It's actually beneficial to use more than one crypto
How so? To me using altcoins only adds more friction. Who will pay for the friction isn't who is going to decide. The most part of the cost of having to accept f.e litecoin aswell will have to be to be paid by the shop. Like credid card fees where most of the fee (70-90%) isn't even paid by the customer. A shop doesn't care if btc is cheaper or not vs LTC to accept, it cares if accepting LTC makes them more profit or not. It does. Reducing volatility (diverstvication) and risk Having most money in only one asset is a bad idea since the up's and downs would drive most people insane. That's why everyone with brain would never put all his money in just one stock or asset. Splitting it up mathematically reduces how much the value fluctuates over time, that's a huge advantage for a individual. Even if you 100% belive that bitcoin will alwasy outperform anything else you can't be 100% sure about it. The same is with stocks. Pick the health industry and you maby get it right to predict them, but that one beats the market and it's peergroup ... I think that these are the most improtant ones, but faster confirmations might be an issue for some uses aswell. All In on bitcoin is a risky bet on crypto and on altcoins having less than 3% of uses. It's safer just to bet on the crypto by also buying a few (10%) serious altcoins. |
|
|
|
This is another reason I think Bitcoin was designed to be the one-world digital currency controlled from Brussels. I think Bitcoin was planted by the elite, and not some fictional person "Satoshi".
Don't you think this a really long shot? Strange that we agree with that much although our conclutions are 100% different. Yes the masses will accept the cartels and government takeover converting Bitcoin to a fiat, as long as the masses get their goods and services.
A "crypto" run by goverments could replace bitcoin since most people (including me) don't have such an extreme worldview like you. I don't expect fiat to be replaced by bitcoin or any other system unless it fails catastrophically. This would require more than just EUR,USD to loose all of it's value. I find it even more unlikely that goverments will try (or even succeed) to change bitcoin to fiat like crypto. Not going to happen. On the other hand would it possible (and more favourable for gov) to lauch a pseudo crypto as alternative. A 1:1 fixing with that nations fiat system could be acepted by most people. Will be interresting to see how much anonymity people will be willing to sacrifice, but I expect that to be enourmous. Like todays currencies it will be a legal tender so you will be forced to accept it by law. Such fiat crypto would be a serious thread for bitcoin and her sisters ... |
|
|
|
I have no idea why you wrote that or what the context is.
Sorry, I thought that was clear. It was your response to my response to your 3rd problem of bitcoins long ago. I included a quote from it so I thought that was obvios, but it wasn't. Here it is: 3. Bitcoin stops giving coin rewards to miners in 2040, but the rate of debasement drops below 1% by 2033 and gets relatively low by 2020s compared to today's 11% and the recent past of several times that rate. Everyone thinks transaction fees are a solution, but they haven't even really considered this deeply. Transaction fees could be 0% (or refunded if mandatory) by large corporations, e.g. Amazon.com. This would drive most transactions to them, and they might withhold sending these out to other miners. Thus all mining WILL be owned by cartels and banks in the future. This is the same as owned by the government, since in fascism (that we have now in the world), corporations and governments cooperate (just review the NSA scandals with large internet companies revealed by Snowden if you doubt that you already live in a fledgling fascism). Btw, this takeover of mining by corporations was predicted by Satoshi and is supported by the core Bitcoin devs. You can find the relevant post somewhere on this site, I had the link to the post once before.
Note the ballooning multi-GB (eventually to be TBs) blockchain (which the Mini-blockchain design proposes to fix) also leads to either pools or large corporations doing the mining. And not fixing #2 above, means pools can be attacked later. Thus another factor that will drive Bitcoin mining to cartels in the future.
3.)You really spend some thinking on that ...
The problem with that are the extreme low incentives for an old bitcoin to keep a multitrillion dollar network safe. Fees can be avoided, so it would need a sort of central authority to be safe. Nobody would like that, but that is nothing we can avoid by then.
If most of all miners agree to stay on one chain and fight (illegal) forks no matter the cost it wouldn't need any changes. Just the announcement would be enough. When most transactions are off chain anyways confirations required could take weeks,d'be damm expensive and must be approved by CA anyways.
A CA wouldn't have the powes todays govs have so I don't see many people protesting. Current bitcoiners excludet, but who are 350.000 people to the world anyways ...
2nd Edited to be easier to follow. and the rest of the conversation That is not PoW. That is not a decentralized currency.
