3 ms·

On my company's blog, we predicted this a short time ago: https://www.pandastrike.com/posts/20150422-bitcoin-is-bs https://www.pandastrike.com/posts/20150422-b

On my company's blog, we predicted this a short time ago: https://www.pandastrike.com/posts/20150422-bitcoin-is-bs https://www.pandastrike.com/posts/20150422-bitcoin-is-bs https://www.pandastrike.com/posts/20150527-bitcoin-central-banks https://www.pandastrike.com/posts/20150527-bitcoin-central-b... Apologies as this is obviously a self-serving comment.

maxerickson 11y ago
What is it you are saying you predicted? One way to answer would be to take the "this" in your first sentence and replace it with a clear description of what you are talking about. "Read the posts" isn't really a satisfactory answer, they are not particularly focused or easily distilled to a concrete prediction. (One company issuing a tiny bond is not particularly significant news and is probably not a harbinger of the future. It is not unusual for companies to issue billions of dollars of bonds, so $25 million is not a large amount in this context.)
grovulent 11y ago
You make some pretty sweeping claims - strung together with some pretty appalling logic. Take for example: --- And the rationale for this is like something right out of Alice in Wonderland. Supposedly, proof-of-work makes it prohibitively expensive for an attacker to control more than half the network. But it also makes it similarly expensive for anyone else to participate in the network at all. So the only people who'd be deterred from participating in the network with malicious intent are people who would also be deterred from participating in the network with any other intent. --- The last sentence is just empirically false. Heaps of people are using the network. And neither is it true that the costs of using the network are similar to attacking the network. To attack the network I need to accrue 51% + of the hashing power. That's an enormous cost. To use the network - I don't even have to download the blockchain. I don't have to mine. And even if I was mining - I don't have the same costs as a 51% attacker - simply because I don't possess that share of the hashing. Overall this article is pretty poorly thought through.

maxerickson 11y ago

What is it you are saying you predicted? One way to answer would be to take the "this" in your first sentence and replace it with a clear description of what you are talking about. "Read the posts" isn't really a satisfactory answer, they are not particularly focused or easily distilled to a concrete prediction. (One company issuing a tiny bond is not particularly significant news and is probably not a harbinger of the future. It is not unusual for companies to issue billions of dollars of bonds, so $25 million is not a large amount in this context.)

grovulent 11y ago

You make some pretty sweeping claims - strung together with some pretty appalling logic. Take for example: --- And the rationale for this is like something right out of Alice in Wonderland. Supposedly, proof-of-work makes it prohibitively expensive for an attacker to control more than half the network. But it also makes it similarly expensive for anyone else to participate in the network at all. So the only people who'd be deterred from participating in the network with malicious intent are people who would also be deterred from participating in the network with any other intent. --- The last sentence is just empirically false. Heaps of people are using the network. And neither is it true that the costs of using the network are similar to attacking the network. To attack the network I need to accrue 51% + of the hashing power. That's an enormous cost. To use the network - I don't even have to download the blockchain. I don't have to mine. And even if I was mining - I don't have the same costs as a 51% attacker - simply because I don't possess that share of the hashing. Overall this article is pretty poorly thought through.