@BJA Tim Swanson wrote a paper about how adding exogenous value onto a network that cannot detect and dynamically protect the exogenous value is a bad idea. It was hard to disagree.
Quote
The metacoins and colored coin projects listed above unquestionably increase the social value
of the chain, yet they do not proportionally incentivize security beyond the existing block
reward (seigniorage) subsidy. This could lead to an economic incentive to attack the chain, a
type of fat tail risk that could dramatically impact any layer residing on top of the Bitcoin
network.
of the chain, yet they do not proportionally incentivize security beyond the existing block
reward (seigniorage) subsidy. This could lead to an economic incentive to attack the chain, a
type of fat tail risk that could dramatically impact any layer residing on top of the Bitcoin
network.
The network is ridiculously oversecure for it's current market cap. How many goddamn exaflops or whatever?
You might be able to snow the noobs with technobabble but I've been around too long. I'm not buying.
Security is the most important feature. Without a block subsidy today the Bitcoin network would be extremely insecure. The subsidy is going to go away. I want Bitcoin to work long term. It doesnt seem that those that want to increase the block size want that....
You don't overinsure a house for fire damage. It's called "moral hazard" and it makes the house statistically MORE likely to burn. You don't put a $1000 case ona $100 phone. It means someone will be MORE likely to steal it. If you put too much armor on an armored truck, you limit it's cargo capacity to the point that you have to make two trips INCREASING the chance of losing the cargo. There IS such a thing as too much security.
Insurance is different from security. Thats not hard to comprehend is it?