Lol hfsp 😅

Governments have already tried banning bitcoin. And failed. China, famously, like 19 times or something.

Up forever Lyn

They’re making the case themselves. Confessing that it would be pushed to a black market is admitting that governments can’t ban it, they can only ban themselves from using it.

I will explain to him sha-256 and the significance of it. And how it's unhakable because of its algorithm. And I'll tell it's Unconfiscatable. And if or when quantum computer breaks sha-256 which it's virtually impossible we will switch to sha-512 algorithm and continue being self sovereign

Government banning bitcoin is the biggest advertisement for Bitcoin

Quantum mining?

Quantum computing will ask bring about quantum encryption and a new hard fork to the industry standard must be applied

I don't disagree with them. Banning it is a revealing your cards moment. It begs the question, "why are governments banning it?" Governments will likely have a story for their ban, it's going to be a grassroots job to educate and explain that the most probable reason they are banning it is because it takes power away from them, and gives it back to individuals. It doesn't transfer the power to a new overlord, it removes the overlord altogether. At the same time we will have to explain how a ban on information will not work, just the same as a ban on a plant doesn't work. The seeds are out there. It may stiffle adoption or slow the pace, but it will not prevent it. Along with that, it will be seen as an opportunity by states that aren't aligned with the major governments to grab power, and nobody can stop them. Countries can silently and slowly adopt Bitcoin by simply mining it. If a few small counties make this known, it may spread and show the true value of Bitcoin and in turn encourage a black market in banned localities.

*also

🐢 Temporal mechanics are very good to implore for the quantum leap into the temporal. Many of those turtle maintenance guys are coming back home.

there is a quantum update to sha 512 coming before 2026 i believe

There is no second best Laura

Steelman is the only way you can be truly intellectually honest. It's "I see what you're getting at" and not trying to just address a less-than-articulate argument because it's easier to defeat. You go the hard road because that's the way you get TO truth. And truth is way more important than winning. I would offer up the decentralized nature of Bitcoin as evidence of it being resilient against nation states. And how Bitcoin miners can band together to improve cryptography in the presence of quantum computing. New tech goes both ways.

Temporal encryption is by design when intelligence as beauty is in the mind of the beholder. , a causal mirror of time with no other. So apes given since dawn of time to hold tight, learned to decode their temporal encryption to make sense of the chaos of time. Man evolved into this to get the point. #mainvolume

1. I would argue that Bitcoin is simply codifying property rights. If major governments attacked it, that would only serve to prove that their nature is authoritarian. Under that regime, black markets would grow and Bitcoin could actually gain traction. Also, due to its global nature, it would be difficult to effectively ban it for a sustain period of time. 2. If quantum computing advanced to the point of threatening Bitcoin, it would first threaten other weaker security models. Bank encryption could be targeted first, forcing updates to encryption that would be effectively quantum resistant. Bitcoin would eventually be soft forked to upgrade to modern security needs.

I’m afraid acceptance is due. Http is the greatest quantum encryption there is.

If quantum explodes and breaks SHA faster than bitcoin can switch to a resistant algo, then bitcoin will be the least of our worries. The world runs on SHA. To me, this line of reasoning is similar to the “what happens when they shut down the internet or cut off the power forever” crowd (which yes they exist).

1). Coordinated government seizure by the US and its mortal enemies of a half-trillion market cap asset seems unlikely. I’ll take that bet, anyway. 2). Why would a quantum computer want to attack the Bitcoin network? What is the incentive? Many other vital systems would likely be laid to waste first. Also, couldn’t smart people develop quantum encryption?

