Bitcoin's Security Budget Issue: Problems, Solutions & Myths Debunked \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

Bitcoin's Security Budget Issue: Problems, Solutions & Myths Debunked budget.day/

1113 sats \ 6 comments \ @marcbarbosa 7h bitcoin

Good charts, bad analysis.

3 solutions are proposed, none are remotely realistic.

Here are some that I think are more realistic

-- Option 1) Bitcoin value goes down, if security budget seems threatened. Better distribution, stronger hands. More users. More transactions. Security budget no longer threateened. Problem solved! (Just need to avoid 51% attack, but I think even with much lower hashrate game theory still makes it pretty unlikely)

-- Option 2) Basically same as above, but skip the drama and just transition gradually to more transactions at higher valued bitcoin, so there's a smooth transition without there ever being a period where security budget seems potentially threatened

-- Option 3) reduce block size (just food for thought.)

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln 4h

Yeah, some of the people/companies referenced in the article promote solutions that involve shitcoins. So their solutions will be tainted by the fact that they don't start from the "BTC-only" premise. Which they are free to do, but it's not the premise that most people working on Bitcoin agree on.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 1h

Some of their projects -

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 1h

It's good to think critically... In BTC terms the miner revenue is decreasing

But in USD terms the miner revenue is on a long-term upward trajectory.

Interesting that the text doesn't actually say that.

Isn't this highly misleading?

All of these options would allow for more transactions to be included into the blockchain. Since there's still demand to transact on Bitcoin - just not at high fees - scaling can enable more transactions with smaller fees, forming a sustainable security budget. No need for terabyte blocks. If Bitcoin could process 500 TPS instead of 5, the average fee needed to replace the current subsidy would drop to a feasible $1.12 per transaction (at June 28, 2025 rates). This aligns with Bitcoin's original design and doesn't affect decentralization in any bad way

Why don't they mention the Lightning network?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BITC0IN 4h

such a terrible take.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @28124d7bc5 7h freebie