Side-chains are insecure. DOA. To the BTC chain itself? IMO it lowers the complexity,... The security is reduced to that of the weakest side chain. So the pegging needs to be transient ! I have no idea what you mean. Chain reorganizations in the weaker chain can cause people to lose their Bitcoins. The chains can get out-of-sync. There is no way for a block chain to securely reference any data point outside of itself. This is fundamentally why Augur and BitUSD can't function without centralization. |
|
|
|
Side-chains are insecure. DOA. |
|
|
|
About now is the time to panic if you haven't already sold. The smart money has probably already moved to shorting. Notice stoat has gone entirely silent. No guarantee, but the decline is the most severe by a wide margin and it looks like the first real significant turn from the "to da moon" trajectory. There must be too many sellers for the insiders to swallow in order to continue the price manipulation. Perhaps the insiders have moved short as well if there is a way to short this with reasonable liquidity. Perhaps they will try to restart the P&D from a lower level. I think the truth about Ethereum is starting to get out. |
|
|
|
What's scammy about it?
$18 million wasted and still vaporware. Follow the relevant links... In order to beat Bitcoin, you much provide something that Bitcoin can't do which is more popular and has greater network effects. Bitcoin for the moment owns the store-of-value and slow-large medium-of-exchange functions of crypto currency, and that is unlikely to change unless Bitcoin so screws up the block size issue that the market is forced to choose a new block chain for these properties of money. However, the instant-micro medium-of-exchange function of crypto currency is still wide open. Ditto on chain privacy and anonymity, which appears to be a two horse race between Monero and Z(ero)cash, but I have my doubts as to how popular/practical overt privacy and anonymity will be. Bitcoin is hoping for Lightning Networks (<-- click the Reddit link at the linked post) but LN requires large block sizes for garbage collections spikes and it realistically can't allow anyone to pay anyone, plus it is a centralization paradigm to be owned by large corporate servers. V(anilla)Cash is pitching some insecure Zero Time shit that can't scale. Bitshares and Dash are pitching some more flawed shit, and even I discovered that InstantX's white paper had a high school level math error in its security calculation which made it seem much more secure than it is. Ethereum has no users, no chance of scaling decentralized, and no one has even shown that any Dapps are important and/or can't be done in another way. I pointed out the prior day that Augur is insecure. Market cap is irrelevant if it is not sustained, because P&Ds are easy for whales to conduct by buying from themselves, including constructing fake buy walls. So yes I think Bitcoin can be beat. But it won't be easy. And the chances are slim. You actually have to have a plan for stimulating instant microtransactions medium-of-exchange adoption. It won't just happen by magic and you won't be able to just employ the mass media to dazzle the gullible tinfoil speculator junkies for the userbase since Bitcoin already captured them.
on hype alone it will make a lot of people very rich; in the short term
It will make most of the speculators very poor by definition of a P&D. |
|
|
|
What's scammy about it?
$18 million wasted and still vaporware. Follow the relevant links... In order to beat Bitcoin, you much provide something that Bitcoin can't do which is more popular and has greater network effects. Bitcoin for the moment owns the store-of-value and slow-large medium-of-exchange functions of crypto currency, and that is unlikely to change unless Bitcoin so screws up the block size issue that the market is forced to choose a new block chain for these properties of money. However, the instant-micro medium-of-exchange function of crypto currency is still wide open. Ditto on chain privacy and anonymity, which appears to be a two horse race between Monero and Z(ero)cash, but I have my doubts as to how popular/practical overt privacy and anonymity will be. Bitcoin is hoping for Lightning Networks (<-- click the Reddit link at the linked post) but LN requires large block sizes for garbage collections spikes and it realistically can't allow anyone to pay anyone, plus it is a centralization paradigm to be owned by large corporate servers. V(anilla)Cash is pitching some insecure Zero Time shit that can't scale. Bitshares and Dash are pitching some more flawed shit, and even I discovered that InstantX's white paper had a high school level math error in its security calculation which made it seem much more secure than it is. Ethereum has no users, no chance of scaling decentralized, and no one has even shown that any Dapps are important and/or can't be done in another way. I pointed out the prior day that Augur is insecure. Market cap is irrelevant if it is not sustained, because P&Ds are easy for whales to conduct by buying from themselves, including constructing fake buy walls. So yes I think Bitcoin can be beat. But it won't be easy. And the chances are slim. You actually have to have a plan for stimulating instant microtransactions medium-of-exchange adoption. It won't just happen by magic and you won't be able to just employ the mass media to dazzle the gullible tinfoil speculator junkies for the userbase since Bitcoin already captured them. |
|
|
|
