism, inhabit it, and suck out all its vitality.

[SilverCryptoBullet]

I believe that large American institutional players don't control Bitcoin, but they are holding it back. How are they doing this? By creating derivatives.  Derivatives can be considered "paper Bitcoin," that is, an artificial inflated supply. For example, if it weren't for Michael Saylor, pension funds would have eventually lobbied to include real Bitcoin in their assets. As it is, they're buying a surrogate (shares in Michael Saylor's company).

Not only American institutional players (investors) but also investors with other nationalities are all unable to control Bitcoin. Because Bitcoin is decentralized by its network from mining hashrates to Bitcoin full nodes. In addition, there is no smart institutional investors want to control Bitcoin because it only damages Bitcoin value and price. If they have huge capital that can be used to dominate Bitcoin mining hashrates, they can use it for other more meaningful actions like accumulating and hold bitcoin, witnessing Bitcoin growth and getting very good profit.

Centralizing Bitcoin mining hashrate, attacking Bitcoin network only makes bitcoins they own become smaller in value, and surely no smart institutional investors will do that.

This is precisely why American institutional players don't want to create any Bitcoin fork.

Bitcoin forks are created by scammers.
How Many Bitcoin Forks Are There? You will be surprised!!!

[abaeze]

Since governments can control exchanges, ETFs, and large investment funds, as well as impose taxes and regulatory laws, they can actually influence the price, liquidity, and usage of Bitcoin by the general public. But that doesn’t mean that governments can completely control the Bitcoin network and nodes that are spread across the world. Because its source code is open-source, anyone can run their own nodes. So no single company or government can shut down the network. Many say that China tried to do this but failed.

Ultimately, I believe that it is much easier for governments to limit the use of Bitcoin than to destroy it. So it is clear that even if governments cannot completely take over Layer 1, they can strongly influence the economic environment of Bitcoin through Layer 2, i.e. exchanges, ETFs, and the legal framework.

[legiteum]

No, in my opinion, these forces supporting Bitcoin haven't disappeared! 🙋

Disappeared? No. But they are mostly gone, in terms of the money. Keep in mind Bitcoin mostly isn't used for anything these days besides investment. It's not a "utility coin" in any way.

This is precisely why American institutional players don't want to create any Bitcoin fork. They're parasites. It's as if tapeworms wanted to create a quantum computer. That can't happen! Tapworms don't work that way. They simply see a living organism, inhabit it, and suck out all its vitality.

Maybe they don't want to right now, I don't know. The OP is not about what people--and thus politicians, and thus the US government--want to do right right this moment, it's about the theoretical possibility of government control over Bitcoin. The OP's point was that the US government can do whatever it wants to do with Bitcoin--and it hasn't done much since there is no political will do so.

But Bitcoin isn't a magic codebase that allows humans to consistently evade the reach of governments while still enjoying the benefit of being connected to the mainstream of the financial system that gives BTC it's $trillion in market cap.

So it is clear that even if governments cannot completely take over Layer 1, they can strongly influence the economic environment of Bitcoin through Layer 2, i.e. exchanges, ETFs, and the legal framework.

Their control of layer 2 gives them the power to influence liquidity, which in turn gives them the power to control the price--which is all anybody cares about with Bitcoin.

A law passed in US Congress couldn't stop anybody from using whatever pile of code they want to use (Monero is a good example of this), but they can certainly drive it underground, which would drop the price of BTC down 99% at least.

And since people have their company's treasury and/or their personal life savings tied up in Bitcoin, they will do whatever Congress wants them to do in order to remain whole.

Bitcoin made a "deal with the devil" when it connected to the mainstream US/western financial system....

[BlackHatCoiner]

The illegal fork of the former Bitcoin codebase we're talking about here would certainly be tradable, but it would be vastly less liquid, and thus far less valuable.