Quantum temporal encryption 🐲 Ities be like whaaat?’

steelman arguments require you to commit to critical thinking and humility, two things which are fairly painful for most of us... and I include myself in that group TBH

On the government outlawing Bitcoin they havent had a good track record on stopping people from drinking alcohol during prohibition and effectively lost the war on drugs. If people want something, its in their nature to find a way to get it. Paraphrasing Princess Leia. . . the more the governments tighten their grasp, the more plebs that slip through their fingers. Confidence in governments has eroded over time, and their currencies the same. While still on the fringe, people have been using alternative transferrable value for a long time in the form of phone minutes, gift cards, cigarettes. A CBDC currency wont reduce that any more than digital dollars have. As long as people can have physical goods and meet in person or communicate privately they will be able to perform commerce out of band of government control whether its legal or not.

Maybe I’m confused by the replies. But my steel man argument #1 If the government bans bitcoin in the US, it would not be a viable medium of exchange because businesses would never accept it for payments as they rely on the government for permission to operate. Government would also make on and off ramps illegal, effectively making it useless inside the US for anyone not tech inclined enough to use a kludgey and illegal workaround. The average American is not used to dealing on the black market regularly like many people in other countries. If the US wants to affect Bitcoin in other countries, they can exert influence through the IMF, trade deals, or bombs. Ergo, Bitcoin is a risky investment. I think that’s how most of these people are rationalizing it.

I can definitely see them at least trying to ban it. Some countries, China for example, have already tried numerous times. I guess it's even theoretically possible to see all the countries join hands in issuing an international ban or crippling restrictions on using it. Possibly using some crisis in order to push through a global mandate against using it. But if they really wanted to avoid entanglements they could accomplish this indirectly by appealing to everyone's insecurities. They wouldn't even need to address it by banning Bitcoin directly but instead focus all their energy on introducing a "better alternative" and demonstrating how they think it addresses the problems being created by the aforementioned crisis. They would then top that off by putting a carrot on a stick by offering people a starting out stack of their new currency. Many people love the idea of "free money" so I can see people falling all over themselves to adopt this currency over Bitcoin, thus preventing a need to overtly ban it. And if the new currency has no advertised restrictions all the better. And of course, we wouldn't have any reason to distrust these hand-holding governments either.

Scenario 1: Governments Outlawing Bitcoin Opposing Argument: Major governments will outlaw Bitcoin, driving it into the black market and replacing it with state-backed digital currency, rendering Bitcoin irrelevant. Steelman Argument: It's true that the regulatory environment is an ever-present concern for decentralized digital assets like Bitcoin. Governments could indeed exert pressure through regulations or even outright bans. However, Bitcoin's decentralized nature makes it resistant to control by any single government. While certain jurisdictions may limit or ban Bitcoin, it might thrive in others that see the strategic or economic advantages of a decentralized currency. Furthermore, the technical and philosophical underpinnings of Bitcoin mean it could continue to operate as a store of value or medium of exchange even if driven underground in certain areas. It may even stimulate innovation in privacy and decentralized finance, leading to more resilient and adaptive systems. Scenario 2: Quantum Computing Threat to Bitcoin Opposing Argument: Rapid advancements in superconductors and quantum computing might threaten Bitcoin's security sooner than anticipated, making it an unwise investment. Steelman Argument: Quantum computing indeed represents a theoretical risk to Bitcoin, particularly concerning its public-key cryptography. If large-scale quantum computers become a reality, they might be able to break the cryptographic algorithms currently used in the Bitcoin network. However, the cryptographic community is actively researching post-quantum cryptography, and algorithms resistant to quantum attacks are under development. Furthermore, the Bitcoin protocol is not static; it can be updated to include quantum-resistant algorithms as the technology approaches practical viability. Transitioning to new cryptographic algorithms would be complex but not necessarily infeasible. While the threat is not to be dismissed, the collective interest in maintaining Bitcoin's security and the ability to adapt the protocol provide some measure of confidence in its resilience against this evolving technological landscape.

For the first one the War on Drugs or frankly the War on X proves that governments are incompetent at actually enforcing contraband. Factor in the fact that people will be driven by the primal instinct to protect the future of their children versus momentary pleasure of drugs or prostitution and I think that makes it even more futile. For the second one I’m not an expert but I imagine that there is a solution by making even stronger encryption that makes quantum attacks too expensive

Any thoughts on if quantum computing is a reality, what might be done to prevent known public keys from being cracked?

