This is the first deep, pioneering economics paper I've seen about Bitcoin and cryptocurrency: http://www.nber.org/papers/w24717 I really wish NBER working papers were ungated, so more crypto enthusiasts could read it.
-
-
(b) If you think 51% attack are inevitable, then surely you must think Bitcoin is already a failed project. It is the only natural conclusion.
-
Reason is no one knows what a “safe” level of fees is. Your marginal user would always try to pay the lowest fee he can get away with. Meaning there is no equilibrium. Bitcoin would fluctuate between being safe & unsafe. Who would want to use an unstable system like that?
-
All buyers pay the lowest possible price, and sellers demand the highest possible. If the buyer is willing to pay the seller for sufficient security, then he will produce it and the buyer will have it. This is a praxeological truth.
-
Ahh... There is your problem, when it comes to fees, there is no such thing as "sufficient security", at least on a per-transaction level. Neither the buyer nor the seller knows how to calculate this number. Only after you get 51-percent-attacked you'd find out.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Your opinion is by definition not proof.
-
With all due respect, what you have is also opinions ;-)
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.
