265 sats \ 5 replies \ @KyleOfTheCorn 20 Sep 2022 \ on: Why did Saylor say "proprietary software" in his article? bitcoin
I think he's using the word in reference to ownership, rather than proprietary vs open source software.
To reword:
...we are left with a network secured by [privately owned] software running on generic computers.
I think this makes more sense in the context of the message, especially when referencing the series of hard forks.
write
preview
1 sat \ 4 replies \ @ek OP 20 Sep 2022
Ah, I see. That would make sense! However, what about the SHA256-ASICs part?
reply
1 sat \ 3 replies \ @KyleOfTheCorn 20 Sep 2022
ASICs are like a moat with regards to security. An external attacker needs to specifically manufacture (or otherwise acquire) machines which are only good at a single task (hashing with SHA-256) in order to even attempt to overpower the network. If you remove that moat, you are more susceptible to attack.
reply
1 sat \ 2 replies \ @ek OP 20 Sep 2022
Yes, I know that. But it's confusing to mention SHA256-ASICs when only bitcoin uses them (afaik). Maybe he just used them as an example for dedicated hardware?
reply
5 sats \ 1 reply \ @KyleOfTheCorn 20 Sep 2022
Yes, I think it's just an example of dedicated hardware.
reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @ek OP 20 Sep 2022
Okay, I can live with that haha
reply