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 …
-
-
Replying to @hugohanoi @evoskuil and
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).
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @kaykurokawa @evoskuil and
Again, this doesn’t explain how hardware cost contributes nothing to security. These 2 things you’re talking about are completely orthogonal.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @kaykurokawa and
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).1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @kaykurokawa and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @kaykurokawa and
A “majority” attack, by definition, has to take into account this hardware cost in acquiring majority hash rate - that was previously at equilibrium.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @kaykurokawa and
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!
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @kaykurokawa and
It is possible that you are both wrong (see appeal to authority and ad populem logical fallacies).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @evoskuil @kaykurokawa and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @kaykurokawa and
“...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).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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 ;-)
-
-
Replying to @hugohanoi @kaykurokawa and
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.
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.
