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).
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 -
-
-
I realize you are not a native English speaker, but you are misusing the term “sunk cost”.
-
If the market miner earns more than the censor, the censor must increase subsidy to continue. Subsidy is limited and therefore can be overcome by the economy. This happens because the economy can pay market miners more than the censor (disproportionality).
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.
