pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @standardcrypto 4 Oct \ parent \ on: Are Treasury Companies Basically Soft Targets for Nationalisation of BTC? bitcoin
heist, operation, tomato tomahto.
what's the difference?
if there are multiple (secret) people with the capability to steal vast quantities of funds at some future point, how do you stop them defecting and doing the theft early and asconding.
The opsec for an "op" like this is a nightmare. Much easier to do a legal 6102 attack and compensate victims with fiat.
"Satoshi's" coins would be legitimately theirs since [they] are Satoshi, sweeps... sure, the point with that more being the global hegemon nation-state window dressing is a bit different than state sponsored NK hackers injecting javascript. Such a thing would have to be done in a way that doesn't open pandora's box, and that capability exists.
reply
not following.
how do you do it without opening pandora's box?
reply
By making use of the larger intelligence apparatus without peer to choose targets carefully... like insights into dead holders, trails of coins believed to be lost, or heisting the heister to your example like NK.
Raiding a Coinbase would kill the golden goose, and shipping client level malware or straight up confiscation using their unique position would be opening such box.
For Bitcoin to achieve their national security goals, other states need to feel at least as secure holding it as they would gold (US Military could with few exceptions take lesser states gold by force if they didn't care about optics)
reply
This helps better understand the whole ‘Bitcoin is money for enemies’ concept
For Bitcoin to achieve their national security goals, other states need to feel at least as secure holding it as they would gold
reply