michaniskin

5 ms·

1.
by michaniskin 5y ago
> Bitcoin is considered anti-fragile for a reason, it gets stronger as it gets attacked. Please explain how bitcoin gets stronger when the Fed successfully deploys a 51% attack on it and either buys or puts out of business all the honest
2.
by michaniskin 5y ago
> Proof of work failing does not equal Bitcoin failing. Ok, so what would equal bitcoin failing? Or is bitcoin just defined to be a success a priori? > There are many methods of reaching consensus available in the toolbox Are you sa
3.
by michaniskin 5y ago
How are they not winning? They have repeatedly exceeded even the most paranoid fears of people who value sound money. They are increasing the scope and magnitude of their interventions every day. They are continually eroding any checks or b
4.
by michaniskin 5y ago
Ok, assume I can make this 51% attack on bitcoin. I will then mine blocks all day, and I won't let anyone else make transactions on the blockchain. Now consider that any investor who owns bitcoin can't sell it, because they can&#x
5.
by michaniskin 5y ago
They don't need to compete with a thing they can destroy. And they can destroy bitcoin with a 51% attack that is funded by their ability to print as much fiat as it takes.
6.
by michaniskin 5y ago
> How long can the fed fight a few hundred million (soon to be few billion) people? The same way sovereigns have since the dawn of time--divide and conquer. In the 20th century they discovered the secret, international socialism. Give mi
7.
by michaniskin 5y ago
Running a 51% attack is not rocket science. It doesn't involve inventing anything new. When they can print the money to fund it it doesn't even require a business plan. All they need to do is buy up enough hash power and they win.
8.
by michaniskin 5y ago
> funding is not an issue for projects that solve the issues Bitcoin does Funding is far less of an issue for an attacker who has a printing press, and it's the relative level of funding that matters. In order to defend against a 51
9.
by michaniskin 5y ago
> That is irrelevant because the main point is, the attack will be unsuccessful. Is your claim here that the Fed cannot afford to buy the 51% attack? Keep in mind that they printed about 6 trillion dollars last year. If the Fed can buy a
10.
by michaniskin 5y ago
Also consider that the price of crypto is determined by people's expectations of future price; since it pays no dividends the only way to make a return is to sell it or rent it out. What effect do you think this "perpetually movin
11.
by michaniskin 5y ago
Oh, I think i didn't understand your comment, sorry. In the scenario laid out by the article the Fed runs the same software as any other miner, they simply ignore transactions that are not depositing bitcoin into their wallet, they ref
12.
by michaniskin 5y ago
The Fed is (nominally at least) a private institution. They are not hobbled by government bureaucracy. Just look at all the things they did in 2020 that everyone would have imagined would have been impossible. All they need is the green lig
13.
by michaniskin 5y ago
This "perpetually moving target" will need funding to operate. The Fed will always be able to afford to lose more money than the private sectors can afford to lose. Remember that the government doesn't need infinite resources
14.
by michaniskin 5y ago
OK, now you're talking about inventing a new altcoin that introduces censorship, governance, and control. This has already been done a number of times, and they all failed. Bitcoin is the ultimate fiat in that it's not backed by a
15.
by michaniskin 5y ago
What prevents the Fed from operating as many nodes as they need to overrule the "honest" node operators?
16.
by michaniskin 5y ago
But that's just turtles all the way down. The Fed can mine that forked chain even more easily than the original one. When one actor has a money printer they can use the permissionless, decentralized nature of the bitcoin network as a w
17.
by michaniskin 5y ago
Exactly. Also the carrot is far more effective and palatable to citizens than the stick. The US government could deploy the attack described in the article under the guise of a stimulus program, with their hands completely clean. No legisla
18.
by michaniskin 5y ago
The point TFA is making is that the US government can force holders of bitcoin to sell their bitcoins to the government. And, importantly, they can do it via the Fed (which is nominally a private institution), thereby avoiding any politic
19.
by michaniskin 5y ago
Miners would not be "colluding", they would be given the choice to sell their business to the Fed and walk away with a nice bundle of money printer fiat, or try to keep mining at a loss until the Fed runs out of money. The Fed can
20.
by michaniskin 5y ago
A 51% attack is not just cheap, it's FREE when you have a money printer in your basement. This is the point that is hard for people to wrap their heads around. I find this ironic given the philosophical revolutionary hard money stance
21.
by michaniskin 5y ago
Did you RTFA? It's like 20 lines of text, that's exactly what it explains. Any entity with the ability to print money can simply buy a dominating share of the hash power and force all the honest miners to either sell out to them o
22.
by michaniskin 5y ago
Simple: 1. Destroying bitcoin as a free market network would put the final nail in the coffin of crypto as an alternative to fiat. 2. They would have no obligation to buy bitcoin from anyone they don't like. 3. They can funnel a lot of
23.
The U.S. Government Can Nationalize the Bitcoin Network at Any Time(pastebin.com)
7 points by michaniskin 5y ago|45 comments
24.
by michaniskin 6y ago
Yes, you’re right about the show of hands. This is why the preservation of individual liberty is such a fundamental part of living in a just society. If people want to isolate or be locked down they are free to do so, but one person’s fear
25.
by michaniskin 6y ago
> Tulsa has run out of ICU beds. So now we're in agreement. The sky is not falling, and Tulsa may have a local logistical challenge. Nothing to see here. > Because they know their patients will die if they don't perform. It&
26.
by michaniskin 6y ago
> COVID19's job is closer to shoving catheters into people while you put them under a ventilator, setting up IV drips, etc. etc. OK, so how many years of training is required to learn how to insert catheters and IVs and all that? Th
27.
by michaniskin 6y ago
Sorry, perhaps I digressed. To get back to the point: > If a nurse quits on their job, then their patients die. This is obviously not true, people are not dropping like flies whenever a nurse in America takes a vacation or calls in sick.
28.
by michaniskin 6y ago
The army needs propaganda to recruit people because it's not just a job. Soldiers don't have the right to quit if they don't like the working conditions. But many people actually sign up (or re-up) for the money, to pay off
29.
by michaniskin 6y ago
You edited your post, so I'll reply separately to the added content here. The difference between the military and the healthcare system is that soldiers can't quit, but healthcare workers can. Every single healthcare worker in Ame
30.
by michaniskin 6y ago
I think US healthcare spending dwarfs the defense budget by an order of magnitude. Not sure what point you're trying to make there.

More ›