Hacker News Reader

Comment by creato | Hacker News Reader

> and it's survived and even thrived in the face of fierce attacks for a decade

What fierce attacks has bitcoin faced?

Sure, lots of people mock and criticize it, but no real action has been taken. The people criticizing it have just as much influence (or maybe even less) than the delusional and ignorant true believers.

To me, a fierce attack would be regulatory action taken by various world governments, but that hasn't happened. To the contrary, even countries that probably should care (e.g. China, with its capital controls, and bitcoin mining seemingly used to evade them) appear not to. If anything, that shows just how insignificant bitcoin is.

My vague impression (I don't follow this closely) of US regulators is that they have given bitcoin reasonable or even slightly favorable treatment.

View on HN

>>Sure, lots of people mock and criticize it,

Bitcoin and crypto only survive because of trust. There was a time, especially on Bloomberg, when the news was constantly criticising it and sowing mistrust. "It's only used by hackers" or "hit men are murdering people for crypto on the dark web" or "terrorist are funding operations with crypto.". So there have been countless efforts to break the core of what makes a currency valuable.

Additionally, Bitcoin specifically is illegal in several countries, China being one of them. The US has also seized several piles of bitcoin and like they do with other seized assets they put it up for auction. These guys buy the stuff up cheap and immediately sell it. Now that's not a specific attack but it is damaging to prices. Lastly exchanges are requiring photo id to buy things now because of regulation which makes it even harder for people to get into. I can buy bullets and in some cases guns more easily.

So there is actually plenty, not to mention numerous attacks on the network in the early days. Who knows who was behind those.

With Bitcoin, there are certain elements that make it desirable as a bargaining chip during internal power struggles. The claim of banking and government being joined at the hip is true due to pragmatic convenience: If you want to have power over things like militaries and social services, you need a solution for financing and that sends you into the arms of the bankers. But if you start having an option to opt out, to say as a large institution, "we don't need you," then the banks have to start to compete.

At the end of that struggle, you still have a government in control of its financing, but the shape of it, borne through so many battles, is likely to be more efficient.

As someone put it: we are picking a huge bear with a stick. We haven't seen anything yet, the war against crypto will be bloody.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com