Steelman argument for the first point: That is a valid concern and reflects the reality of the regulatory risks associated with cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. However, one of Bitcoin's key strengths lies in its decentralized and global nature. The enforcement of a ban by one or even several governments would not make it vanish, as there would still be other nations that accept and use Bitcoin. Moreover, significant countries banning Bitcoin could potentially drive innovation in more privacy-centric cryptocurrencies and in decentralized exchanges. Lastly, Bitcoin's scarcity and non-confiscability give it a distinct advantage over government-issued digital currencies, which are more likely to be inflationary and subject to control. Steelman argument for the second point: You're right to highlight the potential risk quantum computing poses to Bitcoin's security. Current cryptographic standards are indeed vulnerable to quantum attacks. However, the Bitcoin community is aware of these risks, and there are active research and development efforts to implement post-quantum cryptographic algorithms when the threat becomes imminent. It's important to remember that a functional quantum computer capable of breaking Bitcoin's encryption is still considered to be a significant time away, which gives the community ample time to adapt. Additionally, quantum computing also poses a threat to all systems that rely on modern cryptography, not just Bitcoin, which makes it a broader technological issue.

concerning governments banning bitcoin i would reference the stunning successes of the war on drugs and banning music and film torrents. governments eventually had to accommodate what the free market wanted in the form decriminalizing/legalizing drugs or making legal version of torrents in the form streaming services. however, they were never able to ban drugs or torrents completely. in fact, with failed attempts at retail cannabis being overpriced and inferior quality still makes the black market necessary. and with streaming services shrinking their libraries as well as increasing prices, people are starting to return to torrents. bitcoin can’t be banned completely. concerning quantum computers, i thought you made a great argument before: do serious investors in oil ask if the heat death of the universe is a valid concern for investing in oil? the heat death of the universe and quantum computing are both concerns but they are not a concern in our lifetime.

A steel man for a government capture: The government doesn’t even need to aggressively ban Bitcoin. Gentle, well-meaning regulatory clarity can accomplish the same thing just fine... Financial regulators can just give “guidelines” that bitcoin addresses need to be tied to identities to distinguish “legitimate bitcoin” from “black market bitcoin.” They already know from KYC who owns a lot of the addresses. They could require all wallets approved on platforms like iOS and Google Play build in a function with ID that signs a message from each address regularly. They will have a long, generous leniency for people to come forward and ID their addresses and they will be allowed to cash in on bitcion’s rising value and spend freely, while a few high profile cases of people who use black market bitcoin that has been “laundered” in coin-joins are prosecuted and their transactions will be linked to awful stuff like human trafficking and terrorism. Most people want to live, peaceful law-abiding lives, and a vast majority of bitcoin holders will comply and get wealthy rather than risk jail and social stigma. All the big energy companies that run the mining sector will eventually be required to only mine blocks from legal ID-verified addresses. Sure, there will still be a few anonymous pirate miners that will occasionally mine blocks with transactions from unverified addresses, but that will be rare so it will become increasingly difficult to even use the chain with “black market bitcoin.” While there are cypherpunk work-arounds that can keep an underground circular black market economy going with the coins minority that haven’t been captured that economy will be tiny and suspect, while the rest of world will hyper-bitcionize the “safe and legal” way. The governments of the world will be clear that bitcoin is an asset and not a currency, so they will regulate away the ability earn it directly or use it to buy things directly. Legally you save in bitcoin and then trade it for fiat when you need it. While the legal bitcoiners are getting rich and the increasingly few cypherpunk bitcoiners are being ostracized and demonized, the governments of the world will HODL. Increasingly the bitcoin reserves will back the fiat currency, so that no one will doubt that fiat has value. Just like they did on the gold standard they will create more fiat than the asset backing it so that the “satoshi value” of each CBDC dollar will slip over time, but at first they will be careful with this so the CBDC feels like it has real solid value. Then an emergency like a war or an economic crisis hits after Bitcoin is already neutered, so when major governments of the world issue a 6102-like order demanding that all bitcoin be turned over to the treasury for “safe keeping” everyone will comply. They will get lots of valuable fiat in return and all the freedom tech power of bitcoin gradually eroded so long ago they might not even remember that bitcoin once had these properties. After that the main chain becomes the property of central banks, and we are all back on fiat because the bitcoin standard failed the same way the gold standard did. Sure there will still be a few criminals and bitcoin bugs that have a couple hundred thousand BTC outside the system, but they will be irrelevant. This seems like a possible steel man for how they could “ban” bitcoin very gradually over a generation or so. Maybe the bitcoin underground would win in the end after the central banks ruin the bitcoin standard like they ruined the gold standard, or maybe cypherpunks would just spin up another currency because the bitcoin chain as as freedom tech was dead. Either way in this scenario freedom money “winning” would take so long that it won’t happen in my lifetime and likely not even my grandchildren’s lifetime.

