pull down to refresh

-Bitcoin has counterparty risk -Counterparty is the network of miners. We are reliant on them to continue expending billions in expenses to secure the network. -Unlike say gold, where there is no ongoing maintenance.
The counter party risk is not with the miners. If it is I must be misunderstanding what you mean by this. Bitcoin doesn't prevent counter party risk but it is the first asset where the amount has no bearing on difficulty of custody. One huge problem with gold is that it is difficult to secure large amounts of it. Bitcoin doesn't have this issue.
Not sure this is what you mean but let's say 50% of miners drop out. Or maybe more, pick a number. The difficulty adjustment would adjust and mining would continue. This happened when China banned bitcoin mining. We already know how that works.
I would say the bigger issue would be why would so many miners stop mining? If the reason was economic then we have an issue. If it is a nation state action then other nations would likely jump on the opportunity.
reply
if all the miners disappear and someone comes along and starts to mine illegal transactions, our nodes will still reject them, regardless of how much money this someone puts into trying to cheat.
Also, gold requires storage, which is a form of maintenance because that storage could be used for other purposes.
reply
ITT: "I don't understand Bitcoin and that's controversial!"
reply
So all the expenses for gold custodians, security, vaults don’t exist?
reply
if the vaults stop working, that doesn't destroy YOUR gold buried in the back yard. On the contrary. While the miners protect your stacked away, airgapped bitcoin all the time. without miners.. you have a string of code on a stick.
reply
the sanctity of your back yard is MAINTAINED by the state. if you don't understand that then you've got a long way to go.
reply
USA could carpet bomb every known bitcoin mining company on earth and we'd continue hashing blocks.
reply
i don't need a miner to run a node. have you put in 100 hours yet? you're making pretty unreasonable arguments.
reply