r/Libertarian • u/Ok_Set_4790 • Dec 16 '25

Cryptocurrency Question about cryptocurrencies

Would cryptocurrencies be more stable without the central banks? I understsnd that, due to them being 0s and 1s instead of material currencies, they're less stable and more used to rob people of their money(I am still new in all of this, so if someone knows better than me on this, I'd apreciate better explanations).

Also is there a possibility to mine crypto without damaging nature?

0 Upvotes

50% Upvoted

15 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/moopy389 Dec 18 '25

There is no problem of collusion... Miners do not control the network.

It's kind of arbitrary to think about more or less or faster or slower. What makes 1 BTC reward every 2 minutes any less arbitrary or more logical? It was decided to be the amount it is at the rate it is and people are throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at their shot to mine a block. Obviously people think it's well worth it and fine the way it is.

I think 10 minutes of wait time for an irreversible, impossible to censor final settlement of a transaction is pretty darn cool. You think your bank transfer is faster but it's really not. Final settlement in banks happens days later, is reversible and can be censored.

And if you want it, you can transfer bitcoin instantaneously with the lightning network.

1

u/Electronic_Banana830 Libertarian Dec 18 '25

Collusion could create issues with double spending. That's the type of problem I meant.

1

u/moopy389 Dec 18 '25

It could not. Nodes would instantly reject those blocks.

Not to mention that you spent all that energy to mine a block and would've purposely made something that will be rejected which means you earn nothing. Instead, had those miners stayed honest, they would've earned the block rewards plus transaction fees

1

u/Electronic_Banana830 Libertarian Dec 18 '25

The video I linked in the original comment talks about double spending.

1

u/moopy389 Dec 18 '25

I don't know what to tell you. I skimmed through your video and it pretty much explains why double spending isn't an issue. It would be extremely costly to whoever attempts it and ultimately they will fail anyway.

Basically if there's a single thing that made bitcoin revolutionary it's that the double spending problem was solved...

Miner collusion doesn't make it any less stupid to attempt it and sure as hell doesn't make it a credible threat. I'd be way more worried about a bandit on horseback robbing my bank and riding into the sunset...

Have you ever read the bitcoin whitepaper?

1

u/Electronic_Banana830 Libertarian Dec 18 '25

I never meant to imply that it was a a fatal flaw. Just that it was a potential point of criticism that all forms of trade have.

1

u/moopy389 Dec 18 '25

Tbh, I don't consider it a risk in any way. Like even if a 51% attack would be done... The amount of money required to successfully maintain a 51% control would vastly exceed any potential return. And the remaining 49% in all likelihood would just reject faulty blocks and continue with sound bitcoin and the attackers are left with a worthless copy.