The US Govt isn’t going to blow up or even sabotage some bitcoin mining facilities. It doesn’t need to, because the US Govt already knows that Bitcoin is going to die by itself. It only needs another halving or 2 and it’s security problem, stemming from it’s proof-of-work design, will become obvious to everyone.
Here is another video outlining how Govts could control Bitcoin with a “subsidy attack”.
But even without any Govt level attack, I just can’t get past the fact that with each Bitcoin halving the rewards for securing it’s blockchain are halving relative to the potential rewards from attacking it. Furthermore, unlike proof-of-stake, you don’t need to hold any Bitcoin to be a Bitcoin miner, so this makes it easy for an attacker to make blocks at the same time as shorting Bitcoin. Fundamentally, the incentives of Bitcoin miners are not aligned with Bitcoin holders. Bitcoin miners don’t actually care how they make a profit.
Another big assumption that Bitcoin maxis make is that hashing power is only useful for mining Bitcoin. I argue hashing power is simply compute power. I do understand that ASICs are specialised chips designed for crunching out hashes, but a well connected attacker could achieve enough hashing power via other means such as renting some super-computers for a period of time. Furthermore, even ASIC chips could be put to alternative uses so an attacker could rent compute power, build an alternative secret chain, double spend, and profit from shorting. Then proceed to re-purpose the compute power to look for extra-terrestrial life in the universe, or something.
At the end of the day, if Bitcoin miners are just compute power then as the profits reduce relative to price then more compute power in the world will be doing stuff other than Bitcoin mining. And, this rest of world compute power keeps increasing. So unless we keep dedicating a massive percentage of our entire world compute power just for Bitcoin mining then eventually it becomes easier and cheaper to rent some of this “rest of world” compute power to attack the Bitcoin blockchain.
Then there is the problem of economic incentives related to earning yield and the utility of Bitcoin as an asset:
Say you had 1 million $ to deposit in a bank. Bank Bitcoin pays 0% and Bank Cardano pays 4%. Which one do you pick?
Now consider that bank Cardano also allows you to use your $ as collateral to borrow against, or you could use a portion of it to loan out to someone else for additional yield. IE: Bank Cardano allows you to put your $ to work under your control where you get to choose what risks you will take for additional yield above that 4% risk free rate.
Whereas at bank Bitcoin all you can do is leave your $ untouched and chant HODL HODL HODL to yourself.
Which bank do you put your $ in now?
It is simple economics at the end of the day. I can’t see how anyone picks bank Bitcoin once they get their head around the economics.
Eventually people build secure bridges to allow Bitcoin holders to transfer the asset value to other more useful chains as synthBitcoin tokens where they can put their synthBitcoin to work to earn some yield or use it as collateral to borrow against. But, this just exacerbates Bitcoin’s security problems because now nobody is using the Bitcoin chain to do anything and all the Bitcoin tokens are just locked in bridge contracts.
Anyway, I could go on. I view Bitcoin as a ponzi scheme now. I think many astute investors knows this and are pumping the narratives of
- “blue chip”
- “original”
- “proven security for longest time”
- “proof-of-work is the only secure sybil resistance method because it requires real world energy use”
I believe these people are hoping for another Bitcoin pump so they can offload at higher prices.
Bitcoin doesn’t solve any of the real world problems Cardano is trying to solve.