Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by UncleMeat 1637 days ago
> A person's Bitcoin holdings can be distributed across any number of wallets. How does the thief know (1) their mark owns Bitcoin, (2) how much Bitcoin they are stealing, and (3) whether they have coerced the owner to hand over the keys to all of their wallets?

Are the unbanked really going to operate a number of different wallets, including decoy wallets, to prepare for this scenario?

> Bitcoin has all of the properties we need in a store of value for the base layer of a digital monetary system of the future.

Its parameters were picked on a whim by somebody nobody can ever find. "Completely unchangeable parameters handed down from the equivalent of God" is not a property that I look for in a monetary system.
1 comments
Centmo 1637 days ago
The safest and most effective method for storing wealth that the unbanked currently have is to bury gold jewelry somewhere. Gold holds its value better than fiat, but is not easily divisible and there is a large cost to converting it to/from fiat. Bitcoin keys can also be buried, but if necessary they can also be memorized and transported across borders without risk of seizure. Also, having multiple wallets is not complicated; you may be underestimating the cleverness of the unbanked.

The parameters of the Bitcoin code are changeable (and have changed multiple times since inception) via hard-fork based on the 'voting' of the nodes which verify all new blocks and number in the tens of thousands distributed across the globe. The parameters of the protocol are set such that anyone can run a verification node on only a couple hundred dollars worth of hardware, thereby encouraging decentralization.

https://river.com/learn/can-bitcoins-hard-cap-of-21-million-...

link
UncleMeat 1637 days ago
> The parameters of the Bitcoin code are changeable

In principle, yes. But look at the clusterfuck that was the BCH fork. Something as basic as blocksize led to an outrageous amount of venom and two communities hating each other. Now imagine if the core devs wanted to change things that more directly affected the relative wealth of early adopters. Could you believe the anger if they proposed that we double the number of eventually mined bitcoins?

link