Author: Mike Hearn 2015-09-19 20:57:40
Published on: 2015-09-19T20:57:40+00:00
The debate is centered around the question of whether governments have the power to end Bitcoin or not, regardless of how decentralized it is. One side argues that popularity is the only true protection against government interference, while the other side believes that growth can be dangerous because stateless money will be inherently opposed by the state. The disagreement is summed up by the statement that Bitcoin cannot be both decentralized and reliant on being "too important to close." The argument against this statement is that governments can shut down Bitcoin at any point, regardless of its level of decentralization, through a 51% attack or by banning Bitcoin usage in its territory and jailing anyone who advertises acceptance/trading of bitcoins. The best way to ensure the survival of Bitcoin is through growth, as an outlaw currency is useless even to outlaws.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T22:34:41.476816+00:00