Quote from: AnonyMint on February 11, 2014, 10:52:18 AM

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg5075050#msg5075050

Quote from: AnonyMint on February 11, 2014, 10:45:07 AM

Quote from: CoinCube on February 11, 2014, 08:50:15 AM

B) Technical critique of Bitcoins flaws:
Undecided: I don't have sufficient technical knowledge of bitcoin to judge for myself. All those who do have said knowledge have either an agenda or a vested interest.

It doesn't matter if they think the Transactions Withholding Attack won't happen, because 0 transaction fees are more popular. Tongue

They think there is a problem with transaction spam if transaction fees are 0, but that is because they haven't thought out-of-the-box of how to design a system that is different than Bitcoin in very amazing ways.

One day soon these guys are going to read some whitepapers that are going to make them walk away with their tail between their legs.

Also mining can't be funded from transaction fees proportional to the growth in the market cap of Bitcoin unless transactions grow as fast (and they are not) and transaction fees are a percentage (and they are not or better not because debit cards and ACH are flat fee), thus it is logically irrefutable that the value of attacking Bitcoin will increase faster than the funding for mining to protect against a 51% attack.

You don't need to be technical to understand that simple math.

Quote from: CoinCube on February 11, 2014, 08:50:15 AM

C) Need for Anonyminity:
In Agreement (reluctantly): This has some major major downsides but I have been unable to think of a better solution to the power vacuum.

We always had it in the past with cash and gold, it only now we need to add it to digital age because the government is gaining an unfair advantage and can now track everything.

We are just restoring the balance that had always been there before but which is being lost currently and helping socialism to go into an insane peak.

Have you voted in moolaching's naming poll?

Let me expound on that math.

If tx fees increase proportional to the rise in the BTC price, then Bitcoin becomes uncompetitive with debit cards, ACH, Swift, and wire transfers, which all have a flat fee.

If tx fees don't scale porportional the rise in the BTC price, then because the annual rate of new coin rewards diminish over time, then the funding for mining is declining proportional to the rise of the Bitcoin market cap over time.

Thus Bitcoin is becoming less expensive to 51% attack over time relative to the market value of Bitcoin.

For an attacker such as the government, the market value of Bitcoin determines the value of taking control of it.

For miners, the revenue paid out for mining determines the amount of processing power they can apply to the security against a 51% attack.

The above is what I have been sort of thinking about. If bitcoin reaches astronomical prices (which I assume most of us hope), so does the incentive for the 51% attack. I believe I heard Andreas talking about when the market cap goes up, so does the cost of the equipment and networking power needed to actually accomplish the attack. I guess in theory, it would be idiotic to spend that kind of money just to disrupt a network and squash their own investment. Wouldn't put it past the US government to throw away tax payer dollars like that...