.@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 -
Lower hash rate isn’t less secure? Huh?
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Was the hashrate 1/1,000th less secure a few years ago when the hashrate was only 1,000th that of today? No, the hashrate contributed about as much to security then as it does now.
7 replies 2 retweets 21 likes -
Replying to @NickSzabo4 @AriDavidPaul and
Nick, I’ve reread this tweet 10x and thought about for 10 minutes and I’m genuinely perplexed. Do you mind expanding on this? Seems to me that if the hashrate dropped to 1/1000th of what it is today the chain would in fact have *less* than 1/1000th the security.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes
Short-term changes & attacks are very different from long-term ones. If miner revenues are 10* lower in 2048 the hashrate will very likely not be nearly that much lower, with more energy efficient ASICS. so there's no take-machines-out-of-storage attack.
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.