Read the ungated one, it’s not particularly revolutionary or impressive, and contains much which is wildly inaccurate.
However, here’s some actual deep, pioneering work by @evoskuil on cryptoeconomics:https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/wiki/Cryptoeconomics …
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 -
-
-
"Fee market alone determines security" is a flawed argument. Because fee market only resolves block space supply & block space demand, 2 quantifiable metrics. While chain security is *not* quantifiable. Tragedy of the commons, if you will.
-
The level of fees that merchants are willing to pay is the sole defense against censorship (which is half of the security model). This is not quantification, it’s qualification.
-
A commons is a state-owned property. The analogy does not apply to Bitcoin.
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.