Yes, it isn't. The bitcoin protocoll can be hacked to act against Bitcoins initial intentions. I belive this is interresting since this will be a way that shows the bitcoin network will be safe once it doesn't generate any new coins anymore. You showed that fees alone couldn't do that. You love decentralisation and decentral PoW, but most people by then would rather have a working bitcoin than that. |
|
|
|
I hereby initiate a list of things that are broken in Bitcoin, which an altcoin can fix, and label which ones Bitcoin is unlikely to fix because of the mining vested interests ( Tragedy of the Commons) which control Bitcoin. Please comment on and help improve this list. 1.) I don't see any new problems with that at all. See my prior reply to Rassah. You convinced me that this is an issue, take a look my previous post (after yours, befor this one) I think without the fix this is a very serious thread to bitcoin. Just Centralisation on its own is unavoidable (but not new) for bitcoin. Miners are supposed to be coperative, but even if they aren't it doesn't effect bitcoin as long as they are still doing the job they are supposed to do. Goal was peaceful mining, but actually we just need mining. 3.)You really spend some thinking on that ...
The problem with that are the extreme low incentives to keep a multitrillion dollar network safe. Fees can be avoided, so it would need a sort of central authority to be safe. Nobody would like that, but that seems to be not a choice by then.
I tried to distill the information content of that but ended up with the empty set. And you got it wrong. I didn't disagree on what you think I did, nor did I ever assume that "if we don't like it, it won't happen."* *Should have been said better. I edited that to make it clearer. I noticed we often use words totally different. I don't want to waste time on defining f.e. honest so I repeat what I wanted to say as dry and conclusionless as I can. Every smart person has to conclude anyways for it's own. In the future fees won't be able to cover the cost required to run enough miners to keep bitcoin safe using todays rules. A mayority of miners can decide on an other method to find the right chain, currently it's lengh of blocks, but it doesn't have to be that way. The new method will have to be accepted and used by the rest of miners, regardless if the like or hate it. If they whish that could be a central authority that has to approve every new block and so punish illegal (=what they do not allow) behavour. Free transactions would probably be one of them,but my statement was simply that fees will be very high and recivers could require many confirmations. On chain transactions will be a rare event so this doesn't upset many. My new thoughts on this topic: Paybacks on fees would probably be considers illegal and wouldn't end well for that miner. If a cartel hasn't 51% already all other miner would be totally against free txt. This forces everyone that hasn't the ability to mine to use the miners off chain transactions. Connection between miner networks could be done from each miner using his own blocks. It's free for them althought they still have to pay a huge fee.* *)Interresting method to launder btc's, isn't it? I don't know what your definition on cartel is, but these miner would still be compeating against each other. A 1% attack can be prevented be forcing a timestamp after each block. Even deposits and withdraws would be free, but you won't send to other people accounts. Rules on the miners off chains would have to following the laws of the miners nation so they can't fusion. 6.) Goverments are stupid, but not the kind of stupid most people think of. Once BTC gets significant it will be overregulated. These regulations will be (as usual) useless, stupid and probably harmful for crypto in general, but alts might be able to adapt to them.
Cartels are not stupid. They control and own the government now. The government is run as a Commons and the cartels let it suffer from Tragedy of the Commons, while they privatize profits and socialize losses. Agreed, but that is my definition of a goverment going full retard. It might be smart for individuals in gov, but very stupid for it as whole. The resulting regulations will be "useless, stupid and probably harmful for crypto in general" since some might profit from that. There is a difference between smart acting individuals in a stupid group and smart (acting) group of individuals. I was talking about the stupid goverment, not stupid politicians. Hope these will burn in hell though. 4.) Regulation
Whem gov finished regulation on bitcoin they will be against anything new that isn't regulated yet.
But they have a problem. How do they write a law to differentiate cryptocurrencies by feature? We can easily design and program circles around their legislation. So I don't think so. They will continue with adding regulation which will apply to all altcoins too. AML, KYC and other market barriers aren't a problem for established companies, but small and new ones might strugle with this. These are usually fixed costs for everyone, but that fixum could be more than total revenues for some and less than coffee budget for others. Regulations could also be made in a way that only bitcoin can actually comply. "It's has to be the same for everyone since so it's fair to everyone." is unfortunately the way most people think. |
|
|
|
After reading the 2nd link I thought more about it and there is by far more to this. The fix for this to 25% is essential for bitcoin or it can easily been overtaken by goverments without fighting the community directly. Ever thought of beeing legally obligated to join such pool run by your gov, most miners would follow regardless if they are legally required or not. I have canged my opinion on the Anonymity. I belive it might be a necessity for POS cryptos to be decentralized, but I haven't thought about this yet. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is much less vulnerable to competition than eBay is.
I wouldn't say that at all. Ebay is a good example where the network effect also drives people to one single company, but I don't see bitcoin to be profiting from that much against crypto competition. The more people using ebay increases the benefits from using just ebay over any competition, but on bitcoin it isn't bitcoin exclusive. Altcoins also profit from more people using bitcoin, so that doesn't make them much worse against bitcoins. It's actually beneficial to use more than one crypto so I expect competition for btc to grow once people realize that. The MC of altcoins is still very small compared to bitcoins, so more people using altcoins could trigger a networkeffect against bitcoin. More people using altcoin drive prices up which increases benefits for people that use altcoins. |
|
|
|
"YAC had some reversals to cryptsy that caused the market to pause I would expect it to return soon once we ensure everything is secure with the coin."
