►
Description
Follow and support us ► https://liberate.hcpp.cz/#support
Paralelní Polis website → https://www.paralelnipolis.cz/o-nas/en/
Paralelní Polis Facebook → https://www.facebook.com/vejdiven
GIACOMO ZUCCO
Theoretical Physicist, former Technology Consultant for Accenture spa, serial entrepreneur in the field of emerging technologies. Economic blogger and contributor to several Italian newspapers. Involved in several projects in Bitcoin and blockchain space since 2012, he is now CEO of BHB Network, a research/development/incubation/consulting firm and a world-class competence center in the field.
TALK: BITCOIN: POLITICAL ATTACK VECTORS AND COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS
The blockchain technology was not brought about to improve past technologies, instead, its roots are exclusively political. The idea behind its development, started by the internet cypherpunks and then continued by Satoshi Nakamoto, is the creation of a monetary tool able to defy government censorship and to protect user’s privacy. In this speech, Giacomo Zucco will dispel myths about improbable uses of the blockchain, especially in the financial/banking world, and he will outline the true challenges behind Bitcoin. Part of those challenges are also political in nature: In the last months, we have seen interesting developments with the proposals of various contentious and not technically-motivated hard-forks, one of which was enacted (Bitcoin Cash). Those splits can be seen as a new kind of political attack vector against the decentralised and censorship-resistant nature of Bitcoin. To understand the absence of true technical motives behind those kind of consensus changes you have to understand the fundamental difference between the necessity of a dynamic, versatile and competitive system, following the Schumpeter’s definition of “Creative destruction”, able to disrupt and replace the current financial and monetary system, and the absolute importance of a resilient immutable base protocol. Protocols like the TCP/IP are very difficult to upgrade because they are base level network architectures, Bitcoin more-so needs to be static to withstand every kind of attack: strong foundations to build on. On the other hand, some changes are still deemed to be necessary and desirable before the eventual crystallisation of the protocol: one example is Segwit that was finally activated at the end of August 2017.
ABOUT HCPP17 → https://liberate.hcpp.cz/
Liberate!
HCPP17 PARTNERS:
MAIN PARTNERS
TREZOR → https://trezor.io/
GENERAL BYTES → https://www.generalbytes.com/
SLUSH POOL → https://slushpool.com
BITCOIN PAY → https://www.bitcoinpay.com
COINMATE → https://coinmate.io
CRYPTOPUZZLE PARTNERS
NETHEMBA → https://nethemba.com
SATORI → http://zd3n.com/
NEWS LIVE BROADCASTING PARTNER
World Crypto Network → http://www.worldcryptonetwork.com
CATERING PARTNERS
Nordbeans, Street Catering
A
Thank
you
very
much
for
for
inviting
me
here
these
conferences
also
and
I'm
very
happy
to
give
this
talk,
and
this
is
a
very
nice
palindrome
date,
nice
I'm,
Jocko,
I
have
been
already
introduced
now.
I
am
CEO
of
Block
C
lab
just
want
me
to
tell
you
what
ok,
if
somebody
is
sick
for
the
prezi
movement,
just
use
the
vomit
sex
bags
next
to
the
chairs.
This
is
what
we
do.
Basically,
we
take
money
from
the
financial
incumbents
banks,
insurance
and
other
kind
of
people.
A
We
use
this
money
to
fund
and
help
development
over
bitcoin
few
years
ago,
when
we
started,
we
were
saying
blockchain
in
order
to
have
a
better
marketing,
but
now
we
are
more
harnessed
about
that.
We
basically
do
only
stuff
about
Bitcoin
and
we
use
this
money
to
have
this
project
in
return,
we
get
knowledge
from
these
experts
and
we
use
the
knowledge
for
consultancy.
So
this
is
what
we
do
whatever
I'm
going
to
talk
about
today
is
not
technical
or
business
is
basically
politics.
A
I'm
talking
about
political
attack,
factors
on
Bitcoin
and
common
political
misconception,
just
to
start
one
minute
to
review
the
fact
that,
in
my
opinion,
which
is
right,
bitcoin
is
not
merely
a
technical
event,
but
is
mainly
a
political
event.
With
this
a
mean
that
bitcoin
is
the
fruit,
the
fruit,
the
final
fruit,
the
final
outcome
of
a
process
that
what
mainly
political
in
its
origins
and
also
because
introduces
some
changes
that
are
mainly
political
or
and
economical,
more
than
technological
in
itself.
A
Of
course,
I
don't
have
to
explain
to
you
here.
I
mean
this
conference
organized
by
a
set
of
crypto
Anarchy,
the
roots
of
all
the
world
that
led
to
Bitcoin.
Finally,
so
the
crypto
Anarchy
manifesto
and
team
and
everything
the
cyberpunk
culture
mix
it
up
with
some
other
political
culture
like
libertarianism,
goldbox,
Austrian,
economics,
free
banking.
So
there
is
a
huge
mix.
Ters
mixture
of
political,
even
Milton,
Friedman,
usually
I,
played
I
played
the
video
but
I'm
sure
that
you
were
all
done
based
presentation.
A
So
you
have
already
seen
the
video
that
the
sentence
is
awesome.
Mr.
Friedman
predicting
basically
Bitcoin
I
think
that
the
internet
is
going
to
be
one
of
the
major
forces
for
reducing
the
role
of
government.
