Can bitcoin survive without the Internet?

[twiifm]

It could survive, just send a usb with your transaction to every node through the mail.  Simple.

It would be very easy to double spend your coins doing this. The various nodes would also not have a way to communicate with each other.

Yeah how does the block chain update without a network? 

[1714624817]

1714624817

[1714624817]

1714624817

[Yakamoto]

It could survive, just send a usb with your transaction to every node through the mail.  Simple.

It would be very easy to double spend your coins doing this. The various nodes would also not have a way to communicate with each other.

Yeah how does the block chain update without a network?  

TELEGRAMS! Or morse code, sent to a (sadly) centralised station, or individual nodes which update a larger ledger. That could possibly work, but it would require a lot of stuff to be set up.

EDIT: Accidentally hit post before completion.

[CripLib]

The Bitcoin network should not depend on the Internet forever. In case of a major Internet failure (caused by wars, natural disasters, corrupt governments, etc) we would become "hostages". There should be a "backup network"  in wich Bitcoin could function. A P2P network seems to be the ideal: It is not impossible (although it seems to be difficult at first) that an independent P2P network is created, to coexist running in parallel with the Internet, but with its own infrastructure.

There's a discussion on this subject here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=666425

[Yakamoto]

The Bitcoin network should not depend on the Internet forever. In case of a major Internet failure (caused by wars, natural disasters, corrupt governments, etc) we would become "hostages". There should be a "backup network"  in wich Bitcoin could function. A P2P network seems to be the ideal: It is not impossible (although it seems to be difficult at first) that an independent P2P network is created, to coexist running in parallel with the Internet, but with its own infrastructure.

There's a discussion on this subject here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=666425

P2P, assuming that it doesn't have a centralized system, could also mean that we could be free from the NSA and so, since our communication would go through wires (Hypothetically), making it so they would have to literally have a box on the cable watching data flowing.

I think a P2P internet would be a good idea, namely for Bitcoin, and I'm sure that it would help to increase it's price, as there is now a way that Bitcoin can remain viable, even in times of supposed crisis.

Or just set up stations in cities everywhere that are connected to this network, and people can optionally have one connected to their house.

[spazzdla]

I'm pretty sure shutting down the internet would cause bigger problems...

This..

without the web the human bubble we have created would come crashing down.. HARD.  BILLIONS would die.

[Zarathustra]

What if someone (governments together with banks) would decide to shut down the Internet?

The governments would not survive. The whole globalized society would not survive. It would implode and disappear within days and weeks. All nuclear plants would spread its nuclear inventory into the atmosphere as soon as the power grids collapse.

[Yakamoto]

What if someone (governments together with banks) would decide to shut down the Internet?

The governments would not survive. The whole globalized society would not survive. It would implode and disappear within days and weeks. All nuclear plants would spread its nuclear inventory into the atmosphere as soon as the power grids collapse.

Do you even know how nuclear reactors work? They have back-up generators, which keep them going for a few days to prevent an accident, and they can be dis-armed/rendered harmless within a day at most.

The power grids would collapse, that's a given. But there is nothing to say nuclear plants will just explode once it goes down.

Things like that don't explode for the sake of exploding. They have massive safety measures in place to help stop meltdowns.

[ivonna]

The Bitcoin network should not depend on the Internet forever. In case of a major Internet failure (caused by wars, natural disasters, corrupt governments, etc) we would become "hostages". There should be a "backup network"  in wich Bitcoin could function. A P2P network seems to be the ideal: It is not impossible (although it seems to be difficult at first) that an independent P2P network is created, to coexist running in parallel with the Internet, but with its own infrastructure.

There's a discussion on this subject here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=666425

P2P, assuming that it doesn't have a centralized system, could also mean that we could be free from the NSA and so, since our communication would go through wires (Hypothetically), making it so they would have to literally have a box on the cable watching data flowing.

I think a P2P internet would be a good idea, namely for Bitcoin, and I'm sure that it would help to increase it's price, as there is now a way that Bitcoin can remain viable, even in times of supposed crisis.

