And you keep repeating your argument without considering the other half of the equation, un-forgeability. Did I bring up the Labor theory of value?https://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/1046105642870681600 …
-
-
Replying to @hugohanoi @SGBarbour
Yes, you did :-). Without mentioning its name. Bear with me for a couple of tweets and I'll try to clarify some myths.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Bitcoin's unforgeability isn't rooted in energy spent on coin production. That's a common myth.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
True, an external attacker who wants to change the record needs to buy 51% of hashpower. Another way to phrase it is that he needs to "stake hardware". That's what pow is, a specific form of stake, currently at the vagaries of ASIC manufacturers.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
The energy spent on coin production is purely wasted, it provides no price floor for coins, it is value leaked out of the system. Much like how the high cost of printing Bahts doesn't guarantee value higher than USD. It's just the cost of competition between miners.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @el33th4xor @SGBarbour
> energy spent on coin production is purely wasted That's a fallacy that is a result of not understanding stock & flow. Energy spent per block is what creates the larger cost barrier in hardware stock. Hardware stock == integral of future (energy) flows.https://medium.com/@hugonguyen/bitcoin-stock-flow-c4d4db98b751 …
2 replies 3 retweets 6 likes -
Hugo Nguyen Retweeted Hugo Nguyen
"Energy spent per block is wasted" has also been thoroughly debunked by
@LaurentMT's article. Same idea, stock == accumulation of flows.https://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/1034168617351372800 …Hugo Nguyen added,
Hugo Nguyen @hugohanoi1/ Great article by@LaurentMT ! The TL;DR is that energy spent per block contributes not just to UTXOs belonging in that block, but retroactively to all global & past UTXOs. The often-cited “energy spent per Bitcoin tx” number in many economic papers is flawed for this reason. https://twitter.com/LaurentMT/status/1034046547896492032 …Show this thread1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
This article is thoroughly unrelated. I don't disagree with what Laurent said, nor does it contradict anything I said. But I can't correct every wrong person on the Internet, especially if they are both belligerent and just free-associating. Learn to engage and try again. Best.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Oh but it is very much related :-) I’m explaining to you how the “ongoing costs” that you consider waste absolutely contribute to Bitcoin unforgeability. The hardware “stake” represents the accumulation of all future energy flows.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @hugohanoi @el33th4xor and
PoS stake is not an equivalent of this, there’s nothing “unforgeable” about transferring financial capital into a dubious asset. Long range attacks is one example of how moving wealth into an asset does not make it unforgeable.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
It’s fine if you don’t want to engage, but at least we can agree on 2 things in this thread: 1/ Labor theory of value is invalid 2/ Energy expenditure AND unforgeability are required ingredients for money
-
-
Replying to @hugohanoi @el33th4xor and
Where we differ is for (2), you think PoS expends energy (which is kinda ironic given that the common argument for PoS is that it does NOT expend energy) and unforgeable. Both I disagree with.
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.
