/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>9817948
I can see and agree with your point here. However, what you describe... mining nodes being "observed" by a few msb validating nodes, doesn't describe an autonomous, trustless, peer-to-peer network for everyone.
>Double spends can't simply fly under the radar if the entire system was to become corrupt.
>if the entire system was to become corrupt
>entire system was corrupt
like that hasn't happened before? or, like that isn't happening right now.
>pic related

> risked the integrity of the network and their money
ah, so you do argue for maintaining the integrity of the existing network... strange then that bitcoin cash would fork away backwards compatibility and be willing to loose so many participants by leaving them behind on dead forked chains. Unlike bitcoin where even today's chain can be utilized by users running versions of software form 2014.

>>9192283
>you assume that *every single third party service in existence* is all in on the con.
>(c)
somebody did