To quote @nikotsla :
“What if NSA is the owner of 1M BTC (Satoshi) and in 10 year wake up... 1/21M ... lot of power”
Isn’t burning this what Satoshi would want? Why not eliminate that tail-risk?
pull down to refresh
pull down to refresh
To quote @nikotsla :
“What if NSA is the owner of 1M BTC (Satoshi) and in 10 year wake up... 1/21M ... lot of power”
Isn’t burning this what Satoshi would want? Why not eliminate that tail-risk?
Honestly enough, this is an important logic to consider. We're talking of 1/21 here being owned by a single entity. He/she/it might resurrect and mess up the whole shit global finance! Proposals (BIPs) highly welcomed.
That’s what I was thinking
what a shitcoiner question is this?
It’s a midwit question, clearly lost on a fellow midwit
deleted by author
How does owning more bitcoins lead to more power over the network?
The statement doesn’t mention power of the network. My interpretation is actual power in the real world. Money = power. In a world where BTC is universally accepted as global hard money, owning almost a 20th of the supply makes you richer than god and about as omnipotent. Also they can destabilise the market and fuck with everyone’s long term investment. That’s how I read it anyway
deleted by author
Spoiler: it won’t work. Hard forking requires majority consensus from the miners. Which starts with a discussion like this one.
deleted by author
No what’s that?
deleted by author
Thanks will enjoy reading those 👍