-BitJohn
Anyone know what the heck is going on?
I would like to know too. No clue. If that isn't enough bad news I have the following from http://yacointalk.com/forum/index.php/topic,468.0.html. I'm no programmer nor do I have any clue what this is about aswell. Just Crtl+V. guys, the client for mac mavericks its broken. Process: YaCoin-Qt [1888]
Path: /Applications/YaCoin-Qt.app/Contents/MacOS/YaCoin-Qt
Identifier: com.yourcompany.YaCoin-Qt
Version: ???
Code Type: X86-64 (Native)
Parent Process: launchd [139]
Responsible: YaCoin-Qt [1888]
User ID: 501
Date/Time: 2013-11-10 23:03:35.602 +0000
OS Version: Mac OS X 10.9 (13A603)
Report Version: 11
Anonymous UUID: FF41A929-7E05-34A5-5230-A7F299E59BAE
Crashed Thread: 0 Dispatch queue: com.apple.main-thread
Exception Type: EXC_BAD_INSTRUCTION (SIGILL)
Exception Codes: 0x0000000000000001, 0x0000000000000000
Application Specific Information:
/Applications/YaCoin-Qt.app/Contents/MacOS/YaCoin-Qt
Thread 0 Crashed:: Dispatch queue: com.apple.main-thread
0 libcrypto.1.0.0.dylib 0x000000010cadb6c1 RAND_add + 11
1 com.yourcompany.YaCoin-Qt 0x000000010c48042c CInit::CInit() + 176
2 com.yourcompany.YaCoin-Qt 0x000000010c47a9eb _GLOBAL__I__ZN12_GLOBAL__N_12_1E + 507
3 dyld 0x00007fff6bbb9c2e ImageLoaderMachO::doModInitFunctions(ImageLoader::LinkContext const&) + 268
4 dyld 0x00007fff6bbb9dba ImageLoaderMachO::doInitialization(ImageLoader::LinkContext const&) + 40
5 dyld 0x00007fff6bbb6a62 ImageLoader::recursiveInitialization(ImageLoader::LinkContext const&, unsigned int, ImageLoader::InitializerTimingList&) + 308
6 dyld 0x00007fff6bbb68f6 ImageLoader::runInitializers(ImageLoader::LinkContext const&, ImageLoader::InitializerTimingList&) + 54
7 dyld 0x00007fff6bbaa1da dyld::initializeMainExecutable() + 189
8 dyld 0x00007fff6bbad560 dyld::_main(macho_header const*, unsigned long, int, char const**, char const**, char const**, unsigned long*) + 2419
9 dyld 0x00007fff6bba927b dyldbootstrap::start(macho_header const*, int, char const**, long, macho_header const*, unsigned long*) + 477
10 dyld 0x00007fff6bba905e _dyld_start + 54
Thread 1:
0 libsystem_kernel.dylib 0x00007fff8e849e6a __workq_kernreturn + 10
1 libsystem_pthread.dylib 0x00007fff8b0a1f08 _pthread_wqthread + 330
2 libsystem_pthread.dylib 0x00007fff8b0a4fb9 start_wqthread + 13
Thread 2:: Dispatch queue: com.apple.libdispatch-manager
0 libsystem_kernel.dylib 0x00007fff8e84a662 kevent64 + 10
1 libdispatch.dylib 0x00007fff8b08743d _dispatch_mgr_invoke + 239
2 libdispatch.dylib 0x00007fff8b087152 _dispatch_mgr_thread + 52
Thread 3:
0 libsystem_kernel.dylib 0x00007fff8e849e6a __workq_kernreturn + 10
1 libsystem_pthread.dylib 0x00007fff8b0a1f08 _pthread_wqthread + 330
2 libsystem_pthread.dylib 0x00007fff8b0a4fb9 start_wqthread + 13
Thread 0 crashed with X86 Thread State (64-bit):
rax: 0x0004eadaa009379b rbx: 0x0000000000000029 rcx: 0x00000000000003e8 rdx: 0x0000000000000314
rdi: 0x00007fff537d5228 rsi: 0x0000000000000008 rbp: 0x00007fff537d5210 rsp: 0x00007fff537d51f0
r8: 0x00000000528010c7 r9: 0x00007faa01c00000 r10: 0x000000010cbd2bb0 r11: 0x000000010cadb6b6