Or just set up stations in cities everywhere that are connected to this network, and people can optionally have one connected to their house.

The internet is P2P and it is decentralized.

[Yakamoto]

The Bitcoin network should not depend on the Internet forever. In case of a major Internet failure (caused by wars, natural disasters, corrupt governments, etc) we would become "hostages". There should be a "backup network"  in wich Bitcoin could function. A P2P network seems to be the ideal: It is not impossible (although it seems to be difficult at first) that an independent P2P network is created, to coexist running in parallel with the Internet, but with its own infrastructure.

There's a discussion on this subject here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=666425

P2P, assuming that it doesn't have a centralized system, could also mean that we could be free from the NSA and so, since our communication would go through wires (Hypothetically), making it so they would have to literally have a box on the cable watching data flowing.

I think a P2P internet would be a good idea, namely for Bitcoin, and I'm sure that it would help to increase it's price, as there is now a way that Bitcoin can remain viable, even in times of supposed crisis.

Or just set up stations in cities everywhere that are connected to this network, and people can optionally have one connected to their house.

The internet is P2P and it is decentralized.

And if you looked at any part of the discussion instead of just posting for re sake of posting, you learn that if THE INTERNET GOES DOWN how would Bitcoin survive.

Chances are you're not going to read this again, so I really question why I'm responding to you. You just walked in, said something, and left.

But what happens if the internet goes down?

And it's not P2P, ISPs and Servers are in the middle of it, meaning it is also centralised. Please get your facts right.

[zadiume]

We will create the Bitnet.

[twiifm]

What if someone (governments together with banks) would decide to shut down the Internet?

The governments would not survive. The whole globalized society would not survive. It would implode and disappear within days and weeks. All nuclear plants would spread its nuclear inventory into the atmosphere as soon as the power grids collapse.

Do you even know how nuclear reactors work? They have back-up generators, which keep them going for a few days to prevent an accident, and they can be dis-armed/rendered harmless within a day at most.

The power grids would collapse, that's a given. But there is nothing to say nuclear plants will just explode once it goes down.

Things like that don't explode for the sake of exploding. They have massive safety measures in place to help stop meltdowns.

What about Fukushima?

[Yakamoto]

What if someone (governments together with banks) would decide to shut down the Internet?

The governments would not survive. The whole globalized society would not survive. It would implode and disappear within days and weeks. All nuclear plants would spread its nuclear inventory into the atmosphere as soon as the power grids collapse.

Do you even know how nuclear reactors work? They have back-up generators, which keep them going for a few days to prevent an accident, and they can be dis-armed/rendered harmless within a day at most.

The power grids would collapse, that's a given. But there is nothing to say nuclear plants will just explode once it goes down.

Things like that don't explode for the sake of exploding. They have massive safety measures in place to help stop meltdowns.

What about Fukushima?

That wasn't from a power grid failure. If you even watched the news, let alone research it, you'd know it was because salt water had crossed over the barriers made to protect the station, and began to cause havoc inside. Stuff got flooded, generators weren't activated (Since they had died) to keep emergency procedures going on, and people didn't do what they were supposed to.

The generators got flooded out while they tried to turn off the cores, which in turn caused a total loss of power (No outside grid, no generators, no cores) and it prevented most of the machines from running, extracting the uranium rods, and tucking them away. Instead, the cooling system was flooded out, rods were left running, and it overheated.

It was the Tsunami, not the grid that caused it to die.

[twiifm]

What if someone (governments together with banks) would decide to shut down the Internet?

The governments would not survive. The whole globalized society would not survive. It would implode and disappear within days and weeks. All nuclear plants would spread its nuclear inventory into the atmosphere as soon as the power grids collapse.

Do you even know how nuclear reactors work? They have back-up generators, which keep them going for a few days to prevent an accident, and they can be dis-armed/rendered harmless within a day at most.

The power grids would collapse, that's a given. But there is nothing to say nuclear plants will just explode once it goes down.

Things like that don't explode for the sake of exploding. They have massive safety measures in place to help stop meltdowns.

What about Fukushima?

