Replying to Avatar .

Many services can be protected by bitcoin. Most haven't realized the power of doing so. Projects like nostr:nprofile1qqspp9hkhc9y6lcwesklfmfvs6plzsl0eq0whglvumd2m5hu5ax8anqprpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezucmgv95k6cfwd9hxvme0qyt8wumn8ghj7mmjv9hxwetn09hxxtn5v43kstcpr3mhxue69uhkymmnw3ezummjv9hxwetn09hxxtn5v43kstcsa3stq require bitcoin payments to access wifi, nostr:nprofile1qqsgha3fk023ng8c4quszdayghqwkt6l9d9ga4c3280gnqz3aqqx7ycpzdmhxue69uhhwmm59e6hg7r09ehkuef0elfuqq requires cashu tokens as authorization to access api calls. Whirlpool Tx0 is an anti sybil attack fee. That is protecting these services from exploitation by enforcing real world physical costs on abusers in the form of a hardcoded bitcoin payment.

The focus of computing has always been to try and be more efficient not less. To use abstract power not physical power.

Bitcoin is inefficient physical power. It takes lots of real power to change the state. That means any would be attacker must use real power to exploit it.

Using logic as the constraint, ie more code to restrict other code never works because there is always a way to exploit the code. Even now people are discussing whether quantum computing can overcome encryption. More logic defeating logic.

You can't fake a bitcoin payment. It requires real world costs.

Tollgates, payment walls, fees, or anyway you wish to describe a bitcoin payment, a state change requiring real world physical power, as a requirement to take any further action secures the user from exploitation.

If it cost you a bitcoin to read my emails no one is going to incur that cost. If you can just hack google then they are nearly free. The payment is a real world physical cost not abstract hacks.

We have plenty of ways to physically protect private keys. Using stolen bitcoin from compromised keys doesn't change the requirement for a bitcoin payment as a gatekeeper. Signing a message using a compromised key doesn't undermine the power the key bestows. You don't really own bitcoin, you protect the key that grants you access to signing for bitcoin.

We currently think that those keys grant you access to dollars. But they are also access to a digital securtiy protocol that can constrain unlimited abstract hacks.

It being onerous to obtain bitcoin is a part of the point of putting your systems behind a bitcoin wall of energy.

I would love it if that I had to send myself a payment to transfer the title of my home or open a line of credit or any number of actions today that result in fraud and abuse. Want to change my address, send my medical records, let me vote.. secure it by bitcoin and put me in control.

You’re still missing the point

The ecash is predicated on sound cryptography and signatures

That is the prerequisite. Adding value packets to it doesn’t further protect from the class of attacks it’s just another feature that may or may not have value independent of security

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I don't see it as an either or. It can be an and.

The AND case adds no value in the security front and rests upon the same prerequisites. It is just a special case