1/4
It is not the hash rate or the algorithm that secures bitcoin. Bitcoin is not a cryptographic system but is an economic system that uses cryptography. This is a major distinction. Authors such as those working on proof of work in the past misunderstood the nature of an economic medium. It is not how much proof of work you can do at any one time, it is how much you can do towards the marketing of the commodity you're selling, the proof of work that you have invested. Bitcoin is not secured by proof of work at all. Bitcoin is secured by validation of transactions and the ordering of those transactions into blocks. Proof of work is just a means of proving incentive. It's a defined investment. It measures the willingness of a party to invest in securing the network.
Where people go wrong is in assuming that it is all about some anonymous cryptographic system. I didn't build bitcoin to be like ecash or any of those other failed dead-end systems.
The proof work tokens developed in bitcoin are a byproduct of the ordering of transactions. There should be no limit on the number of transactions in a block. This limit does not matter because organisations and companies compete to profitably structure a block that will be validated by other miners. Only then does proof of work matter. As the block reward subsidy vanishes, the transaction fees become more and more important. In time, a miner who does not primarily concentrate on ordering transactions will gain little to no renumeration.
Because of the larger value associated with the block reward when coupled with the hobbled or restricted nature of bitcoin core and the excessive limit to 1 MB per block, BTC has misled people into believing that the hashing component is the primary concern on how you secured the network. It is not. More importantly, people involved with this industry including the building of machines associated with a single purpose in hashing have mislead people into believing that bitcoin is all about a technical solution and that it can act outside of law.
The simple answer is that bitcoin is an incentive system.
Hashing is a game theoretic signalling system. Bitcoin miners signal that they are willing to lose money and risk in keeping the network secure. They are willing to pay large sums of money to invest in the network and this demonstrates a long-term commitment. Most importantly, it involves a large fixed asset capital base that is at risk if these miners seek to act outside the law. The biggest control in bitcoin mining is the existing legal system. A miner who decides to act outside of the law with enough hash power to overpower the honest nodes in the network is simple to detect. Most importantly, they provide signed evidence that is admissible in court and allows criminal prosecutions. Additionally, other miners would legally be able to take action.
Action would include anti-competitive behaviour and other protections that are associated with cartel-based action.
I am not seeking an anarchist solution and I never promised one.
With the hash rate it has, BSV is not subject to attack. In order to attack even the hash rate, we have now requires miners actively engaging themselves using a large data centre to focus on double spending. In the UK, the fraud act covers services when related to deceptive criminal activities. The definition of services see Archbold 2010, Pp 21-408. The service is one that is provided for a paid amount. Where a service is obtained without payment, the fraud act will not apply in this manner. Bitcoin miners are paid a transaction fee and block subsidy for their actions, this is enough to be covered under the basis of the UK act. This makes them chargeable and consequently they come under and within the ambit of Section 11 (R v Sofroniou [2003] EWCA Crim 3681).
CSW
Sep 26, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1569512498022800?thread_ts=1569512498.022800&cid=C5131HKFX
1/4
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2077
It is not the hash rate or the algorithm that secures bitcoin. Bitcoin is not a cryptographic system but is an economic system that uses cryptography. This is a major distinction. Authors such as those working on proof of work in the past misunderstood the nature of an economic medium. It is not how much proof of work you can do at any one time, it is how much you can do towards the marketing of the commodity you're selling, the proof of work that you have invested. Bitcoin is not secured by proof of work at all. Bitcoin is secured by validation of transactions and the ordering of those transactions into blocks. Proof of work is just a means of proving incentive. It's a defined investment. It measures the willingness of a party to invest in securing the network.
Where people go wrong is in assuming that it is all about some anonymous cryptographic system. I didn't build bitcoin to be like ecash or any of those other failed dead-end systems.
The proof work tokens developed in bitcoin are a byproduct of the ordering of transactions. There should be no limit on the number of transactions in a block. This limit does not matter because organisations and companies compete to profitably structure a block that will be validated by other miners. Only then does proof of work matter. As the block reward subsidy vanishes, the transaction fees become more and more important. In time, a miner who does not primarily concentrate on ordering transactions will gain little to no renumeration.
Because of the larger value associated with the block reward when coupled with the hobbled or restricted nature of bitcoin core and the excessive limit to 1 MB per block, BTC has misled people into believing that the hashing component is the primary concern on how you secured the network. It is not. More importantly, people involved with this industry including the building of machines associated with a single purpose in hashing have mislead people into believing that bitcoin is all about a technical solution and that it can act outside of law.
The simple answer is that bitcoin is an incentive system.
Hashing is a game theoretic signalling system. Bitcoin miners signal that they are willing to lose money and risk in keeping the network secure. They are willing to pay large sums of money to invest in the network and this demonstrates a long-term commitment. Most importantly, it involves a large fixed asset capital base that is at risk if these miners seek to act outside the law. The biggest control in bitcoin mining is the existing legal system. A miner who decides to act outside of the law with enough hash power to overpower the honest nodes in the network is simple to detect. Most importantly, they provide signed evidence that is admissible in court and allows criminal prosecutions. Additionally, other miners would legally be able to take action.
Action would include anti-competitive behaviour and other protections that are associated with cartel-based action.
I am not seeking an anarchist solution and I never promised one.
With the hash rate it has, BSV is not subject to attack. In order to attack even the hash rate, we have now requires miners actively engaging themselves using a large data centre to focus on double spending. In the UK, the fraud act covers services when related to deceptive criminal activities. The definition of services see Archbold 2010, Pp 21-408. The service is one that is provided for a paid amount. Where a service is obtained without payment, the fraud act will not apply in this manner. Bitcoin miners are paid a transaction fee and block subsidy for their actions, this is enough to be covered under the basis of the UK act. This makes them chargeable and consequently they come under and within the ambit of Section 11 (R v Sofroniou [2003] EWCA Crim 3681).
CSW
Sep 26, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1569512498022800?thread_ts=1569512498.022800&cid=C5131HKFX
1/4
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2077
Comments
Be the first to add a comment
Log in to comment