It's still pretty rare, but as the space goes mainstream I expect the frequency of such attacks to increase.

> If anything, Bitcoin incentivizes the use of clean renewable energy.

By that measure anything that has a huge energy demand incentivises the use of clean energy. In a world where we're really trying to restrict energy use because we haven't yet got the green capacity we need, that's not a good argument.

Indeed; I wrote an article last year about time locking. https://blog.keys.casa/bitcoin-multisig-time-locking-challen...

Anything that can be owned can be stolen.

It's a question of how difficult you make to steal and thus how much riskier you make it for someone to attempt an attack.

You sound confused; I'm the author of the article, not the subject.

I'm not confused about your views at all.

I wish that were the case.

Unfortunately, while still rare, there are physical attacks perpetrated against bitcoin owners. I've been tracking them for several years. https://github.com/jlopp/physical-bitcoin-attacks

You're free to believe that I (the author) made up this story. I'm not a fiction writer; the Bitcoin security space is exciting enough without needing to waste time making stories up.

I'll note that we have seen several folks report being victims of similar attacks since we published this article.

https://twitter.com/Disruptepreneur/status/14131498654759075...

https://twitter.com/jayzalowitz/status/1413165187205455882

https://twitter.com/e_acorral/status/1413168523250180097

FYI this comment actually had the effect of confirming that the story is all but made up - there is nothing remotely resembling evidence anywhere, including in this ostensibly defensive comment.

Our client's privacy is more important than your curiosity; it's as simple as that.

Nope, but the value of the educational takeaways from the report are not contingent upon me providing evidence of this specific attack. You are welcome to be skeptical.

So you have no idea then. We both know you have no information about this story so let's not pretend. If it's made up or not your have no clue

Ha! Another empty prediction that we'll happily call you out on once it expires. Remember when you predicted that Bitcoin would completely cease to exist by the end of 2019? https://twitter.com/lopp/status/1211707215620530176

Indeed; the market has clearly chosen to prefer optimizing for low cost of full system validation (running a full node) over lost cost of transacting (cheap block space.)

False. You're referring to an adversarial situation where your payment channel counterparty tries to close the channel using an old state that gives them more of the money in the channel than they should own. The duration during which you can then post a breach remedy transaction to deprive them of ALL the channel value is configurable when you update the channel state, but the default is 1 week. Eventually the expectation is that you'll even be able to outsource this operation to third parties to monitor the blockchain on your behalf and post the breach remedy transaction if needed.

If I don't trust one person, I'm supposed to instead trust a tertiary entity to act in my best interests? What motivation could this third party have other than to simply make money?

It seems as though the lightning network is being marketed as a solution, but I don't understand how it isn't simply creating an even bigger problem by stripping me of any/all control.