3 ms·
The implication now is that there'd be no standing armies or other, as you say, tools of power? Do you believe this?
by mancerayder 8y ago
The implication now is that there'd be no standing armies or other, as you say, tools of power? Do you believe this?
- superkuh 8y agoNot sure where you are going with this, but yeah, Bitcoin does not have a standing army. It secures itself from attack by proof of work.
- s73v3r_ 8y agoOk, cool. How does that secure the rest of us?
- OedipusRex 8y agoIt doesn't, Bitcoin is as safe as the security of the person who holds it. And as someone who had Bitcoin on Mt Gox, this is a moot point to argue.
- s73v3r_ 8y agoThe point is that the military that the person claimed should be counted in the energy expenditures related to the USD does far, far, far more than "protect the dollar", and even if we all moved to Bitcoin, we'd still have to have the military.
- root_axis 8y agoIf your logic made any sense then only countries with standing armies could successfully issue their own currencies, but that's obviously not the case.