[panarky]

That's the thing - there's no "comprehensive and conclusive" answer to these arguments, just a never-ending parade of the same discussions repeated ad infinitum.

As for breaking the cryptography, it's been nearly 10 years now, with all the code in the public domain and massive incentives to find a flaw.

That's why some people call Bitcoin "anti-fragile" since it seems to get stronger the more it's attacked.

But of course it's theoretically possible that the NSA / GCHQ / FAPSI will (or has already) broken the cryptography. What happens then? Do miners stop until the flaw is fixed? Do they roll back to before the compromise? Does the blockchain fork into a new, fixed coin?

I guess that's the beauty of financial assets defined by open-source software. Bugs and exploits happen, they get fixed, and we move ahead on a new version.

[justifier]

But your reply only covers a small aspect of a single possible perspective on the question: 'a bug in only sha256 was disclosed publically'

Perhaps you are having 'the same discussions repeated ad infinitum.' because of your input stead the actual subject matter

> I guess that's the beauty of financial assets defined by open-source software. Bugs and exploits happen, they get fixed, and we move ahead on a new version.

I am unconcerned with the 'move ahead' bit

My concern is with the assets currently in the blockchain

When I warn those that ask me if they should 'get Bitcoin' that the technology is propped up on unsolved math problems

It is to protect their finances stead attempt to disparage Bitcoin

If the cryptography is broken then the entire blockchain is suspect and needs to be discarded along with the record of any assets locked in it