Nostr

A thread from shatter:

As a passionate bitcoiner I am constantly looking for valid counter arguments to the beliefs I have adopted since studying #Bitcoin   .

The unfortunate reality I keep facing is that anyone who attempts to present an argument does not know enough about bitcoin to see their argument through.

What is the best argument you’ve hear against bitcoin?

Comment, like and repost this so it reaches some normie’s timeline and we can hear what they have to say.

Reply:

The only valid argument is that of the "MadMax" scenario that would favor (somewhat) the gold bugs.

But then the question is: what are the realistic odds we get this in our lifetime?

Well okay, there is the "entire planet under a Nazi/Commi style global government" where there is no place to go. That doesn't favor gold bugs either.

Again, what are the odds of this...

My reply:

Bitcoin is a technology of peace. The Bible says "they will proclaim peace and security, and THEN the end will come. Btc will gather together all the nations of the Earth, who will finally defeat the great harlot, Babylon the Great, the world empire of false religion.

https://twitter.com/BitcoinVanguard/status/1708602828724289592?t=i8uhlWFvai1_UlOz_WQ9Bg&s=19

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

DataNostrum 2y ago

The main design weakness that I perceive in Bitcoin is its reliance on the hardness of SHA-256 for the entire accumulated Proof-of-Work. If someone were to break SHA-256, the entire 14 years of Proof-of-Work would become invalid all at once. And that PoW is what protects the entire ledger, so to avoid having the whole ledger rewritten, Bitcoin would probably have to use a kind of "official snapshot" to preserve the original transaction history, which seems awful.

In my opinion, there should be multiple hashing algorithms interleaved, so that if one is broken, the Proof-of-Work chain largely remains standing while replacement algos are added.

The responses that I've received to this, is that I don't know how the cryptography field works (which is true) and that SHA-256 can't be broken just like that - that "we would know" because such hash functions don't get broken in one step, but weaknesses are revealed over time. I doubt this - we would know if an *academic* finds weaknesses because they would publish to get famous, but if a government breaks it, how would we get advance knowledge of it?

Justin Nakamoto-San ☑️ 2y ago

We will have stronger hashing when we need it. There's a thread on stacker.News about password strength vs Moore's law.