Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on December 21, 2015, 08:57:47 PM

Quote from: simon28 on December 21, 2015, 08:35:55 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on December 21, 2015, 08:24:54 PM

Quote from: TERA on December 21, 2015, 06:35:34 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on December 21, 2015, 05:36:53 PM

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3xnchr/rand_corporation_is_researching_how_to_destroy/

Quote

The Department of Defense should be aware of the following:

[Virtual Currencies]'s represent the latest step toward decentralized cyber services.
In particular, the historical trend suggests the development
of a resilient public cyber key terrain, which this report
defines as the ability of unsophisticated cyber actors to have
persistent, assured access to cyber services regardless of whether
a highly sophisticated state actor opposes their use. This has
implications for national firewalls, access to extremist rhetoric,
the feasibility of nation-state cyber attacks, and the ability to
maintain uninterruptible and anonymous encrypted links.

Quote

This report will examine the potential for terrorist, insurgent,
or criminal groups to increase their political and/or economic power
by deploying a VC to use as a currency for regular economic transactions
rather than exploiting existing VCs as a means of illicit transfer,
fundraising, or money laundering.

First page of the summary:

Quote

This report examines the potential for non-state actors, including
terrorist and insurgent groups, to increase their political and/or economic
power by deploying a VC as a medium for regular economic transactions
as opposed to exploiting already-deployed virtual currencies,
such as Bitcoin, as a means of illicit transfer, fundraising, or money
laundering.

Ya. That's what I said...

They do go on to say it wouldnt be that difficult for a state-actor to totally disrupt us.

Quote

Ultimately, it seems clear that a non-state actor (indeed, even a
state actor) would face significant challenges against a determined hightiered
opponent given the underlying assumptions and implementation
of VCs. As a general matter, a high-tiered opponent would be able
to successfully attack any target of interest in cyberspace if enough
resources were invested. In the case of a VC, which would require trust,
anonymity, and availability of widely deployed cyber services (such as
wallet and mining applications), it seems infeasible that a consistently
successful cyber defense can be mounted. The only hope might be
if the non-state actor were supported by a sophisticated nation-state
opponent who was capable of defending against such threats. Even in
this scenario, it is unclear whether such coordination would work, particularly
in the case of a Tier V and VI opponent.

If a state-actor wanted to totally disrupt us it would be simpler and cheaper for it to ban bitcoin in its state. America considered banning bitcoin and decided against it. If America wanted to totally disrupt us it wouldn't need to mount sophisticated cyber attacks, it could ban bitcoin instead.

The USA isn't the only state-actor on the world stage.

The USA was an example. Look at the disruption China caused with its half arsed semi-bitcoin ban. Little countries banning bitcoin don't disrupt it, but they don't have the resources to mount sophisticated cyber attacks. The bigger the country, the more disruption a ban would create.

Not that I think any of the biggest countries that matter will ban bitcoin. I don't think they want to totally disrupt it, but they can if they ever want to.