rich1.0npub1yw9mz9gsrukq2seu9w9wljqw6k62l8fllpz8fzze673znzc3ddysaz8l47https://nostr.ae/npub1yw9mz9gsrukq2seu9w9wljqw6k62l8fllpz8fzze673znzc3ddysaz8l47njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-09-19 📝 Original message:>The state is the threat in the Bitcoin threat model. You comments below >acknowledge it. The assumption of hostile state actors is the only >rational starting point. That which is regulated (and regulatable) >in Bitcoin is the attack surface. I think, you just proved my point. If your goal is to shrink the attack surface as much as possible, you are better off being a marginalized alt-coin. >This threat represents the difference between Bitcoin and Fedcoin. _This_ is the false dichotomy. There's a range of coins between DarkCoin and FedCoin. >This is extremely naive. At a minimum, getting popular/successful (and regulated) is the formula for regulatory capture. Let me give you an example. Suppose you are a regular guy, say Peter Todd, and you are faced with 10 policemen in anti-riot gear. You can fight them in two ways: 1. become stronger, so you could provide an adequate response, either by turning into Hulk or by getting another 30-50 Peter Todds. 2. lose some fat, learn a few parkour tricks and move around mostly by night behind dumpsters. The worst you can fare is just being Peter Todd with a backpack and an expensive camera on his neck, wandering around the city in daylight. Your vision of Bitcoin is the most vulnerable to government attacks.