pull down to refresh

Biggest Bitcoin concerns, go!
1529 sats \ 18 comments \ @BitcoinIsTheFuture 4 Sep 2023 bitcoin
Not unique enough? Governments slow down adoption (supply chain -attack ASIC creation)? Bug or quantum threat to the code?
write
preview
related posts
617 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 4 Sep 2023
The unknown unknowns.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 4 Sep 2023
Few get this but we can often forget we often don't know what we don't know. Nice Rumsfeld reference.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @handsome_latino 4 Sep 2023
^ this
NFT Ordinals
Those really surprised me when I first learned about them. I couldn't sleep the night I was explained what an NFT was a few years back.
A JPEG of a monkey that lives for free on the internet and everyone can download? Shocking.
reply
1343 sats \ 5 replies \ @03393ec3a3 4 Sep 2023
For me, it’s fixed supply / halvings outrunning game theory. I am not sure the whitepaper calculations account for MEV, inscriptions, Mempool.space Accelerator, and hashrate markets/derivatives. Theories abound that decreased subsidies will gradually give way to network fees and that will be okay, but my previous experience in altcoins makes me think that high fees eclipsing any subsidy will provoke toxic reorgs and shenanigans. I don’t see a way out - paying higher fees to speed up your transaction just results in more incentive for shenanigans. Finding ways to extract value from blockspace (OP_RETURN, inscriptions, etc.) seems to break whitepaper assumptions that miners only receive value from block rewards. Hopefully I am wrong.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @BitcoinIsTheFuture OP 4 Sep 2023
My understanding is that more code will need to be put in place to truly limit the 21 million
reply
50 sats \ 0 replies \ @03393ec3a3 4 Sep 2023
Based on what I see in the Bitcoin Core source code validation.cpp file, I disagree - the subsidy has an exponential decay for 64 epochs and then 0: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp
CAmount GetBlockSubsidy(int nHeight, const Consensus::Params& consensusParams)
{
    int halvings = nHeight / consensusParams.nSubsidyHalvingInterval;
    // Force block reward to zero when right shift is undefined.
    if (halvings >= 64)
        return 0;

    CAmount nSubsidy = 50 * COIN;
    // Subsidy is cut in half every 210,000 blocks which will occur approximately every 4 years.
    nSubsidy >>= halvings;
    return nSubsidy;
}
The critical thing to note is that reaching 0 is not when the problem occurs. Instead, the incentive for shenanigans grows as the subsidy declines in relation to fees, so probably in a couple of halvings things will start to get weird. Maybe I'm missing something.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @handsome_latino 4 Sep 2023
I'm also quite worried about this too, but as a selfish human being, for practical purposes, it might not affect us so much in our lifetime (depending how old you are -- I'm already almost halfway).
My children will learn to adapt and figure it out just like we have. Everything will be alright.
reply
30 sats \ 1 reply \ @03393ec3a3 4 Sep 2023
All we need for problematic shenanigans is for fees to approximate subsidies for honest block production, then at that point, out of band funding or bribes set direction. If I’m not completely wrong, we could see issues in 5-9 years. Really hope I am missing some variables here.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @handsome_latino 5 Sep 2023
Yeah, I also agree. Last time that fees were multiple BTC per block, they already started thinking of services for transaction accelerating.
reply
40 sats \ 0 replies \ @gregory 4 Sep 2023
People obsessing with the price instead of building solutions and helping adoption
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @inverselarp 4 Sep 2023
Bug in entropy in some major wallet firmware, he wallet supply chain attack, inability to implement good-enough scaling for masses in time
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BitcoinIsTheFuture OP 4 Sep 2023
Oh that is a good one I hadn’t considered!
reply
221 sats \ 2 replies \ @CruncherDefi 4 Sep 2023
My two biggest concerns. If not for those two I would already go all-in into bitcoin.
  1. We trust that satoshi-era coins are truly lost (and won't be dumped on the market). It's a trust, because we can never be sure.
  2. Not having quantum resistant UTXOs, when they are needed.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @danieltapa 5 Sep 2023
the quantum issue would be a problem for many aspects of today's world, not just bitcoin..
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BitcoinIsTheFuture OP 5 Sep 2023
Yup those are huge!
reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @fredosha 4 Sep 2023
It will let the people get out of the matrix call government control.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @drdoom 4 Sep 2023
That it can be purchased with fiat. By accepting dollars for Bitcoin those who control dollars by extension control Bitcoin. At least to some extent; thankfully the system has inherit structures to mitigate monopolization.
Over a long enough period though it is hard to turn a blind-eye to the recipients of infinite fiat money and what they are/might/can do to consolidate/control all aspects of the ecosystem (or to literally torch the world around the ecosystem rendering it a moot point when all is said and done).
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BitcoinIsTheFuture OP 5 Sep 2023
Yes this needs to shift!
reply