you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SoCo[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They can't read and think Bitcoin was supposed to be anonymous, while citing Satoshi explaining out it is only psudo anonymous.

They throw out all data from mining pools and exchanges. They erroneously assume mining multiple blocks in a row means you control most of the hash power. They are oblivious to early network details which impacted such things. This gets spun into a FUD piece implying Bitcoin totally isn't decentralized because it wasn't so much in the first year. They inaccurately pretend Ross Ulbricht could have 51% attacked, for a scary name drop, when he had a small fraction of hash power.

They seem to be great with some vague and baseless game theory stuff, which they pad their research with. I guess they don't realize that this incentivization was built into the design. If you steal BTC in the first 2 years, you crash the value to zero and ruin everyone's time for no gain.