The
one
thing
that's
missing
but
will
soon
be
developed,
is
a
reliable
ecash,
a
method
whereby,
on
the
Internet
you
can
transfer
funds
from
A
to
B
without
without
any
knowing
B
or
B.
A
Knowing
a
yeah
it's
possible
and
also
in
the
goddess's
block,
we
have
politics,
we
have
an
explicit
reference
from
Satoshi
Nakamoto
to
a
economical
political
event,
a
bank
bailout
just
after
the
global
financial
crisis
caused
by
monetary
policies
and
stuff,
like
that.
So
it's
it's
undisputable
that
bitcoin
origins
are
political.
Also,
the
specific
technological
piece
missing
in
the
puzzle
that
bitcoin
added
to
the
previous
set
of
technology
is
not
really
technological
or
cryptographic.
A
Mathematical
is
mostly
game
theory
and
in
a
way
politics
we
started
with
I
mean
p2p,
distributed
databases
and
open-source
technology
already
in
cash
and
the
digital
signature.
So
this
big
Bitcoin
didn't
invent
digital
signature,
beacon,
didn't
invent
proof
of
work,
neither
transferable
proof
work
already
present
in
the
bomani
concept
in
98
by
we
die.
A
So
what
the
current
reduce
was
a
way
to
put
to
take
the
chronology
of
the
transaction,
put
it
inside
the
proof
of
work
and
in
this
way,
to
an
economical
and
political
incentives
to
have
one
single,
consistent,
consistent
and
immutable
chronology
of
all
the
old,
a
alteration
of
the
of
the
database.
So
it's
basically
a
an
economical
political
innovation.
A
This
is
just
the
introduction,
the
introduction
to
to
say
that
somebody
may
think
that
the
region,
the
regions
are
political,
but
the
implication
are
mostly
random
alliance
to
just
business
and
technical
implication,
I
mean
many
internet
innovation,
where
highly
ideological
at
first
burnout.
They
are
just
used
to
do
normal
business.
Eddie
they've
lost
much
of
the
of
their
political
charge.
I
do
think
that
Bitcoin
will
not
intrinsically
lose
mass
of
its
political
potential,
because
many
of
the
things
that
can
be
brought
up
by
this
technology
are
intrinsically
game.
Changers.
A
From
a
political
point
of
view,
they
cannot
be
anything
else.
Renormalization
of
this
technology
under
political
status
quo
is
technically
very
unlikely,
because
I
mean
you'll
know
that
it's
centralized
blockchain
or
a
private
blockchain
permission
blockchain
these
things
that
doesn't
make
any
sense.
So,
of
course,
here
I
use
tracer.
But
if
I
give
this
talk
in
Perea,
we
use
a
ledger
here.
So
as
always,
written
language
is
a
digital
people,
jockey.
A
So
I'm
talking
now
about
political,
political
vector,
attack,
vectors,
technical
sabotage,
political
band,
political
normalization
and
politicized
AI
jacking,
the
first
one
is
something
that
they
will
not
discuss
at
length,
because
you
all
know
about
that.
Many
of
these
political
scenario-
political
attacks
scenarios
were
discussed
yesterday
during
the
fox
of
Crito
crypto
Wars
talk.
A
So
the
government
want
to
stop
this
technology,
so
the
government
or
the
government
or
the
central
banks,
or
the
Khmer
banks
controlled
by
the
government
or
the
tax
agencies
or
the
year
or
the
sec
or
whatever
they
try
to
stop
the
technology,
hacking
it
violating
it
putting
backdoor
into
it.
This
is
not
really
easy
to
do
in
Bitcoin.
This
has
been
done
at
least
with
Internet
itself.
Internet
is
not
very
secure
from
political
act
or
attacks.
A
So
let's
move
to
the
second
kind
of
political
attack.
I,
don't
hack
it
I,
just
ban
it
governments
we
start
to
coordinate
to
ban
Bitcoin.
This
is
first
of
all.
This
is
an
image
of
a
prohibition
of
alcohol
and
he's
here
to
represent
the
fact
that,
even
if
you
ban
alcohol
in
all
the
United
States,
the
price
of
alcohol
goes
up
yesterday.
In
the
forks
of
crypto
operative
or
talk,
smuggler
said
that
is
likely
the
opposite,
but
I
think
Steve
that
when
you
prohibit
usually
the
price
goes
up
of
the
good
anyway.
A
This
is
difficult
to
do,
because
many
different
governments
have
to
coordinate
and
because
many
government
already
committed
to
some
kind
of
a
legitimization
of
Bitcoin,
for
example,
u.s.
marshal
Seoul
Bitcoin
from
Silk
Road
and
whatever
to
people
they
didn't
soul.
Drugs.
Just
Bitcoin
kimono
is
not
super
easy
to
revert
these
possible
because
they
can
do
they
what
they
want,
but
not
super
easy.
My
point
is
that
if
you
ban
Bitcoin
like
you
ban
drugs
or
you
buy
like
you,
can
ban
how
cool
you
don't
really
destroy
it.
Probably
you
destroy
my
company.
A
You
destroy
the
interview,
exchanges,
research
startups,
the
interfaces,
but
not
the
technology
itself,
which
is
anyway,
have
been
born
just
for
that
just
a
bit
of
it
just
to
be
resistant
to
that.
If
it's
not
possible
for
for
it
to
resist
it's
pointless,
all
the
technical
complexity
of
Bitcoin
is
just
to
avoid
this
scenario.