The US government already controls the on and off ramps of most Bitcoin liquidity. I don't understand what the benefit is with attempting to "force" Bitcoin investors into buying a fork that might end up to be just another worthless one. From the government's perspective, since it surveils most high value Bitcoin transactions already, it stems to lose a lot more by meddling with the protocol, even if it were feasible in the first place. Changing the protocol is one of the most likely ways that Bitcoin fails, and if it does, the government loses the declared capital appreciation from all those bitcoin holdings.

[legiteum]

The illegal fork of the former Bitcoin codebase we're talking about here would certainly be tradable, but it would be vastly less liquid, and thus far less valuable.

The US government already controls the on and off ramps of most Bitcoin liquidity. I don't understand what the benefit is with attempting to "force" Bitcoin investors into buying a fork that might end up to be just another worthless one. From the government's perspective, since it surveils most high value Bitcoin transactions already, it stems to lose a lot more by meddling with the protocol, even if it were feasible in the first place. Changing the protocol is one of the most likely ways that Bitcoin fails, and if it does, the government loses the declared capital appreciation from all those bitcoin holdings.

Like I keep saying, the point of the OP is not why a government like the USA would vote to change Bitcoin, or whether they might do that soon, but rather that it's completely possible and even plausible. There's nothing magic about Bitcoin that places it above the reach of laws.

All that said, to paint a possible scenario...

Imagine if the Major Players who collectively own a huge chunk of BTC and/or have custody of most of BTC figured out a scheme that would benefit themselves, and it required major changes to the Bitcoin core codebase. They would do what they've already been doing, and lobby Congress to pass a law saying that their proposed fork is "the real Bitcoin" and everything else is a fraud, and will be prosecuted as such.

And I've brought up the specific example of changing the architecture to a smaller, trusted set of nodes along with eliminating PoW, which would make the system scalable to handle all of the world's daily payments natively, which could vastly (as in, 100,000x) spread the usage of Bitcoin because everybody could use it for absolutely everything, not just investment. Hence the whales could believe their BTC would greatly increase in price, yielding them billions in gains--far outweighing the investment they made in political contributions. (Again, this is just a scenario that the Whales etc. might believe in, I'm not going to debate whether this would really expand BTC or not, etc.).

The combination of major holders shifting over, plus laws in (at least) the USA and probably lots of other places where the Whales would do the same lobbying, would instantly turn the new fork into the Bitcoin almost everybody uses, and the original fork akin to Monero.

Again, I'm not saying this will happen (although the more I write this the more likely it sounds!), but the point is that it absolutely could happen, so let us please stop saying, "Bitcoin cannot be controlled by governments" because it absolutely can be.

[lionheart78]

All that said, to paint a possible scenario...

Imagine if the Major Players who collectively own a huge chunk of BTC and/or have custody of most of BTC figured out a scheme that would benefit themselves, and it required major changes to the Bitcoin core codebase. They would do what they've already been doing, and lobby Congress to pass a law saying that their proposed fork is "the real Bitcoin" and everything else is a fraud, and will be prosecuted as such.

Does this not show how corrupt or evil this country is?  And is the world too dumb to believe such lie, when every country can verify themselves which one is the original and which one is the fork one?  Oh and how can a single country prosecute every citizen of the world who uses the real Bitcoin?

You have a good case scenario, but its weakness is that it is limited to appearing in a single dictatorship country where the government's implementation, regardless of whether it is reasonable or not, is ironclad and needs to be followed, no question asked.  

Again, I'm not saying this will happen (although the more I write this the more likely it sounds!), but the point is that it absolutely could happen, so let us please stop saying, "Bitcoin cannot be controlled by governments" because it absolutely can be.

Well, the future is a possibility, but there is only one certainty: change.  Whether Bitcoin can be controlled by the government or not lies in the future, as for now, it is not controlled by the government, and as for the discussion, Bitcoin to be controlled by the government is not certain.

[topbitcoin]

To 99% of Bitcoin users, all they will care about is their money being safe. They would go with the flow and not risk their savings on an illegal network.

