It is exactly the same as a merchant stealing from his customers. He isn’t a merchant for long.
-
-
Replying to @evoskuil @SGBarbour and
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?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @evoskuil and
> 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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @evoskuil and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @hugohanoi @evoskuil and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @evoskuil and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @evoskuil and
Hugo Nguyen Retweeted Eric Voskuil
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 …
Hugo Nguyen added,
Eric Voskuil @evoskuilReplying to @evoskuil @hugohanoi and 3 othersTo contribute to confirmation security a factor must disproportionately favor market mining (which is the same as disfavoring the censor, given zero sum). Hardware costs and block subsidies affect both equally. Only fees favor market miners over the censor.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @SGBarbour and
Your failure to understand is not my failure to explain.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @evoskuil @SGBarbour and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @SGBarbour and
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 …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Hugo Nguyen Retweeted Eric Voskuil
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 …
Hugo Nguyen added,
-
-
Replying to @hugohanoi @SGBarbour and
Maybe start with Rothbard. You are of course free to pass.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.