r12: 0x000000000000000a r13: 0x00007fff6bbdc0b0 r14: 0x00007faa01c01960 r15: 0x0004eadaa0007fc0
rip: 0x000000010cadb6c1 rfl: 0x0000000000010206 cr2: 0x000000010cadb6b6
Logical CPU: 0
Error Code: 0x00000000
Trap Number: 6
Binary Images:
0x10c429000 - 0x10c7b174f +com.yourcompany.YaCoin-Qt (???) <D30BF685-3135-39FD-8855-275705D21039> /Applications/YaCoin-Qt.app/Contents/MacOS/YaCoin-Qt
0x10c9e6000 - 0x10c9edfff +libminiupnpc.9.dylib (0) <6352229E-939E-3E35-988F-02CFA43208F5> /Applications/YaCoin-Qt.app/Contents/Frameworks/libminiupnpc.9.dylib
0x10c9f8000 - 0x10ca3bff7 +libssl.1.0.0.dylib (0) <BA0D2D15-8E07-31C1-86C5-D24298EDF101> /Applications/YaCoin-Qt.app/Contents/Frameworks/libssl.1.0.0.dylib
0x10ca5a000 - 0x10cb96fdf +libcrypto.1.0.0.dylib (0) <7ECEDCF8-0C73-32AA-9C5B-8B3CB35EFDA4> /Applications/YaCoin-Qt.app/Contents/Frameworks/libcrypto.1.0.0.dylib
0x10cbfd000 - 0x10cd31fff +libdb_cxx-4.8.dylib (0) <FEA47676-A581-3480-BC5B-E12ED3BDF61B> /Applications/YaCoin-Qt.app/Contents/Frameworks/libdb_cxx-4.8.dylib
0x10cd57000 - 0x10cd59ff7 +libboost_system-mt.dylib (0) <FE5E6E11-C7FB-3895-9976-526D22997EDC> /Applications/YaCoin-Qt.app/Contents/Frameworks/libboost_system-mt.dylib
0x10cd5c000 - 0x10cd6bfff +libboost_filesystem-mt.dylib (0) <B2C03485-5FA6-3744-BC99-DB4E87DA4D87> /Applications/YaCoin-Qt.app/Contents/Frameworks/libboost_filesystem-mt.dylib
0x10cd7a000 - 0x10cdb7fff +libboost_program_options-mt.dylib (0) <8FED3849-E97F-3B9E-AD1E-FDB5DA607B17> /Applications/YaCoin-Qt.app/Contents/Frameworks/libboost_program_options-mt.dylib
0x10cdf8000 - 0x10ce07ff7 +libboost_thread-mt.dylib (0) <24432300-9373-30B6-89F6-857CBEF9C105> /Applications/YaCoin-Qt.app/Contents/Frameworks/libboost_thread-mt.dylib
0x10ce19000 - 0x10d834fef +QtGui (4.8.4) <7E72D670-7AEF-3C9A-C7E4-E60A6167CC68> /Applications/YaCoin-Qt.app/Contents/Frameworks/QtGui.framework/Versions/4/QtGui
0x10da13000 - 0x10dcecfef +QtCore (4.8.4) <066143BB-EB51-053C-84CE-D3EBDA45466A> /Applications/YaCoin-Qt.app/Contents/Frameworks/QtCore.framework/Versions/4/QtCore
0x7fff6bba8000 - 0x7fff6bbdb817 dyld (239.3) <D1DFCF3F-0B0C-332A-BCC0-87A851B570FF> /usr/lib/dyld
0x7fff837c0000 - 0x7fff837e9ff7 libc++abi.dylib (48) <8C16158F-CBF8-3BD7-BEF4-022704B2A326> /usr/lib/libc++abi.dylib
0x7fff837ea000 - 0x7fff837edfff com.apple.help (1.3.3 - 46) <AE763646-D07A-3F9A-ACD4-F5CBD734EE36> /System/Library/Frameworks/Carbon.framework/Versions/A/Frameworks/Help.framework/Versions/A/Help
0x7fff83829000 - 0x7fff83829fff com.apple.CoreServices (59 - 59) <7A697B5E-F179-30DF-93F2-8B503CEEEFD5> /System/Library/Frameworks/CoreServices.framework/Versions/A/CoreServices
0x7fff8382a000 - 0x7fff83882ff7 com.apple.Symbolication (1.4 - 129) <16D42516-7B5E-357C-898A-FAA9EE7642B3> /System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/Symbolication.framework/Versions/A/Symbolication
0x7fff839cb000 - 0x7fff83a42fff com.apple.CoreServices.OSServices (600.4 - 600.4) <36B2B009-C35E-3F21-824E-E0D00E7808C7> /System/Library/Frameworks/CoreServices.framework/Versions/A/Frameworks/OSServices.framework/Versions/A/OSServices
