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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
