Nick Szabo  🔑

Do you think electricity market liquidity would increase that value much more than economies of scale in equipment would reduce it or what’s your rationale?

- electricity/hashrate sold in fiat, and would need to secure the resources up front (it would be a huge loss to abandon the effort halfway) - impossible to predict hashrate/price a year in advance

I don’t see how those arguments can change that figure significantly. Even if it’s double what I stated it would falsify your security rule.

I haven't seen anything falsified here. What are you talking about?

The cost of reorging the whole chain is lower than total value of the network. For a large enough payment you cannot rely on waiting for enough confirmations to accumulate PoW in order to make it economically irrational to revert. Security is not just PoW.

That means Bitcoin doesn't secure such a large transaction. Something else may or may not secure it, but Bitcoin does not. What did you think it meant?

I see. Do you have a post explaining this in depth? I’d mainly want to understand if you consider coin issuance one of those large paymets, with many recipients, or you think coinbases are different from single tx payment outputs.

Bitcoin protocol is enforced by people that use and validate the bitcoins they receive. When you talk about a long period re-org, that's a man-made attack. I personally would refuse to follow that chain and pay fees only to the miners that work on the legacy chain.