I’m just so glad we have people as patient as you to fight these battles cos honestly my immediate response is ‘come at me bro’. Convincing people they need saving is hard work.

Governments can’t outlaw mathematics before mathematics . Bitcoin can abolish governments. It is an organic development.

Point 2: Decentralized consensus on how to proceed takes time. The chain will halt and need to be snapshotted in a temper resistent way. Courses on centralized hubs will crash. Mining hardware will become useless forever and miners immediately lose their source of income. Different people will lobby for solutions that fit to their capabilities. Modifying code in chaotic and stressful circumstances may lead to bugs that get exploited later without being noticed long enough so that snapshots will not be an option.

Scarce and decentralized global asset via an extremely large network.

The best attack would be to give people the illusion of bitcoin but to take away everything good about it. Here’s how the government could mess with bitcoin: 1) promote bitcoin ETFs to discourage people from holding their own keys and keep them trapped in the financial system 2) force all self hosted wallets to register under FBAR and to provide their tax ID and xpub so the govt could monitor all transactions 3) ban all transactions with unregistered wallets with extreme penalties. Banks and app providers would use a govt issued API to check if a wallet address were registered 4) manipulate the bitcoin price using paper bitcoin, the way that they did with gold.

Government ban and supercomputing risk are valid steelman arguments but I would suggest the following as a stronger steelman argument: “Currently, the acceptance of #Bitcoin to purchase goods and services in every day situations is extremely low. As such, even though holding #BTC is a good place to park your money. It wouldn’t be very liquid in a situation in which you couldn’t not exchange your bitcoins for fiat. As such, Bitcoin isn’t a good hedge against government ability to restrict individuals from using fiat or #CBDC.” What would you respond to this steelman argument?

This is how bitcoin dies: * They support savers by maintaining a real interest rate * Women in Afghanistan are allowed to open bank accounts, so they no longer need bitcoin * CBDC becomes a bearer asset that allows confidential transactions * Responsible fiscal policy via reduction in military spending * ... They never ban bitcoin, instead they give you less reasons to use it. It also becomes less volatile and "trendy". Institutions can get bitcoin exposure to paper bitcoin. The paper bitcoin is backed one to one and there is never any rehypothecation on it. This disincentivizes self-custody and self-verification further. This is my steelman. It is possible, but very unlikely.

Great questions. I will need to re-read / read some books on economics, bitcoin & quantum computing to come up with a steelman argument.

