Quote from: Cryddit on October 13, 2014, 05:30:58 AM

Honestly, I don't think he did come from a financial background. Had he come from a financial background, block rewards would not be adjusted downwards in 50% increments. In fact the kool-aid in the financial industry is universally that mild continuous inflation is a good thing, so if Satoshi were educated in that industry, then block rewards would probably eventually start going *up* by a few percent a year to keep the capital dedicated to hashing (ie, block chain security) in a constant proportion relative to the bitcoin money supply (ie, the value that must be secured), and we wouldn't be looking at a 21M coin maximum.

I am concerned that down the line the sudden drops in hashing reward are likely to create dislocations of capital and hashing infrastructure. Meaning, that at some point the financial return on miners' invested capital suddenly justifies only about half of it, and then what do they do with the rest?

The thing about ASIC hashing infrastructure is that the thing that's required to secure the blockchain -- that is to say, hashing power -- is the very same thing that's required to attack it. And the weirdo economics here have caused a huge amount of it to be built -- much more than will be financially justified three or four more halvings down the line. The miners have sunk costs in dedicated equipment, so that equipment is not going to just go away because there's not a financial justification for the amortized expense of acquiring it.

I'm concerned that when the profits from hashing go down suddenly, a bunch of people looking for the most profitable use of their dedicated sunk-cost in hashing infrastructure will start to consider attacks. Way back when we were working on this, I took it for a lark. I never *imagined* the current value of Bitcoin or the idea that eventually dedicated farms of ASICs that literally cannot be used for anything else except supporting OR ATTACKING the blockchain would exist.

So I would be much less nervous with a very gradual adjustment to keep the miners in something closer to a steady state. Gradual adjustments make gradual dislocations, with plenty of time for equipment to wear out, turn into doorstops, blow power supplies, etc. and keep the amount of active usable infrastructure close to the amount that's financially justified by the declining block rewards.

Interesting points and perspective.

2 counterpoints:

#1) Don't you think that commercial miners are well aware of the
subsidy schedule and have worked that into their business plans?

#2) Even if jarring displacements occur as you speak of, I
don't understand what conditions there could be that would
make attacking more profitable than mining. Can you give
an example?