.@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 -
Why is lower hash rate long term not lower security?
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Only big short-term hashrate changes or hashrates differences in the same algorithm used by more than one coin pose a potential security problem. Bitcoin hashrate wasn't less secure a few years ago than it is today, even though it was only 1/1,000th of what it is today.
3 replies 2 retweets 16 likes -
Replying to @NickSzabo4 @zaoyang and
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.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NickSzabo4 @zaoyang and
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @NickSzabo4 @zaoyang and
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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.
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.