Quote from: ohad on July 21, 2016, 04:12:37 PM

can add to the equations another parameter: how many miners do we want? given the cost per hash, we can calculate how much it costs to tamper the network (with e.g. 51% attack). security was and will always be an economical consideration. we have to make it unprofitable for the attacker. and ofc who will crunch the considerations and the numbers with no mistakes better than tau

Do agree, security was and will always be an economical consideration.

Just random thoughts

The ROI of attacking the network goes up as the price goes up if the hash rate stays stable.
Which it shouldnt, because more miners should come if the "miners tax" stays stable...

If the miners tax stays fixed it could make an accordion effect on miners/hash power/price but that changes once the miners have invest a lot of money and they have a huge fix cost, so they have to stay in market yes or yes just waiting for better times...
Then they will have to ask to rise in the miners tax.

Quote from: ohad on July 21, 2016, 04:15:38 PM

Quote from: Rw13enlib88 on July 21, 2016, 03:47:02 PM

But, if the price goes down, (which is gonna happen because of different adoption phases we gonna pass trought)
the situation will change.
Miners will complain they're not profitable anymore, that will lead to less miners, less security, more centralization of the hash power
or a rise in the dynamic %.

they will probably want to buy some kind of hedging. and this can be elevated to giving risk-free interest without printing new money (!). that's one of my old plans for agoras, i'll write it down soon. is all about a famous black&scholes strategy that recover the "value of time".

miners using options to protect their profits?

not sure if I understood it really but blow my mind. I'll wait till you write it down to re-think about it.

but risk-free concept sounds quite strange for me.
"risk-free" investments are bonds, which in my opinion is not true anymore.
There is always risk associated to the project. (different points of view in the community/team, the leader leaving the project)