Everything mentioned about POW vulnerability is correct, but it just completely slipped my mind.

That's because I've got multi-algo on the brain.  

Go with multi-algo and you've got 10 good years at very least of reliable, highly secure, most likely with an ever increasing network hashrate, POW.

I could be wrong, but I think it's a no-brainer . . . but then again, as you see in my signature line, and from my postings, I've got a hardcore multi-algo background from way back, so you've got to forgive me.

Still, tell my why I'm wrong.

And if it could be coupled with even better additional layered security on top . . .  

Fair enough, and thanks again.

There have been numerous cases of PoS "migration" that I suppose, if studied closely, should give us a wealth of data regarding possible issues, both longer and shorter term. There are still a lot of unknowns as well to boot. I've always posed the same question to the subject: "what's the hurry?" POW gets the job done very nicely and has a very respectable lifespan. PoS can always be done, and in good time.

There's an old saying that goes: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".  

Well, it depends . . . on whether the 10MB is an upper limit size, or a static block size, but if the big miners were to drop DGB in some unknown future, a 51% attack is not the potential risk like it is with BTC, and, of course, with a potential appreciation target of well over 460,000%, I suspect profitability prospects for DGB will remain solid over the long term and that any increased costs would be seen as acceptable, should there be any (my understanding is that the 10MB is an upper limit that would be reached gradually, just like the 20MB BTC proposal, with the major difference being that the upper limits just might come very fast with BTC, and that with DGB they might come much more slowly since those huge corporate "farmers" might not be as inclined to repeat the process with DGB . . . multi-algo disincentives to go along with things . . .).

@yoyoamigo,

Great link you posted earlier! Lots of great, reliable, and trustworthy information. Between that and the rest that we've posted here, anyone who wants to take the time to read a bit has got a fantastic start at truly understanding just what's involved. http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/394fn1/mike_hearn_in_about_1_week_bitcoin_xt_will/

Link to the podcast linked in that reddit article (well worth the time and reposted here just in case anyone missed it).
https://epicenterbitcoin.com/podcast/082/

A nice post by GigaBit on another thread - note the reference to DGB (not surprising as he has said so much here on this thread from time to time in the past).

DGB Devs take note: please keep up your great work in setting Best Practice standards - you have a wonderful opportunity here to further move DGB into an even more consolidated leadership role.

One is a multi-coin wallet that makes the seamless conversion with Shapeshift, and the other is the exchange itself (Shapeshift).

The difference is that you still need to do the operation manually and maintain separate wallets with Shapeshift, and you have one wallet that does the rest automatically with coinomi.



What's also really interesting is the fact that DGB is one of 15 coins currently supported by coinomi. Now, whether or not they continue to be relatively exclusive or not remains to be seen . . .

Article about those two exchanges: http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

The coinomi wallet https://coinomi.com/ that DigiByte announced earlier does a seamless conversion from BTC to DGB using Shapeshift.

This looks really good.

I've installed it and done some initial self-education, and my first impression is IMPRESSIVE!

Another job well done DigiByte.

I don't get it.       Are you answering someone's post? Or just working together to bury previously important posts?

. . . and the article is from Nov. 2013 . . .

Personally, I'd stay with Jared's recent tweets, and other serious stuff, or wasn't everyone complaining recently about how frivolous this thread was and the need therefore for another forum.

Is this a case of firemen who are pyromaniacs?

Let's keep things on track with the important stuff here, and take the "funny fun" stuff somewhere else. What do you say? Sound reasonable? There's a time and a place for everything, and this thread, with the stature it has and the exposure it gets, should be reserved for important, high priority items. And the more whimsical? Well, it also has its place, but it's not here on this board.

Very interesting.

https://twitter.com/DigiByteCoin/status/606315043328638976

https://twitter.com/DigiByteCoin/status/606318529911132161

Somewhat related. 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=I25QA45Xdec

And the getting's still good. 

Not a necessity at this point, which means you have everything to lose and nothing to gain (especially if it turns out bad). There's talk of trying to develop dynamic block sizes with BTC. There's no rush. Let's take our time and get it right, and see what other folks are coming up with as well.

Looks like something more immediate is in the pipeline though. https://twitter.com/digibytecoin/status/605440393816121344


Let's keep up the intelectual debate too. We still have a lot of ground to cover and it takes all of us!

