7/ Let’s examine: what would be the true market price of an old Bitcoin ASIC? Using hardware energy efficiency to model hardware pricing is insufficient, because energy efficiency is only one part of what goes into the price. There’re a number of other factors.
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.
-
-
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.
