Quote from: gmaxwell on February 28, 2017, 02:07:51 AM

I did and it's sitting with "Your comment is awaiting moderation.". I cannot "archive it" because it won't even be displayed in the first place without his permission.

Good to know, I'll trust you on this Wink

Quote

I think this point is especially dishonest coming from a BU developer, given that their whole security model is based on a strong assumption that the aggregate behavior of miners is honest.

Oh well, this the basic on how the Bitcoin system works. I know and remember that the first time you saw Bitcoin you didn't agree on this, but still it didn't break in the past years, claiming the opposite is unproven.
This is again a good history case/proof of the opposite of what you are claiming: http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-miners-ditch-ghash-io-pool-51-attack

BU model is the Bitcoin model, no changes on its root.

Bitcoin.pdf

Quote

The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to
assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it
to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to
find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than
everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth.

With nodes here Satoshi was meaning miners, because they can mine with CPU power.