You did not "miss" a step in his logic ;-) His logic is full of jumps. Comparing block subsidy to mining investment is ridiculous. They're nothing alike. I'm not gonna go into Chia (not relevant).
Flawed argument. You are assuming censoring is the only attack vector. An attacker can earn a lot more reward from a successful double-spend, than the fees he foregoes from censoring. Not to mention exogenous factors such as shorting BTC on the side.
-
-
Given that you don’t understand the threat it’s understandable that you don’t understand how it is countered. Double spending is a form of theft. It is not a threat to Bitcoin. The thief both devalues his reward and also causes it to become more costly to extract.
-
It is exactly the same as a merchant stealing from his customers. He isn’t a merchant for long.
-
Double spending is not a threat to Bitcoin, really? Never heard this b4!
Remind me but isn’t the whole point of PoW mining to prevent double-spending in the 1st place? If you don’t care about double-spends, why go thru all this mining trouble? -
> He isn’t a merchant for long. You are making assumptions left & right. Why? He can go set up shop somewhere else, using a new identity.
-
If the tx amount is sufficiently large, double-spending could be well worth the trouble for the attacker, even if his own holdings might decrease in value. He can engage in short selling on the side to further profit/offset loss.
-
Just because you classify double-spending as “theft” doesn’t make it less effective as an attack vector. You want to ignore it because it doesn’t neatly fit into your “proportionate” argument.

-
A coin that has shown to be vulnerable to double-spending is a coin people would lose confidence in. If it can be done once, it will be done again. Doesn’t even have to be the same attacker.
-
And again, you still haven't explained why same hardware cost in attack/defense == doesn't contribute to security. All I see is flawed reasoning: "X must be worthless because Y is better"-but that doesn't mean X is worthless. Not to mention, Y is not true!https://twitter.com/evoskuil/status/1029229754933624832 …
- 16 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
And the fact that the cost of hardware is the same to an attacker & a honest miner does not mean that this (sunk) cost contributes nothing to security. Your "proportionate" argument, even if true, does not explain that at all.
-
Saying "must" doesn't it make it true, your own words ;-)
-
Yeah, but the other words matter too. In this context is means “necessarily”. As I’ve explained several tunes now. It is *necessary* that the economy pay market miners more than it pays the censor.
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.
