Quote from: iamnotback on June 22, 2016, 10:58:29 PM

I was too sleepy at the tail end of that marathon day yesterday when this debate heated up at the end with 4 against one sleepy one.

smooth et al, you forgot another key point. You argued the high difficulty would only cause the miners to win a block every day ~200 minutes instead 2 mins (assuming the more plausible 100X hashrate attack), but the miners will leave because they become unprofitable (as the block reward doesn't increase but the length of time they need to mine for the same reward increases by 100).

So the your mining hashrate actually drops to 0 also under the attack scenario.

Duh!

PWNED.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on June 22, 2016, 05:48:10 AM

You need to accept the fact smooth just woke you up, fed you breakfast, got you dressed, put you in your little car seat, and TOOK YOU TO SCHOOL. Cool

PWNED. REKTD.

Monero's block reward subsidy gets smaller every block, and may be traded off in exchange for larger blocks.

By the time Monero's market cap gets to the $1 billion magnitude you claim would trigger Bitcoin's nuclear counterattack, we would expect to see heavy actual use accompanied by appropriate fees that cumulatively dwarf the (by then tiny) subsidy.

Those unclaimed fees would pile up if no blocks were found for 200 minutes or whatever, providing economic incentive (in addition to static background social/ideological) motivation for miners to operate.

smooth already explained this to you. Please don't skip nap time. You get cranky, incoherent, and unteachable when you do that.

You started talking about $1 billion Future Monero, but then used assumptions from $10 million Present Monero in the ensuing rambling and ranting.

Not sure if intellectual dishonesty, analytical schizophrenia, or both. IE par for the Crazy Uncle Shelby course. Tongue