Is this the biggest threat to BTC?

[cafucafucafu]

Governments making their own blockchains. They are already thinking about it and will want to get all the benefits of BTC while having their own currency. SO e.g. the dollar will become digital with its own blockchain.

Do you think this is a real threat?

[chenka563]

no people will use that so that BTC will be safe!

[DannyHamilton]

Do you think this is a real threat?

No.

There is no benefit to a government to publish their own blockchain completely under their control.

If they want a digital currency, they can do so in a centralized way. Doing so has no need of a blockchain at all.

The purpose of the blockchain is to provide a decentralized consensus among the users.

[cafucafucafu]

Do you think this is a real threat?

No.

There is no benefit to a government to publish their own blockchain completely under their control.

If they want a digital currency, they can do so in a centralized way. Doing so has no need of a blockchain at all.

The purpose of the blockchain is to provide a decentralized consensus among the users.

Limiting fraud is a benefit.

[Mr Crabs]

Are alt coins a big threat to bitcoin? Not really. Maybe they would be if they can offer something much better or get more people to use them, but they don't. I think btc is safe from governments this way.

[Beliathon]

Maybe they would be if they can offer something much better...

Even then, altcoins still wouldn't be a threat. Bitcoin is organic, evolving software.

I'll let Garzik explain. You should also read this: http://trilema.com/2014/the-woes-of-altcoin-or-why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-cryptocurrencies/
 

[drrussellshane]

Do you think this is a real threat?

No.

There is no benefit to a government to publish their own blockchain completely under their control.

If they want a digital currency, they can do so in a centralized way. Doing so has no need of a blockchain at all.

The purpose of the blockchain is to provide a decentralized consensus among the users.

Limiting fraud is a benefit.

Not for the fraudsters.

[Beliathon]

Not for the fraudsters.

Always surprises me how many people, in 2014, STILL haven't figured out that governments and their banksters pals are fraudsters.

[cafucafucafu]

Are alt coins a big threat to bitcoin?

Alt coins are not government backed. A national digital coin would be a greater incentive for the masses.

[DannyHamilton]

Are alt coins a big threat to bitcoin?

Alt coins are not government backed. A national digital coin would be a greater incentive for the masses.

But a national digital coin does not require a blockchain.

As I said, there is no benefit to a government to implement their own blockchain.

[RodeoX]

No threat at all. A coin that is controlled by the government and can only be used in one country vs. Bitcoin? No threat at all.

[DannyHamilton]

There is no benefit to a government to publish their own blockchain completely under their control.

If they want a digital currency, they can do so in a centralized way. Doing so has no need of a blockchain at all.

The purpose of the blockchain is to provide a decentralized consensus among the users.

Limiting fraud is a benefit.

There is nothing about a blockchain that makes it easier for a government to prevent the fraud of others.

The only thing a blockchain does is take control of the currency away from the creator.

[cafucafucafu]

There is no benefit to a government to publish their own blockchain completely under their control.

If they want a digital currency, they can do so in a centralized way. Doing so has no need of a blockchain at all.

The purpose of the blockchain is to provide a decentralized consensus among the users.

Limiting fraud is a benefit.

There is nothing about a blockchain that makes it easier for a government to prevent the fraud of others.

It stops counterfeit money.

[ruletheworld]

There is no benefit to a government to publish their own blockchain completely under their control.

If they want a digital currency, they can do so in a centralized way. Doing so has no need of a blockchain at all.

The purpose of the blockchain is to provide a decentralized consensus among the users.

Limiting fraud is a benefit.

There is nothing about a blockchain that makes it easier for a government to prevent the fraud of others.

It stops counterfeit money.

Any centralized digital ledger would do the same, there is absolutely no need for a blockchain. In fact, a blockchain would be a terrible misuse of computing resources for a government to implement their version of a digital currency.

[DannyHamilton]

There is no benefit to a government to publish their own blockchain completely under their control.

If they want a digital currency, they can do so in a centralized way. Doing so has no need of a blockchain at all.

The purpose of the blockchain is to provide a decentralized consensus among the users.

Limiting fraud is a benefit.

There is nothing about a blockchain that makes it easier for a government to prevent the fraud of others.

It stops counterfeit money.

You aren't paying attention.

The purpose of a blockchain is to establish a decentralized consensus.

A government operated digital currency has no use for decentralized consensus.

A centralized digital currency without a blockchain stops counterfeit money just as well as a blockchain based one.

Please take some time to learn a bit and ask some reasonable questions before making assumptions about things you don't understand.

I won't be repeating this again here.