$NAT · BITCOIN'S SECURITY, TOKENIZED
THE NAT ARMORY
One link, every weapon.
The Case
Start here. The thesis, interactive — read it before you argue it.
The security-budget cliff, interactive — the whole case in one scroll, halvings to fee gap. If you send one link, send this one.
The Ammo
The reply kit. Copy a link, drop the card — never argue in your own words what a card already says better.
The Wall
The problem, in their words — we didn't invent the security-budget question.
Sourced, verbatim statements on Bitcoin's long-term security budget — from Satoshi to peer-reviewed research. Every quote links to its live source.
In a few decades when the reward gets too small, the transaction fee will become the main compensation for nodes.
something more like 0.5% to 1.5% of market capitalization spent on security would probably be appropriate.
I think there is general agreement that Bitcoin's long-term thermodynamic security is an important issue that's currently up in the air with regard to sustainability.
the recurring, 'flow', payments to miners for running the blockchain must be large relative to the one-off, 'stock', benefits of attacking it.
With only transaction fees, the variance of the block reward is very high … and it becomes attractive to fork a 'wealthy' block to 'steal' the rewards therein.
If a robust blockspace market doesn't develop, we explain why a decline in block rewards poses a substantial risk for the future.
Bitcoin's block reward is scheduled to decline to zero, raising concerns about whether the network can remain secure once miners rely solely on transaction fees.
If mining is not profitable due to a high cost and low reward, miners lose their incentive and will stop mining, reducing the security of the network.
Quoted on the problem — not the product. No endorsement implied. Each excerpt is a short, verbatim quotation of a published statement about Bitcoin's security budget. Inclusion here does not imply any author agrees with, or is aware of, any particular solution.