pull down to refresh
2362 sats \ 8 replies \ @1fatmess 25 Dec 2022 \ on: Pseudocode for robust tail emission bitcoin
CHRISTMAS HERESY
since when keeping the network secure is heresy...
reply
Security is provided by private keys and has nothing to do with hash rate
reply
And now imagine Bitcoin network is running by single Antminer (technically possible) - and claim Bitcoin is still secure because it has nothing to do with hash rate, LOL
reply
Yes good point, I'm imagining it.
This single miner network would still be secure - the miner would not be able to steal my Bitcoin using fake transactions. My Bitcoin would be secure. Also the miner would be able to change the consensus rules of my node.
It would be crazy hard getting any transactions into a block though. Why?
Because people would strike a deal under the counter with this miner to have their tx included in a block. The black market for fees would be mind bogglingly huge. You might see a second miner come online to take a cut of that...
reply
This single miner network would still be secure.
No comment (I could do a 51% attack, then)
reply
Still wouldn't be able to steal my UTXOs
reply
Oh ok! The securing of the quality of "store of value" of Bitcoin - is not the securing, then... (check with Google how well the quality of "store of value" was in pair with some successfull 51% attacks)
reply
Right yeah, definitions are important. I'm using the term "security" in the classical sense - protection of my UTXOs from malicious actors.
Agreed that in this 1 miner scenario all sorts of other things such as predicability, finality, fiat exchange rate etc could all be out the window.
Btw this tweet was also cool https://twitter.com/blockwareteam/status/1607009497708654592