That analogy is absurd, as I've told you before. Stop being so dishonest. There is no third party custody whatsoever.
There is third party control, so Boom Baby , your mind is blown. Want Proof , rebroadcast an old LN transaction that has newer transaction after it. That third party control you don't believe in , will confiscate your entire LN amount.
Go ahead, I double dog you.   |
|
|
|
Yes but I think you guys are missing the point I'm trying to make which is how do you get onto the correct blockchain and make sure you are starting from the right starting point in a decentralized way?
I don't believe that is possible. Updated the first post to try to make it more clear what I'm trying to say.
Define Correct Blockchain If by Correct , you mean the one that the Majority supports, it is as easy as comparing your last block with 1 or 2 block explorers. And that goes for PoW or PoS, especially if you are syncing your client for the 1st time. The fact is since you receive blocks from multiple 3rd parties in PoW & PoS, other clients, and if they are running a Sybil attack on you, your client won't know the difference (unless their is a checkpoint in the source code), or unless you verify thru another party. ie:blockexplorer Yes, if you know the block you are building off of, then yes, you can verify you are building off of the same block. But what if you are downloading the blockchain for the 1st time, how do you know which block is the correct 1st block in a purely decentralized and algorithmic way that is hard to 51% attack? No matter which algorithm, in order to determine which blockchain is the correct blockchain, Proof of Stake blockchain users need to trust that they have been told the correct initial account balances. How can you prove in a decentralized manner whether you are mining the correct blockchain? You can't without outside help. This makes Proof of Stake practically useless.
And along the same lines, POW-POS hybrids are only as strong/decentralized as their Proof of Work component.
Agreed?
Your confusion is this, PoW also receives block info from 3rd party clients, if I isolate your system from the others, I can make it see anything I want , as long as it meets the specs in the source code. PoW or PoS can only determine the chain that matches it specs, as long as that requirement is met, anything else can be manipulated depending on your ability to isolate that node, and only by verifying thru a 3rd party can you be certain you are on the majority supported chain. Put Simply , there is no correct chain in PoW or PoS, there is only the Majority Supported Chain. People seem to forget in 2013 , the miners overwrote Bitcoin chain and basically used the collusion of the majority to determine a new majority chain. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-network-shaken-by-blockchain-fork-1363144448/The difference is with Proof of Work, you can verify that a large amount of work went into creating the block. Until you choose which initial block to trust in a centralized manner, you cannot verify this in a Proof of Stake system. Sorry , you drank the kool-aid, that is utterly irrelevant and makes no difference. The Comparison in PoS, is you can verify the amount of coins and their target difficulty that goes into creating a block. Hashrate can vary so can # of coins in different sequences, but the one the majority of people support will always be chosen. Program coded checkpoints make the whole argument a waste of time. Good Day. |
|
|
|
At the moment , however people need to stake their zeitcoins as our difficulty is dropping.
The Security of zeitcoin is built on the number staking, so if people quit staking, they are weakening the protection of their coins and risking their investment
|
|
|
|
Anyone without the Will & Strength to hold through a Market Crash, (Whales are Cashing Out.)Should get out of All Cryptocoins now! Trade according to your own needs and goals. Good Luck! FYI: ZEIT will survive the coming Crypto Crash. It is one of the few than can.  Why do you say that? Currently, they are very large, can they be even bigger decrease? At the amount the whales are starting to drop , price decreases in all coins look certain. The next year will be rough for sellers but good for buyers that are long term. IMO. |
|
|
|
Yes but I think you guys are missing the point I'm trying to make which is how do you get onto the correct blockchain and make sure you are starting from the right starting point in a decentralized way?
I don't believe that is possible. Updated the first post to try to make it more clear what I'm trying to say.
Define Correct Blockchain If by Correct , you mean the one that the Majority supports, it is as easy as comparing your last block with 1 or 2 block explorers. And that goes for PoW or PoS, especially if you are syncing your client for the 1st time. The fact is since you receive blocks from multiple 3rd parties in PoW & PoS, other clients, and if they are running a Sybil attack on you, your client won't know the difference (unless their is a checkpoint in the source code), or unless you verify thru another party. ie:blockexplorer No matter which algorithm, in order to determine which blockchain is the correct blockchain, Proof of Stake blockchain users need to trust that they have been told the correct initial account balances. How can you prove in a decentralized manner whether you are mining the correct blockchain? You can't without outside help. This makes Proof of Stake practically useless.
