It does not follow that a mining factor with a nonzero absolute cost is a positive security contribution. You are assuming this to be true, and I have explained to you why it is not.
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 …
-
-
I will try to explain: If a 51% attacker obtains some cheap ASIC's, it is true that he has an advantage. However, it is irrelevant to the security model if the 51% defender is willing to bear the cost of the attack by using more expensive miners (prev-gen/GPU).
-
Again, this doesn’t explain how hardware cost contributes nothing to security. These 2 things you’re talking about are completely orthogonal.
-
Assuming: (a) avg hardware capacity of X TH/s (b) avg efficiency of Y J/GH Combined with: (c) avg block reward
$R/day (d) 10-min-per-block constraint These 4 factors together create a _market equilibrium_ where there is an optimal level of hash rate (& mining hardware). -
Sure, if the hash rate goes above the optimal level (e.g., in case of an attack), it costs roughly the same to the defender & the attacker, for any extra hash rate. No one disputes that. But that is *orthogonal* to the fact that there is an optimal level of hash rate.
-
A “majority” attack, by definition, has to take into account this hardware cost in acquiring majority hash rate - that was previously at equilibrium.
-
Budish took this hardware cost into consideration - and called it the stock cost (God, does anyone actually bother to read Budish paper?). The only difference between his & my calculation is the question of the price of prev-gen ASICs, not that the stock cost doesn’t exist!
-
Budish model, while inaccurate, is still more interesting than this oversimplified economic nonsense.
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Your failure to understand is not my failure to explain.
-
I suppose substituting clear reasoning - and I emphasize "clear", not vague terms, weak assumptions, or leaps of logic ;-) - with condescending statements is one way to answer. lol, I have enough for today. Good night.
-
You will not find clearer reasoning or well-defined and consistent terminology (see glossary) anywhere in cryptoeconomics. If you actually want to understand, then maybe read more, tweet less:https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/wiki/Cryptoeconomics …
-
Does your school of cryptoeconomics contain great economic axioms such as "Investment is NEVER a lagging function of price"? If so, I think I'd pass ;-)https://twitter.com/evoskuil/status/1029200273724469248 …
-
Maybe start with Rothbard. You are of course free to pass.
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.

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?