In order to beat Bitcoin, you much provide something that Bitcoin can't do which is more popular and has greater network effects. Bitcoin for the moment owns the store-of-value and slow-large medium-of-exchange functions of crypto currency, and that is unlikely to change unless Bitcoin so screws up the block size issue that the market is forced to choose a new block chain for these properties of money. However, the instant-micro medium-of-exchange function of crypto currency is still wide open. Ditto on chain privacy and anonymity, which appears to be a two horse race between Monero and Z(ero)cash, but I have my doubts as to how popular/practical overt privacy and anonymity will be. Bitcoin is hoping for Lightning Networks (<-- click the Reddit link at the linked post) but LN requires large block sizes for garbage collections spikes and it realistically can't allow anyone to pay anyone, plus it is a centralization paradigm to be owned by large corporate servers. V(anilla)Cash is pitching some insecure Zero Time shit that can't scale. Bitshares and Dash are pitching some more flawed shit, and even I discovered that InstantX's white paper had a high school level math error in its security calculation which made it seem much more secure than it is. Ethereum has no users, no chance of scaling decentralized, and no one has even shown that any Dapps are important and/or can't be done in another way. I pointed out the prior day that Augur is insecure. Market cap is irrelevant if it is not sustained, because P&Ds are easy for whales to conduct by buying from themselves, including constructing fake buy walls. So yes I think Bitcoin can be beat. But it won't be easy. And the chances are slim. You actually have to have a plan for stimulating instant microtransactions medium-of-exchange adoption. It won't just happen by magic and you won't be able to just employ the mass media to dazzle the gullible tinfoil speculator junkies for the userbase since Bitcoin already captured them. |
|
|
|
And Bitshares is run by a father & son.
The same can be said about Christianity too but the users are happy. Even immortal Gods can lead to Spanish Inquisitions. The same can be said of the earlier stages of totalitarianism, such as when Hitler printed money out-of-thin-air to finance socialistic work programs (e.g. built the Autobahn) after the rekted Weimar Socialistic Republic failed, but then he couldn't print oil for free so he has to go take resources.   |
|
|
|
The litmus test for decentralization of a cryptocurrency is the government "asking" to add transaction filtering policies to the protocol. Then we shall see who is true, and who's been swimming naked.
I think we will see centralization effects much earlier in terms of monopolization of profits. Well we already have with the Chinese mining cartel preventing even an increase to 2MB blocks, ostensibly so they can increase transaction fees. We have already seen it over at Bitshares with the bidding out a Cryptonote clone implementation financed by a private investor who can then set and earn transaction fees for the (optional) anonymity feature. What this all seems to indicate is that there is no such thing as decentralization and commerce is always a winner-take-all paradigm of the natural power-law distribution of wealth and the Iron Law of Political Economics. Fuck our idealism right? As long as we can earn a buck while Rome burns, that is just natural? Personally I am not a believer that we can't change the fundamental forces of nature. Look around and notice the phenomena in nature which remain decentralized, such as reproduction. Why? Because such phenomenon only require local partial orders. Global consensus is a global partial order (meaning an arbitrary choice of a combinatorial expansion of potential global orderings). However we have one model of global agreement which has a stable equilibrium in terms of game theory strategies. That is the Nash equilibrium, which basically says that the optimum strategy is known and thus we can then compute from that stable strategy the economics and relevant outcomes of the system. With Bitcoin, the Nash equilibrium doesn't fail due to selfish-mining because none of the miners have more optimum strategy to pursue than normal mining for those with < 25% of the hashrate and selfish-mining for those with > 25% of the hashrate. So the Nash equilibrium doesn't prevent devolution into centralization, rather it only guarantees that the optimum strategy is known. In terms of avoiding centralization of global consensus it is really about destroying economies-of-scale. We have an example for this on the internet. It is the End-to-End Principle, which basically says that the network where the economies-of-scale are applied should be fungible and substitutable and thus all the smarts and control lies at the ends of the network. Thus the ends can be diverse and leverage economies-of-scale without being captured by the economies-of-scale.[1] That is my design to fix crypto currency. Someone has named it "savoircoin". Note Iota is an attempt at a similar goal, but the Nash equilibrium doesn't exist for the ends (or at least it hasn't been proven that their optimal strategy is known) and thus I allege it devolves to non-consensus without centralization. | [1] | Cryptonote and Z(ero)cash are end-to-end principle anonymity systems, because the anonymous constructions are created by the ends autonomously without involving a network of masternodes. This is why Dash and Vcash's Chainblender suck. Note however that none of these coins have made mining and validation stable end-to-end principled. |
