From: Thomas Zander <thomas@thomaszander.se>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 22:28:56 +0200
Message-ID: <2109053.EM3JWxoz5A@coldstorage>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.1 (Linux/3.16-2-amd64; KDE/4.14.1; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CAE28kUS-uDbd_Br3H5BxwRm1PZFpOwLhcyyZT9b1_VfRaBC9jw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAE28kUS-uDbd_Br3H5BxwRm1PZFpOwLhcyyZT9b1_VfRaBC9jw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] death by halving
Precedence: list

On Saturday 25. October 2014 21.06.32 Alex Mizrahi wrote:
> If miner's income margin are less than 50% (which is a healthy situation
> when mining hardware is readily available), we might experience
> catastrophic loss of hashpower (and, more importantly, catastrophic loss of
> security) after reward halving.


For the sake of argument, lets assume that somehow (quite unlikely) half the 
mining equipment gets shut off.
The amount of hashes/second is such that it is currently, lets just say, quite 
secure against any takeover.

Your document makes a long series of assumptions about how this can turn out 
bad with each individually is implausible, together are just fiction.

Your research didn't convince me about this being bad somehow. It also 
completely disregards the equilibriums reached by doing so.