[Cryptography] Incentive Politics

[Sebastian Stache]

On 2023-10-10 02:57, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 2:15 PM Sebastian Stache via cryptography 
> <cryptography at metzdowd.com <mailto:cryptography at metzdowd.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On 2023-10-09 04:16, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> 
>      > That is precisely the outcome I expect.
>      >
>      > The unwinding will begin as a mechanism to clear smaller coins
>     out of
>      > the market. It will end as a mechanism to cover the tracks of a
>      > massive fraud.
>      >
>      > Arguments that rely on the self interest of large numbers of people
>      > tend to fall apart because there is insufficient imagination in
>      > considering what the true self interest of the parties might be.
> 
>     To "wipe out $BTC" by "unwinding" (I suppose you're envisioning
>     something akin to generating a new longest chain from scratch) would
>     probably not be in your own self-interest if you possessed a fortune in
>     bitcoin.
> 
> 
> I do not own a single Satoshi, never have and never will.
> 
>     If, on the other hand, you happened to _not_ possess a bitcoin fortune,
>     I suppose you could argue that it would benefit you, relatively
>     speaking, to destroy the bitcoin fortunes of others. If you stumbled
>     upon a million dollars and acted according to your sentiments above,
>     you'd most likely be doing your arguing in prison.
> 
> 
> That is an interesting assertion, would unwinding the chain constitute 
> fraud?
> 
> That in turn raises two separate questions, first is it illegal to 
> unwind the chain, second could such actions be prosecuted?
> 
> I am not sure that it would in fact be a criminal offense because the 
> whole point of $BTC is the longest chain wins. But in any case it seems 
> a bit of an admission of failure to rely on Mr Plod arresting people to 
> prevent people attacking the chain itself. If we are going to depend on 
> Mr Plod, why not just put the money in the legacy financial services 
> infrastructure that has served us well for over 200 years?
> 
> Even if unwinding the chain is technically illegal, I think it rather 
> unlikely anyone would be prosecuted. The authorities are taking their 
> sweet time bringing in the operators of the most obvious Ponzi frauds. 
> This despite the fact that we know pseudocurrencies are the chief engine 
> for moving money to finance terrorism and profit from drug dealing, 
> cyber-extortion and many other evils.


Relevant parts of your original post was lost when you replied.

On 2023-10-09 04:16, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

 > Hal never anticipated the possibility someone might want to
 > attack their scheme for the pure pleasure of destruction. If I could
 > wipe out $BTC for a million bucks, I would do that in a heartbeat. A
 > million bucks to end the CO2 emissions would be cheap, cheap, cheap. I
 > am sure there are many more people with considerably more resources
 > who would do the same.
 >
 > You might not even need to spend the money. Just hack into the nexus
 > coordinating some of the mining pools and you could probably get the
 > desired result. Of course their operations are absolutely impregnable,
 > nobody has ever hacked a pseudocurrency exchange have they?


In my opinion, there is no "unwinding" of blockchains, and using such 
terms when referring to the act of wilful destruction is at best euphoric.

Be it for "the pure pleasure of destruction", or to "end the CO2 
emissions" or, most likely, simple sour grapes; Yes, to "wipe out $BTC" 
is both illegal and prosecutable, as is hacking mining pools and 
currency exchanges.