😱 How to rape bitcoin
435 sats \ 12 comments \ @hynek 22 Nov 2022 bitcoin
For the last few days, I have been terrified by the following idea. Imagine a situation where most people have switched to bitcoin. You can pay with bitcoin everywhere via LN.

What if the regulator bans businesses from opening channels to other non-whitelisted nodes? 🤔
Even though you have your own node and a good connection, you can't pay at any of the official stores. The regulator would simply know right away that the business in question violated the enforced rules by opening a channel with an unverified party. Entry into such an ecosystem would only be possible through a licensed entity, which can have any number of requirements and restrictions.
Consequently, there is no problem tightening such a system. After years, they can switch to fractional reserves and eventually separate from bitcoin again completely
Do you have any ideas on how to counter this? Or does it seem like nonsense to you? Thanks for every comment.
Btw if you want to add some on-chain paranoia, I recommend this article: How could regulators successfully introduce Bitcoin censorship and other dystopias
write
preview
related posts
177 sats \ 2 replies \ @ln123 22 Nov 2022
Plebs are highly encouraged to engage in regulatory arbitrage and relocate to jurisdictions with friendly regulation
Applies to companies too
reply
277 sats \ 0 replies \ @hynek OP 22 Nov 2022
It seems to me that most businesses just adapt to the legal requirements
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @TomK 22 Nov 2022
Yes, game theory is playing out in our favor.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @inevitable 23 Nov 2022
We will find a way.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @AngeloMetal 22 Nov 2022
You can track a node's channels, but you can't prevent a merchant from having several nodes.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @fiatbad 23 Nov 2022
Yea, exactly. I don't see how a government could enforce what OP is suggesting.
reply
1 sat \ 3 replies \ @nerd2ninja 22 Nov 2022
Question for you. Will mining be profitable for corporations? The miner subsidy won't last forever and Peter Todd even believes there will be a crisis in the fee market that could create a security issue for Bitcoin.
Meanwhile, I'm seeing ASIC water heaters and ASIC central heating systems. Slightly more expensive up front, but use the same electricity and mine Bitcoin. So over very long periods of time maybe pay for themselves.
I see the hashrate at some point being way way WAY above the profit motive due to innovative solutions that make mining as a business infeasible.
reply
15 sats \ 0 replies \ @hynek OP 22 Nov 2022
It's really hard to say..
reply
5 sats \ 1 reply \ @NorthKoreanHostage 23 Nov 2022
Incorrect.
"The miner subsidy" is actually composed of two parts:
  1. The block reward, which is cut in half every 4 years, and its newly created BTC.
  2. The transaction fees from the transactions the miner includes in the block.
The block reward will eventually reach zero.
The fees go on forever.
You're worried about a flawed system that exists only in your mind. Bitcoin is perfect.
The transaction fees alone will be sufficient to secure the network against all attacks in the future forever.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @nerd2ninja 23 Nov 2022
Firstly, transaction fees are not part of the subsidy, they are part of the block reward. You have your terms mixed up.
The subsidy is initial distribution of Bitcoin. Inflationary monetary policy The fees are payment for services
Both make up the block reward
Secondly, I am not that worried. Peter Todd who does Bitcoin core testing and things, is worried and you can read that here:
https://petertodd.org/2022/surprisingly-tail-emission-is-not-inflationary
In which he references this paper: https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~arvindn/publications/mining_CCS.pdf
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @hynek OP 23 Nov 2022
Private channels can probably solve this threat...
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinosphere 22 Nov 2022
That would harm businesses bigtime. They'd fight it tooth and nail while plebs use non-whitelisted addresses daily that compete with them.
reply