yeah, if i were to say what it's ulterior motive was, it was promoting yet more ordinal style shitcoinery on bitcoin, to puff up the block sizes and fees per block. literally some kind of promotion of spamming bitcoin. this is what the LLM said when i asked it whether this article even picks holes in bitcoin's security: No, the article **does not make specific claims** about Bitcoin’s consensus mechanism having weaknesses in its security model. The text is a general discussion on **security budgeting and economic incentives**, using examples from various systems (which may include blockchain or similar decentralized networks), but it does **not analyze Bitcoin specifically** or point out any concrete weaknesses in its consensus or security model. In short: - The article uses the concept of economic incentives as an example, possibly drawing on ideas related to Bitcoin. - However, **it doesn’t directly critique or point out flaws** in Bitcoin’s consensus or security design. - Any mention of Bitcoin is likely general and not detailed enough to be considered a critique or analysis of its weaknesses. --- TL;DR the article doesn't even assert that bitcoin's security is vulnerable. it just uses it as part of a general, extremely verbose discussion about how you need to pay enough attention to network security in general, but specifically to decentralized protocols. no. fucking. shit.