"Bitcoin's Security Budget Issue" - Educational Website By BlockChair

[Wind_FURY]

Bitcoin was designed to be trustless and secure — but what happens when the engine that powers its security starts running dry?

https://budget.day/

BlockChair made an educational website about Bitcoin and its Security Budget. I believe that EVERYONE should read through the whole site and LEARN, especially if a "debate" about the network's security funding "issues" presents itself.

But if it doesn't become an actual issue, I believe that it's still something to learn from from the viewpoint of what's making the network stick together. Incentives.

[OcTradism]

BlockChair made an educational website about Bitcoin and its Security Budget. I believe that EVERYONE should read through the whole site and LEARN, especially if a "debate" about the network's security funding "issues" presents itself.

But if it doesn't become an actual issue, I believe that it's still something to learn from from the viewpoint of what's making the network stick together. Incentives.

There are many Bitcoin block explorers but I like Blockchair.com most because they care most about privacy of Bitcoin users. They made their educational initiatives on privacy for Bitcoin users years ago.

You can see their General guidelines for sending BTC transactions.

This new website is another contribution from Blockchair.com for Bitcoin community in privacy concern.

[coyhasmon]

Good website but it seems more like a propaganda page to raise FUD about something that is not an issue.

Since there's still demand to transact on Bitcoin - just not at high fees - scaling can enable more transactions with smaller fees, forming a sustainable security budget. No need for terabyte blocks. If Bitcoin could process 500 TPS instead of 5, the average fee needed to replace the current subsidy would drop to a feasible $1.29 per transaction (at August 14, 2025 rates). This aligns with Bitcoin's original design and doesn't affect decentralization in any bad way

Look at this junk. That's an increase of block size space by a factor of 100 times. Bitcoin would become centralized like Ethereum and Solana. Is that what you want? One day it is quantum computers the other day it is this idiocy. Being at ATH prices is not enough, you just have to drink the altcoin FUD every day do you?

[BitGoba]

Security Budget  is just another FUD  , like quantum computers or claims that if you hold Bitcoin, you’ll get kidnapped. Security Budget  issue doesn’t really exist, it’s just FUD spread by shady shitcoin promoters who say, Bitcoin has a security budget problem, buy my shitcoin instead.
If you dive a bit deeper into this rabbit hole, you realize that the “Security Budget” problem doesn’t actually exist. Pierre Rochard explained it perfectly a few days ago on Twitter,there’s no real issue with Bitcoin’s security budget.

https://x.com/BitcoinPierre/status/1956151795287515230

[ABCbits]

I'm not comfortable with information on by this website.

Reducing block time

This would change behavior on some Bitcoin address that rely on block height for it's spending condition.

Since there's still demand to transact on Bitcoin - just not at high fees - scaling can enable more transactions with smaller fees, forming a sustainable security budget. No need for terabyte blocks. If Bitcoin could process 500 TPS instead of 5, the average fee needed to replace the current subsidy would drop to a feasible $1.23 per transaction (at August 15, 2025 rates). This aligns with Bitcoin's original design and doesn't affect decentralization in any bad way

While i'm in favor to increase block size, 100x increase sounds too much. Without making TX that use witness data (e.g. Ordinal) to store arbitrary data become non-standard, it'll just open gate for those people to bloat Bitcoin blockchain easily at relative low cost.

If miners are underpaid, they can simply be bribed with BTC, regardless of how high the USD price is.

That’s true only if the attacker builds everything from scratch. In reality, existing miners can be bribed or incentivized to cooperate. If the network underpays them, they may find betrayal more profitable than honest mining — especially if there's no long⁠-⁠term reward to stay loyal.

They don't mention that miner is smart enough to realize that Bitcoin price will crash if successful 51% attack happens. So whoever bribe them need to make lots of bribe and give the miner time to sell Bitcoin they still own, which makes it less practical than it may sound.

[Jawhead999]

I would worry more about miners are getting centralized because small miners no longer able to earn profit. Then the government bribe the miners not with an intention to ruin the whole market, but they do it with an intention to control Bitcoin by blocking specific transactions/addresses.

"There’s no security issue — the hashrate ⓘ is growing, that means everything is okay!"
The output of Proof⁠-⁠of⁠-⁠Work isn’t hashrate — it’s economic cost. What matters is not how many hashes are produced, but how expensive they are to produce. A growing hashrate means nothing if it's powered by cheaper hardware or cheaper electricity.

Isn't this mean 51% wouldn't happen? AFAIK the cost of hardware and electricity are always increase too.

[Wind_FURY]

Security Budget  is just another FUD  , like quantum computers or claims that if you hold Bitcoin, you’ll get kidnapped. Security Budget  issue doesn’t really exist, it’s just FUD spread by shady shitcoin promoters who say, Bitcoin has a security budget problem, buy my shitcoin instead.

