What's the best rebuttal you've read to @random_walker's paper "On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward" -http://randomwalker.info/publications/mining_CCS.pdf …
I know @cburniske wrote a 2015 response. Anything else I should read on the subject?
-
Not a full rebuttal but here are my thoughts:https://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/1153427593477185536 …
These kinds of critiques tend to confuse short-term and relative decline of hash power (which can be a security problem) with long-term and absolute decline of hash power (which is far less so).
![Alan [Doesn’t post unsafe links] Siefert](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1120941802305929217/U8ZFJN45_normal.jpg)
-
-
People sending large amounts can adapt by (a) splitting up large value txs into smaller value txs, and (b) waiting for more confirmations.
-
It's an area that could definitely use more analysis, but if the critics don't take into account these obvious points they shouldn't be taken seriously, no matter how fancy their math or PDFs.
-
Speaking of research, I also think Bitcoin def needs a lot more, but a curiously recurrent theme that I’ve seen is: (a) CS analyses missing basic econ/social clues (fancy math while assuming human behavior is static?!)
-
(b) Likewise, econ analyses missing basic CS clues (fancy math while making some ridiculous hardware assumptions):https://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/1087751074310569990 …
-
Indeed. Comp sci is crucial but you should burn that fancy PDF when they (i) fail to distinguish between subjective economic and objective resource cost analyses, which are radically different kinds of analyses, and (b) hide rather than foreground their assumptions.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.