...
How secure should the network be? What's the sweet spot between cost and security?
How secure should the network be? What's the sweet spot between cost and security?
The 'optimum' network security level is a variable that should increase with an increase in network value, since it is safe-guarding more as value increases.
We're currently paying ~10% of the network's worth, per year, to secure it. In other words, we're paying $1 to store $10 for a year.
1. Is this optimal?
2. If a bank charged you 10%, yearly, to store your money, would you use it?
... you've conflated the issuance of scarce tokens, that will be in circulation in perpetuity facilitating all future transactions, with the cost of securing of the network.
Cost of issuing tokens, you say? OK, I'll rephrase:
Would you use a bank which charged you 10% of your balance, yearly, to secure your money & print 'USDtokens' (which it would distribute to people other than yourself)?
If they could cryptographically prove they were only ever going to issue 21million of those USDtokens, and that proof was backed by the security of the largest distributed hashing power on the planet, maybe I would.
And if they just said "look, it's not in our best interest to ever issue more than 21M tokens, because reasons," would you still?
What if their word was backed by a shitton of Chinese hardware, capable of doing one thing and one thing only, and already nearly obsolete?
... now you've gone so far into hypotheticals that your analogy has been stretched beyond its usefulness and your arguments are simply ridiculously incomprehensible.
