201–210 of 555 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So it's not a complete waste of natural resources because it helps secure "the chain"?
How much energy is spent securing conventional financial systems? You have to include everything: banks, minting, enforcement, physical security, even military and intelligence action.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the argument is that by doing a 51% attack you undermine the market value so you never get the rewards. This makes sense, but only for the leading crypto coin. As we see here today, you can 51% attack smaller coins, which should imply an increase in the value of Bitcoin from consolidation.
The spooky thing that this made me realize, is that if anyone did find a vulnerability in bitcoin (or any cryptocurrency) is that they would have a greater incentive to only slowly leech off the system, because they will be able to siphon out much more over time than if everyone panics over security. The weapon is no good unless it's secret.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_as_Big_as_the_Ritz
When Bitcoin was running up to $20,000, I tried to analyze the system and come to a personal conclusion about its equilibrium value, because I didn't want to miss out if it really was the currency of the future. I ended up not investing, because of the possibility of a double-spend attack. I think that cryptocurrency enthusiasts are seriously underestimating the importance of double-spending attacks to the economics…
It has nothing to do with Bitcoin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what sense is a system where you hold all your bitcoins in a "bitcoin bank" decentralized or trustless?
The second layer solutions such as Lightning Network don't require you letting other people hold your Bitcoin. They're still decentralized and trustless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming you want to make money directly, sure. If you want to harm a community in which the currency is widely used, the incentives are different.
What kind of incentive does the attacker have to just harm a community of a distributed system?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The spooky thing that this made me realize, is that if anyone did find a vulnerability in bitcoin (or any cryptocurrency) is that they would have a greater incentive to only slowly leech off the system, because they will be able to siphon out much more over time than if everyone panics over security. The weapon is no good unless it's secret.
Nah, you could short-sell Bitcoin. Take out a sell option, crash the value, buy cheap, then exercise the option. Information is valuable, no matter which direction it predicts the market to go.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming you want to make money directly, sure. If you want to harm a community in which the currency is widely used, the incentives are different.
What kind of incentive does the attacker have to just harm a community of a distributed system?
How is the price not crashing? It's down 10%, which is pretty much like the rest of the market.
Because shitcoin prices have no relation to any sort of reality. Some shitcoins are traded on exchanges even if no actual coin or code existed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe all that energy spent to secure the chain is not so bad after all.
So it's not a complete waste of natural resources because it helps secure "the chain"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming you want to make money directly, sure. If you want to harm a community in which the currency is widely used, the incentives are different.
What kind of incentive does the attacker have to just harm a community of a distributed system?