Hacker News Reader

Comment by mhluongo | Hacker News Reader

Pretty sure node runners would prefer a UASF to hybrid PoS or at least a different PoW algo over constant 51% attacks.

I love Bitcoin, but you have to be able to consider hypotheticals like this. Similarly... a tail emission should be on the table. Mentioning it used to be totally third rail [0], but these days folks like Peter Todd are speaking up.

[0] - https://twitter.com/mhluongo/status/1092559017178734594?t=i2...

View on HN

Consistent 51% attacks rely on Bitcoin already being more-or-less worthless. If it is, then yes, the cost of terrorizing the network will be low. The same follows based on Vitalik’s argument for why PoS is supposedly too expensive to attack.

The difference is if you want to terrorize Bitcoin, you need to find energy and compute at relatively low cost compared to everyone still on the network. With Ethereum, you just need to acquire ETH.

Attacking bitcoin uses energy but does not degrade the computer or the energy infrastructure required to do the attack. Attacking PoS ethereum degrades the resource you use to attack.

When bitcoin was created there weren't hashpower markets where you could attack a chain without ever having invested in it and then move on the next minute, your hardware investment still earning you money. I think satoshi thought there would only be one chain and the game theory with many is different.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com