Jump to content

Recommended Posts

abenjami   
7 hours ago, Titans_Win_Again said:

Ethereum and Ethereum Classic are not the same thing. Classic is a poorly supported fork of Ethereum that's market cap is a fraction of the size.  All decentralized blockchains are vulnerable to a "51% attack", which is when majority of the network hash rate ie computing power is controlled by a malicious actor. This actor then uses his overwhelming hash power to effectively create counterfeit coins. 

 

There are websites that calculate the vulnerability of various decentralized blockchains to attack

image.png.af7051cce6734e606d49eec95ecb8262.png

 

As you can see, the less valuable the coin the less hash power there is to "defend" the network. 

 

Then there's also the factor of whether or not ASICs are used to generate a network's hash power. ASICs are computer chips designed only for a highly specialized function, for example, mining the SHA-256 algorithm used by the BTC network. If someone were able to obtain enough hash power to 51% attack the BTC network it would almost certainly be through the use of ASIC miners. This creates a catch-22 as the tens of millions of $ worth of mining equipment needed to attack the BTC network would be rendered worthless if the price of BTC collapsed.

 

tldr

 

Short of a highly orchestrated attack by state level actors or Google itself, BTC is not at risk of a similar attack.

Why would you have to defend an attack?

 

I thought it was inherently 110% secure and attack-proof by design!!!

Edited by abenjami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"But if I had to choose between the $1.2m and the podcast, I would let the money go again – I love what I do now."

 

Sounds like he is lying to himself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
abenjami   
6 minutes ago, wiscotitansfan said:

"But if I had to choose between the $1.2m and the podcast, I would let the money go again – I love what I do now."

 

Sounds like he is lying to himself

Definitely lying to himself!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Titans_Win_Again said:

LOL did you guys even read the article? The dude bought at 600$ and cashed out at 4k + plus whatever he was cashing out during the bubble when it was over 10k...

Just because he was net positive doesn't mean he didn't "lose" a lot of money, and he was the one that said he would gladly lose all that money again because it led him to his current job

 

It's hilarious how you are even blindly defending THAT

Edited by wiscotitansfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, wiscotitansfan said:

Just because he was net positive doesn't mean he didn't "lose" a lot of money, and he was the one that said he would gladly lose all that money again because it led him to his current job

 

It's hilarious how you are even blindly defending THAT

Just because he was net positive doesn't mean he didn't "lose" a lot of money

Just because he was net positive doesn't mean he didn't "lose" a lot of money

Just because he was net positive doesn't mean he didn't "lose" a lot of money

 

 

Hilarious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Titans_Win_Again said:

Just because he was net positive doesn't mean he didn't "lose" a lot of money

Just because he was net positive doesn't mean he didn't "lose" a lot of money

Just because he was net positive doesn't mean he didn't "lose" a lot of money

 

 

Hilarious

If you had a bunch of winning lottery tickets but misplaced the jackpot one and only cashed in the instant win ones for much much much much less money, you wouldn't be happy about the net gain.

Edited by wiscotitansfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, wiscotitansfan said:

If you had a bunch of winning lottery tickets but misplaced the jackpot one and only cashed in the instant win ones for much much much much less money, you wouldn't be happy about the net gain.

You're reaching Simple Jake territory with this convoluted attempt to rationalize saying someone who bought something, then sold it for significantly more money "lost."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy literally has lost in the title and constantly refers to losing money throughout the article that he wrote about his experience... You wanna let him know he didn't lose anything though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supdawg   

See the pattern? 3 Parabolic advances followed by steep 80+% retracements. History will repeat itself. 

Edited by Supdawg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...