Not interested in buying a guitar, but played around with it and could not add guitar to shopping cart in chrome (might want to "check it out"  ) |
|
|
|
|
Proof of stake offers high security without significant mining overhead. but anyway a local digital currency is asinine.
|
|
|
|
|
I applaud your creativity, but don't see how this could work. Presumably a monopolist can choose not to contribute blocks to a chain he doesn't like. This would make the disfavored chain highly nonrepresentative (more so than the monopolist's chain). Isn't that a serious (fatal?) problem for this design.
Note: i prefer the term monopolist to attacker because i don't accept the claim that a monopolized chain will always lead to abuses of power. This depends on the monopolists incentives. proof of stake provides very strong incentives to behave responsibly.
|
|
|
|
Id say its primarily because of the huge risk for the borrower to get scammed and never see his coins back.
Yes, this is correct. If not, everyone who plans to hold coins long-term would be lending them out. Clearly, they are not. A large fraction of loan requests are complete or partial scams (e.g. the borrower gambles and defaults if the bet fails to pay out). Thus the high interest rate. |
|
|
|
|
You seem to be selling T-mobile refills at a greater than 80% off. Might want to look into that.
|
|
|
|
|
This is what I think:
Step 1) Borrow Massive Bitcoin by offering way above market interest rate.
Step 2) If no major downturn in market, borrow more bitcoin a la Ponzi if possible.
Step 2a) If borrowing is no longer possible, then go bust. Assume new identity, go to step 1.
Step 3) If major downturn in market, sell off massive bitcoin in attempt to set off panic. Pocket massive dollars.
Step 4) If panic ensues, purchase nearly free bitcoin to pay back investors.
Step 5) If no panic ensues, then go to step 2.
|
|
|
|
Proof of stake can be gamed as well - the block hashing ITSELF is proof of stake; you need to stake your computer.
No |
|
|
|
I love this. Krugman obliterates this dunce.
One can't 'obliterate' a monkey in verbal argument. |
|
|
|
From what I understand, bitcoin would only be illegal if used for trading physical goods.
It would be no problem for virtual items.
After speaking to hundreds of Chinese in the last few days, not a single one have expressed concern over the legality.
That is my understanding too, but you shouldn't focus on the letter of the law in China. It is is more important that there is some sort of prohibition. This means you need to be cautious about doing things in overt and public way. I would not film or record customers and business associates in a public youku/youtube video. No one cares about bitcoin now. The video won't cause any problems as long as this remains true. If some day someone decides to care about bitcoin, then the video could be used as an excuse to make trouble for your Chinese customers and business associates. No need to make a video, so in my opinion you shouldn't. Of course, it is up to you. |
|
|
|
I will try to make a recording and put it online.
The use of bitcoin is pretty clearly illegal in China. Though there is no reason to expect illegality to stop Chinese people from using bitcoin, you might want to reconsider making recordings. |
|
|
|
|
Yes, he clarified that. Much to my disappointment.
|
|
|
|
|
As someone who voted yes, i want to change my vote to no. Investing big, but not.going for efficient scale (51% attack) is stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Beginning good.
Please ignore the economic analysis.
Dude doesn't have any expertise in economic analysis. Should be embarrassed to present crap like that in front of a live audience.
Discussion of Poisson process fit also garbage.
|
|
|
|
Scenario when a monopoly forms in a proof-of-stake network: - Large mining pools merge or a monster miner emerges.
- The possibility of potential terrorist organizations take control of Bitcoin
- Enemies of the monopolist are targetted for reversals.
- Double-spend attacks are attempted.
- Stakes have no geographical location and can use rented servers, they cannot be shut down by any authority.
Solution A:Since the government regulators would be managing an unknown group that can be communicating covertly. This would be very difficult and expensive. It would require a central governmental clearinghouse of approved addresses for any business accepting Bitcoin, identification, and transaction approval of all commerce to prevent terrorists from controlling the network. Bitcoin is more likely to be outlawed. Either way Bitcoin fails. Solution B: Fork the blockchain. Bitcoin fails. Scenario when a monopoly forms in a proof-of-work network: - Large mining pools merge or a monster miner emerges.
- The possibility of potential terrorist organizations take control of Bitcoin
- Enemies of the monopolist are targetted for reversals.
- Double-spend attacks are attempted.
Solution: Find allies to bring reserve mining power online before this attack has 6 confirmations and reject those attacks. Government miner stockpiles are brought online and thwart the attack. These stockpiles cost very little to maintain because they don't require electricity until they go online. These can even be patriot volunteer organizations. The attackers are identified by their IP addresses and shut down. Bitcoin survives. These are simply two different philosophies about how to operate a cryptocurrency. Trusting in a monopoly is hardly a disrupting enterprise. While monopolies can be efficient, historically they require government regulation to prevent corruption. In a PoS model, the government regulators would be managing an unknown group that can be communicating covertly. This would be very difficult and expensive. Lol! What? Can someone translate for me? I don't speak idiot. |
|
|
|
Proof-of-stake is the only long-run viable solution. Stop joking around with this nonsense about txn fees coming to the rescue. It doesn't pass the laugh test.
For all the complaining you do about your perceived economic inferiors relying on intuition and belief instead of "real data", you sure do come across as a zealot when it comes to your own imaginary musings... We are a long way from pure transaction fees. We haven't even seen the first reduced block-reward yet. The suggestion that proof-of-stake is the *only* solution to a *hypothetical* problem is what doesn't pass the laugh test. Come up with another solution and then watch me tear it to shreds. |
|
|
|
|
Is this a plan for organizing a 51% attack for profit? If so, sign me up.
