oyf

Good point, but you have to consider that if we're talking about a scenario in which it's being used in the place of a national currency, the bigger picture matters less. If your paycheck can lose 20% of it's value in a few days you may not have the option to wait for it to possibly regain that value. Even ignoring the short term issues, I'm not convinced Bitcoin is any more protected from becoming totally worthless than any given fiat currency. I just can't see the scenario in which it solves or even helps the issue of hyperinflation in a way that fiat currency couldn't.

> Since 1920, at least 55 hyperinflation events have taken place, destroying savings and creating economic hardship... Bitcoin offers the world an alternative – a sound monetary system outside the control of governments and central banks.

The paper you linked doesn't exactly get off to a good start, considering there are ~1600-2200 dead/worthless cryptocurrencies (see below) and Bitcoin itself is incredibly volatile. It's somewhat absurd to claim Bitcoin is the stable alternative to fiat currencies, or the solution to cases of currency collapse. The rest of the summary is just speculation on how the carbon footprint of Bitcoin might be reasonable in the future. Would you mind pointing out the parts that you feel refute the article's criticisms?

https://www.coinopsy.com/dead-coins/ https://deadcoins.com/

If you have the ability to set environment variables then it's basically already game over, with or without the existence of the antigravity module.

You could set PATH to change which files are executed in certain scenarios. You could set SSLKEYLOGFILE which logs session keys to an arbitrary file, essentially nullifying TLS/SSL protections. On Linux you can just set PROMPT_COMMAND to whatever you want and it'll be executed any time a bash prompt is printed.

It's an interesting attack vector, but a vulnerability requires impact, and I'm not sure this has very much.