This is good analysis. The main longitudinal aspect omitted is that the profitability of the attack goes up as long as the price of BTC doesn't double or more each halving.

In ~6 more years, Bitcoin will undergo two more halvings, so if the price of BTC is not ~400k by then, then attack will have become more feasible.

▲

beenBoutIT 8 hours ago | parent [-]

In the near future every nation state will be vying for the largest stake of the BTC mining pie and the BTC race will be bigger than the Space Race and the Nuclear Arms Race combined and adjusted for inflation.

▲

UltraSane 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Why? BTC is not just worthless, it has negative value due to how much electricity it takes to securely mine new blocks.

▲

pawelduda 23 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

It's worth around 85k USD at the time you wrote the comment

▲

jksmith 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Did you read the paper? There exists a technology that has purely enforceable property rights. What is that actually worth? I don't know.

Yeah yeah, I've read the arguments about liquidity issues, shutting down the rails, making it illegal to trade, etc. but that's beside the point and depends on a thousand future variables to play out. So I don't know if btc will make it or not, but I do know property rights mean everything to humans. They literally determine whether not one is a slave (I am my own property). So just the ability to have a technology enables pure property rights to a world where nobody really has enforceable property rights over anything seems pretty interesting to me.

▲

nradov 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Property rights are enforced with guns.

	▲	logicchains 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's why Monero is superior; no amount of guns is going to help somebody steal property that they don't know you have.

▲

ravenstine 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's like saying cars have negative value because of how much oil it takes to run them.

	▲	pcthrowaway 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Cars have the benefit of transporting humans and goods around. It's more like saying a hypothetical car which moves itself by using gasoline as a propellant rather than fuel for its combustion engine would have negative value. Sure, using fuel (of all things) for propulsion would be one way to move a vehicle, but it would be inefficient by design. Bitcoin, at least, was created during a time where there was no alternative to security-by-inefficency, but PoS and other consensus mechanisms are pretty battle-tested now
	▲	standeven 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		But cars are useful.
	▲	johnnienaked 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Diminishing value certainly it's called depreciation