And along the same lines, POW-POS hybrids are only as strong/decentralized as their Proof of Work component.
Agreed?
Your confusion is this, PoW also receives block info from 3rd party clients, if I isolate your system from the others, I can make it see anything I want , as long as it meets the specs in the source code. PoW or PoS can only determine the chain that matches it specs, as long as that requirement is met, anything else can be manipulated depending on your ability to isolate that node, and only by verifying thru a 3rd party can you be certain you are on the majority supported chain. Put Simply , there is no correct chain in PoW or PoS, there is only the Majority Supported Chain. People seem to forget in 2013 , the miners overwrote Bitcoin chain and basically used the collusion of the majority to determine a new majority chain. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-network-shaken-by-blockchain-fork-1363144448/The 0.8 fork had much more computing power behind it, and was already eight blocks ahead by the time the community could muster any effort toward fixing the problem, and upgrading to 0.8 is something that will have to be done eventually. On the other hand, if the 0.8 fork took over, thousands of users on 0.7 would be forced to upgrade in order to use Bitcoin at all, something which would not happen if the 0.7 fork took over since both versions of bitcoind can read it. The developers quickly settled on 0.7, and the community set to work on the next task: notifying major miners and mining pool operators of what they need to do. In the above you see the majority deciding which chain lived and which died, so in BTC itself their is no correct chain, only a Majority Supported Chain.  |
|
|
|
Anyone without the Will & Strength to hold through a Market Crash, (Whales are Cashing Out.)Should get out of All Cryptocoins now! Trade according to your own needs and goals. Good Luck! FYI: ZEIT will survive the coming Crypto Crash. It is one of the few than can. |
|
|
|
What choice do we have? The math has shown that Block size upgrades are surely not the solution for the scaling problems, when Bitcoin goes mainstream. The LN is surely a better off-chain second layer solution for all these micro transactions that are clogging the Blockchain.  The on-chain solutions will be a good temporary solution, but once this goes mainstream, it will all fall apart. We saw this happening in 2017 and we were not even close to mainstream adoption then. Whose Math? Fact is, BTC should have moved to a true 4 mb block size without the segwit weighted block bullshit which actually is lower than a normal 4 mb block size. * Had the devs done so, the BTC community would not have fractured into the BTC/BCH/BSV nonsense that exists today, with none of the communities as strong as the original prefork version.*BTC does not need to match visa, it only needed to handle it's own volume. Offchain solutions offer unlimited potential , but the pitfalls are: you are placing control of your money back in the hands of 3rd parties.* One of the main benefits of crypto tossed aside. No Banks needed! *Moving to offchain when 8 gig and higher blocks were no issue , was pure manipulation by those with darker intentions. FYI: One confusion by the unknowing is thinking every block will be the max block size, it is not , the blocks only increase to needed requirement to hold the transactions. So a Network with 4 mb max block size , would still have only 1 or 2 MB blocks the majority of the time, except during time of congestion. |
|
|
|
At least Lightning Network can reduce the slowness of Bitcoin transactions. Faster and cheaper, of course this is why Lightning networks are needed.
Lightning Network Compared to any Exchange that allows offchain Swaps LN Exchange Time Delay on Withdrawal to blockchain FAST Withdrawal to blockchain Requires Complex LN setups No additional setup required Price increases per hop Low Price if any Multiple LN hubs needed No additional exchanges required Only works with Segwit coins Works with Any Coin on Exchange Limited Transaction Amounts Unlimited Transaction Amounts Must use LN hubs Can be used by any exchange user LN network was never needed as it is nothing more than a 3rd party service, that works with multiple segwit coins. The nonsense that increasing blocksize or a faster block speed would not increase scaling , is a myth used to pacify fools.  In any event , exchanges can outperform LN offchain processing and do it cheaper than LN weak design requiring multiple hops. |
|
|
|
Given how friendly to the environment PoS is (compared to PoW), and how it achieves consensus faster, more cryptocurrencies have been implementing it over time. Ethereum will switch from PoW to PoS within the next years, while other newly-born cryptocurrencies have adopted it. It's been known, how vulnerable PoW has been against 51% attacks with hackers stealing millions of dollars from small blockchain networks with low hashrate by performing double-spending. In the case of PoS, a hacker or attacker would need to grab a large stake of coins to be able to perform double-spending. Depending on the price of the coin, it could become extremely expensive to attack a PoS blockchain. Nonetheless, do you think that PoS will completely replace PoW in the future? There is no proven safe consensus mechanism other then POW, all POS coins will die, economically speaking, they can't work. POS won't replace POW, POS will die. PoW is not safe, that is just a myth to fool the clueless into throwing their fiat at it. A College Student released a page showing how little it could cost to 51% attack PoW coins for 1 hour using nothing more than rented hashrate. https://www.crypto51.app/
