Shutting down Bitcoin would be a simply matter of throwing some money at the problem. Shutting down Citibank would require a legal fight. I think both of these scenarios are very, very far-fetched, but based on the track record, I would believe my money to be safer at Citibank than in Bitcoin (and of course that's assuming I have round-the-clock armed guards protecting my keys--the reality is that most rely on an institution that is smaller and far less safe than Citibank to hold their keys).


Why should I use bricks to build my house instead of just wood?  After all, you can break both.  

[/quote]

As I said above, Bitcoin is, as a whole, probably easier to attack than a large American bank. And in the average reality of a typical holder of Bitcoin, mostly a LOT easier since it could be some sketchy broker--or worse, somebody doing something stupid with their private keys like putting them on their iPhone with a password.


Yeah, getting into a direct fight with the world's governments doesn't sound like a good long range strategy to me. I would never invest in Monera for that reason. Even a medium-sized government could shut them off if they wanted to, and they wouldn't need a court order to do it and in fact nobody could do anything about it.


The minute you trade Bitcoin for anything actually tangible or for a sovereign currency, you are in the same position.


Here's a handy chart:

Haypenny currencies: Protected from criminals, marketers, your snooping friends, and hackers; not protected from a valid government subpoena.

Monera: Protected from everybody.

Bitcoin: Open to criminals, marketers, your snooping friends, hackers AND governments even without a subpoena.

If you fear government prosecution you have to use Monera or something like it. You basically have no choice.

You are far better off using a Haypenny currency from a privacy perspective than you are with Bitcoin in either case.

What "immutable laws of math and physics" is stopping the CCP from ordering some of its people to take over the hashrate of Bitcoin and thus take control of it? That's all it would take to annihilate Bitcoin and every block it stores. 


I believe the comparison to an American bank is flawed.  Unlike a bank, which readily shares identifiable information with the government upon request, you operate as a company issuing custom currencies.  If these currencies facilitate anonymous transactions beyond your tracking capabilities, you're essentially conducting operations beyond the government's oversight.  Eventually, you'll be viewed as enemy to them, and if that happens... bye-bye Haypenny.   
[/quote]

Correct. Haypenny is analogous to a cryptocurrency in this regard since we merely supply the transaction mechanism and we don't take in US dollars etc.

And we offer the government tracking of transactions from point A to point B, similar (and probably much more precisely) than what you'd get using chain analysis on Bitcoin. If the government wanted to track a transactions, there would be two end points we would supply them and then they would subpoena those endpoints and have their suspect.

Overall, using Haypenny to do a crime would be about as smart as using GMail to discuss a crime with your fellow criminals with pseudonyms. Maybe some are stupid enough to use GMail like that, but they'd be caught pretty quick. (And Haypenny also tracks IPs and VPN companies are in the same boat we are in e.g. they can be subpoenaed to find the real IPs etc. so again, criminals would be really stupid to try to use Haypenny to do crime).

Right now there's a heated debate about miners needing to pay an extra tax in another thread here. Who are these miners? Oh that's right, they are readily identifiable individuals. If the government could target them they could target any blockchain network. I think we're talking about relative doomsday scenarios--governments aren't going to shut down either of us--but ultimately there's nothing especially "government-proof" about Bitcoin or any human invention. Fighting governments will always be a losing proposition no matter what--the only way to keep yourself safe is to vote (and support democracies over dictatorships).

Yep. A court order could also shut down Citibank, Apple, and McDonald's. It's the world we live in, I guess.

But a rogue state with billions of dollars couldn't shut down any of those.

Both have different risks. I've kept my money at a major bank since I was a teenager and they were never shut down by the government, and their database never lost my account information. I guess I trust it.

I'd trust Bitcoin too, don't get me wrong. I think both will be fine.



Haypenny operates without requiring identification from its users, yet they can still be identified through a subpoena.  Now that's confusing. 
[/quote]

It's the same situation as Bitcoin: Bitcoin's public ledger itself doesn't tell you anything, but you can do chain analysis to essentially triangulate where transactions came from and went. At the end of the transaction chain there's some broker who does KYC, etc.