Or is there no business model here? If so, why invest in this?
|
|
|
|
I don't see how or why you think someone owning 51% of all coins would be better than someone mining 51%. Either one would be a fatal blow to Bitcoin.
If this is your point of view, then note that owning 51% of the coins is substantially more difficult than mining 51%. Stop there. If bitcoin became widely adopted, no one would care if it was owned by a single entity or owned by a community. It is only the current enthusiast community that cares about stuff like this. I'm not sure why. Regular people care about getting payments from point A to point B with minimal hassle and minimal fees. Bitcoin can handle minimal fees under monopoly provided that it is organized as proof-of-stake. If it is organized as proof-of-work, then monopoly will bring ruinous fees. |
|
|
|
The proof of stake idea is not an uninteresting one. Especially because it is in fact not
exclusive with proof of work. I would love to see an additional layer of resilience added
to bitcoin. I agree however it just tiring to hear the never ending half thought out rants and the venemous bile coming from him. There are significant issues with proof of stake, namely it is almost certain that either a monopoly or oligarchy will form. Potential hashing power is infinite and is fees rise that create an incentive for new entrants to enter the network. With proof of stake once an entity (cough cough bank) or cartel of entities (Chase + BofA + Wells Fargo) gain 51% of the coins they do OWN the network. Their control is absolute and the "barrier to entry" becomes infinite. Under such a scenario Bitcoin's fees (assuming network is widely adopted) would rise to be similar to Visa. Paypal, facebook tokens, etc. It is naive to think otherwise. No, idiot. Try to use your brain when formulating a response or defer to me if you don't have one. With proof-of-stake there is no incentive to raise fees to high levels under monopoly. This is a critical difference from proof-of-work. Under proof-of-stake, the monopolist would own 51% of the coins. Increasing fees would depress the value of these coins grievously injuring the monopolists bottom line. Rather than choosing fees to maximize fee revenues (as in proof-of-work), the monopolist would jointly maximize market capitalization and fee revenue. This would lead to very low fees. The fact that high fees depress the value of the network would restrain the monopolist from behaving like paypal. Finally, proof-of-stake makes monopoly less likely because monopoly becomes more expensive to achieve. It also removes any possibility of increasing returns to scale in hashing technology which is a feature encouraging monopoly under proof-of-work. Nevertheless, I agree that a monopoly may still emerge even under proof-of-stake. It is just not as certain to occur. |
|
|
|
You can't 'buy' it. If it is worth $20B and somone 'buys' it for $50M then someone else will come along and 'buy' it for $100M and so on. But that won't happen since you don't get to keep it for $50M and anyone with $50M will know that.
This is essentially what D&T said. Yes, an absurdly low price (due to market failure under a competitive network) would likely attract multiple competing would-be monopolists. Competition among these entrants would bid up the entry cost until it was sufficiently large to deter further entrants. Competing companies would end up merging, since this merger would add tremendous value for their shareholders. You would end up with one monopolist and astronomical fees. Barriers to entry would now be large because the hashing horde of the single monopolist would be large. The monopolist would impose monopoly fees, depressing coin value. Proof-of-stake is the only solution. Maybe you are hoping for antitrust policy to save the day? Or perhaps a directly government controlled network? I'm surprised that a system supporting such a depressing range of long-run outcomes could ever be widely supported. It is probably due to myopia and weakness in abstract reasoning ability among forum members. Certainly, no has ever provided logical support for the possibility of sustainable competitive proof-of-work under txn fees. If you mistakenly believe that this is possible, please explain why you think this and I will try to clear up your confusion. |
|
|
|
Fees don't seem like a viable option. Coins are realistically in competition with real world payments, and at best would garner a couple % for fees (capped by the CC processing fees). However, since they are paid by sender and do not offer benefits that CC affords, I would venture that the fees should be more in line with fees for ACH (or equivalent systems), and thus, not that much. Paypal transaction volume is ~ 2.2 billion tx annually (VISA is ~ 78 billion and all electronic tx is probably on the order of a trillion tx annually). Still lets consider a 30 year goal of 40% the size of Paypal =~ 1 billion tx annually. That is ~ 20K transactions per block. ACH fees are ~ $0.20 per tx. So 20K tx * $0.20 ea = $4,000 per block block reward. Still I doubt fees would need to be that high. At ~$0.05 (whatever that ends up being in BTC) per tx avg block reward would be ~$1000 which would support a network 5x as strong as the current one. This is ridiculous. Paypal is worth about $50 billion. This is the discounted present value of collecting monopoly txn fees from money sent through paypal. You can currently buy a similar monopoly over bitcoin for $10 million. Let's do some back of the envelope calculations to show that D&T's suggestions are idiotic. D&T proposes that the network will be 5x as strong as the current one, so that the cost of obtaining monopoly will increase to $50 million. However, the value of the monopoly will be about 40% of the value of paypal's with 20k txns per block. That is monopolization of the network will be worth $20 billion. Hmm. $20 billion dollar asset priced at $50 million. Sounds like a very good deal. The network would quickly get owned with such puny fees. The owner would jack up fees to paypal levels and become very rich indeed. So what kind of fees would you need to protect bitcoin from getting owned. Well you need to get that $50 million up to $20 billion. D&T's figures are off by about a factor of four hundred. How much do the fees need to be 400*$0.05=$20 per txn. Wow! $20 per txn, great low cost payment system that would be. Proof-of-stake is the only long-run viable solution. Stop joking around with this nonsense about txn fees coming to the rescue. It doesn't pass the laugh test. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
