Yep. And China has done exactly that in the past when people were using crypto to launder RMB into USD.

The fact that mining operations still exist today at large scales in China means that at least the government has found a way to profit off of crypto (strategically or economically).

> The fact that mining operations still exist today at large scales in China means that at least the government has found a way to profit off of crypto (strategically or economically).

Or government do not really care. If it is officially discouraged/illegal: it also means that officials are happy to take bribes.

Yeah. It's also very likely that in some cases only the local government benefits (bribes etc.) rather than necessarily the central/federal government.

A nation state can’t ban it globally. A 51% attack undermines confidence globally.

“nation state” isn’t just a fancy word for country and has a specific meaning

I was just using the terminology of the person I replied too but your comment made me look into this topic further and I agree country would be a better word.

Now let’s do “use case”!

How can use case be misutilized?

There are many use cases where the ‘use’ part is extraneous or misleading.

some nation states can - for example, the US can easily ban it globally. They don't because it does no harm to anyone.

What is the legal mechanism for a unilateral world ban on use of a technology?

Closest thing to that I can think of is nuclear proliferation but you’d have to get countries to agree and play strong arm tactics. Possible I guess but not “easily”

> What is the legal mechanism for a unilateral world ban on use of a technology

Might makes right, aka USA foreign policy since its inception. US sanctions are applied for everyone - e.g. if the US sanctions Iran, a French company does business in Iran, the US fines them heavily. And considering the US market is more lucrative than the Iranian one, most companies would prefer to have the US one. For a recent-ish example, check BNP Paribas. The US has no legal right to forbid a French company with a US branch to not do business with another country from another branch besides when they say so. The same way they say so for crimes against humanity, or invading other countries.

So the US can absolutely ban cryptocurrencies on a global-ish scale.

I assume the idea is that a technology that, by definition, can only be used publicly faces a far different threat surface than nuclear proliferation.

A significantly powerful actor could exert sufficient force. Russia or the US threatening nuclear war over bitcoin would probably lead to a worldwide ban, although obviously the repercussions would be dramatic. More realistically, the US could state that any bank that does business with bitcoin isn't welcome to participate in the US economy. The US economy is big enough that such a threat might work. This is similar to how the embargoes against Iran worked, and why that Chinese executive is being extradited to the US from Canada.

In reality, if Bitcoin got the point of destabilization where the US felt the need to ban it, the effects would probably be widespread enough that the EU, Japan, the various Commonwealth countries would be convinced to take coordinated action.