The idea that "Bitcoin cannot be controlled by governments" is total bullshit. It's a product in the market just like any other. It's like saying "Microsoft Word cannot be controlled by any government". Sure it can, if the government really wanted to.

So what do you think about blockchain technology and the decentralized nature of bitcoin? Can the government change that if they want to? That's too ridiculous because since the beginning even Satoshi, who is the creator here, cannot control bitcoin so what can the government do to control it.

The government can limit because it is their authority but controlling bitcoin is precisely what is said to be total bullshit.
If the government could control bitcoin then they would have done it from the start. Why are they still trying to limit not control bitcoin because they can't do it, not because they don't want to do it.

[Myleschetty]

According to my understanding of international law, the use of force against another state is prohibited except in very specific situations. For this reason, the events in Venezuela are legitimate because the US and Venezuela have long maintained close diplomatic and economic ties as significant oil trading partners. They will undoubtedly take action to safeguard their interests, particularly if regard to oil.

That doesn't make any sense. You say that use of force against an other nation is prohibited, spare some exceptions. And you don't enumerate those exceptions. Than you go on to say that aggression against Venuzuela was legitimate because of those exceptions you haven't named.

So what are those exceptions? Asking for a friend....

Venezuela's significant relationship with oil trading partners with the US, as well as the involvement of opposing political leaders, can lead to situations like this, as I have said.
If I am correct, Maduro has been charged with narco-terrorism since 2020, which is another reason, and as you can see, some Venezuela citizen were happy about the attack.
In this situation, a powerful country's citizen can make a political interest deal with a powerful country (US) for support, and if I am correct, he can invite or make a deal with the country because a stranger who doesn't understand your system can't just come on a night and pull a heavy stunt if there's no support from an insider.
If this is the case, the US president will order the attack without UN Security Council authorization, especially when the Strait of Hormuz issue is ongoing.
This is why i like how Satoshi make Bitcoin to be decentralized because our political leaders self interest.

[PepeLapiu]

Venezuela's significant relationship with oil trading partners with the US, as well as the involvement of opposing political leaders, can lead to situations like this, as I have said.

It seems you are speaking the quiet part out loud. This happens to be the real reason for attacking Venizeluela. They were making deals with China so that China would provide them with equipment in exchange for a good price on oil production. the USA saw this as a direct threat to their control over Central America and South America. So they attacked.

If I am correct, Maduro has been charged with narco-terrorism since 2020, which is another reason

That is a made up reason, pablum for the masses. Columbia and other South Anerican countries are suppliers of those narcotics. And so, every country in the travel route between Columbia and the USA could be painted with the "narco-terrorist" brush. Even he country of El Salvador where I am currently located.

and as you can see, some Venezuela citizen were happy about the attack.

Again, pablum for the masses. In virtually every country, even the USA, if I were to remove your leader, some people would be happy about it. It hapoened with JFK, it would gave happened with Biden, and it certainly would happen with Trump too.

Look at how many people celebrated when they though Trump got shot. So based on this, that would justify China and Russia attacking the USA and removing the president? I don't think so.

If this is the case, the US president will order the attack without UN Security Council authorization, especially when the Strait of Hormuz issue is ongoing.

You are putting the cart ahead of the horse. Iran never blocked the strait until the USA and Israel attacked. The blocking of the strait is a direct consequence if the US aggression. And now you think you can use the strait as an excuse for the US aggression? If the USA want to unblock the strait, they just need to stop attacking, get out of the region, and stop financing Israel's aggression of Iran.

And in fact, interestinglrly, Iran never really set out to block the strait. It's the insurance companies that refused to insure boats passing that area during a hot war. And Iran caught on and decided to own it and proclain they are blocking the strait.

All this strait blocking business started because of the Iran war. And now the USA is trying to use the strait as an excuse for the war?

Imagine your neighbor parks his car in front of your driveway and you get pissed off and you get your dog to shit on his lawn.