There
is
another
scenario
in
which
then
I
call
a
political
renormalization
in
which
I
don't
hack,
Bitcoin
I,
don't
burn
Bitcoin,
but
I.
A
Try
to
renormalize
Bitcoin
I,
try
to
get
people
to
stop
using
the
disruptive,
politically
disruptive
feature
and
I
and
I
used
Rolly.
Let
them
think
that's
it.
This
is
actually
the
opposite
of
the
other
scenario,
because
it's
so
legal
that
you
don't
need
censorship
resistance,
anymore
I
mean
everybody
can
operate
in
a
clear
light
of
the
day.
So
why
not
blacklist
addresses?
Why
not
centralized
mining
little
bit?
I
mean
you,
don't
need
four
nodes,
you
don't
need
to
go
over.
Tor
just
use
optical
fiber.
Everything
is
normal.
A
So,
finally,
you
can
use
Bitcoin
except
that
nothing
disrupting
a
political.
It
is
wrapped.
You
in
Bitcoin
is
still
surviving
anymore.
This
is
not
a
strategy
that
this
strategy
does
exist.
People
is
trying
to
push
for
that.
There
are
startups
startup
CEO's
that
are
pushing
for
a
keyway
C
on
Bitcoin
or
maybe
even
from
a
you
know.
Bitcoin
is
disruptive
mainly
from
two
point
of
points-of-view
says
so:
sheep
resistance,
I.
A
Money
wherever
I
want
privacy
is
just
a
part
of
censorship
resistance,
because
if
I
spend
my
money
and
they
pay
WikiLeaks
and
I-
can
do
that.
But
then
you
can
to
my
house-
and
you
put
me
in
prison-
that's
ex
post
censorship,
because
it
will
prevent
me
to
do
that
again
and
other
people
to
do
that
in
the
future.
So
that's
another
form
of
post
facto
censorship.
The
second
one
is
a
sound
monetary
policy
which
is
different,
which
is
something
concerning
more
maybe
the
central
bank's,
because
it's
changing
the
usual
way
to
do
monetary
manipulation.
A
Basically,
these
two
characteristic
of
Bitcoin
could
be
changed
by
the
renormalization.
For
example,
I.
Don't
know
how
many
of
you
watch
mr.
robot.
There
is
the
e
curve
evil
guy
in
bed
with
the
government,
and
he
says
yeah
bitcoin
is
too
free.
We
will
launch
an
alternative
which
uses
the
same
technology
but
is
controlled
by
us
as
monetary
policy
or
as
financial
tracking
and
financial
control.
This
is
possible
unlikely
I
mean
you
can
do
that
in
two
different
ways.
A
One
way
is
there
is
the
permission
and
blockchain
push
sorry
provisional,
blockchain
nonsense
and
that's
that's
a
way.
I
tell
people
that
this
is
a
new
technology.
It's
not.
This
is
a
new
way
to
use
the
existing
technology
in
a
new
disruptive
political
fashion
and
economical
fashion.
The
other
way
is
to
create
a
fake
cryptocurrency
that
you
can
actually
discuss
about
with
Vladimir
Putin,
because
you
control
it
entirely.
You
can
do
bailouts,
you
can
do
everything
you
want.
You
just
walk
in
the
garden
with
Vladimir
and
you
discuss.
A
This
is
another
renormalize
political
renormalization
I
mean
people
talking
about
this
kind
of
favorite
occurrences.
They
don't
talk
about
censorship.
Resistant
very
much
I
mean
the
point.
Is
the
technology
right
we
want
to
do?
We
want
to
do
shiny
new
startup
like
things
we
just
want
to
buy
Lambos,
creating
new
apps,
because
that's
that's.
We
just
want
to
have
fun.
We
don't
have
to.
We
want
to
have
the
gloomy,
a
libertarian,
aggressive
approach
where
everybody
is
trying
to
to
get
to
us.
A
We
are
just
happy
people
playing
with
state
rich
statefulness,
so
this
is
one
I.
Don't
think
that
this
kind
of
attack
is
very
worrying
because
you
face
this
problem.
This
technology
is
useless
if
not
used
for
ease
in
tennis
its
intended
purpose.
So
this
is
a
traditional
trance.
Based
system
drive
it
by
horses.
This
is
a
first
automobile,
so
this
is
Bitcoin.
Of
course,
it's
not
perfect.
It
smells,
it
can
change
in
can
explode,
but
this
is
called
a
/
vagin.
A
So
basically,
during
the
Great
Depression,
the
people
took
engine
out
of
the
car
and
they
put
horses
there
and
the
man
here
this
is
I
mean
this
can
work.
This
stuff
can
go,
is
not
that
it
doesn't
work.
It
just
doesn't
make
a
lot
of
sense,
because
it's
very
heavy
for
the
horses
and
it's
not
very
comfortable
for
the
men
driving
there.
It
was
not
studied
for
that.
The
car
was
studied
to
be
a
car
with
all
its
pros
and
cons.
So
let's
move
and
parental
advisory.
A
Here,
let's
move
to
another
kind
of
a
political
attack.
This
was
a
political
attack
corner
a
normalization
in
which
I
tried
to
instill
into
Bitcoin,
something
that
was
politically
at
hearts
with
the
original
Bitcoin.
Let's
call
it
ideology
so
bitcoins
about
privacy.
