|
Title: Time to grow up. Post by: maaku on October 09, 2011, 08:25:16 AM Ok, seriously folks: what's the point? About once a week we see a “new” coin crop up--or rather, a new fork of bitcoind with minor cosmetic changes. Congratulations, you can follow directions and change a few magic bytes! So what does this new *coin bring to the table?
“Our coin is GPU-hostile!” Ok... and why is that beneficial? “Our coin continues to reward miners indefinitely!” Great... and what economic impact does that have? “Our coin has fast[er] transactions!” Sure... just wake me up when it's instantaneous. Anything slower than that is of no practical consequence. “Our coin ...” You know what, f--k it. If you're differentiating yourself from bitcoin by some technical difference, you're doing it wrong. Hell, if you're having to explicitly differentiate yourself at all, you're doing it wrong. But you know what, I'm going to be heretical and say this: if you're creating yet another currency, you're doing it wrong. Because ultimately, you're competing with the 800lb gorilla, and even if this decentralized currency thing takes off, you're still going to have a snowball's chance in hell of being the last one standing when the dust settles. Let me tell you a little secret: crypto-token systems were *not* invented to create digital cash. It was much later that someone came along and dreamt up that application. So what other applications can you think of, hmm? Think of namecoin--that's pretty innovative (and useful), right? Maybe there is something cool and innovative you can do with bitcoin's codebase, that isn't a currency? Ok, fine. You insist on doing a currency. So how about one with demurrage (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3816.0), eh? Ok maybe you're not so fond of Silvio Gesell, and John Keynes is more your style--so give us a coin with a fixed inflation. Or maybe one based on LETS/ripple (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=37505.0)? Or whatever--but make sure you a real economic theory to back up your experiment; otherwise your shitcoin is snake oil and you should be ashamed of yourself. You know what, let this be an open challenge to the altcoin community: show us something innovative, new, and useful, 'cause you're making us all look bad. Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: Lolcust on October 09, 2011, 08:29:35 AM Well, being GPU-hostile places you into a position of living in peace and cooperating with 800lb gorilla instead of competing with it ;)
Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: maaku on October 09, 2011, 08:34:27 AM Only in a universe where merge-mining is impossible.
Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: FlipPro on October 09, 2011, 08:35:58 AM I stopped coming here because of the kids. 8)
Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: FlipPro on October 09, 2011, 08:39:59 AM I stopped coming here because of the kids. 8) how's tweetforum workin' out for you? Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: Lolcust on October 09, 2011, 08:47:55 AM Ok maybe you're not so fond of Silvio Gesell, and John Keynes is more your style--so give us a coin with a fixed inflation. Define fixed inflation - since inflation is fixed nominally in some of them new coins ;) Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: maaku on October 09, 2011, 09:08:41 AM @Lolcust, nominally is different from actually--to my knowledge there is no *coin out which strives for the latter (a much harder problem).
As an aside, I do applaud you for Geist Geld, at least as it was originally presented. It came out just as I was in a debate with someone else about the possibility of bitcoin supporting very-short rounds. I had done some modeling which showed that rounds as short as ~4.5s were possible on the current bitcoin network. Although short round-times have made other attacks against the GEG network much worse, it has not been the root source of any security problems, and the network has been remarkably stable (more stable, in fact, than I had predicted). GEG singlehandedly dispelled a number of myths about round-times that were until now widely believed on this forum. That kind of experimentation is a Good Thing. Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: ripper234 on October 09, 2011, 09:41:16 AM maaku - first I saw your post, and I agreed with it.
Then I saw LiteCoin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=47417.msg564414#msg564414) (which might have spurred your post to begin with). I haven't seen such a serious contender as LiteCoin for the "Bitcoin silver" in a while. Its advantages over the other chains are explained within. I don't know if "No GPU" is a good feature of a coin or not, but this is the first coin that gives us a good chance to test this. I will be mining it when it launches. It is not radically different than Bitcoin, I agree, but no harm in trying other things, at least when you're serious, don't pre-mine, and respect your predecessors. coblee seems to fit these criteria, just by that one post. Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: Lolcust on October 09, 2011, 09:44:08 AM @Lolcust, nominally is different from actually--to my knowledge there is no *coin out which strives for the latter (a much harder problem). As an aside, I do applaud you for Geist Geld, at least as it was originally presented. It came out just as I was in a debate with someone else about the possibility of bitcoin supporting very-short rounds. I had done some modeling which showed that rounds as short as ~4.5s were possible on the current bitcoin network. Although short round-times have made other attacks against the GEG network much worse, it has not been the root source of any security problems, and the network has been remarkably stable (more stable, in fact, than I had predicted). GEG singlehandedly dispelled a number of myths about round-times that were until now widely believed on this forum. That kind of experimentation is a Good Thing. 1) It seems to me that making a coin that has a fixed increase-in-percentile in miner output is rather trivial. 2) Since I am not economist (so please don't take this question as some kind of pedantic trollolololery), why is nominally fixed output not considered a case of fixed "inflation", is there a universal agreement as to that increase in monetary mass should only be counted in percent of previous output ? P.S.: I think it is as good opportunity as any to remind that what is taking place in "consez" is neither proper inflation nor proper deflation, but more of a kind of psychological shenanigan. Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: iopq on October 09, 2011, 10:58:43 AM I completely agree
but there's an even better reason not to make a new coin: someone will just do 51% doublespend attacks on the exchanges if the hash rates are too low we've seen this with ixcoins and i0coins so far it's probably easily done with gg, the hashrate is not that high so there's really room only for three currencies: 1. bitcoins 2. namecoins with merged mining 3. <insert dominant GPU-unfriendly currency> Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: the joint on October 09, 2011, 03:55:59 PM Alternative currencies are the new Bitcoinduit.
Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: bulanula on October 09, 2011, 04:03:03 PM @Lolcust, nominally is different from actually--to my knowledge there is no *coin out which strives for the latter (a much harder problem). As an aside, I do applaud you for Geist Geld, at least as it was originally presented. It came out just as I was in a debate with someone else about the possibility of bitcoin supporting very-short rounds. I had done some modeling which showed that rounds as short as ~4.5s were possible on the current bitcoin network. Although short round-times have made other attacks against the GEG network much worse, it has not been the root source of any security problems, and the network has been remarkably stable (more stable, in fact, than I had predicted). GEG singlehandedly dispelled a number of myths about round-times that were until now widely believed on this forum. That kind of experimentation is a Good Thing. First you rant about Geist Geld for having faster transactions as its sole selling point but then you praise it? You are contradicting your first post by admitting that the experiment was useful. I agree though that the economic design is the most important part of any new currency and that currency creators are not paying any attention to it. Well, take a look at EnCoin mate ! Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: maaku on October 09, 2011, 05:31:09 PM 2) Since I am not economist (so please don't take this question as some kind of pedantic trollolololery), why is nominally fixed output not considered a case of fixed "inflation", is there a universal agreement as to that increase in monetary mass should only be counted in percent of previous output ? You'd have to go to the equation of exchange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_exchange): (monetary base) x (velocity) = (price level) x (gdp)--velocity being a measure of how quickly money changes hands. A positive increase in price level is what's usually meant by “inflation”, so take the first derivative and isolate d/dt(price level), and you'll see all the terms that need to be dealt with.To get fixed, positive inflation you'd have to set the block reward to a fixed percentage of the total number of coins (so it changes with each block), then add in a factor to cancel/zero out each of the remaining non-zero/changing terms. I know of no altchain that does this. First you rant about Geist Geld for having faster transactions as its sole selling point but then you praise it? You are contradicting your first post by admitting that the experiment was useful. I didn't rant against anything by name. I was also careful to say “as originally presented” w.r.t GEG. Of course having pre-mined 7m coins then actively working to setup an exchange casts one heck of a dark cloud on the whole project. Why are people still mining now that the experiment is a success? Why is anyone putting up a bid order on the exchange?Well, take a look at EnCoin mate ! I have, and I don't like it (I had a heated debate with him on the freicoin forums)--my opinion is quite opposite JohnDoe's: it's disastrous from an economics and security standpoint, but nothing is stopping an implementation. I do like that it is a genuinely new idea. But so far it's all talk and no code, and I don't like that.Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: maaku on October 09, 2011, 06:14:03 PM @ripper234, “bitcoin silver” is a funny analogy I don't quite get. It's not fundamentally any different than bitcoin in any way. Scrypt vs sha256, short rounds, and a larger monetary base... that's all cosmetic. The last two are literally one-line changes, with very little practical effect. It's still bitcoin protocol, bitcoin scripting language, bitcoin generating curve, and a hash-derived proof of work. It's bitcoin through-and-through, except for a choice of hash function that makes it resistant to parallel implementation.
And why? Because a few people on this forum didn't like that parallel sha256 made mining unprofitable for those without means? Please don't forget that the role of the miner is to provide security to the network, not to make you rich. Those hoards of GPU, FPGA/ASIC mining rigs provide security far, far better than any CPU-based system could. That time traveller attack? It still exists in bitcoin, but thanks to parallel miners, exploiting it would set you back millions of $$. With these new CPU-friendly, security-hostile *coins, any reasonable botnet operator will be able to herd more hashing capacity than the entire legitimate network, far into the foreseeable future. “Tenebrix/Fairbrix/Litecoin: Bitcoin, minus the security!” Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: bulanula on October 09, 2011, 06:28:20 PM @ripper234, “bitcoin silver” is a funny analogy I don't quite get. It's not fundamentally any different than bitcoin in any way. Scrypt vs sha256, short rounds, and a larger monetary base... that's all cosmetic. The last two are literally one-line changes, with very little practical effect. It's still bitcoin protocol, bitcoin scripting language, bitcoin generating curve, and a hash-derived proof of work. It's bitcoin through-and-through, except for a choice of hash function that makes it resistant to parallel implementation. And why? Because a few people on this forum didn't like that parallel sha256 made mining unprofitable for those without means? Please don't forget that the role of the miner is to provide security to the network, not to make you rich. Those hoards of GPU, FPGA/ASIC mining rigs provide security far, far better than any CPU-based system could. That time traveller attack? It still exists in bitcoin, but thanks to parallel miners, exploiting it would set you back millions of $$. With these new CPU-friendly, security-hostile *coins, any reasonable botnet operator will be able to herd more hashing capacity than the entire legitimate network, far into the foreseeable future. “Tenebrix/Fairbrix/Litecoin: Bitcoin, minus the security!” Finally someone that gets the ScamCoin philosophy. Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: ripper234 on October 09, 2011, 06:39:24 PM @ripper234, “bitcoin silver” is a funny analogy I don't quite get. It's not fundamentally any different than bitcoin in any way. Scrypt vs sha256, short rounds, and a larger monetary base... that's all cosmetic. The last two are literally one-line changes, with very little practical effect. It's still bitcoin protocol, bitcoin scripting language, bitcoin generating curve, and a hash-derived proof of work. It's bitcoin through-and-through, except for a choice of hash function that makes it resistant to parallel implementation. And why? Because a few people on this forum didn't like that parallel sha256 made mining unprofitable for those without means? Please don't forget that the role of the miner is to provide security to the network, not to make you rich. Those hoards of GPU, FPGA/ASIC mining rigs provide security far, far better than any CPU-based system could. That time traveller attack? It still exists in bitcoin, but thanks to parallel miners, exploiting it would set you back millions of $$. With these new CPU-friendly, security-hostile *coins, any reasonable botnet operator will be able to herd more hashing capacity than the entire legitimate network, far into the foreseeable future. “Tenebrix/Fairbrix/Litecoin: Bitcoin, minus the security!” There is a claim that Botnets aren't that big of a threat (e.g. on Tenebrix FAQ (http://www.tenebrix.org/about--faq.html)). I don't know if it's true or not, time will tell. The advantages of a CPU friendly network is that literally everyone can play. It's released in a control manner, so no "hidden" early adopters. You don't need to compile C++ or run linux to be an early adopter of LiteCoin - just download and run. When Bitcoin was first released, this was certainly not the case. I'm not saying that LiteCoin > BitCoin ... again, time will tell. Fact is, when I told my friends about Bitcoin, half a year ago, I told them "yeah, it's a crypto-currency you can mine at home ... in theory. In practice, don't try it, because you'll just burn your CPU for nothing. How to mine on a GPU? I don't know, it's too late, the hash power is huge already". So there are people who feel Bitcoin is unfair in some sense. Those people might not feel this about an noob-friendly fair alt chain that doesn't have a ton of pre-mined coins. Or might not. If the theory is correct, new comers will not feel the "early adopter envy" to such a degree as it was with Bitcoin, and LiteCoin can at least find its market, even if it won't dominate over Bitcoin. I don't have anything better to do with my CPU right now, so I'm trying it out. Perhaps I'll even buy a few when there is an exchange, we'll see. Every coin I've seen so far wasn't a good candidate as "silver", each for its own reasons. I think NameCoin could have been, but was deliberately underdeveloped (still no GUI, I don't know how much time after release). Understand, it's not "bitcoin vs the alts". It's "cryptocurrencies vs fiat", and everyone that invests in Bitcoin should invest some portion in alts, because they have some chance of out-growing bitcoin, at least relatively. Even if Bitcoin market cap is X1000 than LiteCoin in a year, perhaps if I invest a small amount of time & money today, my money will grow by a factor of 1000, while Bitcoin might only grow by a factor of 10. I don't know the likelihood of this scenario, but I believe it's possible. Sorry for the long post. Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: maaku on October 09, 2011, 06:50:33 PM @ripper234, if the first thing that comes to your mind in describing bitcoin is “you can mine it at home”, then you're missing the point entirely, and we can talk past each other until the cows come home.
If you have CPU-hours to burn, then at least contribute to Folding@Home (http://folding.stanford.edu/), or something equally worthwhile. Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: ripper234 on October 09, 2011, 06:58:22 PM @ripper234, if the first thing that comes to your mind in describing bitcoin is “you can mine it at home”, then you're missing the point entirely, and we can talk past each other until the cows come home. If you have CPU-hours to burn, then at least contribute to Folding@Home (http://folding.stanford.edu/), or something equally worthwhile. I'm not missing the point, trust me. What's exciting about Bitcoin is the theoretical possibility of mining it at home, even if in practice it's not relevant right now. It's still a very exciting project. The excitement comes from it being peer to peer, and minting not being limited to a select group of people. Everybody can be a miner if they chooses - it's just not worth it to most people. Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: maaku on October 09, 2011, 07:19:45 PM As long as we're talking philosophical principles, fine. The “point” I'm referring to is that a secure, distributed currency and a democratic everybody-can-mine-at-home crypto-token are provably opposite goals. It is technologically and economically impossible for the latter coin to ever reach bitcoin valuations. Anyone trying to convince you otherwise is selling snake oil.
This is the essence of the scamcoin--either to get you to believe that you can get in early and make big bucks (a classic investment con), or get you to invest in the impossible (snake oil). Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: ripper234 on October 09, 2011, 07:49:17 PM It is technologically and economically impossible for the latter coin to ever reach bitcoin valuations. 1. Why? 2. Even if it does't "reach bitcoin valuations", but just 1/100th of it, and stablizes at that valuation, then how is it a scam? It's a good deal for early adopters, but it's not a pump & dump. Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: maaku on October 09, 2011, 09:13:07 PM I misspoke. All altchains seen so far (except namecoin) should have no valuation, based on any rational economic analysis. Bitcoin has value because of existing and expected future economy of goods and services. Namecoin provides a distinct utility that is purchased by destroying namecoins. The altcoins? So far, no released altcoin has made a single tangible step towards defining future value. Rather, they've rushed to setup exchanges without clarifying the purposed and long-term vision of their coins. Speculators rush in to buy in the hope that the price will rise. But with no defined or expected long-term realization of actual value, that becomes the very definition of a Ponzi scheme; it's a scam.
Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: ripper234 on October 09, 2011, 09:22:10 PM I misspoke. All altchains seen so far (except namecoin) should have no valuation, based on any rational economic analysis. Bitcoin has value because of existing and expected future economy of goods and services. Namecoin provides a distinct utility that is purchased by destroying namecoins. The altcoins? So far, no released altcoin has made a single tangible step towards defining future value. Rather, they've rushed to setup exchanges without clarifying the purposed and long-term vision of their coins. Speculators rush in to buy in the hope that the price will rise. But with no defined or expected long-term realization of actual value, that becomes the very definition of a Ponzi scheme; it's a scam. Why do you think the long-term value of LiteCoin is so different than Bitcoin (as in "approaches zero", not just a few orders of magnitude)? Bot-friendliness is perhaps the only fault I find with LiteCoin, and thus far it's a theoretical one ... it might be realized, dropping the coin value, but it might turn out not to be a significant factor after all. This is my take on LiteCoin in more detail (http://ripper234.com/p/be-an-early-adopter-now-is-litecoin-the-new-fair-bitcoin/). Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: bulanula on October 09, 2011, 10:23:38 PM I misspoke. All altchains seen so far (except namecoin) should have no valuation, based on any rational economic analysis. Bitcoin has value because of existing and expected future economy of goods and services. Namecoin provides a distinct utility that is purchased by destroying namecoins. The altcoins? So far, no released altcoin has made a single tangible step towards defining future value. Rather, they've rushed to setup exchanges without clarifying the purposed and long-term vision of their coins. Speculators rush in to buy in the hope that the price will rise. But with no defined or expected long-term realization of actual value, that becomes the very definition of a Ponzi scheme; it's a scam. Finally somebody that says it how it really is. Well done ! Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: 2112 on October 09, 2011, 10:39:55 PM All altchains seen so far (except namecoin) should have no valuation, based on any rational economic analysis. I don't want to start a pointless flamewar, but could you plese answer my question:What does "rational economic analysis" say about the existence of the city of Las Vegas,Nevada,USA? 1) The City of Lost Wages should be a small, dusty hamlet. 2) There's more than one definition of "rational". 3) Something else, please explain. Thank you very much. Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: RandyFolds on October 09, 2011, 10:47:19 PM All altchains seen so far (except namecoin) should have no valuation, based on any rational economic analysis. I don't want to start a pointless flamewar, but could you plese answer my question:What does "rational economic analysis" say about the existence of the city of Las Vegas,Nevada,USA? 1) The City of Lost Wages should be a small, dusty hamlet. 2) There's more than one definition of "rational". 3) Something else, please explain. Thank you very much. People with excess income use it for entertainment? Las Vegas does not refute rational economics. Shit, look at bitcoin; everyone wants to get rich without working for it. Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: ElectricMucus on October 09, 2011, 11:24:37 PM Well, its a evolution lets recap:
ixcoin - outright get quick rich scheme i0coin - joke about the latter solidcoin - revised get quick rich scheme with viral pr campain then the big collapse of them people realized there has to be more to gain acceptance so another method was devised original geistgeld - experiment which revealed the technical infeasibility of asymmetrical difficulty adjustment relaunched geistgeld - patched version of the above, author decided to get a bunch for free -> fail brixes - first point of actual innovation but the author still decided to get some, unfeasible economics fairbrix - fail due to unfeasible economics outlook: solidcoin 2 - will fail due to the fact that people watched !five! failed attempts by the authors to get rich, they all been there and done that. litecoin - the most promising candidate yet Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: bulanula on October 09, 2011, 11:31:25 PM Well, its a evolution lets recap: ixcoin - outright get quick rich scheme i0coin - joke about the latter solidcoin - revised get quick rich scheme with viral pr campain then the big collapse of them people realized there has to be more to gain acceptance so another method was devised original geistgeld - experiment which revealed the technical infeasibility of asymmetrical difficulty adjustment relaunched geistgeld - patched version of the above, author decided to get a bunch for free -> fail brixes - first point of actual innovation but the author still decided to get some, unfeasible economics fairbrix - fail due to unfeasible economics outlook: solidcoin 2 - will fail due to the fact that people watched !five! failed attempts by the authors to get rich, they all been there and done that. litecoin - the most promising candidate yet Why !? Care to explain please. Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: ElectricMucus on October 09, 2011, 11:38:12 PM Well it it seems to be missing all the reasons I listed why the previous attempts of a alternate cryptocurrency have failed.
I wouldn't vouch for it's success but either it does or we can add an additional flaw to the list ;) Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: maaku on October 09, 2011, 11:50:11 PM There is absolutely no technical difference between litecoin and the various brixes. It is yet another opportunistic scam.
Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: Lolcust on October 09, 2011, 11:50:48 PM I like the "unfeasible economics" part a lot.
