Skip to content

Comment on Bitcoin security guarantee shattered by anonymous miner with 51% network powerparent

Comments

Then game theory is pretty useful model. Players are rational, after all. Thats what's game theory is about.

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. My argument is that the people citing game theory as a reason Bitcoin players had an incentive to avoid a 51%+ scenario kept assuming that all players wanted Bitcoin to succeed.

(However, as a former cognitive neuroscientist, I think it's mistaken to assume that people always act rationally. Check out the literature on the ultimatum game or anchoring effects in prospect theory (for which Kahneman got the Nobel prize) to see examples of people acting irrationally in a sytematic, biased way.)

Would a miner with 51% of hashrate willingly help a government(and why would he)?

Who said anything about being willing? My example suggested threats, which is way more likely than cooperation.

Remember, it is not a single entity. It is a pool. And, in fact, ghash.io share is down to 39%.

Yes, but the people running the pool have the keys to the kingdom as long the pool members don't know. So, more subtle perversion has a good chance of lasting a while, while gross manipulation is more likely to cause pool members to switch.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.