What
about
qlc
becomes
about
some
money?
What
about
inflation
so
I'm
just
trying
to
counteract
the
ideology?
What
if
instead
I
try
to
completely
follow
the
the
ideology?
The
libertarian
son
money,
free-market
censorship,
persistent
ideology,
Bitcoin
and
I?
A
Try
to
hijack
that
to
distort
to
manipulate
that
ideology
in
a
way
in
which
I
will
not
seek
support
from
socialist
professor
at
Cornell
University,
but
I
will
seek
support
from
libertarians
and
free-market
champions
and
maybe
on
our
trip
to
anarchists
at
at
crypto
Anarchy
Institute's.
What
if
I
can
twist
some
libertarian
ideas
in
order
to
have
a
political
attack
driven
by
that
side,
internal
political
hijack,
sorry
I
had
to
do
this.
This
is
a
this
is
a
this
is
a
cover
slide
for
the
political
hijack
attacks.
A
Of
course,
what
I'm
about
to
say
here
is
an
alert
tinfoil
hat
alert.
This
could
be
an
attack
that
is
happening
now,
but
even
if
you
think
that
I'm
crazy,
that
I'm
paranoid,
that
I
am
at
the
time
occurs,
peanuts
is
theories,
and
this
is
not
happening
now.
Not.
It
may
be
an
organized
way.
That's
completely
possible.
What
I'm
saying
here
is
that
this
kind
of
attack
could
happen.
A
It
could
happen
completely
driven
by
the
side
or
equal
grow
internally
organically
or
it
could
start
internally
and
be
somehow
triggered
or
amplified
or
used
or
leveraged
by
external
entities.
So,
even
if
you
think
that
this
is
not
happening
now
and
everything
I'm
saying
now
is
not
anywhere
related
with
a
rate
with
a
coordinated
attack,
let's
just
imagine
that
this
is
a
possible
political
attack
surface
that
could
be
more
dangerous
actually
than
the
other
one,
because
they
did
the
distance
between
Bitcoin
and
the
statist
central.
A
His
policies
is
so
clear
that
this
technology
is
not
going
anywhere
anywhere
with
the
normalization
when
this
attack
is
more
subtile,
so
I
think
that
these
disk
IO,
of
course,
this
attack,
will
not
try
to
change
Bitcoin
in
a
way
that
it
directly
loses
its
characteristic,
but
it
could
be
if
I
mean
it
could
be
possibly
theoretically
a
way
to
facilitate
after
a
technical
sabotage.
So
if
I
am
part,
this
attack,
I
will
tell
we
need
khcom
bitcoin.
A
It's
an
interesting
because
there
paradoxically
use
it
at
the
same
time,
but
they
are
actually
very
very
far
apart
as
a
concept.
The
first
kind
of
political
misconception
is
the
market
versus
central
planning.
Core
devs
are
socialists
central
planners
because
they
want
to
decide
on
a
single
rate
on
a
single
repo.
They
want
to
decide
how
becoming
must
must
work,
while
every
characteristic
of
the
software
must
emerge
from
the
free
market.
I
mean
we
are
all
crypto
energies.
We
are
free
marketeers.
We
don't
want
central
planning.
A
This
is
a
very
powerful
argument,
especially
for
people
that
is
not
so
strong
about
political
science
and
it
can
be
suggestive
for
a
I
mean
prima
facie
libertarian
guy
I
mean
I,
won't
free
market.
Why
I
should
listen
to
a
central
planner
like
Bitcoin
core
developers,
which
will
be,
of
course
centralized
hierarchical
organization?
Of
course
it's
not.
A
They
think
that
the
misconception
here,
sorry,
this
pictures
not
very
sucks
because
I
took
it
from
from
distance,
but
this
was
about
the
speech
yesterday.
The
speech
about
positive
libertarianism
I,
don't
know
if
the
speaker
is
here,
but
it
was
very,
very
nice-
and
there
was
this
part
of
the
speech
that
was
the
market
is
an
abstraction.
A
There
are
people
and
companies
working
on
innovation
they're
the
market
that
does
not
solve
any
problems.
People
do
the
resulting
interaction.
Our
interactions
are,
then
called
the
market
by
saying
market
will
solve
this.
You
mean
other
people.
What
about
you?
So
this
is
a
nice
concept
right.
The
market
is
not
something
that
happens
without
anybody.
Taking
responsibility
to
try
to
create,
propose
assume
leadership,
do
something
the
market
doesn't
exist
in
a
purely
entropic
state,
where
everybody
is
just
a
crazy,
partisan
without
any
kind
of
organization.
A
The
trade-off
is
not
between
order
and
statism
and
violence,
and
free
market
and
crazy,
crazy
cows.
That's
not
the
trade
off
the
trade
off
is
violent
order
or
chaos
versus
peaceful
order
and
voluntary
order
and
chaos.
Actually,
the
market
is
every
kind
of
system
with
free
interaction,
no
coercion,
and
not
aggression
from
this
is
usually
always
emerged.
There
is
an
emergent
consensus
from
this,
which
is
usually
some
leadership,
Authority,
spiritual
philosophical.
There
is
some
specialization
division
of
labor.
Nobody
can
do
everything.
You
must
rely
on
something
something
else.