If you dive a bit deeper into this rabbit hole, you realize that the “Security Budget” problem doesn’t actually exist. Pierre Rochard explained it perfectly a few days ago on Twitter,there’s no real issue with Bitcoin’s security budget.

https://x.com/BitcoinPierre/status/1956151795287515230

I believe not. We might start seeing that as a real issue if Bitcoin's price doesn't increase high enough after each halving. If the price doesn't keep up, we probably have two more halvings before the community gets into another serious debate like the Block Size Wars on the road to SegWit.

But if you truly believe it's merely FUD, OK.

  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[coyhasmon]

Security Budget  is just another FUD  , like quantum computers or claims that if you hold Bitcoin, you’ll get kidnapped. Security Budget  issue doesn’t really exist, it’s just FUD spread by shady shitcoin promoters who say, Bitcoin has a security budget problem, buy my shitcoin instead.

If you dive a bit deeper into this rabbit hole, you realize that the “Security Budget” problem doesn’t actually exist. Pierre Rochard explained it perfectly a few days ago on Twitter,there’s no real issue with Bitcoin’s security budget.

https://x.com/BitcoinPierre/status/1956151795287515230

I believe not. We might start seeing that as a real issue if Bitcoin's price doesn't increase high enough after each halving. If the price doesn't keep up, we probably have two more halvings before the community gets into another serious debate like the Block Size Wars on the road to SegWit.

But if you truly believe it's merely FUD, OK.

  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Let's see how to think about this. The price has always kept up to date with sufficient increases, so what should I think? That's right, it is going to be a problem soon time to panic!!   Are you a teenager?

[348Judah]

Bitcoin was designed to be trustless and secure — but what happens when the engine that powers its security starts running dry?

https://budget.day/

BlockChair made an educational website about Bitcoin and its Security Budget. I believe that EVERYONE should read through the whole site and LEARN, especially if a "debate" about the network's security funding "issues" presents itself.

But if it doesn't become an actual issue, I believe that it's still something to learn from from the viewpoint of what's making the network stick together. Incentives.

Talking about bitcoin security, everything has been made possible on its networks, now left for us on how we make use of it, one of the main purpose of the creation of bitcoin was to secure us from the centralized challenges with financial economy, which i think the blockchain technology and bitcoin nodes already made a perfect solution to all that may be the issues with the security and privacy, only when we learn how to go about it base on how we see it.

[tbct_mt2]

Talking about bitcoin security, everything has been made possible on its networks, now left for us on how we make use of it, one of the main purpose of the creation of bitcoin was to secure us from the centralized challenges with financial economy, which i think the blockchain technology and bitcoin nodes already made a perfect solution to all that may be the issues with the security and privacy, only when we learn how to go about it base on how we see it.

Bitcoin blockchain is a best secure one in terms of security and people can feel doubtful about Bitcoin blockchain security and don't use it, it's normal. However if they see risk with Bitcoin blockchain in security but want to find a better blockchain, they will be possibly become victims of scammers. They can look around and find some potential altcoins with advertisements as better blockchains in security and even other things.

They must check this website and realize how Bitcoin is best in security.
https://howmanyconfs.com/

Altcoins can not compare with Bitcoin in security of blockchain.

[Wind_FURY]

Security Budget  is just another FUD  , like quantum computers or claims that if you hold Bitcoin, you’ll get kidnapped. Security Budget  issue doesn’t really exist, it’s just FUD spread by shady shitcoin promoters who say, Bitcoin has a security budget problem, buy my shitcoin instead.

If you dive a bit deeper into this rabbit hole, you realize that the “Security Budget” problem doesn’t actually exist. Pierre Rochard explained it perfectly a few days ago on Twitter,there’s no real issue with Bitcoin’s security budget.

https://x.com/BitcoinPierre/status/1956151795287515230

I believe not. We might start seeing that as a real issue if Bitcoin's price doesn't increase high enough after each halving. If the price doesn't keep up, we probably have two more halvings before the community gets into another serious debate like the Block Size Wars on the road to SegWit.

But if you truly believe it's merely FUD, OK.

  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Let's see how to think about this. The price has always kept up to date with sufficient increases, so what should I think? That's right, it is going to be a problem soon time to panic!!  

Panic? No ser, it's actually time NOT to ignore the fact that it possibly could be a serious issue in the future, and that it's time to be educated and a time to be INFORMED about it.

Do you believe that a problem/issue will merely go away if you ignore it?

   

Are you a teenager?

Are you?

 

[ABCbits]

I would worry more about miners are getting centralized because small miners no longer able to earn profit. Then the government bribe the miners not with an intention to ruin the whole market, but they do it with an intention to control Bitcoin by blocking specific transactions/addresses.

