Bitcoins have been seized, and stolen. Bitcoins have been banned in China. Not at all transferable without a majority of nodes on the network agreeing - unless you mean you can hand a flash drive to someone, and that’s not an advantage to a currency you can hand notes to someone.

Why is “non inflationary” an advantage? It means less incentive to spend, more incentive to hoard, and anyone who comes later is necessarily poorer. It’s terrible, population increases and younger people fight for the scraps of the few bitcents left, so the pyramid early adopters can take advantage. That isn’t going to hold as a stable system.

How would a government seize Bitcoin? Stealing Bitcoin is not the same as seizing.

> How would a government seize Bitcoin?

The same way it seizes anything else; have people with guns show up [0] to the person with control over it, and inform them they must turn it over or face dire consequences. Seizing money held in a personal wallet means doing that to the owner (whether its a physical or digital wallet), seizing money held in a third-party service (often the case with Bitcoin) means doing it to the service operator.

> Stealing Bitcoin is not the same as seizing.

True, in that “stealing” is what is called when someone seizes property from another without legal authority. But false in the senae that seems intended, in that the mechanics the government uses when seizing something are exactly mechanics that would constitute stealing if they weren't backed by law.

[0] Or people without guns with the implicit backing of people with guns. Or just messages from an agency known to be backed by people with guns.

> have people with guns show up [0] to the person with control over it

It is much easier to physically confiscate cash, than it is to confiscate a wallet that you don't have the keys to.

Sorry, but it just is. Yes, an arresting authority can always threaten people, with violence, but that has problem and roadblocks to it. People get mad. Courts come into the picture. And although yes it is possible it is still more difficult to do, with greater negative consequences to doing so.

The point of censorship "resistance" is not to be completely immune from a mind reading mecha-hitler, who will nuke the universe if you don't give up the password to your crypto wallet.

Instead, the point is to make it more difficult to confiscate assets, in more situations, such that it significantly reduces but does not stop completely, the times that assets are confiscated, as opposed to the absurd super hitler with nukes hypothetical.

> that the mechanics the government uses when seizing something are exactly mechanics that would constitute stealing if they weren't backed by law.

Nope. The mechanics that are used and available to the government, in real life actual examples, of how actual governments work, make it easier for those existing governments to confiscate cash as opposed to crypto.

This is not about absurd hypotheticals. This is about existing government laws and implementations of those laws.

Once all the governments in the world, actually change their laws such that they can now threaten to nuke the universe, if you don't give up your keys, then you can start talking about how technical solutions have zero effect on getting around existing government policies.

Or, in other words, the "wrench" solution has significant drawbacks that make it difficult for current governments to implement. So it is stupid to bring that up, as some gotcha counter example, for why you think technical solutions are worthless, when talking about actual real life, as opposed to your sci-fri fantasy novel.

> Or, in other words, the "wrench" solution has significant drawbacks that make it difficult for current governments to implement.

No, it doesn't. Its literally what every government seizure of anything uses. It’s force or the threat thereof top to bottom. Sure, a lot of it is invisible because it is routine, but it is routine because society is adapted to the reality of the threat.

Even to the extent that you might be right, does “bitcoin disproportionately reduces the effectiveness of governments that have a strong evidentiary threshold for the application of force against those within their power” make it a good thing, likely to benefit the world by broad adoption?

> No, it doesn't. Its literally what every government seizure of anything uses.

Yes it does. Walk across the border of the USA and mexico with 20k in cash, and try it again by memorizing a crypto password.

Once you do that, see how both go.

The proveable fact, is that the actual examples that we have, of real life laws and governments, shows that the cash would be confiscated, and the crypto password would be more difficult to do so.

That is a falsifiable experiment that people can do. And the experiment goes my way. That actual, real life example, proves me right, in that specific circumstance.

I don't care about hypotheticals that don't exist in the real world right now. The only thing that I will accept, is real life proof, of crypto passwords being as easy to confiscate, as cash, in the real world.

As in, show me, specifically, how a random border patrol agent, in the US right now, would just as easily figure out that I memorized a crypto password, as opposed to figure out that I am physically carrying 20k in cash, as I go on vacation to mexico, tomorrow.

In the real world, right now, if you cross the US border to mexico your cash would be more easily confiscated than a crypto password, by the random border guard that you talk to.

> It’s force or the threat thereof top to bottom.

Then show me the government mind reading machines, that the border patrol, on the current US border, uses to scan my brain for crypto passwords. Because I can show you how they will confiscate cash. Because I have examples of them confiscating cash. There are no examples of the government turning on their mind reading devices, and stealing my crypto password.

> that have a strong evidentiary threshold

Oh but technical solutions change the evidentiary threshold! A person with a suitcase full of money, has much more evidence of them carrying money (because the suitcase can just be opened), than in the situation of a random, poorly paid border patrol agent, interrogating someone for their crypto password, that the border patrol agent doesn't even know exists!

That is one way how it makes it much more difficult to apply force.

Yes, with any form of money you can try to convince the authorities that a different, incomplete, or empty cache of funds is the thing they are trying to seize, or that you simply don't have what they are trying to seize.

Whether the authorities believe you and whether they decide to inflict the alternative consequences implicitly or explicitly threatened as part of the seizure mechanism ... depends on the information that forms the basis of the seizure, the personality and nature of the individuals involved and the regime they serve, and other factors.

Features that make it harder for authorities to be certain you are lying when you are also make it harder for the authorities to be certain you are telling the truth when you are. This is not universally beneficial.

Personally, I don't think I'll ever need to hide crypto from the government and I pay my taxes. However, I figure that it could be regular thieves with guns, too. I get that this thread was going in the direction of government, but I think people with guns can be pretty general. What I think is cool is that technology like this has never existed. Banks were the only way to have this level of security. You don't get that with physical gold or physical cash. How do people not see how innovative this is? It's a way to store money outside of the traditional financial system, just like gold, except it's much harder to seize, much easier to transfer, is much more divisible, etc. You can literally store a million dollars in your head by memorizing a 12 word mnemonic seed, or hand a million dollars to someone via a paper or hardware wallet. How do people not think that is cool?