Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer
These are bandaids over a core security problem. None of this changes the fact that the only thing you need to irretrievably own billions is a string of digits. A string of digits that need to be moved in and out of digital memory at some point. It's fundamentally insecure with no recourse. I think you guys don't actually grasp how huge this is for security of high value assets (as a settlement layer between banks or governments for example). No other system is this insecure/flawed.
The attractiveness of redundancy in the security of a system is proportional to its vulnerability. A ledger secured by a distributed nodal system utilizing 32-bit single hash algorithm encryption is robust. Exactly how robust it would be was more debatable in 2009. But now, after over ten years of secure functioning, the mathematical and practical vulnerabilities of such a system are sufficiently small as to justify securing over $100 billion in value with it.
When you suggest that no other system is this insecure/flawed, I would point to the solar system as a counter example. It is secured only by gravity, without any redundant mechanisms for keeping our planets in orbit in case of a gravitational failure. Fortunately, gravity is a robust and reliable force. This is not an analogy, it is a similitude. Just as gravity is strong enough to reliably keep the planets of our solar system in orbit, the blockchain is secure enough to hold $100 billion of digital assets. With each passing day our confidence grows in both of these single point-of-failure systems.
We trust gravity more, of course, but the blockchain doesn’t need to secure the mass of a planet. It need only secure the mass of 21 million bitcoin. And for that it is sufficiently robust. If it weren’t, we would know by now.
Unfortunately for your platform, Craig Wright is not Satoshi and the blockchain is secure. That is what the scoreboard shows right now and your arguments to the contrary are flimsy and ill-informed.