A
Someone
has
doing
this
stuff
better,
because
that's
how
you
can
have
to
improve
and
build
a
society,
transactional
cost
minimization
I,
don't
know
if
you
are
familiar
with
Ronald
Coase
when
I
could
say
is
economics
that
that
won
the
Nobel
Prize,
studying
how
from
a
free
market,
something
like
a
firm,
a
company
which
is
not
free
inside
the
company
of
contracts.
I
have
rules,
I
have
I
have
Cherokee's.
The
reason
it
it
is
born
is
that
it
lowers
transactional
cost.
A
So
in
the
free
market
there
are
emergent
higher
islands
of,
and
here
key
and
organization,
also
coordination.
When
we
want
to
coordinate
for
language
protocol,
we
do
create
some
kind
of
restriction
or
farley,
but
it's
not.
The
violent
restriction
is
a
market-based
restriction
of
the
unfolded
degrees
of
Liberty
degrees
of
freedom.
Of
course.
What's
what
is?
What's
keeping
this
system
honest
and,
and
what
keeps
this
system
from
degenerating
into
into
totalitarian
dystopian
world-
is
that
these
islands
of
organization
they
can
fail?
They
can
be
that
they
have
competition
from
our
side.
A
A
So
if
you
have
a
set
the
core
developers
which
are
not
an
organization
by
the
way
by
the
Jews
that
I,
let's
say
you
have
a
company
working
on
Bitcoin,
that's
completely
legit,
but
if
this
company
starts
to
kill
or
to
put
to
kidnap
people
competing
with
with
it,
like
a
government
will
do.
If
you
compete
with
the
government
of
same
territory,
then
you
are
out
of
the
market
and
you
are
in
the
realm
of
brute
force
and
not
cryptographic
of
brute
force.
A
So
this
one
side
of
the
debate-
and
it
has
some
interesting
interesting
corollaries
like
technically
emerging
consensus
inside
the
program
versus
artificial
limits.
So
you
know
the
argument
here
is
no
1
megabyte
is
an
artificial
limit.
Let's,
let's
just
market
the
side
and
you
could
do
a
you-
could
actually
go
on
and
say:
no
10
minutes
is
an
artificial
limit.
Let
the
market
decide,
and
you
could
do
that
with
any
kind
of
piece
of
software,
because
software
is
actually
a
set
of
limitation
proposed
by
the
author
of
the
software.
A
The
software
is
an
example
of
artificial
limits
that
are
useful
for
your
goal.
What
is
the
best
I
can
give
you
a
box
and
I
can
tell
you
this
box
is
so
nice.
It
is.
It
contains
a
program
which
is
so
flexible
that
you
can
do
anything
with
it.
It's
more
than
curing
complete
and
state
full
rich
state
full.
It's
after
you
can
do
Facebook.
You
can
do
Google,
you
can
do
any
program
because
it's
an
empty
car
disk
and
you
can
actually
do
whatever
you
want,
because
you
just
changed.
A
You
just
change
the
single
clusters
and
you
can
do
everything,
but
Apple
is
more
useful
when
I
provide
you
with
limitation.
If
they
are
not
enforced
on
you.
If
I
propose
the
limitation
to
you
and
you
choose
to
run
that
software,
then
it's
actually
not
in
artificial
limit.
It's
a
itself.
Software
works.
So
this
is
a
consequence
of
the
first
misconception.
Another
one
which
is
a
completely
separate
as
Kingdom,
but
it
has
been
used
in
the
same
kind
of
debate-
is
free
speech
versus
censorship.
A
Do
have
to
host
your
article,
otherwise
I'm
censoring
you.
Of
course.
This
is
a.
This
is
a
very
serious
manipulation
of
the
world
censorship.
This
is
completely
different
from
what
usually
we
mean
when
we
speak
when
we
speak
about
free
speech
and
censorship.
To
be
fair,
this
kind
of
misconception
it
not
is
not
just
present
aside
political
Bitcoin
block
size,
whatever
debate.
This
is
a
misconception
which
is
used.
It
is
used
in
a
very
broad
way
in
universities
in
television.
A
There
is
a
lot
of
misconception
between
a
situation
where
I
prevent
you
from
speak
with
your
resources
and
your
strategies
and
your
journal
and
your
your
forum
or
you're
ready
to
submit
it
or
the
the
fact
that
I
just
decide
to
moderate
my
single-channel
communication,
the
hell
in
what
whatever
way
I
want,
because
this
is
a
private
initiative
and
there
is
competition
here.
Somebody
else
can
come
out
with
another
suppress
it,
and
maybe
it
would
be
so
wonderful
that
everybody
will
leave
our
Bitcoin
and
everybody
will
go
on
our
b2c
right.
A
That's
what
happened
when
when
you
have
bad
mothers,
your
policy
and
you
have
an
alternative
or
not.
If
it's
not
bad,
so
these
are
two
declination
of
this
kind
of
political
attack
and
this
kind
of
misconception
there
is
another
one
which
is,
interestingly,
actually
at
the
at
the
other
end
of
the
spectrum.
So
the
after
the
same
people
sometimes
are
saying
what's
wrong
with
one
company
one
guy
producing
all
the
ethics
in
the
world,
I
mean:
aren't
we
free-market
capitalist,
it's
just
normal
that
just
one
guy
can
compete.
What
do
you
want?
Government
fixing
quotas?
A
Are
you
a
socialist?
It's
it's
been
it's
nice
to
have
I
mean
yeah.