0x7fff83a66000 - 0x7fff83a6eff7 com.apple.speech.recognition.framework (4.2.4 - 4.2.4) <98BBB3E4-6239-3EF1-90B2-84EA0D3B8D61> /System/Library/Frameworks/Carbon.framework/Versions/A/Frameworks/SpeechRecognition.framework/Versions/A/SpeechRecognition
0x7fff83eb5000 - 0x7fff83ef6fff com.apple.PerformanceAnalysis (1.47 - 47) <784ED7B8-FAE4-36CE-8C76-B7D300316C9F> /System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/PerformanceAnalysis.framework/Versions/A/PerformanceAnalysis
0x7fff83ef7000 - 0x7fff83f13fff libresolv.9.dylib (54) <11C2C826-F1C6-39C6-B4E8-6E0C41D4FA95> /usr/lib/libresolv.9.dylib
0x7fff83f1e000 - 0x7fff84071ff7 com.apple.audio.toolbox.AudioToolbox (1.9 - 1.9) <A0B7B007-9BD8-30E2-B644-47856DA29FEE> /System/Library/Frameworks/AudioToolbox.framework/Versions/A/AudioToolbox
0x7fff84072000 - 0x7fff8407fff0 libbz2.1.0.dylib (29) <0B98AC35-B138-349C-8063-2B987A75D24C> /usr/lib/libbz2.1.0.dylib
0x7fff84080000 - 0x7fff840d3fff com.apple.ScalableUserInterface (1.0 - 1) <CF745298-7373-38D2-B3B1-727D5A569E48> /System/Library/Frameworks/QuartzCore.framework/Versions/A/Frameworks/ScalableUserInterface.framework/Versions/A/ScalableUserInterface
0x7fff840d6000 - 0x7fff840dbfff com.apple.DiskArbitration (2.6 - 2.6) <F8A47F61-83D1-3F92-B7A8-A169E0D187C0> /System/Library/Frameworks/DiskArbitration.framework/Versions/A/DiskArbitration
0x7fff840dc000 - 0x7fff841e1fff com.apple.ImageIO.framework (3.3.0 - 1038) <2C058216-C6D8-3380-A7EA-92A3F04520C1> /System/Library/Frameworks/ImageIO.framework/Versions/A/ImageIO
0x7fff841e2000 - 0x7fff841e6fff libsystem_stats.dylib (93.1.26) <B9E26A9E-FBBC-3938-B8B7-6CF7CA8C99AD> /usr/lib/system/libsystem_stats.dylib
0x7fff84257000 - 0x7fff8427fffb libxslt.1.dylib (13) <C9794936-633C-3F0C-9E71-30190B9B41C1> /usr/lib/libxslt.1.dylib
0x7fff84280000 - 0x7fff84286ff7 libsystem_platform.dylib (24.1.4) <331BA4A5-55CE-3B95-99EB-44E0C89D7FB8> /usr/lib/system/libsystem_platform.dylib
0x7fff84287000 - 0x7fff84310fff com.apple.ColorSync (4.9.0 - 4.9.0) <B756B908-9AD1-3F5D-83F9-7A0B068387D2> /System/Library/Frameworks/ApplicationServices.framework/Versions/A/Frameworks/ColorSync.framework/Versions/A/ColorSync
0x7fff84311000 - 0x7fff8432cff7 libCRFSuite.dylib (34) <FFAE75FA-C54E-398B-AA97-18164CD9789D> /usr/lib/libCRFSuite.dylib
0x7fff84340000 - 0x7fff843ccff7 com.apple.ink.framework (10.9 - 207) <8A50B893-AD03-3826-8555-A54FEAF08F47> /System/Library/Frameworks/Carbon.framework/Versions/A/Frameworks/Ink.framework/Versions/A/Ink
0x7fff843ec000 - 0x7fff84445fff libTIFF.dylib (1038) <5CBFE0C2-9DD8-340B-BA63-A94CE2E476F2> /System/Library/Frameworks/ImageIO.framework/Versions/A/Resources/libTIFF.dylib
0x7fff844a5000 - 0x7fff844deff7 com.apple.QD (3.50 - 298) <C1F20764-DEF0-34CF-B3AB-AB5480D64E66> /System/Library/Frameworks/ApplicationServices.framework/Versions/A/Frameworks/QD.framework/Versions/A/QD
0x7fff85424000 - 0x7fff85425ff7 com.apple.print.framework.Print (9.0 - 260) <EE00FAE1-DA03-3EC2-8571-562518C46994> /System/Library/Frameworks/Carbon.framework/Versions/A/Frameworks/Print.framework/Versions/A/Print
