.@Truthcoin drops a stunner on Bitcoin's long term security budget. Outstanding as usual
http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/security-budget/ …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @nic__carter @Truthcoin
Lots of dubious assumptions: * Tx fees have historically risen and fallen with price, but they assume they are disconnected * L1 is a payment rail (nope, it's a settlement layer, and no altcoins are generally not as reliable and secure a substitute)
3 replies 12 retweets 101 likes -
More bad assumptions: * Centralized services make it easy to switch to altcoins (no, mental tx costs + trust risks) * They seem to be implicitly making the dumbest assumption of all in these debates, that lower hashrate in the long run is less secure. Wrong.
6 replies 4 retweets 63 likes -
I've seen only one possibly good argument for reduced security under a tx-fee-only regime, and that's the volatility of fees, which seem to behave nonlinearly as blocks become full. Might lead to corresponding big swings in hashrate. But they don't even mention that.
6 replies 7 retweets 63 likes -
There is one implemented counter-measure using nlocktime of current height on new tx (core and some wallets so this), it means miners have to progress to claim fees. Other longer term low subsidy era ideas include fee averaging across block intervals to smooth fee revenue.
4 replies 3 retweets 29 likes -
Replying to @adam3us @NickSzabo4 and
Fee averaging sounds like a good idea since fee estimations of 'current' block are just terrible. I constantly need to check websites to see what realistically I should set my fees at.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
Indeed, this is an example that besides possible future security risks from fee volatility, there's a huge inefficiency of mental transaction costs and very (and probably necessarily) erroneous fee estimating algorithms with the current fee system.
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.