.@Truthcoin drops a stunner on Bitcoin's long term security budget. Outstanding as usual
http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/security-budget/ …
Show this thread
-
Your statement is correct, but that doesn’t mean that less hashrate in the future doesn’t equate to less security. Hashrate means nothing without a correction for ASICs efficiency improvement applied to it. All that matters is the miner revenue chart.
Neither Sztorc nor you nor anybody I have read have made a reasonable argument that it does, excepting possibly the argument about fee volatility which Sztorc didn't make.
-
-
Let’s say the network hashrate was 10 exahash 3 years ago and let’s say today it’s also 10 exahash. Considering the improvements in mining technology, would you agree that in that case the network was more secure 3 years ago?
-
Let's say we stick to non-fantastic scenarios. Improved mining tech improves the hashrate. And the debate over whether transaction fees will be sufficient to secure the network involves decades not a mere 3 years.
-
But it’s hard to discuss non fantastic scenario’s if it’s a decades issue and bitcoin has only existed for one decade? What’s wrong with the assumption that mining cost ~ the miner revenue and an attacker needs to deploy >~51% of that cost to attack the network?
-
Yes, this argument is premature and speculative, which make for even less good reason for people to be making or believing idiotic arguments that equate differences in long-term hashrate with differences in long-term security.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
*Exahash per second
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.