0x7fff85426000 - 0x7fff8542bfff libmacho.dylib (845) <1D2910DF-C036-3A82-A3FD-44FF73B5FF9B> /usr/lib/system/libmacho.dylib
0x7fff8542c000 - 0x7fff8542cffd libOpenScriptingUtil.dylib (157) <19F0E769-0989-3062-9AFB-8976E90E9759> /usr/lib/libOpenScriptingUtil.dylib
0x7fff8542d000 - 0x7fff8543ffff com.apple.ImageCapture (9.0 - 9.0) <BE0B65DA-3031-359B-8BBA-B9803D4ADBF4> /System/Library/Frameworks/Carbon.framework/Versions/A/Frameworks/ImageCapture.framework/Versions/A/ImageCapture
0x7fff85482000 - 0x7fff854b1ff5 com.apple.GSS (4.0 - 2.0) <ED98D992-CC14-39F3-9ABC-8D7F986487CC> /System/Library/Frameworks/GSS.framework/Versions/A/GSS
0x7fff854b2000 - 0x7fff854cdff7 libPng.dylib (1038) <EF781AF8-C2E6-3179-B8A1-A584783070F1> /System/Library/Frameworks/ImageIO.framework/Versions/A/Resources/libPng.dylib
0x7fff854d0000 - 0x7fff85515ff6 com.apple.HIServices (1.22 - 466) <21807AF8-3BC7-32BB-AB96-7C35CB59D7F6> /System/Library/Frameworks/ApplicationServices.framework/Versions/A/Frameworks/HIServices.framework/Versions/A/HIServices
0x7fff85548000 - 0x7fff85554ff3 com.apple.AppleFSCompression (56 - 1.0) <5652B0D0-EB08-381F-B23A-6DCF96991FB5> /System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/AppleFSCompression.framework/Versions/A/AppleFSCompression
0x7fff855a1000 - 0x7fff855d1fff com.apple.IconServices (25 - 25.17) <4751127E-FBD5-3ED5-8510-08D4E4166EFE> /System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/IconServices.framework/Versions/A/IconServices
0x7fff85630000 - 0x7fff85649ff7 com.apple.Ubiquity (1.3 - 289) <C7F1B734-CE81-334D-BE41-8B20D95A1F9B> /System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/Ubiquity.framework/Versions/A/Ubiquity
0x7fff856c5000 - 0x7fff858aaff7 com.apple.CoreFoundation (6.9 - 855.11) <E22C6A1F-8996-349C-905E-96C3BBE07C2F> /System/Library/Frameworks/CoreFoundation.framework/Versions/A/CoreFoundation
0x7fff8596b000 - 0x7fff85984ff7 com.apple.Kerberos (3.0 - 1) <F108AFEB-198A-3BAF-BCA5-9DFCE55EFF92> /System/Library/Frameworks/Kerberos.framework/Versions/A/Kerberos
0x7fff85bef000 - 0x7fff85c00ff7 libsystem_asl.dylib (217.1.4) <655FB343-52CF-3E2F-B14D-BEBF5AAEF94D> /usr/lib/system/libsystem_asl.dylib
0x7fff86057000 - 0x7fff86057fff com.apple.Accelerate.vecLib (3.9 - vecLib 3.9) <F8D0CC77-98AC-3B58-9FE6-0C25421827B6>
|
|
|
|
I hereby initiate a list of things that are broken in Bitcoin, which an altcoin can fix, and label which ones Bitcoin is unlikely to fix because of the mining vested interests ( Tragedy of the Commons) which control Bitcoin. Please comment on and help improve this list. 1.) I don't see any new problems with that at all. I think thats a huge problem if not fixed. 1.+2.) Who expected that mining will allways be cooperative. 4.) Can be seen as advantage aswell. It's better to have the option than be forced to use anonymity. Gov rather not fight crypto if it's trackable. 3.)You really spend some thinking on that ... The problem with that are the extreme low incentives to keep a multitrillion dollar network safe. Fees can be avoided, so it would need a sort of central authority to be safe. Nobody would like that, but that seems to be not a choice by then.