That wasn't from a power grid failure. If you even watched the news, let alone research it, you'd know it was because salt water had crossed over the barriers made to protect the station, and began to cause havoc inside. Stuff got flooded, generators weren't activated (Since they had died) to keep emergency procedures going on, and people didn't do what they were supposed to.

The generators got flooded out while they tried to turn off the cores, which in turn caused a total loss of power (No outside grid, no generators, no cores) and it prevented most of the machines from running, extracting the uranium rods, and tucking them away. Instead, the cooling system was flooded out, rods were left running, and it overheated.

It was the Tsunami, not the grid that caused it to die.

The point is even safety measures fail.   I believe they engineered a sea wall in case of tsunami but they didn't build it high enougg

[Yakamoto]

What if someone (governments together with banks) would decide to shut down the Internet?

The governments would not survive. The whole globalized society would not survive. It would implode and disappear within days and weeks. All nuclear plants would spread its nuclear inventory into the atmosphere as soon as the power grids collapse.

Do you even know how nuclear reactors work? They have back-up generators, which keep them going for a few days to prevent an accident, and they can be dis-armed/rendered harmless within a day at most.

The power grids would collapse, that's a given. But there is nothing to say nuclear plants will just explode once it goes down.

Things like that don't explode for the sake of exploding. They have massive safety measures in place to help stop meltdowns.

What about Fukushima?

That wasn't from a power grid failure. If you even watched the news, let alone research it, you'd know it was because salt water had crossed over the barriers made to protect the station, and began to cause havoc inside. Stuff got flooded, generators weren't activated (Since they had died) to keep emergency procedures going on, and people didn't do what they were supposed to.

The generators got flooded out while they tried to turn off the cores, which in turn caused a total loss of power (No outside grid, no generators, no cores) and it prevented most of the machines from running, extracting the uranium rods, and tucking them away. Instead, the cooling system was flooded out, rods were left running, and it overheated.

It was the Tsunami, not the grid that caused it to die.

The point is even safety measures fail.   I believe they engineered a sea wall in case of tsunami but they didn't build it high enougg

They can fail, but they won't fail (Or at least, highly unlikely) that they'll fail if the grid goes down. That was the point of my discussion.

They did have a sea wall, and I think it was something like 2 feet too low (Most likely more than that) and the water overflowed into the plant. So you did get that fact right 

[twiifm]

What if someone (governments together with banks) would decide to shut down the Internet?

The governments would not survive. The whole globalized society would not survive. It would implode and disappear within days and weeks. All nuclear plants would spread its nuclear inventory into the atmosphere as soon as the power grids collapse.

Do you even know how nuclear reactors work? They have back-up generators, which keep them going for a few days to prevent an accident, and they can be dis-armed/rendered harmless within a day at most.

The power grids would collapse, that's a given. But there is nothing to say nuclear plants will just explode once it goes down.

Things like that don't explode for the sake of exploding. They have massive safety measures in place to help stop meltdowns.

What about Fukushima?

That wasn't from a power grid failure. If you even watched the news, let alone research it, you'd know it was because salt water had crossed over the barriers made to protect the station, and began to cause havoc inside. Stuff got flooded, generators weren't activated (Since they had died) to keep emergency procedures going on, and people didn't do what they were supposed to.

The generators got flooded out while they tried to turn off the cores, which in turn caused a total loss of power (No outside grid, no generators, no cores) and it prevented most of the machines from running, extracting the uranium rods, and tucking them away. Instead, the cooling system was flooded out, rods were left running, and it overheated.

It was the Tsunami, not the grid that caused it to die.

The point is even safety measures fail.   I believe they engineered a sea wall in case of tsunami but they didn't build it high enougg

They can fail, but they won't fail (Or at least, highly unlikely) that they'll fail if the grid goes down. That was the point of my discussion.

They did have a sea wall, and I think it was something like 2 feet too low (Most likely more than that) and the water overflowed into the plant. So you did get that fact right 

Erm,  I don't why you being so cocky.   But Fukushima did lose power to the emergency generator and the the backup batteries.   So total loss of power can result in meltdown.