I'm not criticizing you for spending your DGB as you like, and much less so for all the positive work you're doing to promote merchant adoption. Quite the contrary, my hat's off to you. Nevertheless, and moving beyond the fact that the theoretical uses for DGB can be materially demonstrated (and that's good), I think we also need to be very clear about the fact that it still makes no economic sense to spend DGB on a regular basis. Demonstrating that it works is one thing, using it on a daily basis is quite another. I just want to do my part to help make that as clear as we can. There's a lot of work to be done, and it will take time as well as effort to get that work done, before we can say that it's smart to spend DGB for ordinary items on a daily basis. Mass adoption is first, and I don't think that comes from knowing you could spend DGB if you wanted to - I think it comes from knowing that if you put your money into DGB, it won't go down in value. That's the first hurdle in my opinion: creating a stable cryptographic digital currency that people see as a place to put their money where it will increase in value and not lose value - as long as there's a high risk element involved, it will never see mass adoption. Once that's achieved, I see larger transactions, especially international cross border transactions, becoming the first widely used aspect of DGB (on a "service" kind of level, but not to be confused with a service since it's really due to the inherent P2P nature of the currency). In that sense, Western Union would be the first major financial services provider who would be threatened. VISA, in spite of being the ultimate goal, is much farther off. Incorporating faster transactions speeds that rival those of VISA now should not be a problem even if it won't be fully utilized for years, but we shouldn't confuse the fact that it's being done now with the fact that it will be immediately used. This is kind of a "Field of Dreams", but we do need to be practical, and, again, I think that starts with a clear focus on creating the stable, low risk, basis that is needed for people to be willing to first use DGB as a reliable store of wealth. Without that foundation, everything else is a no go, in my opinion.

Yes, what you chose to "splice together" sure would suggest a strong case of cognitive dissonance, but when kept in context, and that context being that of a currency that "is still in its infancy and has years to go before it fully reaches its full appreciation potential", I don't see the internal contradiction. DGB is has tremendous potential to change the way we think about and use money, but that's not going to happen overnight. In the meantime . . . perhaps what we might say to make things clearer, to add to your spliced quote, might be something qualifying like this: "I see DGB as a true currency that's still in its early development phase . . ."

And I know you're not trying to pick a fight. No prob here with direct and hard hitting questions - in fact, I welcome them!

I see DGB as a true currency . . .

. . . that also allows for direct, extremely low cost, transfers, person-to-person, with no need for intermediaries, but that is still in its infancy and has years to go before it fully reaches its full appreciation potential.

DGB is a decentralized P2P currency that is just as safe, if not safer, than any centrally managed fiat currency in existence, and that, thanks again to its underlying P2P character, is in need of no 3rd party to manage transactions between users.

Likewise, just as a fiat currency can be viewed as an investment (see chart below of the Russian Ruble - Russians holding dollars over that period of time would have done very well), I think DGB can be viewed the same - especially keeping in mind that another one of the cryptographic digital currency's main goals is precisely to protect against fiat debasement and its resulting loss of purchasing power (i.e., real value) in the form of inflation.



Additionally, DGB is a leader in a new technology, and we all know how that goes when you're working with a winner from the very beginning. I think that aspect of DGB qualifies it as a certified long term investment with the potential for huge gains, much like we expect from a successful startup in a newly emerging technological sector.

DGB is a cryptographic digital currency startup within a new emerging technological sector that offers the potential to revolutionize how people view and use their money. That's a major long term investment in my opinion, that, yes, I'll give you this much, one day, once its real potential is realized and its long term value is established, will become more of a true currency with much less appreciation potential, but I think that is still some time well off in the future.

There's no incentive what-so-ever to buy with DGB. In fact, it's the opposite. If you factor in bank transfer/wire and commission costs, and the time and effort you put into buying your DGB, it's absurd (in my opinion) to then turn around and spend it at a loss since a fiat purchase would be cheaper to begin with (and you also lose again with the actual purchase since you will be charged a premium by the seller in order to cover their costs of converting back to fiat).

Buying with DGB makes no rational sense at this point in time. Neither does buying with BTC for that matter - unless you bought BTC long ago when it was valued in single digits. If you're buying BTC to then buy something else that you could have bought with fiat in the first place, you'd better start giving it a second thought.

Add: and if you're mining, the math gets radically worse, unless your electricity is free . . .

Very good point.

Maybe we're putting the cart before the horse. Everything has its natural life cycle and maybe we should relax and go with the flow by focusing on what's reasonable and really productive at this point in DGB's development.

That having been said, I'm a hoarder, obviously, since I think this is the early adopter, venture capital, startup, long term huge gain for initial investors, stage. 

Bird,

Why did you give up on DGB? Seems like what you're doing is a natural for DGB as well. Sure did appreciate your efforts while you were with us and miss not having them now.

Best regards,

HR