Someone with pseudonym b10c shared analysis that some pool already do that.
https://b10c.me/observations/13-missing-sanctioned-transactions-2024-12/
https://b10c.me/observations/08-missing-sanctioned-transactions/

For now, it means the transaction take longer than expected to be included in a block.

--snip--

Let's see how to think about this. The price has always kept up to date with sufficient increases, so what should I think? That's right, it is going to be a problem soon time to panic!!   Are you a teenager?

As much as people want Bitcoin price to keep rise drastically (in this case, at least twice every 4 years), "Past Performance Is No Guarantee of Future Results".

[tbct_mt2]

As much as people want Bitcoin price to keep rise drastically (in this case, at least twice every 4 years), "Past Performance Is No Guarantee of Future Results".

Past market cycles and performances (in ROIs) mean many things but no market cycle is entirely as same as another past market cycle, and with time, with bigger market cap, Bitcoin price will grow more slowly with lower ROIs than past market cycles.

I think this point is undeniable and unavoidable with all assets, not only Bitcoin.

Casebitcoin.com website has an interesting chart of Bitcoin price doubling time.
https://casebitcoin.com/charts#doubling_time

[Wind_FURY]

As much as people want Bitcoin price to keep rise drastically (in this case, at least twice every 4 years), "Past Performance Is No Guarantee of Future Results".

Past market cycles and performances (in ROIs) mean many things but no market cycle is entirely as same as another past market cycle, and with time, with bigger market cap, Bitcoin price will grow more slowly with lower ROIs than past market cycles.

I think this point is undeniable and unavoidable with all assets, not only Bitcoin.

Casebitcoin.com website has an interesting chart of Bitcoin price doubling time.
https://casebitcoin.com/charts#doubling_time

ZOOM OUT to the maximum. Although in the short-term or medium-term Bitcoin may have price crashes, but as long as the Federal Reserve and the other Central Banks around the globe print money and expand their balance sheets, some of that fiat will find its way in Stores Of Value like Bitcoin.

Open a graph of the M2 - a classification of the Money Supply, then open a zoomed out chart of Bitcoin. Do you see the correlation?

BUT for short/medium-term, I agree with the phrase "Past Performance Is No Guarantee of Future Results". Plus the possibility that the next bull cycle might not make Bitcoin surge as high as the current bull cycle.

[₿itcoin]

Security Budget  is just another FUD  , like quantum computers or claims that if you hold Bitcoin, you’ll get kidnapped. Security Budget  issue doesn’t really exist, it’s just FUD spread by shady shitcoin promoters who say, Bitcoin has a security budget problem, buy my shitcoin instead.
If you dive a bit deeper into this rabbit hole, you realize that the “Security Budget” problem doesn’t actually exist. Pierre Rochard explained it perfectly a few days ago on Twitter,there’s no real issue with Bitcoin’s security budget.

https://x.com/BitcoinPierre/status/1956151795287515230

It is unfair to call it FUD, lol.  Leading voices like Nikita Zhavoronkov, the developer of Blockchair, are legitimately concerned and are calling for continued high fees or even protocol changes to maintain security, while Pierre Rochard minimises the problem by claiming that rising Bitcoin prices offset declining rewards.

Listen, dismissing Bitcoin security budget as FUD is lazy, its security budget is real.  We are in a cycle of halving subsidies, which means that 51% attacks become more affordable if fee markets do not change & miners hash power drops.

[Sticky Bomb]

I would worry more about miners are getting centralized because small miners no longer able to earn profit. Then the government bribe the miners not with an intention to ruin the whole market, but they do it with an intention to control Bitcoin by blocking specific transactions/addresses.

Someone with pseudonym b10c shared analysis that some pool already do that.
https://b10c.me/observations/13-missing-sanctioned-transactions-2024-12/
https://b10c.me/observations/08-missing-sanctioned-transactions/

I would worry more about miners are getting centralized because small miners no longer able to earn profit. Then the government bribe the miners not with an intention to ruin the whole market, but they do it with an intention to control Bitcoin by blocking specific transactions/addresses.

Someone with pseudonym b10c shared analysis that some pool already do that.
https://b10c.me/observations/13-missing-sanctioned-transactions-2024-12/
https://b10c.me/observations/08-missing-sanctioned-transactions/

One thing that comes to my mind with F2Pool starting to censor transactions is if they can still maintain the title of honest nodes since what they are practicing aren't any longer in the interest of the network in it's totality but are slightly diverting their operations to suit their personal interests. With filtering of transactions, they are practicing censorship in their mining operations.

If more nodes with a big hash rate joins their parties, lots of transactions may be stuck unnecessarily on the network, I see that the missing transactions were included in later blocks, but it is disturbing when miners who secure the network start filtering transactions, I see it as a slim threat to censorship resistance of bitcoin perhaps if more nodes begin to filter.