In b4 "zomgflation" argument ? Also, for the love of Lukashenko, GG never had asymmetrical adjust (I haz Github to be my witness), y people no get fact straight ? Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: bulanula on October 09, 2011, 11:50:59 PM There is absolutely no technical difference between litecoin and the various brixes. It is yet another opportunistic scam. Well said friend. Let's expose these damn scams. Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: ElectricMucus on October 09, 2011, 11:53:20 PM I like the "unfeasible economics" part a lot. In b4 "zomgflation" argument ? Also, for the love of Lukashenko, GG never had asymmetrical adjust (I haz Github to be my witness), y people no get fact straight ? Well the question then is... did you cash out yet? 1.2.3.... chance over :-* There is absolutely no technical difference between litecoin and the various brixes. It is yet another opportunistic scam. Well we can certainly say that people do not want a currency with an infinite supply. So it is just the next logical step of evolution. We"ll need to wait out what happens with it I don't think it is time yet to be successful, the little spark of innovation probably isn't enough but anyone claiming to know a reason why it will fail... I challenge them to provide a theory. Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: bulanula on October 09, 2011, 11:56:11 PM I like the "unfeasible economics" part a lot. In b4 "zomgflation" argument ? Also, for the love of Lukashenko, GG never had asymmetrical adjust (I haz Github to be my witness), y people no get fact straight ? Be careful. The party is watching ur internets comrade ! Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: Lolcust on October 09, 2011, 11:57:24 PM I like the "unfeasible economics" part a lot. In b4 "zomgflation" argument ? Also, for the love of Lukashenko, GG never had asymmetrical adjust (I haz Github to be my witness), y people no get fact straight ? Well the question then is... did you cash out yet? 1.2.3.... chance over :-* So, I see you won't support your peculiar notion that economics are somehow infeasible ? Well, sad. This thread could use some pointless Aurstrian/Keynesian clash (pointless because neither applies to exotic non-autonomous non-state economies fueled by a quasi-monetary system based upon infinitely divisible and re-nominable products eldritch mathematications) Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: ElectricMucus on October 10, 2011, 12:04:11 AM I like the "unfeasible economics" part a lot. In b4 "zomgflation" argument ? Also, for the love of Lukashenko, GG never had asymmetrical adjust (I haz Github to be my witness), y people no get fact straight ? Well the question then is... did you cash out yet? 1.2.3.... chance over :-* So, I see you won't support your peculiar notion that economics are somehow infeasible ? Well, sad. This thread could use some pointless Aurstrian/Keynes clash (pointless because neither applies to exotic non-autonomous non-state economies fueled by a quasi-monetary system based upon infinitely divisible and re-nominable products eldritch mathematications) Right a debate would be pretty pointless. But my point is: The current Zeitgeist works against you... Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: Lolcust on October 10, 2011, 12:16:35 AM I like the "unfeasible economics" part a lot. In b4 "zomgflation" argument ? Also, for the love of Lukashenko, GG never had asymmetrical adjust (I haz Github to be my witness), y people no get fact straight ? Well the question then is... did you cash out yet? 1.2.3.... chance over :-* So, I see you won't support your peculiar notion that economics are somehow infeasible ? Well, sad. This thread could use some pointless Aurstrian/Keynes clash (pointless because neither applies to exotic non-autonomous non-state economies fueled by a quasi-monetary system based upon infinitely divisible and re-nominable products eldritch mathematications) Right a debate would be pretty pointless. But my point is: The current Zeitgeist works against you... Zeitgeist...that's bad .... I mean, the movie was pretty terrible all around. Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: ElectricMucus on October 10, 2011, 12:19:19 AM At least something we are in agreement with :D
Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: Lolcust on October 10, 2011, 12:21:24 AM However, deflationists pinged and poked me with so much effort and zeal that I will introduce deflationary influences in TBX (don't worry though, no subsidy cuts and no "demurrage" reaching into user's pocket)
Watch out for next TBX bounty Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: bulanula on October 10, 2011, 12:23:00 AM However, deflationists pinged and poked me with so much effort and zeal that I will introduce deflationary influences in TBX (don't worry though, no subsidy cuts and no "demurrage" reaching into user's pocket) Watch out for next TBX bounty TBX is pretty much dead by now. Litecoin is the next popular scamchain mate. Go with the flow LOL Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: tombc on October 10, 2011, 12:26:45 AM Designing and implementing a completely new protocol takes some time, especially if it needs some major breakthroughs.
Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: Lolcust on October 10, 2011, 12:28:49 AM However, deflationists pinged and poked me with so much effort and zeal that I will introduce deflationary influences in TBX (don't worry though, no subsidy cuts and no "demurrage" reaching into user's pocket) Watch out for next TBX bounty TBX is pretty much dead by now. Litecoin is the next popular scamchain mate. Go with the flow LOL *Yawn* You're not even trying anymore, are you ? Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: michaelmclees on October 10, 2011, 12:45:23 AM Ignored bulanula. Smartest thing I did all day.
Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: Lolcust on October 10, 2011, 01:00:34 AM He was fun while he tried
Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: bulanula on October 10, 2011, 01:02:42 AM Ignored bulanula. Smartest thing I did all day. Yes I was fun so please donate 1Eq1u2NzwHWqFzj5ksD5D3Bc5iVwzFmYZS !!! Thanks ! Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: ElectricMucus on October 10, 2011, 02:42:55 AM Well we can certainly say that people do not want a currency with an infinite supply. Of course they do. Why do you think Bitcoin failed in the first place? haha! :-\ Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 10, 2011, 02:26:20 PM And why? Because a few people on this forum didn't like that parallel sha256 made mining unprofitable for those without means? Please don't forget that the role of the miner is to provide security to the network, not to make you rich. Those hoards of GPU, FPGA/ASIC mining rigs provide security far, far better than any CPU-based system could. That time traveller attack? It still exists in bitcoin, but thanks to parallel miners, exploiting it would set you back millions of $$. With these new CPU-friendly, security-hostile *coins, any reasonable botnet operator will be able to herd more hashing capacity than the entire legitimate network, far into the foreseeable future. Bingo. CPU based systems are foolish. They serve no benefit other than to allow people without lots of expensive hardware to be "powerful". However they feel to realize that expensive hardware which makes it prohibitively expensive for them to have even 1% of the hashing power of bitcoin network also makes it prohibitively expensive for attackers to have 1% of the bitcoin network. The "CPU friendly" coins are simply "no fair they got bigger toys. Let's start a sandbox where only small toys are allowed". The bad news is that your neighborhood botnet bully has 230,000 small toys ready to smash and CPU based chain. The worse part is that this vulnerability will remain a part of the CPU chain for it's lifetime. Say <insert favorite CPU chain here> becomes very popular and someday has 100,000 nodes. Well the world's largest botnet could STILL easily crush it and crush it at any point in the future that it is either a) profitable to do so or b) interesting enough to destroy. It is highly unlikely any CPU based chain will ever gain enough hashing power to be immune to botnets so that sword will remain hanging over the chain for a very long time. Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: ripper234 on October 10, 2011, 02:35:59 PM And why? Because a few people on this forum didn't like that parallel sha256 made mining unprofitable for those without means? Please don't forget that the role of the miner is to provide security to the network, not to make you rich. Those hoards of GPU, FPGA/ASIC mining rigs provide security far, far better than any CPU-based system could. That time traveller attack? It still exists in bitcoin, but thanks to parallel miners, exploiting it would set you back millions of $$. With these new CPU-friendly, security-hostile *coins, any reasonable botnet operator will be able to herd more hashing capacity than the entire legitimate network, far into the foreseeable future. Bingo. CPU based systems are foolish. They serve no benefit other than to allow people without lots of expensive hardware to be "powerful". However they feel to realize that expensive hardware which makes it prohibitively expensive for them to have even 1% of the hashing power of bitcoin network also makes it prohibitively expensive for attackers to have 1% of the bitcoin network. The "CPU friendly" coins are simply "no fair they got bigger toys. Let's start a sandbox where only small toys are allowed". The bad news is that your neighborhood botnet bully has 230,000 small toys ready to smash and CPU based chain. The worse part is that this vulnerability will remain a part of the CPU chain for it's lifetime. Say <insert favorite CPU chain here> becomes very popular and someday has 100,000 nodes. Well the world's largest botnet could STILL easily crush it and crush it at any point in the future that it is either a) profitable to do so or b) interesting enough to destroy. It is highly unlikely any CPU based chain will ever gain enough hashing power to be immune to botnets so that sword will remain hanging over the chain for a very long time. This is the one serious argument against the new CPU coins. I really don't know enough to decide if it's a valid point or not. What Locust claims is: Quote Q: What about botnets ? CPU mining is a haven for them, and they are eeeeeevil! A: Well, actually, that's an interesting topic to discuss. First and foremost, if it is possible to make a CPUsclusive cryptocurrency (and it seems that Tenebrix makes quite a solid practical argument in favor of possibility of such a feat), then it will be made eventually. So not making Tenebrix would have achieved nothing. Second, I am firmly convinced that botnets, by virtue of need to remain somewhat covert, will not abuse their host machines too heavily with TBX minning, taking spare cycles here and there without encumbering the user too much (otherwise the malware will get noticed and exterminated), and assuming mining is lucrative, will avoid using infected machines for things that are likely to get a FBI clown car visit the formal owner of the infected box (such as transfer of highly illegal materials and attacks against legitimate infrastructure). Thus, Tenebrix, should it succeed and achieve popularity, will lead to overall calmer, milder internet for all His theory might or might not be valid, but let's test it, shall we? In a year or two, we'll see if Botnets harm the CPU coins enough, or not. I don't think a short discussion on the forums can bring enough evidence to fully confirm or refute this claim. Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 10, 2011, 02:55:25 PM It a year or two no altcoin will likely be profitable enough for a major botnet to target it. That doesn't mean the risk isn't there.
So sure as long as cryptocurrency remains small and mostly unused they are safe from botnets. Wow what an accomplishment! Even if a cpu-based block chain isn't attacked that doesn't mean the vulnerability doesn't exist. Also many botnets are large enough that there is no need to run the nodes @ 100%. 230,000 nodes @ 25% average load equivalent to ~60K legitimate nodes. A botnet could start small and simply rump up average load until it reached a point where it had 51% control over the network. Do I think that will happen in the near term (next 2-3 years)? Probably not. However that is simply because the reward isn't worth the load. The risk still remains and if/when their is sufficient reward a botnet could strike. A botnet could be added by Cloud computing resources. By limiting chain to CPU that limits its potential hashing power and makes the economics of a cloud based attack (or a botnet boosted by the cloud) far more reasonable. The very fact that a single high end GPU outperforms 200 CPU is what currently makes the huge potential power of the cloud non-viable for attacking bitcoin. Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: kokjo on October 10, 2011, 04:02:46 PM There is a claim that Botnets aren't that big of a threat (e.g. on Tenebrix FAQ (http://www.tenebrix.org/about--faq.html)). I don't know if it's true or not, time will tell. its a lie. botnets are a big thread to these networks.Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: sd on October 10, 2011, 04:45:38 PM Blah.. Cell.. Blah.. The cell processor isn't magic, it's a power CPU with a few GPU like coprocessors on the same die. It can't do anything better than a mid-range CPU and a mid-rage GPU although it might perform some tasks at a better price-to-performance ratio. I doubt BitCoin or whatever CPUCoin will run any better on a cell than on a decent CPU or GPU ( depending on task. ) It's also really, really hard to program for. Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 10, 2011, 04:57:23 PM The cell BTW gets ~27 MH/s crunching bitcoin (and that is w/ hacking and enabling the 7th disabled SPU). So that puts is above most CPU but well behind most GPU. I don't think anyone has tried to run scrypt based coin on it but given the small amount of cache in each SPU I think the performance would be pretty bad.
