41–50 of 125 posts
Something I've always considered a curious decision about Bitcoin is the decision for halvings to occur as discrete events rather than as an exponential decay occurring on each block. Having them be discrete events is probably easier for someone to verify by eyeball, I guess, but it has the disadvantage that it creates moments in time where some large portion of the hardware in the market can suddenly no longer mine…
Something I've always considered a curious decision about Bitcoin is the decision for halvings to occur as discrete events rather than as an exponential decay occurring on each block. Having them be discrete events is probably easier for someone to verify by eyeball, I guess, but it has the disadvantage that it creates moments in time where some large portion of the hardware in the market can suddenly no longer mine…
One reason for the halving cycle could be the way it kinda shocks the price and that makes people speculate and talk about Bitcoin like crazy. This is the perfect way to have a wrecking ball breaking the old broken system. Or it might just have been easier to implement.
> In private discussions I have heard three counter-arguments, none of which I accept I think this article skips the most compelling (to me) counter argument. If there’s a 51% attack, the currency loses all value. Nobody will want to trade Bitcoin or use it as a currency once this attack is exploited. So a 51% attacker is disincentivized to perform said attack because doing so would make the prize lose its value. Now…
Andreas Antonopoulos - 51% Bitcoin Attack
> In private discussions I have heard three counter-arguments, none of which I accept I think this article skips the most compelling (to me) counter argument. If there’s a 51% attack, the currency loses all value. Nobody will want to trade Bitcoin or use it as a currency once this attack is exploited. So a 51% attacker is disincentivized to perform said attack because doing so would make the prize lose its value. Now…
A 51% doesn't get you coins, it lets you spend coins twice. Imagine: 1) borrow a bunch of BTC, 2) use it to buy stuff you want, 3) 51% attack to fork the chain and reverse your spend, 4) pay back the borrowed BTC What does it matter if the price of BTC falls through the floor afterward? Of course depending on what you buy, what your lender knows and cares about, and more, you might still face repercussions that make…
At some point, if cryptocurrencies become more established, it might be financially beneficial for one blockchain if another blockchain becomes non-viable.
Something I've always considered a curious decision about Bitcoin is the decision for halvings to occur as discrete events rather than as an exponential decay occurring on each block. Having them be discrete events is probably easier for someone to verify by eyeball, I guess, but it has the disadvantage that it creates moments in time where some large portion of the hardware in the market can suddenly no longer mine…
If you're talking about a nuclear war scenario, we will have much bigger problems than bitcoin mining being slow.
Aside from Satoshi's hoard.. there's also just regular destruction. Units can be mined and then permanently lost. The system has a limited number of units that can be generated in total and no mechanism to replace the lost units. Why is this not a long term problem for bitcoin?
> In the third section I analyze its security model, specifically the cost of mounting a 51% attack on the assumption that hash power is available for rent and doesn't need to be purchased by the attacker. Bitcoin mining requires special devices (ASICs). These ASICs would lose their value if Bitcoin lost its value. Given this fact, why would anyone rent them out, or rent out the hash power?
>> Bitcoin mining requires special devices (ASICs) Nitpick: Any computer can mine bitcoin. Economic bitcoin mining requires special devices.
https://www.righto.com/2014/09/mining-bitcoin-with-pencil-an...
> In private discussions I have heard three counter-arguments, none of which I accept I think this article skips the most compelling (to me) counter argument. If there’s a 51% attack, the currency loses all value. Nobody will want to trade Bitcoin or use it as a currency once this attack is exploited. So a 51% attacker is disincentivized to perform said attack because doing so would make the prize lose its value. Now…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A 51% doesn't get you coins, it lets you spend coins twice. Imagine: 1) borrow a bunch of BTC, 2) use it to buy stuff you want, 3) 51% attack to fork the chain and reverse your spend, 4) pay back the borrowed BTC What does it matter if the price of BTC falls through the floor afterward? Of course depending on what you buy, what your lender knows and cares about, and more, you might still face repercussions that make…
Okay sure. At best you can do that once, ever. So you’d better buy something worthwhile.