9 ms·
> Think how much value is locked up behind cryptography. It's actually "so much value" that it's not possible to take much of it if you reveal that you did. Pe
by staunton 2y ago
> Think how much value is locked up behind cryptography.
It's actually "so much value" that it's not possible to take much of it if you reveal that you did. People can "fork (parts of) the financial system" even more easily (per actor) than what happens with cryptocurrencies.
Sure, it's a huge hassle with huge overhead but you cannot reveal the capability and also take more than that hassle is worth. I think this means that anyone capable of doing it would not reveal the ability as as a first priority, as others here have also suggested. Especially for a state actor, the trade-off is very clear.
- notfed 2y agoIt'd be sort of a funny situation if this happened now, because a fork necessarily rolls back recent transactions. So, imagine if people are made aware of a break, and it caused a bank run (on Bitcoin for let's say). Well, tons of transactions would be reversed, including peoples' attempt to cash out. If the attack repeats the next day, the fork would happen again. It'd be utter chaos.
- kortilla 2y agoThere isn’t any going back until they have a version that supports different crypto (a hard fork). It’s not clear how you could possibly allow exits unless you literally ban all transactions on the chain after a certain date. At that point though, why would anyone be on the buy side of the sell to USD?