pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @klk OP 3 Jun \ parent \ on: Are you comfortable with Bitcoin's security model? AskSN
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
The 100k transaction fee scenario was in sats, not USD. It's basic math about what would be needed to maintain current security levels if block rewards continue halving and the security budget shrinks relative to network value. The whitepaper's mention of "zero fee transactions" was written when block rewards were 50 BTC and the network was tiny. Economic incentives evolve.
On difficulty adjustment - yes, it adjusts to maintain block times, but it doesn't magically solve the security budget problem. If total mining revenue (subsidy + fees) becomes too small relative to what's being secured, the network becomes vulnerable regardless of difficulty.
The "Sybil attack" concern you mention is actually exactly what I'm worried about, but in reverse. When mining becomes unprofitable for honest actors, attackers can potentially acquire cheap hashrate (from miners shutting down) and reorganize the chain. Maybe it's enough to add a limit of how many blocks in the past can be rewritten. But that's not yet part of the consensus rules or Bitcoin client implementations.
Bitcoin isn't "designed to facilitate theft" - but any system with economic incentives can become vulnerable if those incentives break down. That's why this conversation matters.
No"Bitcoin isn't 'designed to facilitate theft'"
The Balthazar Grecian said, "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence."
Therefore inexplicable incompetence must be malice. The completely undocumented source code we are led to believe came from Satoshi is so awful it must be malice, IMHO.
The MtGOX fiasco and whitewashing, is so inexplicable... e.g. why is there no media investigation of the missing 850,000 bitcoins? Do I have to do it myself??? How could Karpeles receive no jail time when he was caught committing fraud unrelated to the exchange theft? Inexplicable coverup = malice.
The 1MDB fiasco.. supposed 6 countries and Malaysia with the full advisement of Goldman Sachs thought it was smart to steal billions of dollars from Malaysia by depositing the money directly into the Prime Minister's personal bank account? Really? You believe that? Or did Satoshi try to help the people of Malaysia and cash himself out to the tune of $1B USD, by selling a million or so BTC to the 1MDB fund.... and that transaction was then covered up and stolen by state level actors? Which seems more likely? It's easy to trace the 11 50,000 BTC transfers and the other 10,000 and 20,000 transfers in the year 2011 to laundering operations involving vanity addresses starting with 1DMB. (Funny right?). Also, MtGox, and a vanity wallet called Ross Ulbricht. But what you will see immediately is a 500,000 Bitcoin transfer that immediately in the ensuing hours and days sends out round number txs in 100, 200, or 300 BTC amounts every few hours. Exactly as Prime Minister Najib was instructed to do by Satoshi, an employee of Goldman Sachs at the time. Those 100-300btc magnitude txs should be able to be easily traced back to individual persons and govt officials cooperating with Najib in full knowledge of the whole Goldman Sachs-Malaysia-Satoshi-1MDB Bitcoin deal to promote the economic development of the Malaysian people.
Bitcoin was definitely designed to do that!
reply
I appreciate you sharing your perspective, but I think we're looking at very different interpretations of Bitcoin's history and design.
The technical concerns I raised about mining economics and security budgets are based on Bitcoin's current implementation and well-documented game theory. When I mention potential vulnerabilities from shrinking security budgets, I'm referring to established economic models that many researchers have analyzed - not claiming Bitcoin was intentionally designed with flaws.
Regarding the historical events you mention - while financial scandals like Mt. Gox and 1MDB certainly happened, the connections you're drawing to Satoshi seem highly speculative. The blockchain is transparent, so if there were clear evidence of the transactions you describe, it would be independently verifiable by anyone.
My original concern remains focused on the practical question of Bitcoin's long-term security model as block subsidies continue halving. Whether that's addressed through higher fees, protocol changes, or other solutions is an open question that deserves serious technical discussion rather than speculation about past conspiracies.
The math around security economics isn't about malice - it's about ensuring Bitcoin remains secure as its incentive structure evolves over the coming decades.
reply
"The blockchain is transparent, so if there were clear evidence of the transactions you describe, it would be independently verifiable by anyone."
There were eleven 50,000 BTC transactions resulting in a half-million BTC wallet sending out small 100BTC magnitude transfers every few hours. Do you know why?
If the Blockchain is being successfully independently verified then I would expect a single tx 10X bigger than all the other txs in 2011 to be common folklore among all the hardcore hodling old-timers. Why would someone receive 500,000 BTC and then just send small round number txs every few hours. A good guess might say that is logical behavior for someone trying to let such a large transaction mature while spreading out a paper trail by creating outgoing transactions to official, public and/or undeniable personal associates as a defense tactic against who-knows-what unforeseeable attack/theft. I'm saying Prime Minister Najib of Malaysia did that when he sent those 100-300 BTC txs, which can be traced to Najib and his associates, and the 500kBTC incoming transfer can be traced back to Satoshi.
Surely my above claims are easily refuted.
Can someone please spend 15 minutes clicking through the blockchain starting with a search for "largest Bitcoin tx of 2011"? Thanks.
reply