Arguing that any significant number of miners will indefinitely mine at 0 income is disingenuous.
It isn't only not disingenuous, it is based on real world empirical observation, which always trumps theories. For example, when Monero did our planned hardfork to upgrade to v2 blocks, there significant hashrate that didn't upgrade and continued mining worthless blocks
for days if not weeks.
Okay so it is not disingenuous but rather your lack of reading comprehension. Thanks.
Since you have now downgraded (or one might say upgraded, in terms of plausibility) to 10x attacks, ...
No I didn't:
It is absolutely insoluble for to defend against even a 10X attack, not to mention a 100X attack.
...that only requires 20 minutes to start to produce blocks at the pre-attack hashrate. IF 90% of the hash rate abandons mining, then it would still only take 200 minutes. Either way there will still be high-fee transactions stacked to mine, blocks being produced with larger block sizes, and the hash rate will start to drop.
A reading comprehension issue again:
Arguing that any significant number of miners will indefinitely mine at 0 income is disingenuous. The difference between the 51% attack and the 10X burst attack is not that the total hashrate expended by the attacker is less, but that it is 10X less income for the other miners.
On the topic of the tail reward, the eventual reward is about 1/20 of the current reward. So at 20x the current price you would expect a similar hash rate. That only brings us to about 600 million market USD market cap (factoring in increased supply). At 1 billion USD or more the hash rate would be higher.
And Monero is not secure at the current hashrate against a sufficiently capable attacker such as the the Chinese State, which btw will be growing more and more wealthy as the West falls into its socialism abyss collapse underway. Ditto Russia is rising (even Germany outlawed their nuclear generation plants and mandated all electric cars, yet all the energy will then have to come from Russia).
The difference between the 51% attack and the 10X burst attack is not that the total hashrate expended by the attacker is less, but that it is 10X less income for the other miners.
This is wrong. In a 51% attack other miners get no income since their blocks are rejected.
I'm not wrong.
Because if the minority are on static IPs, then it may be possible for the minority to form a whitelist with the 51% attack scenario, so they reject any blocks from IPs that always appear the longest chain and not in orphaned chains, i.e. they fork away from the attacker's chain. The attacker can't waste blocks in the orphan chains with only 51% hashrate. Whereas, with the 10X attack, the attacker can allow allow all blocks without significantly awarding the minority any revenue.
Another key difference is that the effective block period is 10X slower in the 10X attack (after the initial burst of 10X faster and periodic bursts of being not 10X slower to maintain the high difficulty), which makes it more clear the coin is broken potentially amplifying the gains from shorting.
Another advantage of the 10X attack is the attacker doesn't have to be continuously active and can popup with new IPs periodically, to frustrate attempts to trace him.
What ever you do to adjust the algorithm to compensate in one way, will open a vulnerability in another way.
No. Note that I didn't say attacks could be completely prevented. I said resistance could be improved.
White paper or it didn't happen.
