> the best defense against a political attack is allowing Bitcoin to scale by 100 or 1,000 times in throughput Ok, but are there different kinds of political a

> the best defense against a political attack is allowing Bitcoin to scale by 100 or 1,000 times in throughput Ok, but are there different kinds of political attacks? What's the general description of a political attack? How specifically would bitcoin throughput solve the issue? My brief thoughts: One kind of political attack I can think of is one where some group decides they don't like bitcoin, and want to kill it. So they try to make laws that make bitcoin harder to use, or perhaps outright ban it. Increasing bitcoin's adoption would help reduce the number of people who don't have a stake in bitcoin, and thus reduce the number of people who would support such an attack. Increasing on-chain throughput may increase adoption (at what rate, I don't know), which would increase the rate at which we achieve some minimum level of adoption (perhaps 20%-30%?) to where an attack is unlikely to succeed. Another kind of political attack I can think of is one where some group decides to advocate for some dangerous change to bitcoin. They convince a lot of people to want this change, and thus have the backing to attempt to get people to use that change. Adoption wouldn't really solve this problem, in fact, it might make this problem worse since the more people that adopt bitcoin, the more unsophisticated users (that aren't familiar with computer security, especially bitcoin security issues) there are that might support dangerous changes. > convince me that the assumptions make any sense at all from the perspective of someone who wants to see people financially empowered by cryptocurrency It sounds like you're asking me to bias my assumptions, or to explain to you how my assumptions are biased in a way you like. That honestly sounds a bit hypocrticial. My goal is to find the ideal tradeoffs that make the Bitcoin system be secure against adversarial attacks, not to find tradeoffs that maximize the adoption rate of bitcoin but as a result leave the system vulnerable to significant attacks. > one has to assume potential malicious intentions behind writings No one is forcing you to assume anything. I'm just going to ignore your accusations for now but if you continue to insult me I might just stop talking to you.