[michaniskin]

This "perpetually moving target" will need funding to operate. The Fed will always be able to afford to lose more money than the private sectors can afford to lose. Remember that the government doesn't need infinite resources, they just need more resources than the private sector can muster.

This is something the Fed does all the time, this is exactly how they distort the economy to set interest rates and bond yields. They have been 51% attacking the bond markets for decades, and all the bond shorts who thought "they can't possibly keep printing at this rate" lost their shirts.

[mikeblackson]

All these coins are funded by the people that adopt them, funding is not an issue for projects that solve the issues Bitcoin does. These projects exist because there is demand for the solutions they offer, attacking any single network does nothing to limit that demand.

I disagree with the 2nd part too, the idea that the Fed does anything tech related with a higher level of competency than the private sector has not been proven to me.

The idea that a centralized closed network that's severely hampered by operating restrictions can beat a well designed adaptable open network in the long run is a joke.

[michaniskin]

> funding is not an issue for projects that solve the issues Bitcoin does

Funding is far less of an issue for an attacker who has a printing press, and it's the relative level of funding that matters. In order to defend against a 51% attack the defender must be able to spend more resources than the attacker. It's the "who can afford to lose more money game", where one side can just print as much money as they need while the other side has to earn every dollar. Are you really betting on the workin' man here? I wouldn't.

> attacking any single network does nothing to limit that demand

Demonstrating that they can afford a 51% attack on any blockchain they want to attack will affect the price of all crypto. Investors will need to discount that risk. This will surely affect demand.

> The idea that a centralized closed network that's severely hampered by operating restrictions can beat a well designed adaptable open network in the long run is a joke.

Nobody is claiming that the Fed's intention is to compete with bitcoin. They only need to attack it and destroy it. Remember, they want people to be stuck using their fiat currency, they don't want to make a competing type of sound money.

[mikeblackson]

They are competing with Bitcoin whether they like it or not. CBDCs are a result of Bitcoin applying pressure to central banks. As long as the money offered by central banks is censorable and heavily debased, they will be in this battle.

And no, they can't destroy something that can be forked and updated an infinite number of times. Not sure why you don't understand that its trivially easy to copy Bitcoin and build an alt. As long as that is the case, Bitcoin cannot be defeated.

If the current POW mechanism is repeatedly attacked and defeated it will adapt or projects will move to another consensus method. This is an arms race that CBs cannot win and they will burn a lot of money in process of losing, which is a beautiful thing.

Realize a successful 51% attack is just the beginning of the war, not the end of it.

*All the arguments you put forth so far are defeated by this simple flip of a consensus mechanism switch.

[michaniskin]

They don't need to compete with a thing they can destroy. And they can destroy bitcoin with a 51% attack that is funded by their ability to print as much fiat as it takes.

[wooby]

> Realize a successful 51% attack is just the beginning of the war, not the end of it.

I think you're right; the war will go on for awhile. But I'm convinced by https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28028542 that in the end, if anything bests fiat, it will be gold.

Barring some new technological breakthrough, it seems to me that bitcoin has no value in a fiat world, and no value proposition in a sound money world. It's a noble dead end.