.@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 -
Volatility fees as the price goes up leads to non linear hash rate, so you argue that there can be corresponding drops that would lead to large short term drops right?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
There might be yes. This is AFAIK the most important scenario to analyze in this debate, for example what happens when tx fees fall by 90% over the course of a few months and are the sole source of revenue. "OMG hashrate is going to be too low in 2038!" is OTOH just ignorance.
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.