Name 1h Attack Cost
Bitcoin $303,117
Ethereum $96,847
Bitcoin Cash $12,663
Litecoin $19,919
Monero $5,119
Dash $2,624
Ethereum Classic $4,888
Zcash $16,494
Bitcoin Gold $971
Bytecoin $149
Proof of Stake have been around since 2013, and none of the fairly tales myths told by PoW hopefuls have destroyed PoS. PoS is here to stay, PoW's pure waste of resources may be it's undoing sooner, rather than later. |
|
|
|
And I'm saying you have this backward, Proof of Stake has an inherent single party attack vector, Proof of Work only has a 51% attack vector, which is much stronger. Still, neither are as strong as Frink's upcoming Proof of Person Hardly PoW 51% attack is happening to multiple PoW coins all of the time. https://www.coindesk.com/blockchains-feared-51-attack-now-becoming-regularA College Student released a page showing how little it could cost to 51% attack PoW coins for 1 hour using nothing more than rented hashrate. https://www.crypto51.app/Price to 51% attack bitcoin was only $303,029 . * The only reason BTC has not been 51% so far , is Bitmain that has a hidden combined over 51% of the mining has not been interested in hurting their ASICS sales.* Proof of Stake requires a party purchase all of the required coins to pull off an attack. In doing so it drives up the price of the coin and increases the stakers, which causes them to have to buy more coins. no i don't think it is "inherently" centralized but it can become centralized a lot easier than PoW because it is a lot easier for a whale to buy a large portion of a specific coin (to have a large stake in it) and control the coin that way and then get out in a very fast way if he chooses to. but you can't get out of PoW because you need to sell equipment which is not as easy as dumping coins!
The other problem is they can dump their coins, then go back in time and start mining from a block previous to when they dumped their coins and good luck proving which fork is legitimate. You have to purchase alot more than 51% to control a Proof of Stake coin. Proof of Stake coins go dormant after staking lowering their staking % . So they can not maintain indefinite control over a blockchain like a PoW miner with only 51% can. (If you need proof , create your own PoS coin from one of the standard source codes and keep 70% in 1 address and place 30% in another and stake them directly against each other, and you will see for yourself that the 70% can not maintain indefinite control of the blockchain like a PoW miner with only 51% can.) If a Majority PoW miner or a Majority PoS Staker dumped coins and then restarted from the earlier block. All Users of either would lose faith and it's price would plumment. PoW miners can do this on multiple coins that their ASICS can be used for, PoS Stakers can only do this for the coin they purchased. In other words, if two PoW coins use the same algo , I can destroy one and maintain the other , really losing nothing. But destroying a PoS coin, is the same as getting money from the bank and then setting it on fire. As far as legitimate, whichever fork has the majority support, as a simple checkpoint can redirect the destiny of a PoW or PoS chain. it is a lot easier for a whale to buy a large portion of a specific coin (to have a large stake in it) and control the coin
they dont even need to buy coin they just need to syndicate(pool) funds of many people into stakes of higher amounts combined. and then make blocks the way they want as they will get seen as higher staking authorities to solve more blocks. syndicating funds is easier than pooling asics. and much easier than buying asics or buying stake. a stake manager doesnt need a penny to his name and can start convincing people to pool their funds into his addresses In PoW, If I convince everyone to let me hold control of their coins, I can sell their coins and crash the price and just live off fiat * Because PoW Flaw of requiring million$ per month to maintain it's network, the miners go broke and the network dies. * In PoS, If I convince everyone to let me hold control of their coins, I can sell their coins and crash the price and just live off fiat. * However, since someone else just purchased the coins for cheap , they can keep the network running and potentially allow the price to skyrocket. * PoS network is under no threat of network death, because the costs to maintains its network is only a few thousand$ verses a PoW needing million$. FYI: In both cases the person stealing said coins would be prosecuted. |
|
|
|
In order to determine which blockchain is the correct blockchain, Proof of Stake blockchain users need to trust that they have been told the correct account balances.
And along the same lines, seems to me like POW-POS hybrids are only as strong/decentralized as their Proof of Work component.
