leonwankum on Nostr: It was brought to my attention that Bitcoin’s indestructibility makes it a more ...
It was brought to my attention that Bitcoin’s indestructibility makes it a more resilient SoV. Not a better one. Resiliency is just one feature. That's correct.
But resilience is very important in an unstable world where wealth has always been destroyed and is therefore a very important feature of an SOV.
But resilience is very important in an unstable world where wealth has always been destroyed and is therefore a very important feature of an SOV.
quoting note138h…9m0cControlling the Bitcoin network would cost an attacker approx. $7.9 billion in equipment and around $2,000,0000 in energy costs per hour.
Destroying a #house is much easier.
It is obvious which is the better store of value.
The cost of the equipment ($7.9 billion) is based on a calculation that suggests the three largest pools together account for 66.87% of the network hashrate (in June 2023), a whopping 242.42 EH/s (242 million TH/ s).
An attacker would therefore need more power.
To achieve this, the attacker would need more than 941,634 S19 XP Hydros - which would mean a fixed cost of almost $7.9 billion, plus a building to house the equipment, maintenance staff, electricity and cooling etc.
The cost of the hashrate is based on an extremely simplified and unrealistic cost modeling based on the price of the SHA256 hashrate on nicehash (inspired by BTCGandalf (npub1ac8…657s)).
If someone tried to buy this much hashrate, the would rise massively, making it more costly.