4 ms·

> Removes counterparty risk. Bitcoin does not remove counter-party risk. The counter-party is there, and it's risky: * miners (can ditch Bitcoin; can censor y

> Removes counterparty risk. Bitcoin does not remove counter-party risk. The counter-party is there, and it's risky: * miners (can ditch Bitcoin; can censor your transactions) * Bitcoin software (wallets; miners) (can have bugs which get your coins stolen) * Bitcoin protocol (can have bugs which get your coins stolen) * internet infrastructure (can censor Bitcoin)

RichardHeart 5y ago
I like this game. Security can't exist because you didn't compile your own keyboard controller firmware. Then just go all the way up the abstraction layers. Didn't audit and compile it yourself? I guess we're all hacked forever. Yet in fact it's a parade of imaginary horribles and the vast vast vast swathes of noobs remain unhacked for decades. 1. You can mine your own transaction, and the chance that some miner somewhere is happy to do so is extremely high (Which is why no transaction has ever been censored to the best of my knowledge.) 2. You running the code of your own choice is not a counterparty risk. It's your own problem. It's the same problem you have when with physically securing your seed words. There's no reason to break the word counterparty. 3. The protocol never had that kind of bug, some mobile wallets did with bad RNG though. 4. Yes and? The network routes around that, see China banning mining, etc. I will help you trash talk bitcoin though. It's fun. Uncensorable? Ask Ross Ulbricht how the Federal Marshalls auctioned off his bitcoin to Tim Draper. Inflation bugs twice where anyone could mine as many coins as they like, one executed, and one responsablity disclosed about 2 years ago. Have a list of vulnerabilities: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposu... Have a list of weaknesses: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses Summary: The vast majority of users have no hacks at all, and far less problems than their banks give them, in my experience. P.S. Using your definition, is counterparty risk reduction even possible at all, and if so what would that look like? If you take the time to answer that, I think you'll see you're just trying to break a quite useful word.

RichardHeart 5y ago

I like this game. Security can't exist because you didn't compile your own keyboard controller firmware. Then just go all the way up the abstraction layers. Didn't audit and compile it yourself? I guess we're all hacked forever. Yet in fact it's a parade of imaginary horribles and the vast vast vast swathes of noobs remain unhacked for decades. 1. You can mine your own transaction, and the chance that some miner somewhere is happy to do so is extremely high (Which is why no transaction has ever been censored to the best of my knowledge.) 2. You running the code of your own choice is not a counterparty risk. It's your own problem. It's the same problem you have when with physically securing your seed words. There's no reason to break the word counterparty. 3. The protocol never had that kind of bug, some mobile wallets did with bad RNG though. 4. Yes and? The network routes around that, see China banning mining, etc. I will help you trash talk bitcoin though. It's fun. Uncensorable? Ask Ross Ulbricht how the Federal Marshalls auctioned off his bitcoin to Tim Draper. Inflation bugs twice where anyone could mine as many coins as they like, one executed, and one responsablity disclosed about 2 years ago. Have a list of vulnerabilities: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposu... Have a list of weaknesses: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses Summary: The vast majority of users have no hacks at all, and far less problems than their banks give them, in my experience. P.S. Using your definition, is counterparty risk reduction even possible at all, and if so what would that look like? If you take the time to answer that, I think you'll see you're just trying to break a quite useful word.