Do you agree?
Hybrids do not combine the strengths of the algorithms, they combine the weakness. Most hybrid coins eventually drop the wasteful PoW as it only leaves a 51% attack vector. PoW is a dead end due to their ever increasing input costs. PoS is the Future for any coins wanting to survive. FYI: Vitalik would not know a True Proof of Stake Design even if it bit him on the ass. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin price now (December 2018) is: $3,742 Jan 2011: 0.30$ Jan 2012: 4.99$ Jan 2013: 14.00$ Jan 2014: 747.00$
Jan 2015: 317.00$
Jan 2016: 432.00$Jan 2017: 998.00$ Jan 2018: 14,166$ Jan 2019:  The stat says we are having steady progress. Stats show a Bear Market from 2014 thru 2017. So if history does repeat itself. Jan 2018: 14,166$ Jan 2019: 3,499 Jan 2020: 4,159 Next Bull Run Jan 2021. If BTC is still around.* Problem is this , Miners are firing staff and closing up left and right as for costs to maintain the network exceed the market price of BTC. In the past history, the miners still had a little profit wiggle room. Now they are all losing money and have been for ~year. Too many miners drop off and BTC either becomes ripe for a 51% attack or network stalls for months until the few miners that remain wait for the difficulty to drop. Either way the price of BTC will crash.  Don't really see BTC surviving until 2021, not as it is currently coded anyway. If BTC does not evolve , BTC will die. PoW is a Failed experiment of a winner take all design, which makes everyone a loser. |
|
|
|
Coins back in the red, Looks like the cat is headed back to earth. and our bulls turn out to be pussies.  |
|
|
|
Well, how likely are you to buy ASIC equipment of any flavor or hell BTC in general, if you were or are living on crypto/BTC now?
I myself retired on crypto/BTC on Jan 13th, 2018 when life was good, unicorns, rainbows, fairy-dust and Bambi all conspired to make the BTC price 'wonderful'
Alas, my 'crypto-retirement' broke the BTC price. (It's how my luck rolls, don't ya know)
Thus living on crypto, it makes little sense to me to spend BTC for hardware on the 'fairy-dust' hope of prompt arrival of equipment from an ASIC maker and making more BTC out then you put into Equipment.
(alas, the good old days when this is true)
So, how many of you are going to 'buy ASIC' equipment if you were/are living on BTC?
If so how much? And you rational on this new reality?
My 'viewpoints' on such are in the next post and in the poll. Please take the poll as well.
Will be interesting to see how many people like me can either embrace or buck their ASIC addiction under these real or supposed circumstances that you are living on BTC now...what to do about ASIC's?
thanks
Brad
PoW mining is dead/unprofitable for everyone but the Ultra Rich that can monopolize the majority of Hashrate & rewards. For everyone else it is a suckers bet, they are guaranteed to lose. Low interest Proof of Stake coins are the only viable options left for the little guy to actually profit. |
|
|
|
Opinions on Recent Market Upswing Bull Run  OR Dead Cat Bouncing |
|
|
|
Common users will cease to run a full node, only pros and geeks will do that,
and we'll never have millions of full nodes in that way.
Common users aka (idiots that work for free) are given NO financial incentive to run a full node in the BTC network. They just wasting what little money they have.Only PoW MasterNodes like Dash or Proof of Stake Nodes receive any incentive for it's users to run a full node. You could have just said , if Common Users never get paid, they will eventually smarten up and quit wasting their money. |
|
|
|
We know, at the beginning of crypto, there was bitcoin as only one crypto. If we return to that situation, will Bitcoin rise sharply?
Does Altcoins have a more positive impact on Bitcoin or will it weaken Bitcoin?
If all of the altcoins disappear , all of the trading markets with Bitcoin on the opposite side disappear also, this has the effect of dramatically increasing the available supply of BTC which will cause a corresponding drop in price. It would hurt btc more than anything you have ever seen. |
|
|
|
then mining will die as it did today, bitcoin has dropped below mining costs and many miners have sold their mining tools. and I think the remaining total bitcoin supply will remain intact.
Hey, check statistics ( https://www.blockchain.com/explorer) and no mining dies. even when bitcoin has mined a total of 21 million mining systems will remain alive. The strength of bitcoin will be in the mining system unless there is a fairer transaction confirmation method in the future. Don't count on it. On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Rewardhttp://randomwalker.info/publications/mining_CCS.pdf26 page read, explaining why btc is toast without block rewards. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