[Yakamoto]

What if someone (governments together with banks) would decide to shut down the Internet?

The governments would not survive. The whole globalized society would not survive. It would implode and disappear within days and weeks. All nuclear plants would spread its nuclear inventory into the atmosphere as soon as the power grids collapse.

Do you even know how nuclear reactors work? They have back-up generators, which keep them going for a few days to prevent an accident, and they can be dis-armed/rendered harmless within a day at most.

The power grids would collapse, that's a given. But there is nothing to say nuclear plants will just explode once it goes down.

Things like that don't explode for the sake of exploding. They have massive safety measures in place to help stop meltdowns.

What about Fukushima?

That wasn't from a power grid failure. If you even watched the news, let alone research it, you'd know it was because salt water had crossed over the barriers made to protect the station, and began to cause havoc inside. Stuff got flooded, generators weren't activated (Since they had died) to keep emergency procedures going on, and people didn't do what they were supposed to.

The generators got flooded out while they tried to turn off the cores, which in turn caused a total loss of power (No outside grid, no generators, no cores) and it prevented most of the machines from running, extracting the uranium rods, and tucking them away. Instead, the cooling system was flooded out, rods were left running, and it overheated.

It was the Tsunami, not the grid that caused it to die.

The point is even safety measures fail.   I believe they engineered a sea wall in case of tsunami but they didn't build it high enougg

They can fail, but they won't fail (Or at least, highly unlikely) that they'll fail if the grid goes down. That was the point of my discussion.

They did have a sea wall, and I think it was something like 2 feet too low (Most likely more than that) and the water overflowed into the plant. So you did get that fact right 

Erm,  I don't why you being so cocky.   But Fukushima did lose power to the emergency generator and the the backup batteries.   So total loss of power can result in meltdown.

Yes... But it wasn't caused by the power grid collapsing. That is what I am try into emphasise; nuclear reactors don't melt down because the external power grid fails, they fail because something went very wrong.

That was literally what I've been trying to explain; nuclear reactors don't just release their radiation into the air if the power grid fails, it had to be influenced by other factors as well.

[sandykho47]

Of course won't survive, or you can use LAN/WLAN 

But, if goverment shutdown. There will be much more bigger problem.
Global Financial Crisis might happen again 
And there are riot to restore internet

[validium]

Of course won't survive, or you can use LAN/WLAN 

But, if goverment shutdown. There will be much more bigger problem.
Global Financial Crisis might happen again 
And there are riot to restore internet

Thats why most governments would rather censor the internet in their respective countries than actually shut it down too much money has been put into it.

[ljudotina]

World will have much larger problem in moment that Internet dies. There are so many important data, so many important services depending on Internet communication, that would make your lives pretty.....complicated.

[painlord2k]

What about Fukushima?

Fukushima?
Where no one died because of radiation and no one got exposed to any harmful amount of radiation?
Dead: 2 drowned when the wave overcome the protective wall (9-12 m wave against 6 meters wall). One got a stroke a month later for overworking at the central.
Poisoned by radiation: zero
Old people killed because they was rushed away from their homes, hospitals?
"Families want answers after 45 people die following evacuation from Fukushima hospital". Mainichi Daily News. 26 http://mdn.mainichi.jp/features/archive/news/2011/04/20110426p2a00m0na006000c.html

Boys, when your coast is hit by a 9-12 m high wave from a tsunami, a nuclear reactor going critical is the last of your problems.
Japan had something like 10K dead in a hour, many other after and a lot of people without homes and jobs; not to talk about chemical factories, oil refineries, etc. leaking any type of chemical poison known and unknown.

The problem is not switching off internet, it is keeping it switched off not locally but globally.

You could have an AM radio signal broadcasting, globally, transactions and the blockchain.
You could have satellite broadcasting the transactions and the blockchain
You could have the DVB-T/S/C broadcasting transactions and the blockchain.
You could have wi-fi and wired ethernet networks to broadcast transactions and the blockchain.
You could have analog modems do it.