[stale2002]

I have been hearing this argument for over a decade now.

In another decade, when this mythical attack on this scale l (as it applies to BTC. Some smaller coins have been attacked, but they are nowhere on the same scale) continues to fail to materialize, are you going to say the same thing?

I just want to know how many decades from now of your position being falsified, that you need to wait for you to change your mind.

Or will you never change you mind? Is you position truly unfalsifiable, no many how many decades go by?

[arcticbull]

> as it applies to BTC. Some smaller coins have been attacked, but they are nowhere on the same scale

So what I'm hearing is everyone knows it can and does happen at a smaller scale but you just can't bring yourself to believe it could ever happen on a bigger scale. This seems like the creationism vs evolution argument.

I find this particular criticism of the currency pretty weak too for what it's worth as It's got much bigger issues. Like the sheer magnitude of its waste.

However, I do find the argument disqualifying when petitioning to make Bitcoin the "one world currency" when 70% of the hashpower is in a totalitarian ethnostate that can just screw it up at will. Conceptually it amounts to giving up sovereignty of your currency to the PRC.

[stale2002]

> but you just can't bring yourself to believe it could ever happen on a bigger scale

What I asked was for what would make your position falsifiable, in terms of time that an attack does not happen. How many decades from now do we need to wait.

My position is falsifiable, on the other hand. If a major attack, on the scale of the whole BTC network gets broken for weeks and weeks on end, then my position is falsified, as I do not think such attacks, on that large of a scale, are going to happen, therefore if one does I would be wrong.

Yours, on the other hand, does not seem to be. It seems like there is no possible timeline, for attacks on that scale failing to materialize, for which you will admit that such attacks are not coming.

[arcticbull]

I don’t disagree with your assessment though I would say the potential alone is disqualifying. I understand if you don’t. Your positions is quite consistent and compelling.