Than he goes "I'm parking my car in front of his driveway because his dog shits on my lawn". In reality, all he needs to do is park his car properly and his lawn will be free of dog shit. But he started the conflict and he us using the consequences of starting the conflict as an excuse to continue the conflict.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Imagine if the Major Players who collectively own a huge chunk of BTC and/or have custody of most of BTC figured out a scheme that would benefit themselves, and it required major changes to the Bitcoin core codebase. They would do what they've already been doing, and lobby Congress to pass a law saying that their proposed fork is "the real Bitcoin" and everything else is a fraud, and will be prosecuted as such.

It is true that Bitcoin whales have power to bring change to the protocol more than people with very few BTC, but it depends on the changes. If the change fundamentally changes the entire protocol, such as violating the hard cap limit, then the purchasing power of the whales might not be enough to actually change it, because they may end up economic minority, and fail to make their fork the Bitcoin with the most liquidity. I can imagine that violating the hard cap will not convince anyone to sell their BTC for that fork.

But, if however whales choose to follow a particular quantum-safe algorithm softfork, that does not change the economics of the network, their economic voting matters, indeed.  

[pawanjain]

If any of this was possible then it would have happened already by now but it's not that simple.
Only if the proposal of changing the rules in the bitcoin protocol actually is meaningful then people will support it.
If it is not that valuable then neither the users will support it nor the developers, miners, exchanges and node operators will approve it.
In this case there won't be any change in the protocol and we can continue to use bitcoin how it is now.

[legiteum]

Imagine if the Major Players who collectively own a huge chunk of BTC and/or have custody of most of BTC figured out a scheme that would benefit themselves, and it required major changes to the Bitcoin core codebase. They would do what they've already been doing, and lobby Congress to pass a law saying that their proposed fork is "the real Bitcoin" and everything else is a fraud, and will be prosecuted as such.

It is true that Bitcoin whales have power to bring change to the protocol more than people with very few BTC, but it depends on the changes. If the change fundamentally changes the entire protocol, such as violating the hard cap limit, then the purchasing power of the whales might not be enough to actually change it, because they may end up economic minority, and fail to make their fork the Bitcoin with the most liquidity. I can imagine that violating the hard cap will not convince anyone to sell their BTC for that fork.

But, if however whales choose to follow a particular quantum-safe algorithm softfork, that does not change the economics of the network, their economic voting matters, indeed.  

The whales (and here I'm talking about both major holders and major companies in the Bitcoin ecosystem like CoinBase) will do whatever benefits them, and/or whatever they are ordered to do by their government.

As I said, the realistic path would probably be some change that benefits these whales, but if the political environment turned badly against them (say they were associated with a very unpopular former regime), they might just do whatever makes them lose the least amount of money and/or the least risk of prosecution.

Insofar as there is an economic "race" going on, the government's version would only need to be more valuable than (say) Monero is today, i.e. 1/200th of what BTC is worth. Why Monero? Because that's an example of a coin that is outlawed heavily restricted in most western countries*. Hence the investor would choose between an outlawed fork and a legal one, and they would choose whatever leaves them with the most money.

(* I didn't know that Monero was actually legal still, just heavily restricted by major governments. Hence it could go far lower if it was outright banned for holding and trading. The point here is that government regulations and other actions can drastically affect the price of an asset--plus or minus 99.9%. Insofar as that's the case, it allows the government to control such a market if they wanted to).

Freedom comes from the voting booth, or on the battlefield--not Github.

If you want to make sure your favorite product isn't messed around with by your government, then vote (or otherwise engage in the political process). That doesn't always work, but that's the sad reality. Anybody telling you there's some shortcut to freedom is lying to you (and probably trying to sell you something  ).

[Pmalek]

Bitcoin stops being Bitcoin if it gets an owner or a board that controls it in the way you proposed. You can twist the arm of a few individuals to get what you want. You can force owners of exchanges to accept your fork. You can make them confiscate the alternatives or make life difficult for those who are against you. But you can't force your censored and centralized "Bitshit" on a community that has for years learned what Bitcoin stands for. They wont use it and the price, trading volume, and marketcap would soon reflect that.

