Bitcoin--can it survive?

EvilEyeFleegle

Dogpatch USA
Gold Supporting Member
Nov 2, 2017
15,509
8,624
1,280
Twin Falls Idaho
The problem with Bitcoin....is that under attack it could fragment..and that's a problem!



If an open network such as a blockchain were threatened by a powerful organization—China's censors, Disney’s lawyers, or the FBI trying to take down a more dangerous botnet—it could fragment into multiple networks. That’s not just a nuisance, but an existential risk to Bitcoin.

Bitcoins Greatest Feature Is Also Its Existential Threat

Suppose Bitcoin were fragmented into 10 smaller blockchains, perhaps by geography: one in China, another in the US, and so on. These fragments might retain their original users, and by ordinary logic, nothing would have changed. But Metcalfe’s law implies that the overall value of these blockchain fragments combined would be a mere tenth of the original. That is because the value of an open network relates to how many others you can communicate with—and, in a blockchain, transact with. Since the security of bitcoin currency is achieved through expensive computations, fragmented blockchains are also easier to attack in a conventional manner—through a 51 percent attack—by an organized attacker. This is especially the case if the smaller blockchains all use the same hash function, as they would here.
Traditional currencies are generally not vulnerable to these sorts of asymmetric threats. There are no viable small-scale attacks against the US dollar, or almost any other fiat currency. The institutions and beliefs that give money its value are deep-seated, despite instances of currency hyperinflation.
The only notable attacks against fiat currencies are in the form of counterfeiting. Even in the past, when counterfeit bills were common, attacks could be thwarted. Counterfeiters require specialized equipment and are vulnerable to law enforcement discovery and arrest. Furthermore, most money today—even if it’s nominally in a fiat currency—doesn't exist in paper form.
Bitcoin attracted a following for its openness and immunity from government control. Its goal is to create a world that replaces cultural power with cryptographic power: verification in code, not trust in people. But there is no such world. And today, that feature is a vulnerability. We really don’t know what will happen when the human systems of trust come into conflict with the trustless verification that makes blockchain currencies unique. Just last week we saw this exact attack on smaller blockchains—not Bitcoin yet. We are watching a public socio-technical experiment in the making, and we will witness its success or failure in the not-too-distant future.
 
Last edited:
Bitcoin is a way for the government to track the flow of money. Like many people are working under as independent contractors (1099). That some are not paying their taxes and business owners are not paying for their employees medical benefits or wages. And so bitcoin will help turn this country into a cashless society that the government can watch every transaction that the society makes. That there will be no more paying someone under the table anymore. That is why they have banned the independent contractors (1099) in California, and which every other state will follow.
And when we will become a cashless society. That the government will take its portion straight out of your account. And if you want to contest the amount the government has taken from your account. That you will have to open up a case to explain why they shouldn't have taken that amount.
Law firms, hospitals and others will be able to zapped our account automictically. There will be no more Bill collectors chasing after debtors.
Our monetary system is going cashless. That is why those who are on the welfare programs but don't have an bank account. That the government issued them debit cards to receive their benefits. And then there is are apps like Cashapp that are preparing the public for a cashless society.













 
I had the chance to buy Bitcoin years ago before anyone heard about it...a guy was pushing it in a Phoenix bar...and I passed....:mad-61:
But I don't think I would buy it at the price it sits today....

In your defense it still sounds as weird as hell like it did back in 2011.
 
The problem with Bitcoin....is that under attack it could fragment..and that's a problem!



If an open network such as a blockchain were threatened by a powerful organization—China's censors, Disney’s lawyers, or the FBI trying to take down a more dangerous botnet—it could fragment into multiple networks. That’s not just a nuisance, but an existential risk to Bitcoin.

Bitcoins Greatest Feature Is Also Its Existential Threat

Suppose Bitcoin were fragmented into 10 smaller blockchains, perhaps by geography: one in China, another in the US, and so on. These fragments might retain their original users, and by ordinary logic, nothing would have changed. But Metcalfe’s law implies that the overall value of these blockchain fragments combined would be a mere tenth of the original. That is because the value of an open network relates to how many others you can communicate with—and, in a blockchain, transact with. Since the security of bitcoin currency is achieved through expensive computations, fragmented blockchains are also easier to attack in a conventional manner—through a 51 percent attack—by an organized attacker. This is especially the case if the smaller blockchains all use the same hash function, as they would here.
Traditional currencies are generally not vulnerable to these sorts of asymmetric threats. There are no viable small-scale attacks against the US dollar, or almost any other fiat currency. The institutions and beliefs that give money its value are deep-seated, despite instances of currency hyperinflation.
The only notable attacks against fiat currencies are in the form of counterfeiting. Even in the past, when counterfeit bills were common, attacks could be thwarted. Counterfeiters require specialized equipment and are vulnerable to law enforcement discovery and arrest. Furthermore, most money today—even if it’s nominally in a fiat currency—doesn't exist in paper form.
Bitcoin attracted a following for its openness and immunity from government control. Its goal is to create a world that replaces cultural power with cryptographic power: verification in code, not trust in people. But there is no such world. And today, that feature is a vulnerability. We really don’t know what will happen when the human systems of trust come into conflict with the trustless verification that makes blockchain currencies unique. Just last week we saw this exact attack on smaller blockchains—not Bitcoin yet. We are watching a public socio-technical experiment in the making, and we will witness its success or failure in the not-too-distant future.
An interesting tidbit from the Beeb:
 
I hear its just one big ponzi scheme.No government, nothing backing it,no resources, its just one big electronic geek con. That's what I was told. Just waiting to collasp.
 
