I agree that an indiscernible gold ingot can be more difficult to irrefutably test than bitcoin (performing a water displacement test is not costly & accurate in most situations.). Realistically though, almost all buyers of gold or bitcoin rely on centralised entities.
-
Cc
@PeterSchiff this is the knockout blow for your next gold vs Bitcoin debate. They never have an answer for me, not even Satoshi Nakamoto ! Bitcoin is secured via a vote !
It's not a vote. The first definition is closer to what's going on, but still misses the point that a full node can cryptographically validate for itself, it doesn't have to tryst anybody in that regard.
-
-
But won't the overall networks larger hash power reject that nodes work/transactions? I get that it could run in tandom to the larger network but wouldn't that node be it's own mini fork at that point ?
-
51% can only censor or double-spend, and only for as long as it maintains the >50%, it can't fake transactions, make extra new money, etc.
-
I guess my point is if the "mob" wants to change what bitcoin is, basically a voluntary hard fork, a voluntary permanent "51% attack" if say it was ever adopted world wide/mainstream. Like say some Keynesians talked majority into believing higher inflation was good type thing.
-
Bitcoin's scarcity being governed by an economic majority through consensus poses a real risk over the long term. Hard money advocates do better to keep bitcoin owned by those with similar mindsets rather than selling it to the masses. Gold's natural scarcity is superior IMO.
-
Proof-of-work provides a fallback strategy of natural scarcity if the 21m limit fails.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.