>>510086210Your 1s and 0s are secure because that's how the cryptography is designed. The weak link, as you of course note, is at the point where the cryptographic protocol intersects the real world. But that's true everywhere. You could just as easily argue that your bank account is not secure because someone could steal your credit card number. Or your gold bars are not secure because someone could break into your house.
Pic related is the "problem" with cryptography, but it's not something that is uniquely a problem for BTC, and it doesn't negate the fundamental problems BTC is designed to solve.
>>510090189For whatever faults BTC has as a protocol, I'm not really convinced it's just a 10-year bubble that's going pop any day now. It's obvious that it's accomplishing something that needed to be accomplished, and while its high volatility suggests that there's still a LOT of speculation gaming going on there, I doubt it will ever go back to being $5 again.