I thought it was a currency, but it turned out to be multiple casinos.
Bitcoin's security budget refers to the total reward used to protect the blockchain's security, including block subsidies (newly minted BTC) and transaction fees. The article first explains how Bitcoin uses the Proof of Work (PoW) mechanism to solve the double-spending problem, and describes that when dishonest miners control more than half of the computing power, a 51% attack may occur, such as rewriting recent transaction history to enable double spending, filtering transactions of specific addresses, or producing empty blocks with only miner rewards and no normal transactions, thereby causing network paralysis.
As block subsidies halve every four years, the article points out that Bitcoin's security budget is gradually shrinking, while the expected compensation from transaction fees has not met expectations. Since miners' income must cover large costs such as equipment and electricity before they can profit, insufficient incentives may lead to a decline in total mining power, increasing the risk of a 51% attack. Experts are all concerned that if rewards continue to decline while transaction demand does not rise proportionally, Bitcoin's security will face severe challenges.
To address the issue of declining security budget, the article proposes three solutions: first, through on-chain optimization and scaling, increasing transaction volume so that low fees can accumulate into substantial rewards; second, changing the consensus mechanism, but this may contradict Bitcoin's original design and cause centralization problems; third, altering the monetary issuance model, such as tail issuance, holding fee collection, or destroying long-idle coins, but these solutions are mostly viewed as damaging Bitcoin's principle of fixed supply. Meanwhile, the article also refutes common misconceptions, such as the idea that rising Bitcoin prices alone can compensate for declining rewards, emphasizing that the security budget must be priced in BTC, otherwise miners may be bribed and affect honest operations.
In the discussion forum, several netizens debated the feasibility of a 51% attack from both economic efficiency and practical operation perspectives. Some opinions suggest that although short-term renting computing power may have lower costs, the cost of permanently purchasing sufficient equipment and launching a sustained attack would be prohibitively high, even beyond the capacity of national-level adversaries. Additionally, some netizens commented on market views regarding block size adjustments and fee fluctuations, arguing that the current low fee rates under existing transaction volumes reflect declining Bitcoin usage. If the system's incentives and economic model are not adjusted in the future, network security will be more vulnerable. Overall, the discussion emphasizes that although theoretically there is an attack risk, economic incentives and network consensus remain important defenses for Bitcoin's security.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44417090