is nothing we can avoid by then. If most of all honest* miners agree to stay on one chain and fight (illegal) forks no matter the cost it wouldn't need any changes. Just the announcement would be enough. When most transactions are off chain anyways confirations required could take weeks,d'be damm expensive and must be approved by CA anyways. A CA wouldn't have the powes todays govs have so I don't see many people protesting. Current bitcoiners excludet, but who are 350.000 people to the world anyways ... 6.) Goverments are stupid, but not the kind of stupid most people think of. Once BTC gets significant it will be overregulated. These regulations will be (as usual) useless, stupid and probably harmful for crypto in general, but alts might be able to adapt to them. Since this thread is about the problems of altcoins I want to bring in the following real problems. The article in the OP and it's conclusion is biased and not plausible. Please don't argue that most of his busted myths on altcoins aren't actually true. I know that. 1.) Confilicting Requirements It would have to be innovative and very lucrative for early adopters to reach a critical size to be even noticed. For later adoption it mustn't favour early adopters too much and be conservative. 2.) It's unlikely that bitcoin is flawed in a way that it will have to be replaced within the next few years. Most flaws won't be noticeable by most people within this decade. 3.) Time and gamechanging innovations are running out. The timewindow for establishing a new crypto is closing and the most basic features bitcoin lackes are already used by other alts or in development. It will be harder and harder to establish a new crypto in the future. 4.) Regulation Whem gov finished regulation on bitcoin they will be against anything new that isn't regulated yet. Anonymity could be a requirement by the community and also a reason to outlaw that crypto. 5.) Bubbles and Risk Price bubles and risk in general are higher on altcoins. Noone ever invested in bitcoin lost money if he just had the patients to stick to it. A serious altcoin bubble could do enourmous damage and won't recover like btc. 6.) You will get super rich, no risk or skill involved Scamcoins won't always be so primitive and easy to spot. Madoff had stolen billions and a premine isn't the only way to grab some fool's btcs. A succesful scamcoin could keep serious players away from alternative coins. EDITED *) I mean they don't doublespend, freeze funds, delay transactions, ... |
|
|
|
What are readers thoughts on this and are there any required features I have failed to mention? Feel free to disagree with me of course. This isn't my thread. Apologies for so many posts.
I wouldn't say Anonymity* is a must have for an altcoin to succeed (against bitcoin), but it would be nice to have.Not so sure about it anymore On the other features I'm more strict. A crypto without POS and POW rewards can't ever beat bitcoin longterm. That's not due to security issues or programming, but economical problems. It's a difference to work or paying someone to work for new coins and having to to buy them directly. POW is also nessasary because it provides additional coins to everyone and makes them physilogically easier to spend. It gives exponential growth and IMHO without exponential growth currencies can't work. Exponential growth is no problem as long everyone can participate. In short: POS rewards earlier adopters while new POW rewards prevent newcomers to get screwd by early adopters. Once PPC has moved to POS only it will be very hard for new people to get coins. Prices will rise, ok that looks good, but real value of all coins doesn't. That's like having a really expensive collection of all paintings from one painter, sell one and it's a million, but sell all and you won't get much ... Finding paramets on this will be extremly problematic, since early adopters expect rising prices of one unit. EDITED |
|
|
|
Has anyone been able to replicate this issue?
Not me. Is the YACoin with Coin Control still working? I would love to download it and start to use but do not know if this has been stable and developed/tested? Please let me know if there is a link with the latest build. It's working (at least for me, and I haven't heard anyone having lost coins with the current version), but it isn't in the official branch yet. Use on own risk. No idea about the last built, but if you can compile for your self go to github.com/saironiq/yacoin-cc. |
|
|
|
I am most interested in using an altcoin, and none have IP anonymity.
The question is if this is actually possible and worth waiting for. Tor and I2P seem to be safe now, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been already compromised. The Allies used to sent ships in certain death just to protect the secret that they can encrypt Enigma, so I'd really wonder if any of them would be safe if they really want to grab some coins. They must spend on the altcoin to be safer.
Bitcoin will become known as the government's coin, due to the cartelization of mining and the lack of safe anonymity. It will be the government approved coin. The anonymous altcoin will be the freedom coin.
Why is spending altcoins safer? Freedom coin sounds so patriotic, how about terrorist coin or child molerster coin ... |
|
|
|
The government will continue to pretend to be somewhat against it, well for one thing the underlings don't know it is intended to be the next one-world digital currency. The elite don't want us to wake up too soon and realize we've unknowingly handed them the 666 control they want. They are hoping for the "there can only be one" outcome. That is why this thread is so important to me.
Damm, you seem to be even more paranoid than me ...  What's actually your position on bitcoin/alts? What alts do you find interresting to invest in now? |
|
|
|
I think PoS isn't secure (explained upthread) and if I am correct, you have similar risks then.
Your points stand and my points stand. Thanks for the discussion. Any way, we can have both. That is the point of this thread. Let the market decide.
I agree. You might see security issued with PoS that I don't see, but you fail to see that there are security issues with PoW aswell. It's pointless to discuss which one is better on it's own, but a combination beats them both. That's something bitcoin will never be able to implement, even if there were no PoS rewards. PoS is a way to get a decentralized "central authority" that validates a block chain. PoW will never be decentralized since only the strong have enough hashing power, on PoS everyone can participate and noone can be forced to stop doing it. Your argument is invalid, since it basically says it's impossible to waste resources at all.
