Nostr Web Client

If you can’t prove whether coins were moved by an owner or an attacker, then you can’t prove a “attack” ever occurred. All you’d have is a story, an unverifiable assumption under the guise of science.

To change/“upgrade” Bitcoin over an unprovable threat is to abandon the very principle it was built on: don’t trust, verify.

Jake Woodhouse 2mo ago 💬 2

The chances these long dormant coins are being moved by a nefarious actor is very low

It’s just as likely that a nefarious actor is moving recently attained coins

nostr:npub1qh5sal68c8swet6ut0w5evjmj6vnw29x3k967h7atn45unzjyeyq6ceh9r does some great on-chain anlaysis looking at long-term holder behaviour

And frankly it explains so well why we get sell-side pressure when the price runs

People have made a amazing returns, far better than any other asset class, and it makes sense to cash some in

I believe that’s what we’re seeing

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Janis 2mo ago 💬 1

In general I agree. Except new coins are much less likely to be attacked, because people routinely use HD wallets these days, so long-range attacks wouldn’t work. There only the short-range attack targeting the funds while they’re in the mempool would be a concern.

It’s primarily old coins in wallets with long-exposed pubkeys that would be first attacked.

_Checkɱate 🔑⚡🌋☢️🛢️ 2mo ago 💬 3

Old ancient coins are not moving. Most of the sellside pressure comes from this cycle and last cycle holders.

It's not from coins being attacked and stolen.

Jake Woodhouse 2mo ago 💬 1

Agree there James 🙏🏻

NowClip 2mo ago

Pedophile

JRA 2mo ago

Just a weak class

NowClip 2mo ago

Sick pedophile. People will learn the truth about you eventually.