Bitcoin security would not be irreparably degraded if hash power decreased over the long run. The worst consequence of a gradually lower hash power / market cap ratio: it may require recipients of very-high-value transactions to wait more blocks before relying on them.https://twitter.com/mhluongo/status/1092559882056802304 …
-
Unless there's a massive archecture breakthrough it should decrease over time.
If I was being more precise in the original tweet and had enough room I would say "value of capital investment in hash power." But it's fine if absolute hash power decreases too, as long as it's a gradual and at least roughly industry-wide trend.
![[Nick]⚡️[BTC - ŁTC]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1117173459585503236/wq3hc3gz_normal.jpg)
![TOXIC Hash [☣🛡⚡🌮 🔑]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1143221030296727552/lHJmJ39V_normal.jpg)
-
-
Moore's law is about the density of transistors. I'm talking about the price/performance ratio of generic information technology, which has fallen by 50% every year for the last 75 years.
-
In other words, how many calculations can you get for a dollar in constant dollars. You can get twice as many every year in inflation adjusted dollars.
-
It's become twice as many every year because chips have reliably doubled in density every year until recently. Are you saying that price per calculations has gone down, not as a factor of increasing density and consistent pushing of the upper limit, but for some other factor ?
-
I thought the gradual decrease in cost vs computation heavily stemmed from Moore's law increasing the upper bounds. Without nee and improved hardware, what will make the prices fall?
-
A combination of falling hardware prices, falling electricity prices, and increasing density. As the integrated circuit starts to brush the edges of what's possible that accelerates research into whatever the next computing technology will be. =D
-
Can't wait
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
When coins switch POWs for greater security, HR is lower b/c the switch requires a higher equip (stake) commitment that non-committed miners find less appealing. Higher stake requirement increases risk aversion => lower HR & higher security.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It does not need to be industry-wide, but only a trend for the coin's entrenched equipment. This way, the largest coin for a given class of optimal equipment keeps the highest ratio of staked/non-staked HR by virtue of equip not being useful elsewhere if largest coin is attacked.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@NickSzabo4 since running costs like electrical & depreciation are not part of your above definition for POW security, & they even decrease security by removing coin-specific available funds for equipment, you're describing a POS where the stake is at risk & sticky. -
I was wrong to say equip stake is like POS stake. The difference is that equip is occupied over time proving equip cap costs were occupied (non-copyable) during the vote which POS can't do....unless you use
#Chia's VDF functions to force the stake to be occupied.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.