Hacker News Reader

can you explain this in better words: "then it would always make sense to rent 51% of the capacity at market rates, earn the transaction fees, and also perform a double-spending attack."

View on HN

I think what jhpriestly is saying is: As the market gets efficient, the price of renting mining capacity will approach the profits earned from transaction fees. So renting mining capacity will almost pay for itself, i.e. is almost free. But then you might as well rent a lot of it, like 51%, because it's allowing you to attack the chain almost for free.

I think a good question is, is there a market for renting asic mining gear?

Yes, but only if mining the coins via renting is cheaper than buying them outright.

If you're a miner, it makes sense to rent out your gear, because you get a guaranteed payment higher than you could make via mining.

I've heard an opinion (but I'm not certain) that mined coins are considered less traceable than purchased coins.

For any purchase, there's a trail that leads to you through however you paid for it; for mining, the mined coins are totally disconnected from the hardware that mined the block and how you bought it.

Well then the buyer and seller would race to gain 51% of mining power (as its free) which will make it more expensive because of the constant biding war.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com