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.
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.
-
Only as complex as necessary.
-
Maybe you should consider how the free market overcomes state censorship without fees. In this scenario all miners earn the same return on capital, whether censoring or not. And given that all mining and transacting would be illicit, the state has the advantage in pooled mining.
-
When something becomes illicit it continues only because prices to obtain/do the illicit thing increase to offset the cost of the state attack. If this is not possible, the thing is dead. Similarly it dies if the increase benefits attacker as much as attacked (no net increase).
- 6 more replies
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?