i can't and won't talk about that b/c there are legal issues involved.
How convenient.
no, you bring that personal shit up b/c you still don't understand Bitcoin and you're using all sorts of BS arguments to defend your position as flawed as it may be.
I brought up that "personal shit" because it was applicable to the conversation. I know a lot more about Bitcoin than you would like to admit. My arguments are valid, it is not my fault your ignorance doesn't allow you to see that.
everyone knows it's possible POW might be hacked.
Actually I think it's less likely that Bitcoin would be hacked, than it is that it could be attacked from a known weakness such as a 51% attack. Just as it is more likely PoS is attacked by someone gaining 51% of the money supply than the protocol "get hacked."
but it's like talking about the possibility of a key collision. it's highly unlikely at this point.
I agree it is highly unlikely, just as it is unlikely someone will be able to successfully attack a PoS coin. This is the problem, with all your huffing and puffing, you can't admit this is unlikely to happen as well.
you continue to ignore the fact that $6-7 billion and at times more has just been sitting their on the blockchain begging to be stolen. why hasn't it happened? you say "they don't want to". that's ridiculous. sure they do.
You are combining two different arguments, the ability for hackers to steal coins in hot wallets and being ignorant in that you don't think a large government has the ability to kill Bitcoin.
6 to 7 Billion huh? You obviously don't understand Bitcoin (mocking your hubris.) To guesstimate 100% of Bitcoin's market capitalization is sitting in hot wallets is a laughable statement.
Furthermore, I don't think you understand what an attacker could or couldn't do in the case of a 51% attack. You obviously don't understand Bitcoin (again mocking your hubris.) The incentive for a government or entity with deep pockets to kill Bitcoin would not to be to steal all the coins, they couldn't if they tried... even with 51% of the processing power. They could however perform a double spend attack and ruin the confidence in Bitcoin immediately causing the value to crash to pennies, among other various attacks.
The incentive is not to get rich by stealing Bitcoins, nor would that be the incentive for someone to attack a PoS coin in and of itself. The value of each will be ruined if either are successfully attacked, so getting rich by stealing the coins that are "begging to be stolen" would not be the incentive. The incentive for a government would be to stop possible money laundering, tax evasion, terrorist use, drug war reasons, kiddie porn, and secure their power of the money supply The FIAT system provides them with. The incentive for banksters should be obvious. Bitcoin et al is a disruptive technology, very well could replace them, kill their profits, and thus kill their lifestyle and well being of their families.
Those sound like possibilities to me, and again 1 billion dollars (hell double that, 2 Billion) is a drop in the bucket to them if they were to decide Bitcoin is a threat to the incentives described above. The only reason why they haven't yet is not because they can't, it is because they have do not think Bitcoin is a threat at this point in time or because they have decided they will be able to profit off of it much like the current system. If they do decide the former then Bitcoin, or any crypto currency, would be in grave danger. To deny otherwise at this point in time is foolish. I am not a big government guy or a capitalist as you would like to think (or have others believe,) but I am a realist and this is a real threat that crypto currencies face.
look at all the stumbling over themselves the gubmint has done to try and block Bitcoin. look at the Bitlicense proposals. no, gubmints like to do the easy things, like regulate or print money. they don't like to work. hmmm, funny, just like POS ppl.
First of all, do you really think the use of the word 'gubmint' lends any credibility to your statements?
They are not trying to block Bitcoin, they just want their cut. That is typical government and I don't see how it is any different from anything else that involves money. However, if they do determine Bitcoin is a threat in one way or another, then they will not hesitate to kill it. They will not do so by playing nice and making regulations to get their cut. They will straight up kill it under the guise of national security or some bullshit reason.
and just which gubmint will do the attack? the US? what about China or Russia? maybe they're building secret mines themselves so as to overthrow the USD and protect Bitcoin. you don't know. gubmints won't collude to destroy Bitcoin; there's too much opportunity for them to use it themselves for financial gain.
You contradict yourself with your last two quotes. In the first one the 'gubmints' are trying to block Bitcoin, but in this quote they are trying to embrace it and profit from it. You can't argue both for both sides, get off the fence. Earlier you were claiming they can't attack Bitcoin (which I disagree with), and now you are claiming that they don't want to attack Bitcoin (which I agree with... but that can change due to shifting dynamics.)
I do believe that a government or banksters could decide that Bitcoin is a threat due to the above described incentives to attack the network. Right now is not that time, Bitcoin is a small fish in a big ocean at the moment. However, the dynamics can change, opinions can change, politicians get voted in and out of office, and CEOs etcetera get replaced. They may not want to kill Bitcoin now, but if money laundering, tax evasion, terrorist adoption of cryptos, drug markets, losing their power with FIAT, and kiddy porn become a
much bigger problem, then I think they will not hesitate to kill Bitcoin. In the bankster's case, when Bitcoin start affecting their bottom line too much they could choose to do the same.
There are something like 73 countries that have the money to kill Bitcoin if the number $1 billion for a successful 51% attack is somewhat accurate. You could double that number and there would be more or less the same amount of countries that have the ability to. It is again not a question of IF it can be done, but a question of if they want to or not.
