Bitcoin

1436 readers

2 users here now

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Is anyone here actually BTC positive? (self.bitcoin)

submitted 1 month ago by Policeshootout to c/[email protected]

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I have been using crypto since 2017, made plenty of dumb trades which caused me to lose out a lot. Currently my portfolio is about 80% BTC and while the new USA admin seems they may do more damage than good to the crypto space I'm still positive about Bitcoin.

This sub seems like a meme or anti-btc sub mostly. Anybody here who isn't that way?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Thanks for the link, interesting stuff.

So yes that's mainly unknown tokens, chains that forks from popular chains. Also 51% of hashrate from a pool doesn't mean malicious actor to easily do a 51% attacks. While the pool dominance isn't an ideal situation it's usually not as bad as some people like to tell.

But there is no explaination on how PoW is less secure than PoS chains (especially with most tokenomics launch), PoW is indeed a better design to recover from attacks.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Sure, those attacks happened on lesser-known chains like Ethereum Classic and Bitcoin Gold, but doesn’t that actually suggest PoS is more resilient in practice, even if can be argued that it’s weaker in theory?

In PoS, to extract value or compromise finality, an attacker needs to control 67% of the stake, which has never successfully happened, even on unknown tokens or forks from popular chains. That’s a pretty strong track record for security and resilience.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The lack of successful 67% attacks on major PoS chains is indeed a positive sign. However, this could also reflect social deterrence, early-stage economics, or insufficient adversarial incentives — not necessarily intrinsic robustness.

Liveliness attacks (e.g., preventing finality without conflicting it) can happen with 1/3 of the stake. This happened on Ethereum in 2023.
Censorship and delay attacks are feasible with much less than 67% if coordination and MEV strategies are used.

Anyway my initial argument was that Bitcoin have no interest to move away from its PoW and especially not to transition to PoS. PoW isn't perfect and has its drawbacks but PoS is not a better system, it's an alternative with other drawbacks that doesn't meet every chains needs.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

True, I agree that PoS has tradeoffs and isn't a perfect solution. And I totally understand that Bitcoin has lots of reasons to stick with PoW. I was speaking more generally about resilience and security in PoW vs. PoS.

I don’t think what happened to Ethereum is a fair comparison, because PoW doesn’t have finality to begin with. When Ethereum temporarily lost finality, it just reverted to a PoW-like model, where finality is probabilistic. It was a degradation, not a catastrophic failure.