Quote from: tvbcof on June 14, 2014, 08:54:36 AM

Quote from: shorena on June 14, 2014, 07:51:33 AM

...
Now I understand that these assumptions are wrong. Commons worked for several hundreds of years without any problems. Commons still exists and work fine.
...

That is a complete nonsense statement. The whole point of 'the tragedy of the commons' is that indeed 'the commons' work find as an economic model (and in other ways) when there are abundant resources. Saying that 'Commons still exist and work fine' makes zero sense unless you are specific about what instance you are pointing to.

Well I was pointing at the pastures where to term originated. I might have been more clear about that.

Quote from: tvbcof on June 14, 2014, 08:54:36 AM

The principle applied to Bitcoin mining casts 'the commons' as the Bitcoin system generally with the underlying assumption (arguably incorrect) that centralization is bad. Abundance would be when there is no threat of centralization. In that instance maximizing personal gain can be done without threatening the system because it doesn't matter what pool he associates with. In the more classic scenario it would be the same thing as the sheep herder growing his flock to the maximum number he can handle without worrying about ruining the graze on the commons since there is so much of it.

Yes, it is true that 'the Commons still exist and still work fine' in Mongolia. They've ceased to exist and work fine in many other places where they once thrived.

There are working Commons in Germany, not sure what you want to say with the emphasis on Mongolia here.

Let me quote from the book I was also point at earlier. I found it now.

Quote

Hardin's [the one that published the paper "The Tragedy of the Commons" in 1968] argument was a hit because (1) it features an A+B=C simplicity that appears to be inarguably correct; and (2) it is useful in justifying seemingly heartless decisions by entrenched powers. [...] Hardin's articulation of the folly of communal ownership has provided cover repeatedly to those arguing for the privatization of government services and the conquest of native lands.
One other thing Hardin's elegant argument has in common with that of Mathus [does not matter here, thus left out earlier]: it colapses on contact with reality.
As Camdian author Ian Angus explains, "Hardin simply ignored what actually happens in a real commons: self regulation by the communites involved"
[...] any indivdual who tries to game the system is quickly found out and punished.

PhD C. Ryan and MD C. Jethá - Sex at Dawn - 2010

Thus my argument earlier that social punishment of GHash.io and cex.io is the way to go and centralisation/authority or privatization (not even sure how this would work with bitcoin). But lets get to the problem at hand:

Mining bitcoins is the pasture here. Everyone can herd their sheep (start mining) there. There are limited resources (Bitcoins) for everyone to have. If one has to many sheep (over 50% hashpower) in the pasture they risk ruining it (bitcoin) for everyone. A big scale double spending attack would have a big impact on the bitcoin price and thus hurt the attacker. Perfect example of a common that works because if you start gaming the system the angry mob will fuck you up.