{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1swfeusu3ua9trup00qcnrgc2yndksyvgku4epk5tec7u4fmrez6qxpul5t","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1swfeusu3ua9trup00qcnrgc2yndksyvgku4epk5tec7u4fmrez6qxpul5t","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-02-12\n📝 Original message:\u003e \"The approach\" is how Bitcoin has always worked.\n\u003e\n\nMike, you're making \"it worked before, and thus it will work in future\"\nkind of an argument.\nIt is an extremely shitty kind of an argument. And it can be used to\njustify any kind of bullshit.\nE.g. any scamcoin which haven't yet collapsed will work forever.\n\nAs I mentioned, it depends on scale. Highly sophisticated attacks are only\nfeasible when scale is sufficiently big.\nI.e. when you have millions of dollars transacted each day it is one thing,\nbut if you process billions of dollars, it becomes a whole another matter.\n\nThe best way to profit from zero-confirmation payment disruption is through\nderivatives: short-sell Bitcoin while performing this attack. But this kind\nof an attack depends on a number of conditions:\n\n1. highly liquid and reliable derivative market\n2. sufficiently stable exchange rate\n3. significant attack impact: lots of merchants relying on\nzero-confirmation payments, and lots of customers paying this way\n4. significant amounts of capital available to the attacker\n\nThese conditions are not yet met, and were never met in the Bitcoin's\nhistory so far.\nThis is why I wrote \"5 years from now\", I believe that we might reach those\nconditions around that time.\n\nDirect impact of an attack might actually be low (but even if it is just\n0.1%, 0.1% of 1 billion is 10 million, which isn't bad), but attacker might\nprofit from the panic it causes.\n\nNote that I'm talking about situation where Bitcoin-aware PoS solutions are\ndeployed on a big scale, so cost of upgrade might be huge.\n\nSo anyway, in my opinion, it is actually great that Bitcoin is still\nrelatively small: we have an opportunity to analyze and improve things.\nBut you seem to be hostile to people who do that (and who do not share your\nopinion), which is kinda uncool.\n\nAlso, you do not bother to back your intuition with rigorous reasoning,\nwhile also attacking people who offer alternatives with non-rigorous\nslipper-slope kind of arguments. Which is doubly uncool.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150212/c39d4998/attachment.html\u003e"}