Nostr Web Client

One you dont like the slop do your own research

Two yes you are right the large public miners are known and will be used by the government to attack bitcoin.

They will control sometgin in the magnitude of 20-30% maybe its as high as 50or 60? dunno

The problem is that the same attack on monero means that there is 10x more hashnpower ready to go against all ofnthe potential hash power of all desktop and laptops if they all only mined. Maybedl its only 2x the amount.

But it's not 2x current monero hashing.

Its 2x all potential mining

Its Already lost

Hanshan 4d ago

except that hash is not "ready to go." it's already being used for other profitable purposes. you ignored the point of the post, which is about the friction of bringing pressure to bear at all.

You're trying to pretend like the US government is a single cohesive entity that can just call Amazon and use all of their compute power for whatever it wants. I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that.

but I don't know and neither do you. which is how I started the conversation.

and you're just making up numbers.

while I agree that there is certainly vastly more potential hash out there that could be mining monero, you continually ignore the fact that they don't need to physically control Bitcoin miners at all. they just have to send letters.

nothing has already lost. another topic we haven't touched on yet is *the desire to attack the chain in the first place*

this is another area where Monero has an advantage because of bitcoins visibility.

so to come back to the beginning

its trade-offs. both approaches have their negative points.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

satoshi jr 3d ago 💬 2

When bitcoin or monero becomes an existential risk to the us government they will taken over any industry and try to destroy you.

In that situation you should fully expect all public miners to be seized and any potential miners to be used against you

If you're hoping laws will protect you, you're an idiot

Hanshan 3d ago

you'll talk about anything EXCEPT the friction involved in trying to hijack privately owned compute wont you?

obviously the threat to Bitcoin is higher.

because Bitcoin has a higher fiat value and is more visible.

because it's easier to put pressure on miners.

I agree that if Monero ever becomes an existential risk they'll do whatever it takes. I hope that becoming an "existential risk" means price appreciation and therefore greater mining profitability.

and at that point you have higher floor of decentralized compute power protecting the network

and the centralized compute power is more incentivized to protect the network rather than attack it. just like with Bitcoin.

but the game theory of that particular situation depends on specifics that we can't know.

Moral of the story is that *right now Monero is in a much more secure place than Bitcoin is vis a vis mining centralization.

satoshi jr 3d ago 💬 2

Its very poor risk analysis if all you're looking at is what's happening right now. Its like saying driving without a sear belt is fine because i haven't died or been in a car accident yet.

You try to look for worst case scenarios and how the structure of things create risks.

I agree that monero is too insignificant to be attacked right now, but after bitcoin already got big people already know that monero could get big enough to be a threat.

And there's orders of magnitude of what they need to attack monero just sitting there already.

Hanshan 3d ago

for the last time, IT ISN'T "JUST SITTING THERE."

they have to do something in order to acquire it and use it to their advantage. that is friction that neither of us can accurately evaluate.

and I didn't say you should ONLY look at how things are right now.

I pointed out thats the current situation and how things are in the future depends on specifics that neither of us can be confident about.

satoshi jr 3d ago 💬 2

OK you're really not getting this. There's effectively 0 friction because when you get to the point where when they want to take it you can not physically stop them.

That is the physics of the situation

You're right that before that point you can't know exactly how the theater of lawfare will be done.

It doesn't matter.

The way in a car crash it doesn't matter if your licence is up to date or if the other guy did an illegal turn. None of that changes physics

There's enough compute right now to fuck up your network. Its order of magnitude more.

When they attack bitcoin they physically cannot get an order of magnitude more of hash power.

Do you see how one is a physical limitation and the other is just legal and economic.

Those are not the same category of risk

Hanshan 3d ago

that does help me understand what your point is, thanks.

but I still disagree that it means that there is zero friction.

it's true that legal protections are not to be counted on. but neither are they completely irrelevant. whoever the adversary might be (and without knowing who that is we can't calculate risk can we?) isn't just co-opting Google and Amazon compute arbitrarily.

I understand that you mean that there is *potentially zero friction*

at the point where they have taken the gloves off and want to destroy you.

and that's worthwhile knowing. it's just not the actual situation right now.

but it's certainly worth reflecting on in the Monero community that, if compute is as centralized in large data centers as you say,

then regardless of how many plebs are mining themselves, the network is still vulnerable.

satoshi jr 3d ago 💬 3

Again the point of the risk analysis is not to look at when things are going well. Instead to consider the potentially catastrophic situations and your exposure.

You dont calculate risk that's how you get 2008.

You cant know what will happen but you can try to understand the structure of how things are.

With enough time you will hit all of the extreme situations and the only this that matters is if you can survive

Hanshan 3d ago

nobody said that.

risk analysis is not just looking at the worst case scenarios either. it's about making intelligent decisions based on the available information.

I don't live in a bunker in Idaho because there *might be nuclear war.

and sometimes existing in the shadows is a better long-term survival strategy then getting Wall Street involved.

satoshi jr 3d ago

No risk analysis is about analysing risk. It dosnst mean you can't choose to accept the risk.

You are choosing to take nuclear risk

The us government doesn't think that's acceptable so they have bunkers.

The point of this conversation was about money. You can't do a shit job of hiding in the shadows and claim you're gonna be better money.

satoshi jr 3d ago

Oh and you are implicitly saying that you're only looking at rosy scenarios if you aren't actively looking for the extreme situations that are exisistntial risks.

But again its only if you're trying to be money not just a tech demo