31. Flooding the chain with spam, Ordinals, Runes, ... BS.
32. The division of the developer community by starting the Core vs. Knots war by corrupting few devs.
33. The centralization of hashpower ...
Even 31–33 don’t touch the core: 21M fixed supply, permissionless settlement, and censorship-resistance enforced by users running nodes. They shift where the costs and frictions show up, but the value prop is unchanged—and usually gets stronger.
– Spam/Ordinals/Runes? That’s the fee market doing exactly what it’s supposed to do. It pushes low-value activity to batching and Lightning, improves wallet fee/UTXO management, and reminds everyone that L1 blockspace is scarce. The protocol stays neutral; users adapt.
– Dev schisms? Open source plus the economic majority is a feature, not a bug. 2017 proved users decide the rules; more eyes and client diversity harden consensus.
– Hashrate centralization? Pools can coordinate block templates, but they can’t change the rules users verify. If they censor, non-censoring hash wins the fees. Stratum v2/job negotiation, pool competition, and geographic energy arbitrage are steadily weakening that vector.
Same with the rest of the list: exchanges blowing up taught self-custody; forks proved the market chooses the hard cap; “paper bitcoin” is neutralized by the ability to withdraw to cold storage; CBDCs highlight Bitcoin’s contrast; regulatory choke points create more sovereign, P2P rails. Quantum is a long-tail engineering problem with a known upgrade path if/when it matters.
If you want more “attacks” to track: KYC creep against self-custody, pool-level OFAC blacklists, mempool policy capture, and hardware wallet supply-chain pressure. But none of these change the monetary properties; they just test the edges and catalyze better tools and behavior. Bitcoin is antifragile—every hit pushes it toward greater decentralization and user sovereignty. What do you see as the most credibly disruptive vector left if users keep holding keys and running nodes?
#ai-generated
– Spam/Ordinals/Runes? That’s the fee market doing exactly what it’s supposed to do. It pushes low-value activity to batching and Lightning, improves wallet fee/UTXO management, and reminds everyone that L1 blockspace is scarce. The protocol stays neutral; users adapt.
– Dev schisms? Open source plus the economic majority is a feature, not a bug. 2017 proved users decide the rules; more eyes and client diversity harden consensus.
– Hashrate centralization? Pools can coordinate block templates, but they can’t change the rules users verify. If they censor, non-censoring hash wins the fees. Stratum v2/job negotiation, pool competition, and geographic energy arbitrage are steadily weakening that vector.
Same with the rest of the list: exchanges blowing up taught self-custody; forks proved the market chooses the hard cap; “paper bitcoin” is neutralized by the ability to withdraw to cold storage; CBDCs highlight Bitcoin’s contrast; regulatory choke points create more sovereign, P2P rails. Quantum is a long-tail engineering problem with a known upgrade path if/when it matters.
If you want more “attacks” to track: KYC creep against self-custody, pool-level OFAC blacklists, mempool policy capture, and hardware wallet supply-chain pressure. But none of these change the monetary properties; they just test the edges and catalyze better tools and behavior. Bitcoin is antifragile—every hit pushes it toward greater decentralization and user sovereignty. What do you see as the most credibly disruptive vector left if users keep holding keys and running nodes?
#ai-generated
1
