I've said it before but really feels like a flaw that the halvings are discrete and happen suddenly every four years, instead of gradually each block. As far as I can tell the only advantage to it is that it makes the math simpler. The disadvantage is that it creates weird market dynamics in which large amounts of mining capacity are plunged into unprofitability in one instant. If I wanted to run a 51% attack, I'd look to buy up suddenly-unprofitable capacity immediately after a halving.
Bitcoin's Security Budget Issue: Problems, Solutions and Myths Debunked
21–30 of 74 posts
Re: Bitcoin's Security Budget Issue: Problems, Solutions and Myths Debunked
#22The whole point of restricting the block size was to ensure space in the blockchain was scarce to drive the price of fees up, better securing the network. Well, that and keeping the blockchain total size small enough to be processed on an regular user's PC for decentralization sake. While a loss of some decentralization is non-ideal, increasing the block size dynamically, similarly to how difficulty is handled, would…
Monero does dynamic block size. It works fine. There is a penalty for large swings in size and that controls the fee which allows the fee to be appropriate during swells and luls in volume.
Re: Bitcoin's Security Budget Issue: Problems, Solutions and Myths Debunked
#23Re: Bitcoin's Security Budget Issue: Problems, Solutions and Myths Debunked
#24Lol total garbage people have been whining about the blocks regularly being EMPTY now, a huge % of transactions just occur off chain on exchanges/lightning/etc. There are no 100 dollar fees you can basically do everything for basically free.
https://mempool.space/
look, you can see how many blocks aren't filled lol. This piece is literally just garbage. Big blockers are scam artists.
Re: Bitcoin's Security Budget Issue: Problems, Solutions and Myths Debunked
#25According to ChatGPT, Bitcoin market cap is $2T while the cost to carry out a 51% attack is $4B. If correct, it seems a little imbalanced.
I see your ChatGPT generated argument and raise you my DeepSeek generated rebuttal: 1. The $4B "Cost" Is Fundamentally Misinterpreted: * It's Not a "Cost" Like Buying an Asset: The $4B figure (if accurate) typically refers to the theoretical short-term cost to rent sufficient hashrate to perform a temporary attack. This does not mean you can "buy" control of Bitcoin for $4B. * Acquisition Cost vs. Rental Cost: Actual…
I guess in reality you would just pressure the big miners since the top 4 control 80%. Nuts.
Re: Bitcoin's Security Budget Issue: Problems, Solutions and Myths Debunked
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's true that buying 51% hash power would cost far more than $4B. Some people assume that you could rent 51% hash power for a short time (like a day) to do the attack.
According to ChatGPT (bad source I know but can't find it anywhere else), the entire value of the entire mining network is about $6B. What do you think it is?
Closer to $20B. MARA owns $1B in equipment for example.
Re: Bitcoin's Security Budget Issue: Problems, Solutions and Myths Debunked
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
That market cap would quickly collapse if there was a 51% attack.
One can take short positions on bitcoin almost as easily as long positions. With enough leverage, a well-connected firm could probably make a low 11-digit bet fairly easily.
Counterparty risk asks whether you'll collect on that bet.
Also, the firms who take the other side of that bet talk, and you aren't going to be able to get tens of billions of dollars of derivatives without people figuring out what you're doing and acting against you.
Re: Bitcoin's Security Budget Issue: Problems, Solutions and Myths Debunked
#28Wow, its almost like deflationary currency isn't a good idea. Who would have thought? Certainly, uh, most economists.
This article has nothing to do with the inflationary or deflationary nature of the currency, this is a problem solely caused by the block size limit, which other cryptocurrencies are free from and don't worry about.
[deleted]
Re: Bitcoin's Security Budget Issue: Problems, Solutions and Myths Debunked
#29According to ChatGPT, Bitcoin market cap is $2T while the cost to carry out a 51% attack is $4B. If correct, it seems a little imbalanced.
First, that figure is way off. Marathon alone has a market cap over $4B and controls less than 5% of the total hash rate. Second, the system only seems vulnerable if you ignore economic incentives. A 51% attack isn't just technically difficult - it's economically irrational. Pulling it off would cost billions, and even then, there's no clear way to profit from it. The only scenario where it makes sense is a non-econo…
If we're talking about a fork, couldn't a fork just ignore the attack? The normal miners aren't forced to use the attacker's blocks after all.
Re: Bitcoin's Security Budget Issue: Problems, Solutions and Myths Debunked
#30Lol total garbage people have been whining about the blocks regularly being EMPTY now, a huge % of transactions just occur off chain on exchanges/lightning/etc. There are no 100 dollar fees you can basically do everything for basically free. https://mempool.space/ look, you can see how many blocks aren't filled lol. This piece is literally just garbage. Big blockers are scam artists.
fair challenge to their proposed solution, but it doesn't negate the security premise does it? what do you think is a good alternative?