3 ms·
On the other hand, there will be people who have a vested interest in preventing such attacks. If you own a lot of BTC, a successful attack can drastically lowe
by nemo1618 8y ago
On the other hand, there will be people who have a vested interest in preventing such attacks. If you own a lot of BTC, a successful attack can drastically lower the value of your assets, so it makes sense to deploy some of that capital to secure the network. And of course this goes even more so for business in the crypto space that rely on BTC remaining secure.
One example of this sort of behavior is in mining. We tend to think of miners as being selfish to a fault, and to some degree, that's true. But sometimes miners have the opportunity to mine empty blocks (a form of attack), and refrain from doing so, because it would harm the ecosystem as a whole and jeopardize their long-term profitability.
- dbt00 8y agoSpending capital to build hash capacity to protect an existing holding in BTC is inherently deflationary. Instead of "you need to spend money to make money" aka inflation/interest/growth, you have to spend money to keep money, which always reduces your holdings over time and turns the entire network over to companies that produce hashing capacity (hardware manufacturers, power companies).
- hackinthebochs 8y agoBut the initial assumption was that of an efficient market for hash power, which means the cost to hash is equal to the block rewards. And so deploying some capital to secure the network is nets zero loss.
- manigandham 8y agoThat's a great way to lose all your capital, or force someone else to. You will probably not outspend a focused attacker or nation-state.