I keep seeing this statement: "If Bitcoin doesn't survive the State's attack due to Bitcoin Core v30, then it was never going to make it anyway. Everything is good for Bitcoin, else Bitcoin is no good."
The answer is a bit nuanced but very important.
Governments don't actually want to kill (ban) Bitcoin because it is contrary to their incentives.
If the US government had a magic "ban Bitcoin" button, they would not press it.
A true ban drives use off-grid (Tor, mesh, cash ramps), destroys visibility, and raises policing costs. Containment via KYC perimeters is cheaper and yields data.
However, if the US government had a "disincentivize Bitcoin as a mass MoE, disincentivize Bitcoin node running, and force Mining pools toward template rules", they would press that button.
And if they had a pretext (e.g. a mass CSAM spam attack), and the narrative is on their side, then they would instantly press that button.
That's called the "Hegelian dialectic" (Problem -> Reaction -> Solution).
Governments don't usually come out of the blue with draconian measures, they create a problem first (which is what Bitcoin Core v30 is).
If governments decide to disincentivize Bitcoin as a mass MoE, disincentivize Bitcoin node running, and force Mining pools toward template rules, they can do it starting tomorrow.
After all, they control the perimiter:
- cloud AUPs (Acceptable Use Policies),
- app stores,
- payments (exchanges, banks),
- policy.
More context:
nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqvtw30knexxgwasss0qwafnz68hdx6u25xwpclsz4750ez46qpx2qyt8wumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgtcppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qywhwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnzd96xxmmfdejhytnnda3kjctv9uqzqaez84eepgc67yy82p6urjm8mqfv2kxcdff24wrqyw5jq6mpxy5gwvj2ml
However, they would really like to have the "Problem" part of the "Hegelian dialectic" before acting.
Elizabeth Warren (of course it's not her, its the deep State central bankers) already attacked Bitcoin nodes - painting them as unlicensed money transmitters.
This happened in December of 2023, but she got a lot of push-back.
She argued that Bitcoin's decentralized nature allows for unregulated activities, including operating as an unlicensed money transmitter.
She argued that without proper oversight, Bitcoin can facilitate illegal activities and evade traditional financial regulations.
I am not under the impression that Bitcoin is unaffected by every state attack, however, the optics and narrative around the State's draconian measures are very important - why would you give your enemy more ammunition?
Here is the TLDR of what governments actually want:
- Merchant MoE suppression, node/platform de-platforming bursts, strict KYC travel-rule, Mining Pool/template control.
The worst attack vectors for Bitcoin are:
1) App-store & wallet policy
- Even though Google Play and Apple App Store have not banned self-custody wallets yet, you saw what enforcement looks like with Samourai Wallet (they also got criminally charged). That wasn’t “non-KYC equals banned,” but it proves the lever works.
- App stores can (a) require KYCed identity linking for crypto wallet apps, (b) remove background sync/relay privileges, or (c) restrict non-custodial key paths under "consumer protection". That would instantly de-index non-KYC wallets for 90%+ of retail, with zero parliamentary debate.
2) Mining Pool/template control
- If big pools adopt policy clients (template rules that filter or prioritize transactions) due to insurer requirements, utility interconnect terms, or internal counsel, actual block content becomes politically steerable - without touching Bitcoin consensus.
- Marathon already did this in 2021 when they announced “OFAC-compliant” block production (reversed after backlash, but proof that template policy pressure is real).
- Same for F2Pool (China) in 2023-2025 when independent monitoring spotted missing OFAC-sanctioned transactions in some F2Pool blocks.
- Large U.S./EU miners rely on insured facilities and utility PPAs (Power Purchase agreements). Clauses about "legal compliance" and "risk mitigation" can be interpreted as transaction-screening expectations (especially when governments publish sanctioned lists). You don't need a law; you need an underwriter or grid operator to say "no template screening = no coverage/interconnect".
- Counter-force: Stratum V2 job negotiation lets individual miners propose their own templates - reducing pool control - but adoption is partial, and pools can still set acceptance policies.
- Insurance/utility/hosting contracts can quietly force pools toward template rules ("we comply with lists").
So I am not under the impression that Bitcoin is invincible, the question is: Why make it more vulnerable?
Why gift governments the "Problem" part of the Hegelian dialectic?
More context:
nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqvtw30knexxgwasss0qwafnz68hdx6u25xwpclsz4750ez46qpx2qyt8wumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgtcppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qqstlctgzs22q0067lphrz4lmy3cc3rv892mjq0stz0qqqafj9rs6fglgvlws
