5b/ “If e ̃ [energy cost of old chip] is WITHIN A REASONABLE FACTOR of e∗ [energy cost of new chip] and there are a large enough number of the previous-generation chips available to amass N∗ of computational power, then the flow cost approach is appropriate.”
-
-
16/ There’s no such thing as ASICs that are “not economically efficient for mining but are efficient enough for the purpose of an attack.” (?!)
Show this thread -
17/ As long as there is a robust second-hand market for older ASICs (and I suspect this market will improve with time), the cost of using old ASICs or new ASICs for an attack (or honest mining) should be the same. And it’s a stock cost, not flow cost.
Show this thread -
18/ The entire paper is built on the assumption that the cost of 51% attacks is flow-based, not stock-based. So if the flow-based assumption is incorrect, the collapse theories advanced by the paper are invalid.
Show this thread -
19/ P.S.: The other thing the paper hugely underestimates is Bitcoin community's ability in dealing with such an attack. h/t
@nic__carter One only has to look at last year's UASF movement in dealing with Segwit2x. But this is a separate topic.Show this thread -
20/ P.S. #2: I want to say that regardless of the validity of the points discussed here, Budish's paper raises a very important topic. It forces us to look deeper into Bitcoin's security model & likely develop better pricing models. For that, it's a huge win.
Show this thread
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.