1. Polarity, governments all around the world will not act in unison. Then game theory. 2. We have bigger challenges if quantum were to arrive. But also technology is a knife, so Bitcoin could benefit from it.

steel man sounds like arguing with yourself, but with extra steps. some people just want to watch the strawman burn

Government key arguments for preventing Bitcoin from being a legal currency: 1. How will government protect society (fund the military) without being able to print cash? 2. How will government smooth out recessions and exuberance without ability to adjust interest rates or print cash? Arguments for Bitcoin: 1. If there is no will bet the people, governments should not be able to find war/military. If the reason is justified, people will lend the government the funds and join the military. 2. Smoothing out market turbulence actually delays needed adjustment ensuring inefficiency that can have lasting negative impacts on society. US President Warren G Harding was a free market advocate and oversaw the forgotten 1920-21 depression because it was short and did not intervene meaningfully - the right approach.

We are in a transition for good, but - hold on and read this short story if you are in a state of coin tunnel vision: “The Circle of 99” by Jorge Bucay

Book, Tea, and Sympathy

“The Circle of 99” by Jorge Bucay

Once upon a time, there was a big king, powerful and immensely rich but also very unhappy. This sad king had a very happy servant. The servant was ...

What would yours be?

I don't know enough about the advancement of technology to give a view on #2. And on #1: I am convinced we are heading for a time when you can't transact "legally" withouth your digital id/cbdc. What I don't know is whether we arrive at that time before bitcoin succeeds or after it fails.

#1: Regardless of #Bitcoin adoption, the only way to overcome almost infinite government power is to patiently await the consequences of their actions (staying humble and stacking sats). Every time governments print money and further restrict freedoms, more people get involved, and their attitudes toward the government change. Even if they were to ban Bitcoin, individuals who previously disregarded it would begin to question the situation. The most effective strategy for them to prolong their existence is to avoid resistance altogether. The more they resist, the closer they come to their downfall.

Quantum vaporware lol. Not one elliptic curve private key has ever been derived from its public key. Not even after literally billions of dollars and yottawatts of cooling. Why does anyone think that just because schnorr's algorithm seems to be solvable with Qbits, that nobody has yet demonstrated a fast reversal of the one-way transformation from 32 byte private key to 33 byte (1 extra bit actually) public key. Not one. Not even a small example with smaller keys, like even 32 bit keys. Yes of course there is elliptic curve numbers in 32 bits, and solving one should take average 2 million attempts by brute force. Just to show us that done in 1 million attempts or better. Nope. Vaporware.

What are your responses Lynn? I’d love to hear them .

1. Bitcoin acts on the individual layer, thats why its hard for and institution as the state to ban it. Most likely, they'll have "registered" UTXOs, the other ones will not be accepted anywhere (2. dont know/care yet)

This is why all the Number-Go-Up people who want bitcoin adoption without freedom tech are suspect. I know its taboo to trust 3rd parties, but without @ODELL out here leading the charge for bitcoin freedom tech I’m not sure I’d be confident in bitcoin’s future.

Unsure on Quantum as I'm not tech enough. I do know however that if they cn break bitcoin with it, there are also serious considerations for the wider world. ( Banking, Nuke codes etc ) For banning.... I'd suggest all that is possible, however, it is the overreach of government and draconian laws that gives bitcoin its value. In a world where governments are benevolent, bitcoin isn't needed at all. It is the tyranny that makes bitcoin needed. The more tyrannical the environment, the more a neutral, immutable and uncensorable money is needed. This actually makes the governance process within bitcoin essential to preserve.

