Thanks to the extremely fascist and authoritarian Canadians (yes that's tongue in cheek), I do have some ideas.
Crypto was never more than a solution in search of a problem Crypto was supposed to represent nothing less than a paradigmatic shift in the global finance industry. Its backers, led by Silicon Valley venture capitalists bent on divining their next fortunes, envisioned a new, digital form of currency that couldn’t be controlled by any government. They dreamed of a new method of stored value, like gold. And they foresaw a more efficient way for people to move money across borders, given that the global remittance bus Dreams are all good and fine. But cryptocurrencies had two things working against them from the outset. they have no inherent value, no matter what their promoters insisted. not being backed by the full faith and credit of a credible government turned out to be a liability rather than a virtue. Like any gold rush, the crypto craze has created vast wealth for a few — and a trail of misery for many. Actual gold rushes featured fights over a precious metal that looks pretty even when financial parties disagree over its value. Crypto, which exists only in the digital ether, was a made-up concept from its inception. After you switch off your computer or phone, you can’t even look at it.
Bitcoin: ♾️ SBF: ♾️ in jail speculation, derivative and general shitcoinery gets shrugged off eventually. This goes for miners.
Came across this recently: https://github.com/dogecoin/dogecoin/issues/3243 He created the issue in the Dogecoin repo, but mentions the issue affects Litecoin and Bitcoin too (even used Bitcoin in an example). This would likely be more of a DoS type attack than anything that would take down Bitcoin or anything like that (and would require a dedicated botnet that wanted to do this), but just wanted to show a real-ish example of the problems in converting the "math" of Bitcoin into real-world systems running code based on that math. That math apparently didn't specify a maxuploadtarget. Again, don't think this is *that* bad, but I wouldn't want to run the world's monetary system on something that could be exploited by things like this (i.e., don't assume tech alone can do these things). Also came across this video: It is about all of crypto and blockchain, but outside of some specific items, it generally applies to Bitcoin (including some specific Bitcoin claims/examples). Covers a lot of the arguments we've had in this thread, particularly some of the technical ones. Is Bitcoin centralized, can it be seized, 51% attacks, etc. Long video, but there are lots of chapters if you want to just look at specific topics. It sticks mostly to just the technical aspects of things, which like I said, is enough for me to not approve of something like Bitcoin, ignoring how it impacts the grid, whether the economic philosophy behind it is good, etc.
I was talking about the claim of censorship resistance for Bitcoin (or any crypto), not so much a 51% attack. I suppose there could be a semantics argument, but practically speaking, the Canadians made it pretty clear how censorship resistant common Bitcoin/crypto transactions are (and I'm guessing much more authoritarian regimes would go much further). On 51% attacks, I'm not sure anyone would bother with that specific kind of attack (for now), but if they wanted to, there are a couple of potential ways to do it. And yes, it wouldn't be by brute-forcing an attack with a massive cluster.
It just means it's a possible vector for a government sponsored actor would use this along with other uncovered vulnerabilities to attempt ****ery with the ledger. It's all open source and there's a hope to fix problems. Post-Snowden, it's highly naive to assume everyone will report the exploits they discover. Btc is not larger than gold. The value/cost of doing it isn't worth it yet.
One of the core tenets of Bitcoin is no hard forks. Everything must be a soft fork/backwards compatible. Of course there will be exploits outside of the network, like the $5 wrench attack or just using shitty hardware and software wallets or state sponsored attacks on the on/off ramps to fiatland. If you're doing a serious transaction on (tens of millions of dollars worth) bitcoin, you're not going to use the latest revision which could be prone to attacks. You will use the most secure version, whatever that might be.
Everytime someone here suggests that a hard fork "creates more Bitcoin!" it makes my eyes bleed. If you declare that pawns can now move backwards, you are not playing Chess anymore, and insisting that you are just makes you look like a dumbass.
She definitely has a Habsburg thing going on. (NTTAWWT -- might actually have royal blood. Mee-ow!) Spoiler
