pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 4 Jul 2024 \ on: Another day, another idiotic idea posted by Bitcoin Magazine: HODLers tax? GFY! bitcoin
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.
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