51–53 of 53 posts
When you create counterfeit money, you damage people's trust in the money, which damages it's perceived value. You'd have to do it without doing catastrophic damage to the public trust, because then all you've stolen wouldn't have nay value. However, you could SHORT crypto currency and then do some damage it. Where would this logic break?
Shorting never damages anything, it's just a market adjustment mechanism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Large block supporters tend to think you only need a few full nodes to get immunity from these types of attacks How exactly do you see an attack on full nodes going down? I imagine the attack would occur on the mining side.. Also, if the mempool becomes more expensive to host than blocks on disk - would you still think small blocks are safer?
Hack the full nodes to modify their database. Or cut a business deal with the biggest full nodes (Coinbase, Bitmain, Shapeshift, But go, etc.) and decide to implement a rule much of the network opposes, like raising the block size (which consequentially makes a repeat attack easier in the future because fewer users will have the resources to run full nodes themselves)
And they'll immediately be blacklisted from the network..
Do people realize you can store the entire bitcoin chain for less than the cost of one transaction? The centralization narrative doesn't hold up.
If you think about it, there are many improvements that could be made to basic networking protocols (TCP, IP, HTTP), but since the standards were set "in stone" so long ago, it is difficult to change now.