> 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.
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).
-
Fees drive everything, including hardware investment. We *need* fees. No one disputes that.
-
What you are missing by saying only current fees - negotiated at one particular moment in time - matter for security & not hardware cost, is that hardware cost is *also a manifestation of fees* - more precisely, it is the stream of future fees, discounted back to the present.
-
What you are missing is that this is not relevant to security. What gives the market power is the ability to raise fees for non-censors only. Fees are the only aspect of Bitcoin mining that exhibits this essential security characteristic.
-
And no, that fact that fees are used to purchase hardware does not imply that hardware exhibits this characteristic. Disproportiately higher fees to non-censors is the basis of confirmation security. What a miner buys with their reward is inconsequential.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
It is possible that you are both wrong (see appeal to authority and ad populem logical fallacies).
-
Weird comment. I think you misfire there ;-) Citing Budish is not appealing to authority nor ad populum - if I am, why would I reject his theory? lol. It’s called establishing a common baseline - something seems impossible with you in most of your arguments.
-
“...took this hardware cost into consideration... the only difference between his & my...” - IOW, I’m not alone (ad populem) and/or he is an authority and agrees with me (appeal to authority).
-
dude, he is no authority on the matter and neither are you. I’m citing whatever argument that makes the most sense. Right now, that doesn’t include yours ;-)
-
It doesn’t matter whether he is or not. It is your logical error to use him as one. You did not cite an argument, you cited agreement by a person.
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.

