Sabotaging Bitcoin

Environmental and Energy Use Debate

• Several comments highlight Bitcoin’s energy use as “horrifying,” noting estimates around 40 GW, roughly comparable to UK grid consumption.
• Critics argue every kWh (even “renewable”) carries climate and resource costs, and that Bitcoin’s work could be replaced by a database plus trusted party at tiny fraction of the energy.
• Defenders counter that mining often uses otherwise wasted energy (gas flaring, surplus hydro) and that Bitcoin strongly incentivizes seeking the cheapest, often renewable, electricity.
• Others dispute how much “waste energy” is actually available and note that cheap electricity can mean coal.
• Some compare Bitcoin’s usage to AI, arguing AI may consume more and has weaker built-in economic constraints; others say AI power use is at least measurable at datacenter scale.

Utility, Value, and Competing Technologies

• Critics see Bitcoin as a low-throughput (≈7 TPS) system mostly used for speculation, adding little societal value and functioning like a Ponzi-like asset.
• Supporters argue it enables “purely enforceable property rights” and a path away from fiat currencies, claiming long-run net positive impact and superior fungibility vs gold.
• Multiple commenters push back that Bitcoin is already failing as a universal currency; almost no one uses it as everyday cash, and high fees and low throughput push real use off-chain.
• Some promote alternatives (e.g., Hedera, Monero, PoS systems) as vastly more energy-efficient or private; skeptics call such claims spam or note trust/centralization issues.

Legality and Ethics of Attacking Bitcoin

• Discussion centers on whether sabotage attacks (like large reorgs or exploiting consensus) are illegal.
• Because Bitcoin is permissionless and ownerless, applying “unauthorized access” hacking laws (CFAA) is seen as conceptually murky.
• However, attacks aimed at profit could fall under market manipulation or wire-fraud statutes; recent smart-contract cases show courts are willing to prosecute exploiters, with mixed outcomes.
• Some argue that if Bitcoin needs legal protection from protocol-level attacks, that undermines its “code is law” narrative, though it may lower consensus costs.

Mining Centralization and Geopolitics

• Concerns are raised that large ASIC manufacturers (e.g., Bitmain) and major pools, potentially influenced by the Chinese state, could coordinate major attacks or effectively “control” Bitcoin.
• Others envision nation-states heavily subsidizing mining as strategic infrastructure, even treating Bitcoin like an arms race; skeptics question why states would back a system with negative externalities and no sovereign control.
• Counter-arguments suggest semiconductor manufacturing is more geographically diversified, and that letting an adversary monopolize mining could simply crash Bitcoin and leave them with stranded hardware.

Consensus Security, Confirmations, and Selfish Mining

• Some refer back to the Bitcoin whitepaper’s math: required confirmations depend on attacker hash share and target risk ε. With larger pools (e.g., 30%), many more than 6 confirmations may be needed.
• There is debate whether raising confirmation counts (and/or considering block timing) is socially acceptable versus necessary “alignment with reality.”
• Long exchanges dissect “selfish mining” and block-withholding strategies:
  • One side argues that withholding blocks to build a private lead can waste competitors’ hash and improve expected rewards for large miners.
  • The other side questions whether this is actually profitable without majority hash power, emphasizing that withheld blocks risk being orphaned and rewards lost.
  • Participants converge that the strategy’s viability is subtle, requiring careful probabilistic and game-theoretic analysis.

Halvings, Fees, and Long-Term Security

• Some argue Bitcoin security will “inevitably” weaken as block subsidies (in BTC) halve, making reorg/double-spend attacks cheaper unless price or fees rise substantially.
• Others respond that what matters is USD-denominated rewards; historically these have grown, and over time fees are expected to replace subsidies.
• Critics note that fee revenue has been relatively flat or declining recently and that there is no guarantee fees will scale enough; high fees also reduce Bitcoin’s usefulness as a transactional system.
• A separate concern: attacks that rely on waiting for lucky streaks of blocks may be impractical because the attacker must constantly forego normal rewards and cannot precisely time the event relative to target transactions.

Derivatives, Speculation, and Market Impact

• Commenters highlight that Bitcoin derivatives volumes (futures/options) can vastly exceed spot volume, turning BTC into an underlying for a large gambling market.
• Some argue that when derivatives dwarf spot, it becomes easier and cheaper for big players to manipulate the underlying market for derivative profit, citing analogies to other markets.
• There is discussion of how futures work (margin, leverage, cash settlement), with corrections to oversimplified explanations; high leverage common on crypto platforms is noted.
• One view is that even spot BTC trading is essentially speculative on price; derivatives just amplify this with timing constraints and leverage.

Sentiment and Meta-Discussion

• Some label the original article FUD, arguing that a $30B+ attack to force longer confirmation times and disrupt derivatives is unlikely and might even benefit long-term holders. Others say the article itself reaches a similar “impractical in practice” conclusion.
• There is recurring moral condemnation of Bitcoin as “atrocity against nature and humanity” versus counter-claims that its societal benefits (if realized) justify the energy cost.
• Discussions also touch on gold and fiat:
  • Debates over whether gold’s value is mainly intrinsic/industrial or social.
  • Observations that fiat’s value is ultimately backed by state power and tax obligations, whereas Bitcoin’s value is entirely consensual and vulnerable if that consensus shifts.