Additionally, would it not be better for there to be a patch on the code to only allow miners to select transactions based on size and fees? I don't know how wrong my suggestions are but I feel something to stop this filtering of transactions would be of great help.

[Wind_FURY]

Security Budget  is just another FUD  , like quantum computers or claims that if you hold Bitcoin, you’ll get kidnapped. Security Budget  issue doesn’t really exist, it’s just FUD spread by shady shitcoin promoters who say, Bitcoin has a security budget problem, buy my shitcoin instead.
If you dive a bit deeper into this rabbit hole, you realize that the “Security Budget” problem doesn’t actually exist. Pierre Rochard explained it perfectly a few days ago on Twitter,there’s no real issue with Bitcoin’s security budget.

https://x.com/BitcoinPierre/status/1956151795287515230

It is unfair to call it FUD, lol.  Leading voices like Nikita Zhavoronkov, the developer of Blockchair, are legitimately concerned and are calling for continued high fees or even protocol changes to maintain security, while Pierre Rochard minimises the problem by claiming that rising Bitcoin prices offset declining rewards.

Listen, dismissing Bitcoin security budget as FUD is lazy, its security budget is real.  We are in a cycle of halving subsidies, which means that 51% attacks become more affordable if fee markets do not change & miners hash power drops.

  👍

There's actually a Core Developer who was quoted that we will probably go through two more halvings before it's going to be realized as a real and actual issue.

Plus quoting Pierre Rochard, who isn't a Core Developer or an actual developer for that matter, is laughable. He's saying that the Security Budget Issue is FUD, but what if he's wrong? - High probability he IS wrong.

[ABCbits]

I would worry more about miners are getting centralized because small miners no longer able to earn profit. Then the government bribe the miners not with an intention to ruin the whole market, but they do it with an intention to control Bitcoin by blocking specific transactions/addresses.

Someone with pseudonym b10c shared analysis that some pool already do that.
https://b10c.me/observations/13-missing-sanctioned-transactions-2024-12/
https://b10c.me/observations/08-missing-sanctioned-transactions/

One thing that comes to my mind with F2Pool starting to censor transactions is if they can still maintain the title of honest nodes since what they are practicing aren't any longer in the interest of the network in it's totality but are slightly diverting their operations to suit their personal interests. With filtering of transactions, they are practicing censorship in their mining operations.

I get your point, but F2Pool action doesn't violate Bitcoin protocol.

If more nodes with a big hash rate joins their parties, lots of transactions may be stuck unnecessarily on the network, I see that the missing transactions were included in later blocks, but it is disturbing when miners who secure the network start filtering transactions, I see it as a slim threat to censorship resistance of bitcoin perhaps if more nodes begin to filter.

You mentioned "nodes" many times, but i think you actually talk about "miners". At least, miners who join different pool (that doesn't censor) have opportunity to earn slightly higher income.

Additionally, would it not be better for there to be a patch on the code to only allow miners to select transactions based on size and fees? I don't know how wrong my suggestions are but I feel something to stop this filtering of transactions would be of great help.

I doubt it's possible/practical when each node have slightly different list of TX on it's mempool and miner can include transaction that never broadcasted before it's included in a block.

[coyhasmon]

Let's see how to think about this. The price has always kept up to date with sufficient increases, so what should I think? That's right, it is going to be a problem soon time to panic!!   Are you a teenager?

As much as people want Bitcoin price to keep rise drastically (in this case, at least twice every 4 years), "Past Performance Is No Guarantee of Future Results".

That statement completely missed my argument. With people like this there is no solution except wasting time on things that they believe are true. If there are indications of a problem, panic. If there are no indications of a problem, also panic. There are no pressing issues of any kind in Bitcoin, we should think about alien quantum warp computers and asteroids disrupting the security budget by destroying the largest mining farms at the same time.  

It is unfair to call it FUD, lol.  Leading voices like Nikita Zhavoronkov, the developer of Blockchair, are legitimately concerned and are calling for continued high fees or even protocol changes to maintain security, while Pierre Rochard minimises the problem by claiming that rising Bitcoin prices offset declining rewards.

Listen, dismissing Bitcoin security budget as FUD is lazy, its security budget is real.  We are in a cycle of halving subsidies, which means that 51% attacks become more affordable if fee markets do not change & miners hash power drops.

Of course it is FUD, because it is based on several false assumptions and fearmongering plus a mixture of scam ideas from altcoin land. Who the fuck is going to attack the safest asset in the world with the most hashrate ever in its history? With what and how? Who says that the security budget must infinitely grow? You are out of your damn mind.

Are you a teenager?

Are you?

Your brain is on the level of a teenager and so is everyone else's who believes in idiocy like this. You have contributed nothing and you want to divert resources to things that you believe are a problem. Next time don't major in fields like sociology.

High probability he IS wrong.

Statements like this with made up probability prove that you are an idiot.