pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @LibreHans 3 Jun \ parent \ on: Are you comfortable with Bitcoin's security model? AskSN
You miss my point. They have profitable activities that depend on bitcoin working, so supporting the bitcoin network benefits them and is required for the profitable activities. The mining division can operate at a loss.
I get you, but the incentives are still weird in that case.
Say Strategy₿ is that large institution that mines at a loss for supporting their profitable activities (if they even have some by then). They would be tempted to prioritize their transactions or de-prioritize/block others. They want to protect their stuff, but would then be one of the few large institutions able to subsidize a large hashrate for the network. And since they're doing it at a loss, they wouldn't care about missing out some fees on their competitors transactions.
It could be that mining is operated at a loss. But that hurts the decentralization of the network, and leaves a lot of unprofitable ASICs for sale at very low prices.
Something like having a lot of guns to defend something but stopping paying the security guards. Some might stay out of conviction or whatever. But only from the ones that have the capacity to work for free. And now there are a lot of guns from the ex-security guys being sold for peanuts in the streets. It's the same guns used to protect than to attack.
reply
Anybody who needs bitcoin has no interest in attacking it.
reply
That's a weak argument. There are a lot of possible attacks. A double spend that only affects someone and benefits the miner wouldn't harm the network much. A government concentrating huge amounts of hashrate and only mining OFAC compliant transactions, and ignoring blocks from other miners, is another example. And those attacks can be performed without having any Bitcoin at all. So, no, “trust” is not a solid defense strategy.
reply
Any "defense strategy" I've heard of is just central planning, which would be bitcoin's certain death. Sure bitcoin may fail, but we don't have to weaken it by micro managing miner revenue.
reply
I'm not saying otherwise.
There's a difference between acknowledging a possible problem and a call to action. The Bitcoin network is and will be secure in the medium term. And maybe this problem does not even happen in the future. But denying it (or at least the possibility of it) will not make it go away. I'd rather be aware and prepared.
reply