I won't defend economics as an actual science. It isn't.
There are two ways of doing economics. Empirically, like physics, or
aprioristically, like math. I agree that it is not scientific to do economics empirically, because you simply cannot isolate all the buzillions variables involved, nor repeat your experiments enough times to get good samples. They actually can't even experiment.
But economics can be done like math, using logically sound constructions on top of axioms. This works much better and it is scientific.
Sure, economics is done like math. This is how it is done in academia, and doing this would be a great improvement over what the authors did in this article.
However, deriving a result from a set of assumptions should not be confused with science. Science requires the formulation of testable hypotheses. In economics, particularly macroeconomics, it is typically impossible to credibly test theoretical assumptions. That is why I say it is not an actual science.
+1
But as I said before, not only economists and sociologists (with their respective lingos) can effectively speculate about human behaviour.
Quoting myself:
People are already starting to use FPGAs, and maybe one day we'll even see ASICs.
Botnets won't have such specialized hardware. Ok, they have free electricity, but they are limited in size.
And by the way, in what concerns the bitcoin network, botnets are not a problem. It only becomes a problem if one single botnet is too large and manages to get >50%.
PS: I confess I did not read the paper so sorry if I'm saying something which is already addressed by it.
+1, I had the exact same thought. I read through almost to the end of the article, and FPGAs/ASICs are not mentioned - a gaping hole in such an article.
I'd say this is a bug rather than a feature. Traditional botnets never have significant power (in any measure) in comparison with the that of the complete network, they are only of any use because they can profitably attack reduced sets of individuals. They can trounce a carefully selected individual or company. If a 50%+ attack on the whole was necessary they would be completely useless.
However, amassing very specific tools that are out of reach for most people is something a cartel can try and maybe succeed in doing.
For instance, if the higher end of
these (
discussion ) are available, then it would take around $4M to control mining (provided they could ramp up production to that scale).