1) Bitcoin is the cockroach of moneys. It can't be killed so long as there are ride or die bitcoiners anywhere in the world to keep it going. I think we have surpassed this threshold some time ago. In the past year we have seen rapidly accelerating adoption in Nigeria and India, two of the most populous and important countries in the non-western world. This trend will continue everywhere in the world that suffers from authoritarian fiat currency regimes in direct proportion to the level of monetary authoritarianism imposed on their populace. Eventually the trend will become obvious even to those with their heads in the sand. Furthermore, the game theory of bitcoin adoption will eventually divide any coalition of governments that forms to oppose bitcoin. Let's assume for argument's sake that China and the USA manage to put aside their differences and declare jihad on bitcoin (highly unlikely but this is a steel man after all). Meanwhile the rest of the world is steadily orange pilled from the bottom up and begins to actualize the massive benefits of adopting a common, neutral, global standard currency. China and the USA both start to see their global influence decline. The first one to break with the coalition and join team bitcoin will gain a big advantage over their rival. How long do you think an arrangement like this can remain stable? Not long IMO. The same game theory applies to any coalition, whether it be Western states, Eastern authoritarian regimes, or any combination thereof. The cockroaches will inherit the earth. 🌍👨‍🚀🔫👨‍🚀 2) Bitcoin is people. I think of bitcoin as a superorganism exactly like an ant colony, or perhaps a nest of cyberhornets. Each individual is incentivized to flock with the swarm. Ants that wander away from the colony are doomed to certain death. Bitcoin nodes that support an incompatible set of consensus rules get forked off and their coins lose value, trending to 0. Bitcoin's strength is it's resilience in the face of any threat. Bitcoiners implicitly understand and perpetuate this strength through the cultural value of intransigence. It is nearly impossible to move the entire superorganism in a direction that is harmful to the whole. By the same token, if an existential threat such as quantum computing were to arise then bitcoiners would immediately rally to update the protocol to protect against this new threat. There are a number of quantum resistant cryptographic signature schemes. Bitcoin developers (including many (most?) of the smartest and most accomplished cryptographers and distributed consensus experts in the world) need only rally around quantum resistance as the most important thing to work on and you'll be wowed at how quickly we can adopt a consensus change. People think consensus changes only ever get more difficult because they spend all day embroiled in twitter debates. I think the block size war illustrates otherwise. In the face of an existential threat the swarm will react as one to protect itself. If there is dissent from within, those individuals can and will be forked off and left for dead. Again, the game theory wins out in the end. As an individual cyberhornet, I don't necessarily need to be on the winning side of any fork debate. My UTXOs will exist on both chains after any fork so I can HODL, wait and see, allow the betting market that is the price of bitcoin determine the winner. I am protected so long as I flock with the swarm. This is the way to a more free and fair future for all humans and their progeny. Cyberhornets don't fuck around. We don't compromise. We stick together. And this is why we will win. Have fun staying poor.

Related concept: Principle of Charity.

Principle of charity - Wikipedia

Geopolitical arbitrage is why bitcoin can't be killed. The only chance at taking down bitcoin is if every country takes aggressive coordinated action at once, and even then it might not succeed in stopping bitcoin's use, or it might only halt it for a limited time.

To the first scenario my steelman argument is: If that happens, you're right, bitcoin will be relegated to the fringe. And so will all our human rights. Bitcoin will be the least of your problems. You will be choosing between the docile acceptance of living in Orwell's 1984, or joining an underground resistance group. There will be no middle ground.

If someone were to argue - You're wasting your time with Nostr. Governments are not going to allow social networks they can't censor. If enough people start using it they will declare the Nostr protocol a threat to national security and any use of it punishable by 10 years in prison. What's your steelman argument to that?

My knowledge on quantum computing is surface level, at best. So, sorry if some of what I'm about to say may sound somewhat uninformed. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But, given what I do know, one could possibly argue that Bitcoin will assist in the advancement of quantum computing due to how energy intensive it currently is. Bitcoin mining may be seen as an efficient source of energy. 🤷‍♂️

1: even China was not able to completely ban Bitcoin 2: superconductors on room temp, if something sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't

It speaks volumes that any person,group,or organization would take time to address the real concerns even those thier opponents had not though of. Sorry to say the current and immediate past take ad hominem, straw men, and identity politics as a given.