Lots of people buy Sony marketing and think a PS3 has some kind of super computer inside it. Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: maaku on October 10, 2011, 06:27:11 PM There is a claim that Botnets aren't that big of a threat (e.g. on Tenebrix FAQ (http://www.tenebrix.org/about--faq.html)). I don't know if it's true or not, time will tell. its a lie. botnets are a big threat to these networks.Just remember, GPU mining for Bitcoin was an accident, not an intentional feature by the designers... That too, is demonstrably false. There's discussion on this forum from the early days between Satoshi and the other core developers about the potential for GPU mining. scrypt/bcrypt existed ans was well known back in 2009, but Satoshi opted for SHA-256 regardless.Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: bulanula on October 10, 2011, 08:22:45 PM Anyone with a botnet could bring down these CPU ShitChains.
Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: Lolcust on October 10, 2011, 08:34:44 PM Trying to do a doublespend/history overwrite is of limited economic utility to the botnet op due to risk of failing to get money before stuff goes down and effort needed, especially when compared to simplistic and "success guaranteed" scheme of "mine coins, sell less than 30% of mined coins, rinse repeat" which is the best modus operandi for an economically motivated 51-er.
Botnet ops are likely to be economically motivated. Also, only the first botnet poses a 51-threat. If the first botnet decides not to destroy the net, the threat of 51 will disappear naturally as more botnets swarm in. Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: Lolcust on October 10, 2011, 08:42:59 PM Trying to do a doublespend/history overwrite is of limited economic utility to the botnet op due to risk of failing to get money before stuff goes down and effort needed, especially when compared to simplistic "mine coins, sell less than 30% of mined coins, rinse repeat" which is the best modus operandi for an economically motivated 51-er. Botnet ops are likely to be economically motivated. Also, only the first botnet poses a 51-threat. If the first botnet decides not to destroy the net, the threat of 51 will disappear naturally as more botnets swarm in. NOW. When the economic value is next to nothing. What is someday this altcoin handles Paypal sized transactions (~$200M per day). I mean your only defense is to remain so small and pathetic that no botnet would feel the need to destroy you. Not that they can't at any point (both now and far into the future) just that they feel no reason to because the network is insignificant. Excuse me, but even now "mine coins, sell less than 30% of mined coins, rinse repeat" is more economically sound for someone who has 51 percent, simply because effort is minimal, revenue is guaranteed, there are no electricity and other such costs (for the bnop), and by virtue of having 51+ of coin production, the botnet can drive price up by simply selling off no more than a tiny fraction of what it mines. I find the assumption that the first desire of a botnet op would be to engage in a comparatively tricky and risky (as in, might fail) quest to doublespend instead of just mining (and hogging the majority of stuff mined) and selling (a very small fraction) to be rather peculiar. People with small-time back-alley mugger mentality rarely drive around large botnets. Or large anything for that matter. Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: ElectricMucus on October 10, 2011, 08:44:43 PM Trying to do a doublespend/history overwrite is of limited economic utility to the botnet op due to risk of failing to get money before stuff goes down and effort needed, especially when compared to simplistic "mine coins, sell less than 30% of mined coins, rinse repeat" which is the best modus operandi for an economically motivated 51-er. Botnet ops are likely to be economically motivated. Also, only the first botnet poses a 51-threat. If the first botnet decides not to destroy the net, the threat of 51 will disappear naturally as more botnets swarm in. NOW. When the economic value is next to nothing. What is someday this altcoin handles Paypal sized transactions (~$200M per day). I mean your only defense is to remain so small and pathetic that no botnet would feel the need to destroy you. Not that they can't at any point (both now and far into the future) just that they feel no reason to because the network is insignificant. Excuse me, but even now "mine coins, sell less than 30% of mined coins, rinse repeat" is more economically sound for someone who has 51 percent, simply because effort is minimal, revenue is guaranteed, there are no electricity and other such costs (for the bnop), and by virtue of having 51+ of coin production, the botnet can drive price up by simply selling off a tiny fraction of what it mines. Then explain the double spend on i0coin Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: Lolcust on October 10, 2011, 08:49:05 PM Trying to do a doublespend/history overwrite is of limited economic utility to the botnet op due to risk of failing to get money before stuff goes down and effort needed, especially when compared to simplistic "mine coins, sell less than 30% of mined coins, rinse repeat" which is the best modus operandi for an economically motivated 51-er. Botnet ops are likely to be economically motivated. Also, only the first botnet poses a 51-threat. If the first botnet decides not to destroy the net, the threat of 51 will disappear naturally as more botnets swarm in. NOW. When the economic value is next to nothing. What is someday this altcoin handles Paypal sized transactions (~$200M per day). I mean your only defense is to remain so small and pathetic that no botnet would feel the need to destroy you. Not that they can't at any point (both now and far into the future) just that they feel no reason to because the network is insignificant. Excuse me, but even now "mine coins, sell less than 30% of mined coins, rinse repeat" is more economically sound for someone who has 51 percent, simply because effort is minimal, revenue is guaranteed, there are no electricity and other such costs (for the bnop), and by virtue of having 51+ of coin production, the botnet can drive price up by simply selling off a tiny fraction of what it mines. Then explain the double spend on i0coin 1) Sophisticated technological prank. The point wasn't so much to rob doublec (If we assume that perp was a botnet, that is, had no electricity, maintenance, and other such costs, the perp could have simply taken over and hogged i0c supply, driven the price up by selling off only a fraction, then made quite a sum by sustaining this scheme for extended period of