if there's one thing we've learned about these doom and gloom papers is that talk is cheap.
We have a lot of "experts"willing to throw around theories but not willing to put up the money, time, our effort to actually demonstrate their hypotheses.
If there was anything to what they have to say then they'd just take those millions and run
We have a lot of "experts"willing to throw around theories but not willing to put up the money, time, our effort to actually demonstrate their hypotheses.
If there was anything to what they have to say then they'd just take those millions and run
What the hell are you talking about? What would you have the experts do to demonstrate their hypothesis?
ok, let me spell it out for you.
if i were smart enough to develop a way exploit Bitcoin's code, i would either sell it for millions to someone who had the resources to implement the exploit or i would do it myself. anyone can talk but the only way to prove it would be to do it.
You could also try to patch the exploit, would attempting to do that indicate stupidity?
Moreover, how is this relevant to the article? They are not even talking about an exploit.
Moreover, why would an exploit be worth millions? How could you extract that much of bitcoin's value before the bitcoin price collapsed. The most straightforward way of extracting value would be shorting on bitcoinica. It would be difficult to recover millions doing this. Do you picture Bitcoinica/Mt.Gox releasing money to people who place million dollar short bets right before an attack? Even if they were willing, do they even have that much liquidity lying around?
I don't agree with these guys, but your comments seem to be off in lala land.
I said "Computer Science paper" but I didn't say "Economics paper" nor was I comparing there. I just pointed out that "reputable publications" about economy, that have a lot more readership and repercussion that this "paper" can dream to have, very often have this level of quality and even worse.