Post 9oN0DCWTT2cZPjilwe by laurentmt@mamot.fr
(DIR) More posts by laurentmt@mamot.fr
(DIR) Post #9oN0DBOdegl7v9305o by waxwing@x0f.org
2019-10-27T10:25:12Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
Really interesting point. I wonder if anyone disagrees:https://twitter.com/SomsenRuben/status/1188319045289775104"The key finding is that the sunk cost of mining -- which is currently about 50% of the expected revenue over a 2 year period -- is what incentivizes miners to behave honestly. They have essentially pre-bought half the BTC they will mine during this period."
(DIR) Post #9oN0DCWTT2cZPjilwe by laurentmt@mamot.fr
2019-10-27T16:16:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@waxwing I like this idea that was also proposed by Hugo Nguyen.I tend to agree that some of the "constraints" associated to the physical aspects of PoW create an inertia that is part of the security model.It raises interesting questions about the PoS model,. Especially if you envision it as a " virtualized PoW" as it's done for ETH. And the most obvious question is if it's a good idea for a PoS system to get rid of PoW's inertia or if it should be reintroduced artificially.
(DIR) Post #9oN0DD5vLEyfBgJ5CS by htimsxela@bitcoinhackers.org
2019-10-28T02:18:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@laurentmt @waxwing A PoW or PoS system is secured through monetary incentives, so this 'inertia' seems desirable in any case. Maybe an argument could be made that the chain can be 'over-secured', but free-market forces should account for that, in theory. I'm curious, what do you mean by 'reintroduce (the inertia) artificially'? Lockup periods for staked coins? Or something else?
(DIR) Post #9oNxBF66omqk7FiujA by laurentmt@mamot.fr
2019-10-28T13:19:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@htimsxela @waxwing Indeed, lockup periods are a good example but it could be any mechanism/rule introducing "inertia"/"friction" in the system for the sake of improved security.