Put it another way, Haypenny currencies are like Bitcoin but without mixers (and you need a valid court ordered subpoena to look at somebody's private transactions vs. with Bitcoin any criminal with a web browser can do it).

I agree that Bitcoin won't die, but rather it will go the way of the IBM mainframe: still a big business, but not the "mainstream" thing like it was.

Bitcoin not the last word in digital currencies, it's just the beginning.

That sounds... exactly like the old IBM to me . Also, IBM was the most valuable company in the world for a while and absolutely everybody thought they would stay that way forever.

Can you cite a recent (viz. the last 20 years) example of where an American bank lost somebody's money? I simply haven't ever heard of such a thing.

Of course even if there were sparse issues, you'd have to compare that to the relative safety of people keeping their wealth on their own person. I can absolutely give you thousands of examples of people losing their cash, commodities, crypto, and everything else through theft, misplacement, and so on.

On a theoretical level, absolutely no store of wealth is "absolutely safe", and there's some identifiable risk no matter what you do.

But keeping your money in a typical American bank (just keeping this domestic as an example) is, statistically speaking, thousands of times safer than the alternatives.

And again--I'm a broken record on this--but almost all holders of Bitcoin do so through a broker or an app. Most consumers don't want to hold their major assets (as opposed to minor cash) in their own person.



Well, we are in the exact same boat as Ether and all of the other non-decentralized cryptos, and in the same boat as the identifiable Bitcoin mining companies (e.g. almost all of them). I guess some governments could come after all of us, but they are thus far focusing on the brokerage endpoints, which is very effective and gives them everything they need. There's simply no reason for them to shut down the transfer mechanism insofar as they can get at the graph in the middle, which they can.

I mean, sure, "anything is possible", but the focus on mixers tells me that they are only worried about the transfer graph being hidden from them because with that they can figure out the rest. And again, for Haypenny currencies, the graph is not hidden from governments with valid subpoenas, but only hidden from criminals and marketers and the public.

Apologies for the delayed response.  I wasn't referring to losing deposits entirely.  I meant losing them gradually over time due to decrease in purchasing power. 


"Everything they need" refers to Know Your Customer, which you don't require currently.  If governments could somehow enforce this requirement on cryptocurrencies, rest assured they would have done so.  It's just that cryptocurrencies are decentralized and thus beyond their reach, unlike Haypenny, which is precisely the point I'm emphasizing.  You can be easily shut down, whereas cryptocurrencies cannot.  It's as straightforward as that. 

The fight is not against Bitcoin or Blockchain but against privacy because the authorities want to see everything and everyone clearly in regards to what they have and how they are moving it. Mixers and every other thing that makes this task difficult for them is an enemy that must be taken down. As expected, they will not take them down without making them look evil to gain public sympathy that is why they link all manner of crimes to privacy systems just to take them down. After mixers and other privacy systems have been taken out, this will be like there was never a crackdown because they would have succeed in getting every information they needed to establish full regulation. 

They are targeting mixers (not Monero) because they represent centralized points of failure that can be easily shut down.  Monero, being decentralized, is what distinguishes it yet again.  They are delisting it from major exchanges.  The price only goes down a little bit, but the network keeps on going strong. 


No, you're not.  You're similar to a mixer, with the key difference that you would cooperate with authorities if they ask.  Your customers can use Haypenny anonymously (through Tor), but it may not be long before authorities request you to enforce Know Your Customer (KYC) during user registration. 


Lmao.  It's no surprise you're not into Bitcoin. 

Sure, you would never do that: 



You're quite similar to Ethereum, especially considering Ethereum's centralized nature.  There have been instances of frozen accounts in the past, and now it operates on a Proof-of-Stake system, which is inherently centralized. 

The government doesn't require Ethereum developers to enforce KYC because it's not practically feasible, and also because there's a level of decentralization preventing such actions.  However, in your situation, it's entirely feasible to implement KYC measures.  I think you even fall under the category of a money transmitting business according to the current laws. 


No.  It's because you fail to acknowledge that the real criminals are the ones sitting in government offices, dressed in fine suits, making decisions that can affect the entire economy.

You're probably leaning towards a statist viewpoint, that's why you don't understand it.