It's not just about tech. The real issue is that government is running up against scaling limits.
Arguably, a government can only rule over how people relate within boundaries it can defend and control. Previously the boundaries were physical geographies, and then regulated channels (mail, PSTN, etc). Now, we have a kind of fractal boundary of peer-to-peer connections that provide tremendous freedom to organize and transact on a diminishingly microscopic scale.
Sovereignty is zero sum.
Crypto provides a kind of micro-sovereignty to users, and for a few privileged or outlying people this is an acceptable risk, but when you have constituencies of people achieving that micro-sovereignty, it cuts into the sovereignty of the state at critical level.
Imagine the strategic consequences for U.S. national security if Rhode Island became it's own country, with an impenetrable laser air shield, with it's own allies, currency, tax laws, extradition treaties, defense systems, resources, etc. It would be such a constant threat, it would make more sense to just invade.
Tor and similar systems could reach that critical mass, where they become a constant threat to the sovereignty of nations. Tech is naively forcing hard questions about the conventions that provide "stability."
The feds know they might just have to just outlaw crypto. The technology exists to detect and round up most people who use it, or enough of them that it will be hard to find people to use it with. If they have to, they will.
This dance they are doing is political posturing, testing the edges to see what kind of resistance they get, and how much political capital it is going to cost.
Like voting and graffiti, if crypto really changed anything, it would be illegal.
Arguably, a government can only rule over how people relate within boundaries it can defend and control. Previously the boundaries were physical geographies, and then regulated channels (mail, PSTN, etc). Now, we have a kind of fractal boundary of peer-to-peer connections that provide tremendous freedom to organize and transact on a diminishingly microscopic scale.
Sovereignty is zero sum.
Crypto provides a kind of micro-sovereignty to users, and for a few privileged or outlying people this is an acceptable risk, but when you have constituencies of people achieving that micro-sovereignty, it cuts into the sovereignty of the state at critical level.
Imagine the strategic consequences for U.S. national security if Rhode Island became it's own country, with an impenetrable laser air shield, with it's own allies, currency, tax laws, extradition treaties, defense systems, resources, etc. It would be such a constant threat, it would make more sense to just invade.
Tor and similar systems could reach that critical mass, where they become a constant threat to the sovereignty of nations. Tech is naively forcing hard questions about the conventions that provide "stability."
The feds know they might just have to just outlaw crypto. The technology exists to detect and round up most people who use it, or enough of them that it will be hard to find people to use it with. If they have to, they will.
This dance they are doing is political posturing, testing the edges to see what kind of resistance they get, and how much political capital it is going to cost.
Like voting and graffiti, if crypto really changed anything, it would be illegal.