pull down to refresh
1136 sats \ 1 reply \ @elvismercury OP 23 Sep 2023 \ parent \ on: Nic Carter comments on security budget bitcoin
At the extremes, this topic is pretty easy to reason about.
-
Extreme 1: btc is super valuable and actively used; demand for block-space is high, tx-based block reward also high. No problem.
-
Extreme 2: nobody gives a shit about btc -- it's worth very little, demand for block space is low. Nobody cares enough to do anything to save it.
The interesting territory, with a wide space of possible outcomes, is in the middle. There are so many variables in play that it would take a book to explore them. I certainly have no confidence in anybody who claims to be sure about what will happen or what should happen.
The only thing I am sure about is that it would be better for the issue to be absolutely beaten to death by as many smart people as possible, so that if we get to a point where btc becomes vulnerable to state attack, there's an abundance of mature ideas to consider whose pros and cons have been exhaustively described.
This is how threat modeling works in every other domain, yet somehow the dominant btc cultural practice seems to be faith-based. And even then, it would be fine, since the people opining so loudly are useless and contribute nothing, but they do create a social environment that makes it hard for other people who could contribute.
Ironically, a lot of the loudest bitcoiners are running the same thoughtcrime playbook that the woke people do. Same attitude, same energy, just pointed the other way.
Oh, I agree with everything you said regarding faith-based culture and all the rest of it. Perhaps I should have stated that upfront.
My comment was geared towards Nic's particular conclusion here, which as far as I can tell seems to be an intersection of two mutually exclusive outcomes. I don't begrudge him or anyone else for exploring these threats. System security and threat modelling benefits more from the realists and pessimists than the eternal optimists.
reply