Nostr

IMO he only makes any sense if you assume that bitcoin will be the only widely accepted currency in the future, the threat is other people not mining transactions that are linked to you, so nation states if they can’t be anonymous will want miners. I don’t think there is any more to his thesis than that.

Aside from the above, I think his whole thing about using bitcoin to secure “certain control actions” and using energy as being better than logic for security just misunderstands how computer security and Bitcoin work.

But I’d be more than happy to find examples of some computer security thing that disproves that.

Séimí Mac Síomón 1y ago

Shit man, I haven't even gottent to that bit yet.

My first impression from the first page is that there seems to be a lot of technobabble ( 'electro-cyber' for instance ).

Right so the threat is other people NOT mining transactions linked to you. Okay right, so one nation state, if they control a sizable portion of the hashrate can 'nerf' the other nation states transactions? Is that the thesis yeah?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

mark tyler 1y ago

I had the same strong technobabble impression, so I only ever read portions, could totally be wrong, but yeah. And the thing is, bitcoin is censorship resistant lol, so you don’t even really need to start mining until your enemies are really unified and control a LOT of the network. Even having profit motivated miners control 1% of the network is probably more than enough 😂

But I totally grant the possibility that maybe it sounds insubstantial is because of top secret redactions… idk.

Séimí Mac Síomón 1y ago

Thanks for info man.