Is bitcoin and other memecoins truly counterfeit proof?

>>1346889
Yes.

Bitcoin is the most counterfeit resistant currency in the world.

>>1346904
What is preventing the btc devs from doing the same shit ethereum has been doing?

>>1347147

Read the whitepaper faggot. If you're not smart enough to understand why it's near impossible to counterfeit successfully then just accept the answer you're given

>>1347163
t. someone who hasn't read the whitepaper

>>1347194
Double spending != counterfeiting. Anyone with an introductory knowledge of Bitcoin know you need to wait for confirmations, really doesn't say anything about the state of the currency.

>>1347188
Did you read it though? It's actually quite readable.

Bitcoin is essentially backed by game theory: That at least 51% of people mining (i.e. mostly chinese who have invested $millions in mining farms) are not going to do anything which might destroy their future income and investments.

That is the sole promise that Bitcoin provides. (And the promise provided by smaller, lesser known coins, is obviously less, since there is less mining investment backing it).

It is assumed that should 51% of miners collude and decide to print a whole lot more Bitcoins, that this would destroy confidence in Bitcoin and make the value plummet... so they will not do this.

Bear in mind also, this 51% would then have to *continue* mining for a long period, otherwise honest, non colluding miners could overtake them and revert the money printing attack.

Also there may even be other possibilities such as the entire ecosystem seeing this attack and monkey patching their software to follow the honest chain and ignore the malicious one.

So far it has worked! Only time will tell for sure.

>>1347188
I thought you were OP. Anyway, there's nothing theoretically stopping them doing same as ETH people - except the economic incentive.

Ultimately, 51% of miners choose what happens, and should rationally choose the option most likely to maximise the currency's value.

The reason ETH is considering a fork is because it is in such deep shit anyway - the fork in this case *might* save the coin and prevent miner's coins going to 0.

Bitcoin has had forks in the past - but they were only for small, positive, changes that were widely agreed on.

And you just have to look at the block size issue to see how hard it is to have a fork for a feature that is slightly controversial. Many voices in Bitcoin want the block size increased - but it isn't happening, because a fair amount of people disagree.

>>1347248
The Bitcoin blockchain is one which adheres to all the rules set forth by the Bitcoin source code. You forfeit any claim to being Bitcoin if you HF to ignore the coin issuance rate set forth by Satoshi.

A 51% attack which purposely sought to reverse transactions in order to double-spend is a legitimate attack on the network as this malicious chain still adheres to all the rules. All nodes would be forced to accept this chain.

51% of miners HFing to "print a whole lot more Bitcoins" is just half the ecosystem abandoning Bitcoin to pursue a shit tier alt. No node operating today would accept blocks whose coinbase transaction exceeded 25 BTC.

>>1347326
What do you mean by offline transaction?

>>1347339
>>1347347
If I hand a retarded store clerk a $100 bill from my Monopoly set and he accepts it that doesn't mean USD is easy to counterfeit.

Counterfeiting implies some level of scrutiny. "Offline transactions" are NEVER used to exchange goods or services. They're used to protect private keys stored on an offline device. Nobody is going to actually accept an offline transaction as payment nor is someone going to accept a 0-confirmation TX above a certain amount.

>>1347220
When lightning network is here we won't have to wait for confirmations anymore

>>1346889
No there's also the 51% attack. I don't know all the specifics, but if someone controlled 51% of the verifications could their consensus would overrule anybody elses.

>>1347632
That's not how it works, the internet is fast already the slow down is waiting for people to verify which takes cpu cycles.

51% attack is overrated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncPyMUfNyVM

>>1348101
Ah good points I didn't realize there was another layer of control being the consensus of which servers to use. I always thought you could fork and there was nothing anyone could do about it.

>>1348085
What the hell are you talking about? Do you even know what the implications of the lightning network are?

CPU cycles? Are you retarded? Why do people pretend to know they have the first clue what they're even saying

>>1346889
Some of them. Bitcoin, yes. It has been tested for years. It's just sturdy. Lots of it is luck I think. But yes, the system at this point is bulletproof. Short story:
> In order to double spend / fake transactions, adversary needs 51% of hashing power to effectively comprise more of the network than anyone who disagreed with him and force it onto the consensus blockchain
>there is a LOT of hashing power in bitcoin mining now, such so that it could never feasibly happen that someone double spend because of how computationally expensive it would be

But, when the total hashing power of the BTC network was lesser, it was more feasible of a problem. Thankfully, it didn't happen. It was just a good initial design.

>>1348085
The amount of money it would cost to buy the computational power necessary to overpower 49% of the BTC network is far more than the entire value of all Bitcoins in circulation (which is an absurd amount of money). So the answer is yes, it can be done, but it will never be done. Therefore it is ultimately, at this point, counterfeit-proof.