LOL!
These people...
pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 4 Jul 2024
My counter argument is that the security provided by POW is security regarding the chain state and protects against double spends. But private keys are secure even if the hash rate is low. Thus the security required by HODLers is not the security provided by miners. It's transactors that require security based on the hash rate, thus it makes sense that they pay for it.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @eduardopro OP 4 Jul 2024
That's a phenomenal counter argument, fellow pleb.
My admittedly less sophisticated counter argument would be:
Shut up, dummy! Do you even Bitcoin? Delete your account!
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @clr 4 Jul 2024
Are they losing audience and they feel the need to post these inflammatory articles in order to get some attention?
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @eduardopro OP 4 Jul 2024
That's a good theory.
I wouldn't know, though.
I did find out that a VC-type individual signed the article initially, but after the community reacted, Bitcoin Magazine changed the author to "Bob."
Check it out --> https://x.com/ICOffenderII/status/1808614801582825861
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @clr 4 Jul 2024
Great find.
I thought that they were smarter than that. When I read the article, I wasn't sure if it was real or satire.
reply