3 ms·
Well, we show (among many other results) that today's system is potentially unstable assuming miners are rational and profit maximizing. I don't think that's p
by phildaian 8y ago
Well, we show (among many other results) that today's system is potentially unstable assuming miners are rational and profit maximizing. I don't think that's paranoia in a system that gives you 0 security guarantees unless you assume miners are rational and profit maximizing.
> Virtually all existing market designs are crappy. Maybe CBOT is an exception. Michael Lewis' book is a big giant marketing document for a shitty market design, FWIIW: not a preconception; I read and panned his ridiculous book.
I'm not saying anything promoted by Lewis is a good market design, nor that existing continuous limit order books are. Merely that from the PoV of the efficient markets hypothesis, blockchain markets are worse (and have the potential to be better, e.g. by exploring batched designs).
- scottlocklin 8y agoYes, blockchain markets are worse in many ways; that's obvious. But I don't think your speculation about miners has any merit. Your statement in section 7 seems to not understand how blockchains work. I could be wrong; it don't pass the sniff test. Since I actually have a day job, I may not have time to look into this in enough detail to thoroughly pull it apart, but hey, maybe they'll catch it in "peer review."
- phildaian 8y agoIf you find something wrong with it, consider this an open offer for me to revise or withdraw the paper as a result. That being said, I've been studying blockchains for years, and this paper has been reviewed by some very high caliber designers of blockchain protocols in both academia and industry. It also uses very simple models as in http://randomwalker.info/publications/mining_CCS.pdf http://randomwalker.info/publications/mining_CCS.pdf which in my view are extremely unlikely to be incorrect (of course, anything is possible).