<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1vtwj4n64rf9cf3mr8dqj84q58j06zre0r99vf50h49pwtdyudexstr2wkm

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsx9hf2ea235juyca3nksfr6s2re8appuh3jjky68m6jsh9kjwxungpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnwv46qzrthwden5te0dehhxtnvdakqz9rhwden5te0wfjkccte9ejxzmt4wvhxjmc5z3fmz

Publishing to

relay.nostr.net

nos.lol

relay.damus.io

Last Notes

2023-06-07 23:18:00 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2023-01-01
🗒️ Summary of this message: A sudden halving of the Bitcoin system could lead to a significant amount of hashing power shutting down and fees increasing dramatically. However, the market may price in the possibility of a halving.
📝 Original message:On 31 Dec 2022, at 10:28 am, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> This way:
>>
>> 1. system cannot be played
>> 2. only in case of destructive halving: system waits for the recovery of network security
>
> The immediate danger we have with halvings is that in a competitive market,
> profit margins tend towards marginal costs - the cost to produce an additional
> unit of production - rather than total costs - the cost necessary to recover
> prior and future expenses. Since the halving is a sudden shock to the system,
> under the right conditions we could have a significant amount of hashing power
> just barely able to afford to hash prior to the halving, resulting in all that
> hashing power immediately having to shut down and fees increasing dramatically,
> and likely, chaotically. Your proposal does not address that problem as it can
> only measure difficulty prior to the halving point.
> ... Since the halving is a sudden shock to the system
Is it though? Since everyone knows of the possible outcomes, wouldn't a possible halving be priced in?
> resulting in all that hashing power immediately having to shut down and fees increasing dramatically
Which should cause that hashing power to come back because of this fee increases.
Alfie
--
Alfie John
https://www.alfie <https://www.alfie/>.wtf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230101/383bbd29/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 17:51:42 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2016-06-29
📝 Original message:On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 06:45:58PM +0200, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > then we should definitively use a form of end-to-end encryption between
> > nodes. Built into the network layer.
>
> Widespread application of this model is potentially problematic. It is a
> non-trivial problem to design a distributed system that requires authentication
> but without identity and without central control. In fact this may be more
> challenging than Bitcoin itself. Trust on first use (TOFU) does not solve this
> problem.
Maybe the following paper can feed into this discussion:
"Decentralized Anonymous Credentials" by Christina Garman, Matthew Green, Ian Miers
https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/622.pdf
Alfie
--
Alfie John
https://www.alfie.wtf