pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @klk OP 3 Jun \ parent \ on: Are you comfortable with Bitcoin's security model? AskSN
I appreciate you sharing your perspective, but I think we're looking at very different interpretations of Bitcoin's history and design.
The technical concerns I raised about mining economics and security budgets are based on Bitcoin's current implementation and well-documented game theory. When I mention potential vulnerabilities from shrinking security budgets, I'm referring to established economic models that many researchers have analyzed - not claiming Bitcoin was intentionally designed with flaws.
Regarding the historical events you mention - while financial scandals like Mt. Gox and 1MDB certainly happened, the connections you're drawing to Satoshi seem highly speculative. The blockchain is transparent, so if there were clear evidence of the transactions you describe, it would be independently verifiable by anyone.
My original concern remains focused on the practical question of Bitcoin's long-term security model as block subsidies continue halving. Whether that's addressed through higher fees, protocol changes, or other solutions is an open question that deserves serious technical discussion rather than speculation about past conspiracies.
The math around security economics isn't about malice - it's about ensuring Bitcoin remains secure as its incentive structure evolves over the coming decades.
"The blockchain is transparent, so if there were clear evidence of the transactions you describe, it would be independently verifiable by anyone."
There were eleven 50,000 BTC transactions resulting in a half-million BTC wallet sending out small 100BTC magnitude transfers every few hours. Do you know why?
If the Blockchain is being successfully independently verified then I would expect a single tx 10X bigger than all the other txs in 2011 to be common folklore among all the hardcore hodling old-timers. Why would someone receive 500,000 BTC and then just send small round number txs every few hours. A good guess might say that is logical behavior for someone trying to let such a large transaction mature while spreading out a paper trail by creating outgoing transactions to official, public and/or undeniable personal associates as a defense tactic against who-knows-what unforeseeable attack/theft. I'm saying Prime Minister Najib of Malaysia did that when he sent those 100-300 BTC txs, which can be traced to Najib and his associates, and the 500kBTC incoming transfer can be traced back to Satoshi.
Surely my above claims are easily refuted.
Can someone please spend 15 minutes clicking through the blockchain starting with a search for "largest Bitcoin tx of 2011"? Thanks.
reply