time). The point was to show off, to demonstrate capacity to "pwn" the defenses in place 2) Was not perpetrated by a botnet (the perp paid electricity and other costs), thus followed different cost/benefit analysis in regards to possibility of price manipulation 3) Combination of the above Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: bulanula on October 10, 2011, 09:08:49 PM Trying to do a doublespend/history overwrite is of limited economic utility to the botnet op due to risk of failing to get money before stuff goes down and effort needed, especially when compared to simplistic "mine coins, sell less than 30% of mined coins, rinse repeat" which is the best modus operandi for an economically motivated 51-er. Botnet ops are likely to be economically motivated. Also, only the first botnet poses a 51-threat. If the first botnet decides not to destroy the net, the threat of 51 will disappear naturally as more botnets swarm in. NOW. When the economic value is next to nothing. What is someday this altcoin handles Paypal sized transactions (~$200M per day). I mean your only defense is to remain so small and pathetic that no botnet would feel the need to destroy you. Not that they can't at any point (both now and far into the future) just that they feel no reason to because the network is insignificant. Excuse me, but even now "mine coins, sell less than 30% of mined coins, rinse repeat" is more economically sound for someone who has 51 percent, simply because effort is minimal, revenue is guaranteed, there are no electricity and other such costs (for the bnop), and by virtue of having 51+ of coin production, the botnet can drive price up by simply selling off a tiny fraction of what it mines. Then explain the double spend on i0coin 1) Sophisticated technological prank. The point wasn't so much to rob doublec (If we assume that perp was a botnet, that is, had no electricity, maintenance, and other such costs, the perp could have simply taken over and hogged i0c supply, driven the price up by selling off only a fraction, then made quite a sum by sustaining this scheme for extended period of time). The point was to show off, to demonstrate capacity to "pwn" the defenses in place 2) Was not perpetrated by a botnet (the perp paid electricity and other costs), thus followed different cost/benefit analysis in regards to possibility of price manipulation 3) Combination of the above Trust me, Tenebrix will NEVER get attacked by a botnet because its creators are the only ones with botnets here and they won't attack their new "baby". I am 100% sure of this. Why did Failbrix get attacked and not Tenecrapix ? There you go. Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: Lolcust on October 10, 2011, 09:14:28 PM Then you should bow before my botnet might, little one.
Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: RandyFolds on October 10, 2011, 09:21:44 PM Trust me, Tenebrix will NEVER get attacked by a botnet because its creators are the only ones with botnets here and they won't attack their new "baby". I am 100% sure of this. Why did Failbrix get attacked and not Tenecrapix ? There you go. Are you bitrebel? Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: bulanula on October 10, 2011, 09:28:19 PM Trust me, Tenebrix will NEVER get attacked by a botnet because its creators are the only ones with botnets here and they won't attack their new "baby". I am 100% sure of this. Why did Failbrix get attacked and not Tenecrapix ? There you go. Are you bitrebel? Alright, you need to stop this BS about me being somebody else. Me being CH. Me being Darth Vader etc. I am my own person and I have no connection with anybody else on this forum or other forums. 100% no connection with anyone. No CH. No RS. No bitrebel etc. Just stop it because it really is getting annoying. I am not a SC troll, I just see that it really is much more usable than Bitcoin. Some of you on here seem to think that Bitcoin is the end all, be all of cryptocurrencies. Think whatever you like. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. You need to stop trolling SC and let it be. Why so much hate towards SC ? Why so much hate towards CH / RS ? Bizarre really. Maybe you are feeling the competition and don't like competing ? Who knows. The establishment / gov. is the enemy, not CH / RS / SC etc. Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: RandyFolds on October 10, 2011, 10:00:07 PM Trust me, Tenebrix will NEVER get attacked by a botnet because its creators are the only ones with botnets here and they won't attack their new "baby". I am 100% sure of this. Why did Failbrix get attacked and not Tenecrapix ? There you go. Are you bitrebel? Alright, you need to stop this BS about me being somebody else. Me being CH. Me being Darth Vader etc. I am my own person and I have no connection with anybody else on this forum or other forums. 100% no connection with anyone. No CH. No RS. No bitrebel etc. Just stop it because it really is getting annoying. I am not a SC troll, I just see that it really is much more usable than Bitcoin. Some of you on here seem to think that Bitcoin is the end all, be all of cryptocurrencies. Think whatever you like. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. You need to stop trolling SC and let it be. Why so much hate towards SC ? Why so much hate towards CH / RS ? Bizarre really. Maybe you are feeling the competition and don't like competing ? Who knows. The establishment / gov. is the enemy, not CH / RS / SC etc. Are you sure you're not bitrebel? Title: Re: Time to grow up. Post by: bulanula on October 10, 2011, 10:15:25 PM Trust me, Tenebrix will NEVER get attacked by a botnet because its creators are the only ones with botnets here and they won't attack their new "baby". I am 100% sure of this. Why did Failbrix get attacked and not Tenecrapix ? There you go. Are you bitrebel? Alright, you need to stop this BS about me being somebody else. Me being CH. Me being Darth Vader etc. I am my own person and I have no connection with anybody else on this forum or other forums. 100% no connection with anyone. No CH. No RS. No bitrebel etc. Just stop it because it really is getting annoying. I am not a SC troll, I just see that it really is much more usable than Bitcoin. Some of you on here seem to think that Bitcoin is the end all, be all of cryptocurrencies. Think whatever you like. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. You need to stop trolling SC and let it be. Why so much hate towards SC ? Why so much hate towards CH / RS ? Bizarre really. Maybe you are feeling the competition and don't like competing ? Who knows. The establishment / gov. is the enemy, not CH / RS / SC etc. Are you sure you're not bitrebel? 100% sure mate ! I'm not THAT nuts LOL. |