This
implementation
of
Bitcoin
connects
with
nodes
of
three
companies
all
participated
by
a
single
investment
group.
I
mean
what's
wrong
with
that.
We
we
are
changing
the
protocol
based
on
a
meeting
of
12
people
inside
the
hotel,
married
in
New,
York
I.
Think
that's
capital
is
we
are
CEOs,
so
we
are
free
market.
A
That's
interesting,
because
it's
as
you
can
see
that
the
completely
opposite
spectrum,
but
still
used
by
the
same
people
in
my
theoretical,
not
existing
attack
scenario
and
and
it's
based
on
the
basically
three
misconception,
three
sub
misconceptions.
The
first
one
is
the
sensitization
like
a
company,
a
vertical
company.
Ok,
the
separation
is
legit,
is
not
against
free
marking.
Having
a
market
monopoly
of
Asics
of
everything
is
completely
legit
from
a
libertarian
crypto
anarchists
anarchist
anarcho-capitalist.
A
Whatever
point
of
view,
what
is
what
it
is
is
not
legit
it's
legit,
but
it's
dangerous,
because
it's
very
easy
to
censor
and
it's
very
easy
to
corrupt.
So
you
cannot
use
the
argument
that
creating
a
company
that
controls
everything
in
bitcoin
is
a
anti
libertarian.
It's
not,
but
you
can
use
the
argument
that
it
doesn't
work
because
it's
happening
with
a
cash
with
eagled
with
linden
dollars
with
people
when
they
try
to
create
the
currency
without
the
centralization.
You
are
completely
legit.
A
You
can
be
a
free
market
capitalist,
but
it
doesn't
work
because
if
you
are
trying
to
change
the
status
quo
too
much
you
will
be
censored
or
you
will
be
paid
off.
You
will
be
corrupt.
You
will
be
both,
so
this
is
basically
also
a
misconception
that
that
comes
from
another
misconception
about
what
consensus
really
means:
people
some
people,
not
very
expert
technical
in
Bitcoin.
A
They
think
that
Satoshi
Nakamoto
delivered
a
magical
magical
trick
that
somehow
can
technically
solve
the
governance
problem
and
when
you
have
to
agree
the
protocol
change
the
rule
after
you
just
use
the
consensus,
but
that's
completely
not
true.
The
comodo
consensus
is
used
to
solve
a
very
specific
government
governance
problem,
which
is
chronology
of
the
transaction.
What
happens
if
this
kind
of
consensus
goes
wrong?
What
happens
is
a
double
spending
risk
censorship?
A
The
solution
is
proof
of
work,
so
proof
work
is
the
solution
for
the
double
spending
problem
is
not
the
general
solution
for
the
rule
changing
problem.
We
don't
have
an
automatic,
fair
solution
to
this
proof.
Work
can
be
both
and
can
be
bought
by
purchased
by
attackers
with
without
problems.
Actually
it
could
happen.
So
another
thing
is
that
protocol
coordination
is
very
to
bootstrap.
This
is
also
something
related
with
and
I
go
to
finish
in
and
two
minutes.
This
is
also
related
with
monetization
and
profit.
A
Satoshi
Nakamoto
cooled
have
just
pre
minded
the
Bitcoin
that
was
or
or
I've
done,
an
IC
o----
for
VidCon.
There
is
nothing
ethically
wrong
in
that.
If
it's
I
mean,
if
for
cheap
rate,
is
not
scam,
and
it's
if
it
makes
sense,
but
the
promise
that
Satoshi
choose
not
to
do
that,
because
otherwise
bootstrap
the
trust
bootstrap,
the
network
would
have
been
extremely
difficult.
So
we
can,
you
cannot
use
the
classical
your
article
company
structure
for
everything,
because
we
are
trying
to
construct
a
free,
open
global
network.
A
Also
Bitcoin
may
be
unique,
may
be
an
experiment
which
is
very
in
difficult
to,
if
not
impossible,
to
do
again.
If
it
fails.
The
interesting
thing
about
the
unity
of
Bitcoin
is
that
even
if
I'm
I,
even
if
I'm
wrong,
I'm
right
away,
because,
let's
consider
a
classical
objection
to
this,
no
guy
Bitcoin
is
not
unique.
We
need
to
change
Bitcoin
quickly
or
our
coins
will
take
over
the
interesting
logical
consequence
of
this
sentence.
A
Is
that
incorrect,
as
you
can
read
here
very
correct,
because
if
Bitcoin
is
unique,
then
our
coin
cannot
take
over
because
it's
unique
nobody
know
I'll
know,
as
tentative
network
can
provide
the
same
value
proposition,
at
least
in
the
long
run.
But
if
it's
not
correct
and
because
it's
easy
to
replace
a
replicator,
then
what's
the
problem,
we
can
still
not
cheat
Bitcoin.
Some
a
coin
will
take
over
and
we
will
be
happy
about
that
because
we
will
have
the
final
value
proposition
that
we
were
seeking
anyway.
A
So
this
point
must
be
considered
must
be
considered
anyway
in
the
direction
of
concern,
conservation
and
protection
of
Bitcoin.
This
is
the
last
reside
just
to
tell
that
these
two
misconception
I
will
not
analyze
the
slide
in,
but
I
just
want
to
try
to
give
you
them
the
suggestion
about
it.
There
are
two
different
layers.
