>>509124288
By already control it, do you mean that they already control > 51% of the nodes on the network? If they attempted at 50% +1 attack then bitcoin would likely fork.
>you can't just say "bitcoin isn't fiat money" and then express bitcoin solely in fiat money
You could express it in terms of anything you like, but the point is the government uses fiat currency and if you make so that nobody wants to use that currency any more than the government has a serious problem, because they can no longer control the system.
>so your reason for why bitcoin can't be controlled by governments is that bitcoin could easily be....copied?
Well, I kind of messed up there... we can assume that the government will never own 100% of issued coins. They can't control all the wallets, anyone selling to the government would be essentially doing so voluntarily and they might reason that if they wait longer the government will pay them more, so they have incentive not to sell to the government. But, there are wallets that may be lost... so you know, you think the wallet is lost but it gets used at some point in the future. But, let's say BTC was completely taken out of circulation somehow, a coin with the same properties (such as its issuance controlled by an algorithm) should be able to take its place... this means, sure, BTC could go to zero, but governments will have to remain vigilant that BTC2 doesn't appear... governments can never be certain that the risk is gone.
>what if the interest isn't there, etc.
The point is that BTC and BTC-like currencies can't be controlled by the government, so governments will have to constantly play cat and mouse. It doesn't matter if a particular crypto goes to zero, because people will trade it as if it might go up, because they know the government can't easily repress it forever.