No. Waste is where there is no return. Efficiency is output divided by input. That's an akward definition of wasting. If I have 2 ways to finish a job and one takes 1000 times the resources than the other it is wasteful to go with anything but the efficient method. We don't have unlimited energy so we have to use it efficiently. People sending funds loose fees and interrest, but it's these people that need a safe and non reverseable network. Someone holding a wallet doesn't need that once it's in the blockchain. Why should someone else or all pay for them the efford to do the work.
You could try to rewrite this last paragraph so I can understand your point. Once my funds are in the blockchain burried after a few 100 blocks I don't care about the network beeing safe and non reversable. It's expensive to keep it that way so people loosing the PoS rewards pay for that. Fees alone aren't enough in a late state. People rather loose profits than money, altough it's the very same. |
|
|
|
How does PoW waste resources?
Securing the network with a technology that has to use lot's of electricity insead of POS that doesn't require any is a good example of wasting resources. It isn't innovative to use a expensive way to do it if you already knew a better one to do it for free. Your argument is invalid, since it basically says it's impossible to waste resources at all. Remember we are talking about securing the network, not distributing new coins to anyone willing to work for it. Once blockrewards decline POW won't do that anymore and it's 100% wasteful while POS doesn't cost anything at all. When looking at POS you seem to miss the point that there is no new wealth generation. If we would add a zero to every dollar bill, bank account,wages, etc nothing would change. Noone would be richer or poorer, in fact nothing changes. Even a 10-fold wouldn't make a difference, so 1% per year isn't even worth mentioning in term of costs. People sending funds loose fees and interrest, but it's these people that need a safe and non reverseable network. Someone holding a wallet doesn't need that once it's in the blockchain. Why should someone else or all pay for them the efford to do the work. |
|
|
|
My guess is because people fundamentally understand that getting something for doing nothing (i.e. redistributing the new coins based on share of the collective) is communism. But let me hear the logic of others, because I want to understand this better.
Communism isn't the right way to describe it. It could be seen very capitalistic, you get paid for helping the blockchain. Bitcoin isn't different since there the miners get paid to secure the chain. The only difference is that miners have to waste resources while POS is wasteless. I rather see someone getting rewards for free than to just to waste stuff. There is no redistribution of wealth, so the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. Everyone has all chances so it's the way capitalism should be. It's the redistribution that kills any eco system. We now have redistribution to the rich and it will destroy capitalism in the same way than communism got killed by redistribution in the other direction. |
|
|
|
It is actually the same as potential energy. I can cite a reference if you don't believe.
Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its motion while potential energy is the energy of an object or a system due to the position. They are not the same, but I get what you want to say. Inertia doesn't stop a ball to roll down a hill, and the potential energy is usually causing the acceleration, not preventing. A minimum in the potential funktion could be interpreted as "inertia", but that's not the first thing to come in mind talking about inertia and potential. |
|
|
|
|
HD DVD isn't DVD.
They are more or less equal in features.
|
|
|
|
Lock-in network effects are not a foregone conclusion in every market.
It varies depending on the natural inertia.
...
I disagree with your arguments, not the result. Inertia doesn't effect this in the way you suggest. High inertia would fight the lock-in since people would rather stay at where they are than to move to the one central item.BluRay vs HD DVD was very euqual and its huge inertia would have prevented a system to win so fast. Think of the billions invested in it. As my icecream example it just depends on similarity and cost to run both. If BTC to altcoins would be similiar it would be the only crypto, but it isnt. There is also a huge inertia preventing people to completly moving completly from crypto to the other so that argument is invalid. EDIT: Regional codes prevent people from the US to watch european DVDs so that inertia doesn't explain that we haven't HD DVDs in Europa and BluRay in the US. |
|
|
|
Did the government force everybody to standardize on HTTP for web sites, or did users freely choose to standardize on the most widely-deployed protocol exactly because the network effect made HTTP more valuable than its alternatives?
The network effect is very strong, I agree, but I belive it simply doesn't work on crypto. Diverent flavour in ice cream won't just disapere because of it although it would easyly have the power to do so. A special store on strawberry could be far better and cheaper than a store with diverent flavours. It does work on the ice cornet or cups though. For it to work alternatives must be very similar and it must be more expensive to use both instead of one. There are no costs in paying in LTC over BTC and often the difference that it is different is enough. (Diversivication in investments) |
|
|
|
The golden rule is don't put too great a percent of your networth nor own a significant portion of the float in any one of these (unless you are very sure you know which one is going big).
But my beautiful tulpes ... The problem are not the fools that loose some money, they always have and always will. Banning stuff is goverments favourite pastime and an a altcoin bubble could be a good trigger for such. Crypto will survive, that's clear, but what about a gov regulating just btc for trades in crypto. We a far away from such bubble in altcoins since even btc isn't known yet, but a altcoinbubble would be desatrous. That's at least a real problem on altcoins, although I'd love the money I will make on it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