Lyn ils sont tous dessus sur le quantique, dessus quelques essais réussis en Europe, beaucoup de financeurs se sont mobilisés dessus et lIA lorsque nous avons été enfermés d'office, ce fut un booster dans ces deux domaines . Pendant que certains systèmes de pensées ont été occupés par l'immédiatété des infos relatives à la pandémie...Pour le Bitcoin je ne saurais pas trop m'avancer là dessus mais le côté non sécure //quantique probabilité forte👏🙏💜⚡

Hashing remains safe even if we have quantum computers and since bitcoin addresses are hashed money is still safe. This will buy some time to upgrade bitcoin, currently some methods using just hashing alone could be implemented though they suck compared to elegant Schnorr signatures. So quantum would be a crippling blow to bitcoin, but it would survive in some form. Ethereum on the other hand has naked private keys and is toast.

Naked public keys ...

History serves a purpose. When the Romans ruled over Jerusalem & imposed their laws and currency, the Jews continued with the shekel, and built a robust economy that outlived the occupying invaders. Bitcoin is the shekel of the 21st century. Quantum computers, like all duality systems, will also advance the security of Bitcoin.

Lyn wants steelman arguments *for the other side*, not this

Does holding the keys equate to owning & using what it gives access to?

You've provided an *answer* to the other person's argument. Lyn is looking for *stronger versions* (steelmen) of the other person's argument.

Lyn wants steelman arguments *for the other side.* You did not provide that.

If governments could stop Bitcoin by banning it, they didn't need to wait 14 years to do so. Also Quantum computing could be a much bigger risk for nation states than attacking Bitcoin network. There is much more to be worried about like nuclear codes. Bitcoin can be Quantum proof if need be.

Scenario 1: The argument: "Yeah Bitcoin is cool, but ultimately when push comes to shove the major governments are going to outlaw it, drive it into the black market as a small asset, and issue a replacement that they back as legal tender." The steelman: This is a valid concern. Governments have a history of trying to control or even ban cryptocurrencies that they see as a threat to their financial systems. However, there are a few reasons why I think it is unlikely that governments will be able to completely outlaw Bitcoin. First, Bitcoin is a global currency. It is not controlled by any one government or entity. This makes it very difficult for governments to ban it outright. Second, Bitcoin is very popular. There are millions of people around the world who own Bitcoin. If governments were to try to ban it, they would likely face a lot of resistance from their citizens. Third, Bitcoin is very secure. The underlying technology that powers Bitcoin is very difficult to hack. This makes it unlikely that governments would be able to successfully shut down the Bitcoin network. Of course, it is impossible to say for sure what the future holds for Bitcoin. However, I believe that the factors I have mentioned make it unlikely that governments will be able to completely outlaw it. Scenario 2: The argument: "Look how fast they are advancing on superconductors. Quantum computing may come sooner than we think, and threaten Bitcoin's security. That's why I don't buy bitcoins." The steelman: This is also a valid concern. Quantum computers have the potential to break the encryption that secures Bitcoin transactions. If this were to happen, it would be a major setback for Bitcoin. However, there are a few reasons why I think it is unlikely that quantum computers will pose a serious threat to Bitcoin in the near future. * First, quantum computers are still in their early stages of development. It is not clear when they will be powerful enough to break Bitcoin's encryption. * Second, there are already steps being taken to make Bitcoin more quantum-resistant. For example, the Bitcoin Core development team is working on a new version of the software that will use more secure cryptographic algorithms. * Third, even if quantum computers do become powerful enough to break Bitcoin's encryption, it is not clear that they would be able to do so without being detected. The Bitcoin network is very transparent, and any attempt to attack it would likely be noticed by the community. In conclusion, I believe that the risks posed by quantum computers to Bitcoin are real, but they are not insurmountable. There are a number of factors that make it unlikely that quantum computers will pose a serious threat to Bitcoin in the near future.

on the last one, yo we all good up wid then Lamport Sigs fo sho 🤙

Those are actually the arguments keeping me from getting in to BTC. I haven’t come up with a good counter, and, thus, I haven’t pulled the trigger. The other item is that, if I were to buy it, I would like a way to avoid exchanges completely