Forget about it. It's not going to work. If the majority were willing to accept such shit forks, one of the thousands of altcoins that have been created in the last decade would have overtaken Bitcoin by now. None of them have and many of them are dead.

[BlackHatCoiner]

As I said, the realistic path would probably be some change that benefits these whales, but if the political environment turned badly against them (say they were associated with a very unpopular former regime), they might just do whatever makes them lose the least amount of money and/or the least risk of prosecution.

Be more specific about the change. Is it a protocol change? Something like censoring transactions that spend X inputs? Is it violating the 21 million cap? It is a soft fork proposal like a quantum-safe algorithm migration? Is it a block size limit change? It entirely depends on the change, because if they economically vote for a fork that no person wants to buy and use for long-term funds, then they will sooner or later stop being rich and their economic voting will matter less. They can influence the network, but they cannot dictate where liquidity will land on, no matter how crazy the change is.

[suzanne5223]

Bitcoin stops being Bitcoin if it gets an owner or a board that controls it in the way you proposed. You can twist the arm of a few individuals to get what you want. You can force owners of exchanges to accept your fork. You can make them confiscate the alternatives or make life difficult for those who are against you. But you can't force your censored and centralized "Bitshit" on a community that has for years learned what Bitcoin stands for. They wont use it and the price, trading volume, and marketcap would soon reflect that.

Forget about it. It's not going to work. If the majority were willing to accept such shit forks, one of the thousands of altcoins that have been created in the last decade would have overtaken Bitcoin by now. None of them have and many of them are dead.

Yes, once Bitcoin is governed by a board, it's no longer Bitcoin, and I don't see that happening to BTC. Even though there's no way some certain government or powerful organization will enforce some restriction and confiscation on individual who dont use their fork shitcoin there's no way they will change the stance of the Bitcoiner community towards BTC, but after reading what OP i thought about the of it happening in the future I want to ask how many Bitcoiners are truly prepare such move since people seem not to care about self custody holding of their BTC.

[legiteum]

Forget about it. It's not going to work. If the majority were willing to accept such shit forks, one of the thousands of altcoins that have been created in the last decade would have overtaken Bitcoin by now. None of them have and many of them are dead.

Ridiculous comparison. None of those altcoins were officially called, "Bitcoin", and non of those altcoins had the power of the US government and it's their allies behind them. None of those altcoins had the cooperation of every single major broker and all major BTC holders. None of those altcoins proposed to legally replace the Bitcoin codebase. Etc. etc.

Be more specific about the change. Is it a protocol change? Something like censoring transactions that spend X inputs? Is it violating the 21 million cap? It is a soft fork proposal like a quantum-safe algorithm migration? Is it a block size limit change?

Does it matter? One would hope that the law passed would be a reasonable one, and maybe it would be, but that's not the point of the OP. The point is that it's absolutely possible and even plausible that a government can control Bitcoin, hence debunking a popular myth about it.

Yes, once Bitcoin is governed by a board, it's no longer Bitcoin, and I don't see that happening to BTC. Even though there's no way some certain government or powerful organization will enforce some restriction and confiscation on individual who dont use their fork shitcoin there's no way they will change the stance of the Bitcoiner community towards BTC, but after reading what OP i thought about the of it happening in the future I want to ask how many Bitcoiners are truly prepare such move since people seem not to care about self custody holding of their BTC.

Individuals can use whatever codebase they want, and, privately, call it whatever they want. You could call it "Bitcoin" or "Coke" or "Pepsi" or whatever else between yourself and your close friends.

But if you publicly advertised your fork as "Bitcoin" and used the BTC symbol to promote it, you would be prosecuted. And no serious broker, app or other company would do something illegal. Hence your fork would need to be called something else, publicly.