One
layer
is
infrastructure
networks
protocols
like
languages,
money
internet
in
these
layers.
You,
even
if
you
are
a
free-market
anarchist
in
this
layered
layer
of
products,
service
or
firms
or
company.
You
want
disruption,
change,
rapid
change,
evolution.
A
You
want
competition,
choice,
multiplicity,
you
want
also
centralization
and
profit.
They
are
completely
okay
and
and
in
this
different
layer,
the
layer
which
is
underneath.
Actually
it's
a
degree.
Of
course
you
can
have
the
classical
example.
You
have
candy
crash
the
Facebook
game,
then
your
Facebook,
then
you
have
the
web.
Then
you
have
the
TCP
and
HTTP
then
disappear.
Ap
bitcoin
is
down
here.
Is
a
protocol
and
open
infrastructure.
Proto
is
not
the
product
and
when
you
have
an
open
infrastructure
protocol
for
very
real
or
various
reasons,
you
don't
want
change
disruption
continue
crucial.
A
You
want
a
stability,
reliability,
resilience,
you
want
cooperation
and
convert
convergence
instead
of
competition
and
multiplicity,
and
you
cannot
have
easily
centralization
and
profit,
not
because
it's
not
legit,
but
because
it
doesn't
work.
Sorry,
it
was
a
little
bit
longer
than
I
expected
questions.
B
C
A
A
So
I
think
that
there
is
not
a
unique
answer
to
your
question.
I
think
there
are
very
different
interests
here,
for
example,
I
think
that
people
with
a
lot
of
economical
interest
in
Bitcoin
ecosystem
will
probably
chicken
out
and
save
face
somehow
before
the
death
before
the
disaster,
while
some
people
that
has
nothing
to
lose,
maybe
because
it
has
not
strong
commercial
interest
but
just
reputational
interest,
they
could
be
incentivized
to
go
on
anyway.
I
give
an
example:
I,
don't
think
maybe
I'm
wrong,
but
I'm.
A
No
sorry,
I,
don't
know
maybe
I'm
wrong,
but
I
don't
think
that
before
be
cash
Chien
who
were
really
willing
to
four
to
split
Bitcoin
because
I
mean
who's
the
dangerous
move
for
a
minor
to
do
what
happened?
What
happens
that,
after
a
conference,
some
developers
that
I
see
I
believe
are
not
strictly
related
with
Jia
who
the
they
decided
to
split
anyway
and
with
the
strange
funny
difficult
adjustment
anger
it?
And
then
the
miners
started
to
play
with
it
to
play
games,
but
they
will
probably
didn't
with
be
xtxt.
A
They
didn't
do
that
with
be
classic.
They
didn't
do
that
with
be
a
limited.
Probably
they
were
they
weren't
going
to
go
on
with
Bitcoin,
ABC
or
whatever,
but
some
somebody
has
did
and
they
started
to
play
with
it.
Something
similar
could
happen
with
the
bit
wax
series
company
that
understand
that
this
attempt
to
political
takeover
has
failed.
I
mean
if
it
was
possible
to
succeed,
they
would
have
gone
over,
but
this
is
clearly
failed.
They
will
probably
step
back,
but
maybe
some
developer-
that
as
as
bad
always
reputation
on
this
book.
D
It
was
a
very
good
one.
My
question
is:
what
can
the
Chinese
government
do
to
corrupt
the
minor,
for
example,
and
perform
an
attack
and
the
other
one
is?
What
can
central
bands
do
to
attack
Bitcoin,
for
example,
by
printing
money,
to
buy
a
lot
of
Bitcoin
and
and
selling
them,
or
something
like
that?
So.
A
I
think
that
both
both
adversaries
can
do
something
which
is
anyway,
temporary,
not
really
long-term
damage,
but,
in
short,
short
term
could
be
use
damaged.
Government
Chinese
government
can
burn
Bitcoin
mining,
for
example,
but
that
will
not
be
really
a
smart
move.
What
I
suspect
they
are
trying
to
do
is
to
nationalize
Bitcoin
mining.
Somehow
so
I
mean
how
many
payment
companies,
how
many
I
mean
how
many
every
kind
of
company
to
account
big
ones
in
China,
usually
one
with
a
strong
participation
on
the
government.
A
So
that's
the
day,
this
style
of
crony
capitalism,
so
it's
I
mean
I,
don't
know
I'm,
not
an
expert
of
China,
and
you
know
anyhow,
so
I
think
that
they
will
try
to
reopen
exchanges
and
to
smoothly
switch.
They
consistent
from
distributive
one
to
a
centralized
one.
The
kind
of
attack
you
can
perform
when
you
have
control
of
our
mining
is
basically
censorship
for
some
time,
and
that
was
pending
off
your
own
money.
A
Both
things
can
damage
Bitcoin
the
short-term,
but
then
the
long
term,
you
just
put
you
just
give
a
competitive
advantage
to
two
little,
no
Chinese
miner
or
very
little
anonymous.
Chinese
miner
or
outside
China,
so
you
just
destroy
what
you
try
to
control.
It's
like
I
mean
empty
cause
at
90%
of
the
market.
Okay.
What
can
you
do
if
you
control
empty
cause?
You
can
change
the
price
with
weally.
You
can
do
a
lot
of
things,
but
eventually
you
will
just
destroy
your
your
toy,
so
in
the
long
run,
I.
