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.
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?