Quote from: Medusah on Today at 07:54:20 PM

Take a look at my statement. It demands an investment of billions of dollars. It's feasible, even without considering the expenses and any unforeseen costs that may arise post-attack. What I meant is, achieving this goal requires a certain amount of electricity; there's no way around it. A mere court order isn't sufficient to shut it down, unlike with Haypenny.

Yep. A court order could also shut down Citibank, Apple, and McDonald's. It's the world we live in, I guess.

But a rogue state with billions of dollars couldn't shut down any of those.

Both have different risks. I've kept my money at a major bank since I was a teenager and they were never shut down by the government, and their database never lost my account information. I guess I trust it.

I'd trust Bitcoin too, don't get me wrong. I think both will be fine.

Quote from: legiteum on May 14, 2024, 03:40:55 PM

And we offer the government tracking of transactions from point A to point B, similar (and probably much more precisely) than what you'd get using chain analysis on Bitcoin. If the government wanted to track a transactions, there would be two end points we would supply them and then they would subpoena those endpoints and have their suspect.

Haypenny operates without requiring identification from its users, yet they can still be identified through a subpoena. Now that's confusing.
[/quote]

It's the same situation as Bitcoin: Bitcoin's public ledger itself doesn't tell you anything, but you can do chain analysis to essentially triangulate where transactions came from and went. At the end of the transaction chain there's some broker who does KYC, etc.

Put it another way, Haypenny currencies are like Bitcoin but without mixers (and you need a valid court ordered subpoena to look at somebody's private transactions vs. with Bitcoin any criminal with a web browser can do it).