pull down to refresh
1231 sats \ 1 reply \ @freetx 11 Dec
tldr. heavy rocks lover doesn't like bitcoin
reply
37 sats \ 0 replies \ @anon 11 Dec
Thanks for saving me from reading that 🙏🏽
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @pillar 11 Dec
He happily ignores the power cost of running the 51% attack. As well as the incentives of the USG to fight back against a 51% attack should it be in their interest to keep Bitcoin alive.
I think this is a strong case of Dunning Kruger.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0231bbfa83 OP 11 Dec
Why would we want to invest in something that we then have to fight to keep alive, and in the process of fighting for the thing, would ruin the thing (yeeeah! USG pushing all the miners out of the industry just what we all wanted!)
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 11 Dec
Or someone else sell theirs. But, "He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" of holding gold. Such an attack on isn't as sustainable as it would be on bitcoin I guess, because they can't sell gold after they've sold it.
While I'm not going to be the source of a better answer than "He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules," I hope we can find somewhere someone has explored this further than the whitepaper.
reply