Scenario 1: That governments could outlaw is a valid concern, as governments have a history of trying to control or ban new technologies that they see as a threat. However, it is also important to remember that Bitcoin is a decentralized currency, which means that it is not controlled by any single entity. This makes it difficult for governments to outlaw Bitcoin completely. Even if governments were to ban Bitcoin, it is likely that it would still exist in the black market. Governments could issue their own digital currencies is also a valid concern, as governments could use their own digital currencies to compete with Bitcoin. However, there are a number of reasons why government-issued digital currencies may not be as successful as Bitcoin. For example, government-issued digital currencies would likely be subject to government control, which could make them less attractive to users who value privacy and freedom. Scenario 2: Quantum computing could threaten Bitcoin's security is a valid concern, as quantum computers could theoretically be used to break Bitcoin's encryption. However, it is important to remember that quantum computers are still in their early stages of development. It is not clear when, or even if, quantum computers will be powerful enough to break Bitcoin's encryption. In the meantime, Bitcoin developers are working on ways to make Bitcoin more secure against quantum attacks.

1) Bitcoin and Nostr can only succeed if there's an appetite for freedom. If people comply with government ban, there's no appetite for freedom, we don't need Bitcoin or Nostr 2) Satoshi designed Bitcoin to support post-quantum cryptography. There's a little known opcode called OP_CAT (one of many opcodes that he disabled few weeks before he stopped contributing)

Most ppl here just keep giving reasons why the claims being examined are wrong, but that is not what a steel man arg is ppl! Regarding the first argument: When the opportunity presents itself, governments could seize it and punish examplarily someone who committed a horrible crime who somehow used Bitcoin and make them the "face" of Bitcoin. Governments could sponsor campaigns about how "Bitcoin is black market money, that is used to buy/sell illegal things like children and drugs, and how it is used by terrorists/supremacists." And encourage people to rat on merchants who accept Bitcoin. Who could be punished in varying ways, depending on the country they live and their newly enacted laws... Banking on social stigma to stifle adoption could make finding vendors accepting it sporadic and shady. Making the experience subpar with their CBDCs. Governments could pass laws aiming to regulate open source software and in it include a *very* ambiguous paragraph that would amount to "coders/contributers are responsible to how the software they publish online is used." (I am looking at you EU...) This could allow them to - very selectively - go after the "people who make the black market possible. We were so close to ending it... 😞". They could also force Apple and Google to ban apps from their store. And Github and Gitlab from hosting projects related to bitcoin. Then they could spread disinfo saying that downloading apks from Fdroid and self hosted git servers are dangerous and could have viruses. They could make it illegal to host files related to certain *forbiden code* and ban those IPs at the country level, as well as the IPs of popular Lightning networks. Perhaps even sue people hosting it. Sure most ppl who use Bitcoin today could find their way around it, but this could certainly impact mass adoption. The goal being to make using it unreliable/annoying and give it a feel of illegality. Countries could also selectively ban encryption, and while they would never be able to enforce it, by giving themselves the ability to issue permits for ppl/companies to use it, they would be able to use it to justify action against people they view as problematic. I would address this by saying that: While that could have a profound effect, those actions wouldn't come without a price on government. They would need to become significantly more authoritarian which would fuel pushback and protests. Tools like Tor exist that can ensure that people developing and contributing to the tech remain anonimous. Plus it would be very hard to enforce those measures, and it would be too costly too. Even if GOV manages to have a smooth roll out of their CBDCs, things like inflation, their ability to put an expiration date on it, their ability to outlaw the use of CBDCs for certain things deemed bad will at some point push people to see the value in Bitcoin and how tyranical their government has become. Further, ultimately none of those tactics allow gov to control Bitcoin (the only way to end it), nobody can. They can only compete against it, and while they can slow adoption and to some extent sabotage it, at the end of it, what really matters is that their product (CBDCs) is inferior, and in time Bitcoin will succeed.

China outlawed it... Bitcoin unaffected. China has biggest population on the planet....

BTC could be banned like Gold. Govt. Could closes some websites. BTC would go under the radar to other countries. At a power Price.