Hard to answer.

If mining becomes centralized, central power can somewhat hold bitcoin
hostage by requesting "politely" that big miners do something like
coinvalidation, or the mines get confiscated, aka forcibly socialized.

So let's say the big mines go coinvalidation.

You can still get transactions in, from little guys on p2pool, but it takes
forever.

So, you're coinvalidated bitcoin is worth more, because you can spend it
more easily.

The anonymous bitcoin is still there, but getting squeezed. Lower
transaction volume means less room to hide.

There will still be money laundering, but it will be like it is now. You
need to hide it in "government approved" transactions from the big mines;
just like currently you need to hide your drug cartel slush fund in a shell
account with HSBC.








On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 8:33 AM, John Hebert <johnalexhebert@???>wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:34 AM, Joerg Platzer <joerg@???> wrote:
>>
>> of course Bitcoin _is_ anarchism as it has no leader as long as we don't
>> designate one and change the protocol in ways that allow to control it and
>> hand that over to the leader.
>>
>
> There is the problem. The Bitcoin Foundation's will spend $17 million USD
> to become that "benevolent leader".
>
>
>> These people are screaming for government regulation in order to save me
>> from identity theft through Bitcoin. They wish to protect me and 'de-risk'
>> Bitcoin.
>
>
> Ye gods, save us from those who have "our best interests" in mind!
>
> Math provides certainty in lieu of placing trust in people calling for
> government regulation. A correctly implemented bitcoin system doesn't need
> trust.
>
>
>> The most hilarious statement is that the reason for banks not getting
>> involved is that they are scared to have to go to jail. As if one banker
>> ever was sent to jail.
>>
>
> A few<http://www.businessinsider.com/the-decades-10-biggest-financial-crimes-2009-12?op=1>did, not nearly
> enough <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/financial-crimes>. You couldn't
> swing a dead cat on Wall St. without hitting a white-collar criminal.
>
> Financial freedom is hammered into the code in a much more resiliant way
>> than anything ever written in stone and with financial freedom comes the
>> rest.
>>
>
> Semantically, I don't agree, in that there is no centralized "code"
> because of bitcoin's P2P specification. If the bitcoin system continues to
> adhere to the specification, I *think* it will remain free. Amir has
> passionately argued that "bitcoin is not a fixed thing". I don't know
> enough about bitcoin to be certain either way.
>
> Someone correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that as long as the
> block chain and anonymity is kept as is in the bitcoin system, it is free
> from corruption, correct?
>
> I propose the following bitcoin acid test: If you can buy acid with it, it
> is bitcoin.
>
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>