undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmikeblackson4y ago0 comments

I have seen no evidence that central banks are as agile as you claim. Changing a number on a central database is not impressive and doesn't prove they can execute a much more technical attack on a well defended network.

Central banks are more fragile than the Bitcoin network and they definitely don't have the support of the masses. I expect they would lose a lot more than just money in this attack.

Bitcoiners would love to pull these institutions out of the shadows and I don't think central banks survive when exposed to sunlight. Just a small community of coders caught wind of how CBs operate and constructed powerful platforms to carry out large scale speculative attacks on them. Imagine what happens when a few billion people understand how CBs operate... their days are numbered.

0 comments

michaniskin4y ago

Running a 51% attack is not rocket science. It doesn't involve inventing anything new. When they can print the money to fund it it doesn't even require a business plan. All they need to do is buy up enough hash power and they win. Come on now, if there's anything we can learn from 2020, it's that the Fed is extremely efficient at printing money to buy things to shore up their fiat monetary regime.

mikeblacksonOP4y ago

Wrong, a 51% attack by itself will not take down Bitcoin. There is follow up work that I don't think they are competent enough to complete.

michaniskin4y ago

Ok, assume I can make this 51% attack on bitcoin. I will then mine blocks all day, and I won't let anyone else make transactions on the blockchain.

Now consider that any investor who owns bitcoin can't sell it, because they can't get the transaction onto the blockchain. What is the market value of bitcoin? It's exactly zero.

Bitcoin is taken down. No follow-up work required.

mikeblacksonOP4y ago

You seem to believe that in the face of an attack Bitcoin will not adapt, that is a fatal error. There are many methods of reaching consensus available in the toolbox and the number is only growing. Proof of work failing does not equal Bitcoin failing, you might be a bit confused about this point.

---Responding here due to rate limit...

Variations of POW, POS, POK, etc....are easy drop in replacements that are actively being developed as we speak. Most of those alts you speak of have Bitcoin DNA at their core.

>And even if it does, nothing prevents me from 51% attacking that one, too.

Good luck attacking Bitcoin with a proof of stake hybrid that requires owning 51% of the supply to succeed, when the majority of the supply is already issued and is not available for sale. That's why I keep stating that a 51% attack/defeating POW is just the beginning of the work the Fed has to do...

---Rate limit response part 2....

>Finally, this is all kind of irrelevant to the article.

I think you are admitting defeat in long form. The article itself is irrelevant because it doesn't consider the 2nd order effect of any attack. Bitcoin is considered anti-fragile for a reason, it gets stronger as it gets attacked. The developer communities (including the devs working on alts) are an inextricable part of its anti-fragility.

>not some imaginary future thing we might or might not be able to invent after the Fed 51%s actual bitcoin to oblivion.

I could hit a target where it was positioned x years ago... Big Whoop. You aren't defeating its current form, so you lose, repeatedly, and debase the currency (USD) further in the process.

After a few trillion dollar USD expended on failed attacks, the currency being issued will be debased enough to be noticeable by consumers. This "infinite money printer" argument is not thought through. The outcome of more debasement is more demand for bitcoin aka undebaseable money.

Bitcoiners know there is a hyper inflationary event coming soon, I'm sure many would love to induce it by getting the fed to burn money attacking bitcoin :D

2 more replies

andirk4y ago

If you compromised bitcoin, wouldn't you want it to stay high in value? You could still wreck shop but a more realistic example is needed.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

michaniskin4y ago

mikeblacksonOP4y ago

Wrong, a 51% attack by itself will not take down Bitcoin. There is follow up work that I don't think they are competent enough to complete.

michaniskin4y ago

Ok, assume I can make this 51% attack on bitcoin. I will then mine blocks all day, and I won't let anyone else make transactions on the blockchain.

Now consider that any investor who owns bitcoin can't sell it, because they can't get the transaction onto the blockchain. What is the market value of bitcoin? It's exactly zero.

Bitcoin is taken down. No follow-up work required.

mikeblacksonOP4y ago

---Responding here due to rate limit...

Variations of POW, POS, POK, etc....are easy drop in replacements that are actively being developed as we speak. Most of those alts you speak of have Bitcoin DNA at their core.

>And even if it does, nothing prevents me from 51% attacking that one, too.

---Rate limit response part 2....

>Finally, this is all kind of irrelevant to the article.

>not some imaginary future thing we might or might not be able to invent after the Fed 51%s actual bitcoin to oblivion.

I could hit a target where it was positioned x years ago... Big Whoop. You aren't defeating its current form, so you lose, repeatedly, and debase the currency (USD) further in the process.

Bitcoiners know there is a hyper inflationary event coming soon, I'm sure many would love to induce it by getting the fed to burn money attacking bitcoin :D

2 more replies

andirk4y ago

If you compromised bitcoin, wouldn't you want it to stay high in value? You could still wreck shop but a more realistic example is needed.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse