<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2015-02-12&#xA;📝 Original message:&gt;&#xA;&gt; But, let&#39;s say, 5 years from now, some faction of miners who own&#xA;&gt; soon-to-be-obsolete equipment will decide to boost their profits with a&#xA;&gt; replace-by-fee pool and a corresponding wallet. They can market it as &#34;1 of&#xA;&gt; 10 hamburgers are free&#34; if they have 10% of the total hashpower.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&#xA;Yes, like any P2P network Bitcoin cannot work if a sufficiently large&#xA;number of miners decide to attack it. This is an ancient argument. It came&#xA;up the moment Bitcoin was first invented.&#xA;&#xA;But this argument could have been made at any time in Bitcoin&#39;s entire&#xA;history. Lots of miners have dropped out due to hardware obsolescence, yet&#xA;massive double spending hasn&#39;t happened. Perhaps the system is not as&#xA;simple as you boil it down to be.&#xA;&#xA;Anyway, what would happen in that event is within a few days some people&#xA;would stop selling Bitcoin for hamburgers, others would find workarounds,&#xA;and the fees collected from the double spends would be worth very little.&#xA;Nobody wins.&#xA;&#xA;So would you take a responsibility for pushing the approach which isn&#39;t&#xA;&gt; game-theoretically sound?&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#34;The approach&#34; is how Bitcoin has always worked.&#xA;&#xA;People have been using game theory to predict the imminent demise of&#xA;Bitcoin since I first found it. Just one example:   &#34;Bitcoin will collapse&#xA;when the 50-&gt;25 BTC drop happens&#34; was promoted as a dead cert thing by game&#xA;theorists. Every miner becomes unprofitable and stops at once!&#xA;&#xA;So far game theory based predictions tend to be proven wrong by reality, so&#xA;this sort of argument doesn&#39;t impress me much.&#xA;&#xA;Anyway, going around this loop again is pointless. I brought up the counter&#xA;argument so people who see this thread don&#39;t mistakenly think Peter&#39;s&#xA;position is some kind of de-facto consensus about how Bitcoin should work.&#xA;Not because I love rehashing the same arguments every six months ad nauseum.&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;An HTML attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150212/7484a16c/attachment.html&gt;</html></oembed>