4 ms·

> sufficiently trustworthy Trustworthiness always depends on your use case. If you are transacting small amounts of money (less than is spent on mining a bloc

> sufficiently trustworthy Trustworthiness always depends on your use case. If you are transacting small amounts of money (less than is spent on mining a block) then waiting for 3 confirmations is probably sufficient to consider the transaction settled. But what if you send a transaction with a 100 times higher value than goes into mining a block then you will need to wait for over 100 confirmations till you can be sure it doesn't make economical sense for anyone to try to double spend your transaction by orphaning the first block your transaction was in (with a very simplified incentive model not taking into account other transactions in these blocks). Thus the money spent on mining blocks determines how much value can be transferred in one block. Allowing for higher value transactions is good thing imo, is necessary for its success as digital gold and therefore justifies the higher energy consumption (especially since there don't seem to be any alternatives with similarly good or better robustness against attacks yet, proof of stake can't work under the same assumptions bitcoin does [1]). [1] https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/new-pos.pdf https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/new-pos.pdf

root_axis 8y ago
The fact that larger transactions require more power to transmit securely only demonstrates my point further. > Allowing for higher value transactions is good thing imo PoW systems are the only ones where "higher value transactions" need security proportional to their size.
sgeisler 8y ago
@root_axis (since I can't reply directly): > PoW systems are the only ones where "higher value transactions" need security proportional to their size. Every other currency is either backed by men with guns and transactions are reversible (fiat) or you have to spend a roughly proportional amount of resources securing it (e.g. gold). I didn't look at the data, but judging by US military spending I'd guess that the strongest economies also have to spend the most to keep their system safe. You can still argue that the assumption of pseudonymous actors in bitcoin makes the proportion factor larger (=system less efficient) than for systems that can use identities and attribution and I'd agree with that. But that's only because it can operate with less assumptions (no identities), which I see as a feature.
- root_axis 8y ago
  > Every other currency is either backed by men with guns? So what? Men with guns are also the foundation of property rights, law and order, and national sovereignty; they are not an extra cost of fiat currency, they underpin the government's ability to maintain order and structure within society. I shouldn't have to explicitly point this out. > transactions are reversible (fiat) Cash payments are not reversible. Reversible payments are also a feature that nearly everyone wants. > spend a roughly proportional amount of resources securing it (e.g. gold). Gold is not a currency. > that's only because it can operate with less assumptions (no identities), which I see as a feature Untrue. A centralized anonymous payment system is technically possible, the limitations are strictly legal.
  - ric2b 8y ago
    > Gold is not a currency. It was for millennia.

root_axis 8y ago

The fact that larger transactions require more power to transmit securely only demonstrates my point further. > Allowing for higher value transactions is good thing imo PoW systems are the only ones where "higher value transactions" need security proportional to their size.

sgeisler 8y ago

@root_axis (since I can't reply directly): > PoW systems are the only ones where "higher value transactions" need security proportional to their size. Every other currency is either backed by men with guns and transactions are reversible (fiat) or you have to spend a roughly proportional amount of resources securing it (e.g. gold). I didn't look at the data, but judging by US military spending I'd guess that the strongest economies also have to spend the most to keep their system safe. You can still argue that the assumption of pseudonymous actors in bitcoin makes the proportion factor larger (=system less efficient) than for systems that can use identities and attribution and I'd agree with that. But that's only because it can operate with less assumptions (no identities), which I see as a feature.

root_axis 8y ago
> Every other currency is either backed by men with guns? So what? Men with guns are also the foundation of property rights, law and order, and national sovereignty; they are not an extra cost of fiat currency, they underpin the government's ability to maintain order and structure within society. I shouldn't have to explicitly point this out. > transactions are reversible (fiat) Cash payments are not reversible. Reversible payments are also a feature that nearly everyone wants. > spend a roughly proportional amount of resources securing it (e.g. gold). Gold is not a currency. > that's only because it can operate with less assumptions (no identities), which I see as a feature Untrue. A centralized anonymous payment system is technically possible, the limitations are strictly legal.
- ric2b 8y ago
  > Gold is not a currency. It was for millennia.