3 ms·

> they could either just buy some thousand Bitcoin and spam the network with transactions Marginal loss on each transaction + "spamming transactions" = essenti

> they could either just buy some thousand Bitcoin and spam the network with transactions Marginal loss on each transaction + "spamming transactions" = essentially paying people to run their machines at 100% for a while for you, which to the tune of "some thousand bitcoin" would be money to their ears > just [..] buy enough hardware to get over 50% hashing power 'just' > Especially China only needs to take down the 2 or 3 top miners and can cut the mining power in half within a day If that is true (and I'm not convinced that it is) you don't think those '2 or 3' entities aren't large and financially self-interested enough to work to secure themselves, divest their resources, or so on? I highly doubt any sort of subversive action could be taken sub-rosa to the tune of 51% of a network of paraniod individuals who'd either fork or move out given any whiff of subversion, especially by state actors.

foepys 10y ago
> Marginal loss on each transaction + "spamming transactions" = essentially paying people to run their machines at 100% for a while for you, which to the tune of "some thousand bitcoin" would be money to their ears If the network is unusable for 6 months or so because confirmations take dozens of blocks or need very high fees, what do you think would happen? Everybody just waits for it to blow over and continues like nothing happened? The costs don't matter if the control over the monetary system is at stake. Defend now or the $/€/¥/£/etc will lose value anyways. Not that I expect it to come this far but don't underestimate the monetary power of large states. Bitcoins often quoted market cap is only a very, very small blip on their radar right now. > 'just' Okay, you are right. They would most likely confiscate the miners' hardware and will mine with that. So they kill two birds with one stone. > If that is true (and I'm not convinced that it is) you don't think those '2 or 3' entities aren't large and financially self-interested enough to work to secure themselves, divest their resources, or so on? China regularly takes down party members for "corruption" (more likely not enough corruption). So if not even party members are safe, how could anybody be safe that threatens the power of the whole government?

foepys 10y ago

> Marginal loss on each transaction + "spamming transactions" = essentially paying people to run their machines at 100% for a while for you, which to the tune of "some thousand bitcoin" would be money to their ears If the network is unusable for 6 months or so because confirmations take dozens of blocks or need very high fees, what do you think would happen? Everybody just waits for it to blow over and continues like nothing happened? The costs don't matter if the control over the monetary system is at stake. Defend now or the $/€/¥/£/etc will lose value anyways. Not that I expect it to come this far but don't underestimate the monetary power of large states. Bitcoins often quoted market cap is only a very, very small blip on their radar right now. > 'just' Okay, you are right. They would most likely confiscate the miners' hardware and will mine with that. So they kill two birds with one stone. > If that is true (and I'm not convinced that it is) you don't think those '2 or 3' entities aren't large and financially self-interested enough to work to secure themselves, divest their resources, or so on? China regularly takes down party members for "corruption" (more likely not enough corruption). So if not even party members are safe, how could anybody be safe that threatens the power of the whole government?