@NickSzabo4 @adam3us the relay network @TheBlueMatt and its effects havnt been studied
Transaction fee market without block size limit would lead to too low a level of security for Bitcoin: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2400519 …
-
-
-
@jony_levin@adam3us@TheBlueMatt If it hasn't been studied then why has it been deployed? -
.
@NickSzabo4@jony_levin@TheBlueMatt relay net reduces block transfer time by reference to already received tx, avoids sending tx twice. -
@adam3us@jony_levin@TheBlueMatt The problem must be awfully bad for an extremely bottlenecked TTP network to be the best solution. -
.
@NickSzabo4@jony_levin@TheBlueMatt Its a point to point bump in line compressor. Problem is security agnostic users cut corners, always. -
@adam3us@jony_levin@TheBlueMatt There's a serious problem in educating miners about security (use of Amazon EC instances another example).
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@NickSzabo4@adam3us that is not what the paper says. It says the rational miner would include zero txs. Doesn't model propagation. -
@jony_levin@adam3us It is what the paper stays -- that's a direct paraphrase from the paper. It's not about messaging risk. -
@NickSzabo4@adam3us well that must have been before the analysis since he concludes that including txs is not rational in his model -
@NickSzabo4@adam3us I extended his model to include messaging https://www.scribd.com/doc/235838093/Creating-a-decentralised-payment-network-A-Study-of-Bitcoin … empirics from network measurement, not relay network
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable
- 1 more reply
-
-
-
@NickSzabo4 Tx fee market alone with block size limit will still lead to too low security. The sooner ppl realize this the better.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@NickSzabo4 this paper ignores the risk of orphaning caused by adding transactions to blocks- a force that creates a floor for tx fees. - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
.@phschn
@NickSzabo4@adam3us The ontological function of the State ("court says this is true") is philosophical, not (often) practical. - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@NickSzabo4 You agree with this? "...he is a Stackelberg follower and ...include all transactions in the limitless block he tries to solve."Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@phschn
@NickSzabo4@adam3us I think it's safe to assume there is no shared public ontology: not needed for trade anyway!Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@phschn
@NickSzabo4@adam3us Ah, sorry - I was attempting to say that no shared epistemology/ontology is required for trade.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.