Author

Topic: Bitcoined (Read 1225 times)

legendary
Activity: 896
Merit: 1001
August 09, 2013, 04:27:43 PM
#5
If institutional money decides it needs to sink Bitcoin, I think it'll be a single party. And the most obvious attack for a single capital-holder is still to build a network-outvoting supercomputer and force repeated chain reorgs until people give up. At current prices and network hashrates, that'd only take, what, $20 million?

LOL, I like this idea, and I would be delightfully entertained if one of them were to try it. The gross incompetence (or perhaps deliberate mismanagement?) of their operations in their own realm of expertise paints a humorous picture of how they might proceed into this new endeavor. I imagine them placing $20 mil in preordered ASICS, and then sitting around waiting for them to deliver, totally oblivious to the fact that when that quantitiy actually ships in it's entirety, it will be 2016 and be nowhere close to 51%. Or the fact that if the community got wind of such a plan, many of us would invest in hardware to preserve the network (I know I don't speak for everyone here). Computer wars!

Alternatively, I can imagine them negotiating a deal with a tech firm for the production of their own units, and getting increasingly furious as production and design get pushed out for all the usual reasons. In the end, they risk *helping* us with their funding instead of crippling us. Then, in an attempt to cut loses, they have to decide between maintaining all the hardware they have aquired and bolstering the strength of the network, liquidating the equipment and bolstering the network, or just throwing it all away and writing down a loss.

I can also see a situation where, as the operation progresses, some of the people involved would be making significant profits (as they do with everything), and an internal power struggle would erupt. There would be people demanding the boat be sunk, while others drag their feet while collecting personal "bonuses", and striking deals with other involved parties. That's what they are best at, right?
legendary
Activity: 960
Merit: 1028
Spurn wild goose chases. Seek that which endures.
August 09, 2013, 04:05:09 PM
#4
Here's the other thing: personally, I'm skeptical about the big banks' ability to react swiftly and usefully to threats on the horizon. It is ever so easy to lie to yourself about impending doom, and in the past five years many banks have proved that with their own actions in traditional markets. Even assuming that the "big banks" decide Bitcoin is a threat, any conspiracy would have to guarantee that, as with LIBOR and CDS and all the other ones, there's nobody whose own interests would be best served by defecting.

If institutional money decides it needs to sink Bitcoin, I think it'll be a single party. And the most obvious attack for a single capital-holder is still to build a network-outvoting supercomputer and force repeated chain reorgs until people give up. At current prices and network hashrates, that'd only take, what, $20 million?
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1000
Bitcoin: The People's Bailout
August 09, 2013, 02:49:16 PM
#3
Somehow I don't think the guys behind Credit Default Swaps and LIBOR rigging will just go quietly into the night.

You're right, but a global, decentralized, peer-to-peer network built on open source software and protected with cryptography is going to be one tough nut for them to crack.  It's going to be fun watching them try.
legendary
Activity: 960
Merit: 1028
Spurn wild goose chases. Seek that which endures.
August 09, 2013, 02:35:49 PM
#2
And then there's another problem, which is even if Bitcoin gains wider acceptance, a cartel of bankers may attempt to dominate the market before it gets so big that it's out of their reach.
Such a plan's success depends on Shamir User A either not existing or choosing not to oppose the endeavor.
full member
Activity: 217
Merit: 100
August 08, 2013, 07:43:51 PM
#1
In the early 20th century Thomas Edison staged the electrocution of a number of animals (including an elephant) with the aim of discrediting alternating current. His term for that grisly process was getting "Westinghoused", in reference to his main competitor.

As time went on, AC became the standard anyway, Westinghouse succeeded and his efforts were in vain.

My reason for bringing this up is, I was just thinking today that Bitcoin may very well have a Topsy the elephant moment of it's own, due to vested interests.

Somehow I don't think the guys behind Credit Default Swaps and LIBOR rigging will just go quietly into the night.

And then there's another problem, which is even if Bitcoin gains wider acceptance, a cartel of bankers may attempt to dominate the market before it gets so big that it's out of their reach.

This is total speculation, but I imagine that there is more than one multi-billionaire that realizes Bitcoin may turn out to be worth far more than it's current price, yet balks at having to buy unless it's heavily discounted.

(This post was partially inspired by fake Bitcoin news and shenanigans in the Securities sub-forum).

It is my hope that no one takes anything I have written too seriously.

And please, feel free to speculate further along these lines.

Jump to: