Re: Israeli Bitcoin Association Statement about Hashrate Attacks
If we're filing for irreconcilable differences, who gets LTC and the other 1000+ kids on the weekends? 
But yes, if there does have to be a divorce, as such, at least let's try to make it an amicable one. It does seem like there is a rift that we are now well beyond healing and a middle-ground that, although visible in the far distance, is likely impossible to reach. Both sides have some convincing arguments and I've reached the stage where I wouldn't be looking to short either chain. I'm quite content to hodl it all and see how both visions of the "true" Bitcoin play out in practice, mainly just to put an end to the seemingly endless prognostications and pontifications from both sides. I think it's safe to say we're all tired of that now.
But just to clarify, are you supporting the "might makes right" argument? Or just commenting that it's a distinctly possible occurrence in a permissionless system? Even if such actions can't be prevented, they can still be publicly condemned. Poor form and low blows should always be reprimanded. People might see cryptoland as a sort of "wild west", but (I hope) we're not savages. It can, and should, be done cleanly.
But yes, if there does have to be a divorce, as such, at least let's try to make it an amicable one. It does seem like there is a rift that we are now well beyond healing and a middle-ground that, although visible in the far distance, is likely impossible to reach. Both sides have some convincing arguments and I've reached the stage where I wouldn't be looking to short either chain. I'm quite content to hodl it all and see how both visions of the "true" Bitcoin play out in practice, mainly just to put an end to the seemingly endless prognostications and pontifications from both sides. I think it's safe to say we're all tired of that now.
This is the general problem when at the same time proposing total liberty and other principles. You cannot prone liberty, and then prone principles according to which this liberty is supposed to be used, because that is against the first principle of liberty.
In the totally free (in the sense of liberty), trustless environment of crypto, what you call "attacks" is nothing else but exerting one's liberty in the frame of a strategy to overwhelm others (which is the principal usage of unconstrained liberty). In a full liberty system there's only one right: the right of the strongest (smartest/fittest/fastest/wealthiest...).
In the totally free (in the sense of liberty), trustless environment of crypto, what you call "attacks" is nothing else but exerting one's liberty in the frame of a strategy to overwhelm others (which is the principal usage of unconstrained liberty). In a full liberty system there's only one right: the right of the strongest (smartest/fittest/fastest/wealthiest...).
But just to clarify, are you supporting the "might makes right" argument? Or just commenting that it's a distinctly possible occurrence in a permissionless system? Even if such actions can't be prevented, they can still be publicly condemned. Poor form and low blows should always be reprimanded. People might see cryptoland as a sort of "wild west", but (I hope) we're not savages. It can, and should, be done cleanly.