Bitcoin is a way for the government to track the flow of money.

LOL - it's exactly the opposite.

And when we will become a cashless society.

A cashless society is what they've been after for a long time. For the reasons you suggest. But Bitcoin was created exactly to remove money, and trade, from government control. It was created to thwart exactly the concerns you raise.

To be sure, the government and the banksters will be trying to figure out a way to control it - and that's the battle. For now, at least, Bitcoin offers a secure outlet for people who don't want their economic activities controlled by governments.
 
I hear its just one big ponzi scheme.No government, nothing backing it,no resources, its just one big electronic geek con. That's what I was told. Just waiting to collasp.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Imagine the harm government owned currency has caused over the centuries. This is possibly a currency controlled by master minds.
 
The problem with Bitcoin....is that under attack it could fragment..and that's a problem!



If an open network such as a blockchain were threatened by a powerful organization—China's censors, Disney’s lawyers, or the FBI trying to take down a more dangerous botnet—it could fragment into multiple networks. That’s not just a nuisance, but an existential risk to Bitcoin.

Bitcoins Greatest Feature Is Also Its Existential Threat

Suppose Bitcoin were fragmented into 10 smaller blockchains, perhaps by geography: one in China, another in the US, and so on. These fragments might retain their original users, and by ordinary logic, nothing would have changed. But Metcalfe’s law implies that the overall value of these blockchain fragments combined would be a mere tenth of the original. That is because the value of an open network relates to how many others you can communicate with—and, in a blockchain, transact with. Since the security of bitcoin currency is achieved through expensive computations, fragmented blockchains are also easier to attack in a conventional manner—through a 51 percent attack—by an organized attacker. This is especially the case if the smaller blockchains all use the same hash function, as they would here.
Traditional currencies are generally not vulnerable to these sorts of asymmetric threats. There are no viable small-scale attacks against the US dollar, or almost any other fiat currency. The institutions and beliefs that give money its value are deep-seated, despite instances of currency hyperinflation.
The only notable attacks against fiat currencies are in the form of counterfeiting. Even in the past, when counterfeit bills were common, attacks could be thwarted. Counterfeiters require specialized equipment and are vulnerable to law enforcement discovery and arrest. Furthermore, most money today—even if it’s nominally in a fiat currency—doesn't exist in paper form.
Bitcoin attracted a following for its openness and immunity from government control. Its goal is to create a world that replaces cultural power with cryptographic power: verification in code, not trust in people. But there is no such world. And today, that feature is a vulnerability. We really don’t know what will happen when the human systems of trust come into conflict with the trustless verification that makes blockchain currencies unique. Just last week we saw this exact attack on smaller blockchains—not Bitcoin yet. We are watching a public socio-technical experiment in the making, and we will witness its success or failure in the not-too-distant future.

Why use bitcoin. What is wrong with regular old coin.
 
Why Bitcoin? the ultimate goal is to eliminate cash, so the
Government can really track your every move. The Bitcoin geeks are in on this Government con. Just a little bit ahead of the Gov. Its all tied into this New World order crap.
 
The problem with Bitcoin....is that under attack it could fragment..and that's a problem!



If an open network such as a blockchain were threatened by a powerful organization—China's censors, Disney’s lawyers, or the FBI trying to take down a more dangerous botnet—it could fragment into multiple networks. That’s not just a nuisance, but an existential risk to Bitcoin.

Bitcoins Greatest Feature Is Also Its Existential Threat

Suppose Bitcoin were fragmented into 10 smaller blockchains, perhaps by geography: one in China, another in the US, and so on. These fragments might retain their original users, and by ordinary logic, nothing would have changed. But Metcalfe’s law implies that the overall value of these blockchain fragments combined would be a mere tenth of the original. That is because the value of an open network relates to how many others you can communicate with—and, in a blockchain, transact with. Since the security of bitcoin currency is achieved through expensive computations, fragmented blockchains are also easier to attack in a conventional manner—through a 51 percent attack—by an organized attacker. This is especially the case if the smaller blockchains all use the same hash function, as they would here.
Traditional currencies are generally not vulnerable to these sorts of asymmetric threats. There are no viable small-scale attacks against the US dollar, or almost any other fiat currency. The institutions and beliefs that give money its value are deep-seated, despite instances of currency hyperinflation.
The only notable attacks against fiat currencies are in the form of counterfeiting. Even in the past, when counterfeit bills were common, attacks could be thwarted. Counterfeiters require specialized equipment and are vulnerable to law enforcement discovery and arrest. Furthermore, most money today—even if it’s nominally in a fiat currency—doesn't exist in paper form.
Bitcoin attracted a following for its openness and immunity from government control. Its goal is to create a world that replaces cultural power with cryptographic power: verification in code, not trust in people. But there is no such world. And today, that feature is a vulnerability. We really don’t know what will happen when the human systems of trust come into conflict with the trustless verification that makes blockchain currencies unique. Just last week we saw this exact attack on smaller blockchains—not Bitcoin yet. We are watching a public socio-technical experiment in the making, and we will witness its success or failure in the not-too-distant future.
Major financial instititions are buying it in mass quantities. This will stabilize it... it’s here to stay. Will be over 100k by years end
 
We better hope it disappears. The US dollar being the worlds currency only thing keeping us afloat
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top