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).
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.
-
I see you don't understand even the basics of stock vs. flow :-) I think I'm done here.
-
So maybe you think that the state and the market experience capital differently, as otherwise it is irrelevant to security.
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.