A
A
A
A
Question
yeah
I
didn't
spell
it,
but
yeah
I
put
antifragility
many
people
says
that
bitcoin
is
antifragile.
Is
nice
it's
nice
to
think
that
we
also
have
the
tissue
the
fragility
from
scaling,
Bitcoin
mantra-
probably
Bitcoin
at
this
point-
is
more
robust
than
ante
for
the
market
around
Bitcoin
exchanges.
The
miners
are
antifragile
context.
The
protocol
itself
is
not
a
differential,
it
is
robust
if
you
you
cannot
break
it,
but
if
you
do
break
it,
you
probably
create
a
lot
of
long
long
long
run
damage
in
my
opinion.
A
So
if
ad
coins
were
possible,
you
would
have
actually
an
anti
fragile
system.
The
problem
with
alkynes
is
that
when
Bitcoin
was
born,
it
was
so
little
that
it
was
ignored,
but
and
when
it
was
known
it
was
so
big
that
it
was
very
difficult
to
attack.
No
alkyne
can
replicate
that
in
a
foreseeable
future
it
can
face.
Every
alternative
will
be
compromised
since
day
one
or
will
be
just
shut
down
immediately.
It's
very
difficult
to
imagine
a
situation
similar
to
Bitcoin.
Also
the
disappointment
and
the
delusion
will.
A
A
Like
the
result
of
splits,
they
have
a
better
with
the
solution
that
puerile
coin.
They
are
more
legit.
On
that
point
of
view,
if,
in
my
personal
in
my
personal
rankings,
I
will
say
that
the
most
scam
II
think
that
you
can
do
is
is
a
new
al
coin,
with
a
new
token
to
bootstrap,
economically,
a
new
proof
of
work
to
strap
technically
a
new
code
base
to
construct,
I
mean
computer
science,
wise
and,
and
that's
that's
actual.
You
are
you're,
just
destroying
all
the
network
effects
of
and
the
new
capitalization
of
course.
A
Well,
if
you
do,
for
example,
merge
mining,
you,
like
named
coin,
did
you
are
saving
one,
a
torque
effect?
If
you're
doing
you
are
saving
at
least
one
other
network
effect?
Of
course,
the
best
way
to
split
the
value
will
be
to
a
packed
side
chains
where
you
can
obtain
switch
between
different
Bitcoin
implementation,
conserving
the
market
cap,
the
market
depth
the
price
with
minor,
with
minor
arbitrage.
A
Of
course,
while
the
fork
is
like
a
diverging
price,
I
mean
it's
very
complicated
question,
so
the
answer
should
take
a
lot
of
time,
but
I
think
that,
if
for
a
harness
for
coin
is
better
than
another
coin,
unless
it's
used
as
a
phishing
attack,
so
you
promote
it
as
Bitcoin
or
to
create
confusion
and
to
steal
other
kind
of
network
effects.
So.
F
Previous
question
is:
do
you
think
there's
a
possibility
of
a
market
base
that
icon
Bitcoin,
where
you
know
the
bad
actors
don't
interact
with
the
Bitcoin
system?
They
just
manipulate
the
prices
through
like
the
futures
markets,
and
you
know,
maybe,
if
Bitcoin
cost
$400
today
and
be
cash
cost
$4,000
today,
people
would
have
different
opinions
about
you
know
which
fork
is
the
right
one.
You.
A
A
Burning
a
lot
of
money
in
doing
that,
so
if
governments
could
manipulate
everything
always
they
will
just
avoid
when
they
create
a
subprime
housing
mortgage
bubble,
they
will
try
to
prevent
the
purse,
but
they
can't
they
can
just
a
can
just
pump.
But
when
the
bubble
burst,
they
cannot
do
anything
with
interest
rates.
They
manipulate
interest
rates,
then
interest
rates
explodes
or
inflation
they
play
with
inflation,
but
when
inflation
explodes
they
cannot
stop
it
in
the
power
they
cannot
stop
in
by
my
Republic.
They
cannot
stop
it
anywhere
else.
A
So,
of
course,
they
can
manipulate
short
term
and
up
to
a
limit
Bitcoin
price
in
order
to
take
it
down
or
to
or
to
or
to
pump
it
up.
But
if
they,
against
that,
we
are
trend,
the
cost
of
doing
that
will
divert
diverge
over
time
and
even
if
they
can
bring
money,
they
cannot
do
that
without
consequences.
Otherwise
we
would
have
to.
We
would
have
that
there
they
receive
for
happiness
for
everybody.
A
A
I
partially
answered
I,
don't
know,
I
really
don't
know,
I
think
that
the
most
probable
scenario
is
a
scenario
which
major
responsible
player
with
strong
economic
interest
will
find
a
way
to
save
face
like
they
did
with
you
a
you,
a
safe.
They
save
it
face
just
merging
people
naughty
one
they
will
in
order
to
not
suffer
the
UA
SF.
They
will
try
something
like
that.
They
will
try.
A
I,
don't
think
that
is
in
the
interest
of
digital
currency
group
to
actually
move
the
pieces
over
null
coin,
so
they
will
probably
withdrawal
partially
ambiguously
delaying,
while
some
people,
like
the
developers
like
guards
equal
whatever
I,
don't
see
for
them
strong
incentives
to
back
back
off
right
now
they
will
probably
go
and
to
create
their
art
coins
because
I
mean
it's
that's
what
other
people
did
in
the
past.
Okay,.