In order to beat Bitcoin, you much provide something that Bitcoin can't do which is more popular and has greater network effects. Bitcoin for the moment owns the store-of-value and slow-large medium-of-exchange functions of crypto currency, and that is unlikely to change unless Bitcoin so screws up the block size issue that the market is forced to choose a new block chain for these properties of money. However, the instant-micro medium-of-exchange function of crypto currency is still wide open. Ditto on chain privacy and anonymity, which appears to be a two horse race between Monero and Z(ero)cash, but I have my doubts as to how popular/practical overt privacy and anonymity will be. Bitcoin is hoping for Lightning Networks (<-- click the Reddit link at the linked post) but LN requires large block sizes for garbage collections spikes and it realistically can't allow anyone to pay anyone, plus it is a centralization paradigm to be owned by large corporate servers. V(anilla)Cash is pitching some insecure Zero Time shit that can't scale. Bitshares and Dash are pitching some more flawed shit, and even I discovered that InstantX's white paper had a high school level math error in its security calculation which made it seem much more secure than it is. Ethereum has no users, no chance of scaling decentralized, and no one has even shown that any Dapps are important and/or can't be done in another way. I pointed out the prior day that Augur is insecure. Market cap is irrelevant if it is not sustained, because P&Ds are easy for whales to conduct by buying from themselves, including constructing fake buy walls. So yes I think Bitcoin can be beat. But it won't be easy. And the chances are slim. You actually have to have a plan for stimulating instant microtransactions medium-of-exchange adoption. It won't just happen by magic and you won't be able to just employ the mass media to dazzle the gullible tinfoil speculator junkies for the userbase since Bitcoin already captured them. |
|
|
|
The litmus test for decentralization of a cryptocurrency is the government "asking" to add transaction filtering policies to the protocol. Then we shall see who is true, and who's been swimming naked.
I think we will see centralization effects much earlier in terms of monopolization of profits. Well we already have with the Chinese mining cartel preventing even an increase to 2MB blocks, ostensibly so they can increase transaction fees. We have already seen it over at Bitshares with the bidding out a Cryptonote clone implementation financed by a private investor who can then set and earn transaction fees for the (optional) anonymity feature. What this all seems to indicate is that there is no such thing as decentralization and commerce is always a winner-take-all paradigm of the natural power-law distribution of wealth and the Iron Law of Political Economics. Fuck our idealism right? As long as we can earn a buck while Rome burns, that is just natural? Personally I am not a believer that we can't change the fundamental forces of nature. Look around and notice the phenomena in nature which remain decentralized, such as reproduction. Why? Because such phenomenon only require local partial orders. Global consensus is a global partial order (meaning an arbitrary choice of a combinatorial expansion of potential global orderings). However we have one model of global agreement which has a stable equilibrium in terms of game theory strategies. That is the Nash equilibrium, which basically says that the optimum strategy is known and thus we can then compute from that stable strategy the economics and relevant outcomes of the system. With Bitcoin, the Nash equilibrium doesn't fail due to selfish-mining because none of the miners have more optimum strategy to pursue than normal mining for those with < 25% of the hashrate and selfish-mining for those with > 25% of the hashrate. So the Nash equilibrium doesn't prevent devolution into centralization, rather it only guarantees that the optimum strategy is known. In terms of avoiding centralization of global consensus it is really about destroying economies-of-scale. We have an example for this on the internet. It is the End-to-End Principle, which basically says that the network where the economies-of-scale are applied should be fungible and substitutable and thus all the smarts and control lies at the ends of the network. Thus the ends can be diverse and leverage economies-of-scale without being captured by the economies-of-scale.[1] That is my design to fix crypto currency. Someone has named it "savoircoin". Note Iota is an attempt at a similar goal, but the Nash equilibrium doesn't exist for the ends (or at least it hasn't been proven that their optimal strategy is known) and thus I allege it devolves to non-consensus without centralization. | [1] | Cryptonote and Z(ero)cash are end-to-end principle anonymity systems, because the anonymous constructions are created by the ends autonomously without involving a network of masternodes. This is why Dash and Vcash's Chainblender suck. Note however that none of these coins have made mining and validation stable end-to-end principled. |
|
|
|
|
ETH will be fairly decentralized
Like Bitshares, Nxt, and Bitcoin which are all centralized. The Chinese mining cartel 51% attacked any block size increase. Nxt is run by a dictator. And Bitshares is run by a father & son. |
|
|
|
Just pointing out that constantly and relentlessly complaining about other products/supporters is not the way to sell your "superior" product.
I analyze technology. You P&D. We have different professions. |
|
|
|
I'd estimate, that 'working' DAPPs can only be nichy ones w/o any real risk exposure. Similar to bitcoin early bootstrapping with Silkroad you can start with:
Gaming, Betting, Cheating, Porn...
I need to spend more time thinking about it in detail. Devil is in the details. |
|
|
|
I'm long term
What if there is no long-term: Well, that's the question we've all be asking since 2009 essentially. I'll definitely consider what you're saying and I appreciate your comments. It's hard for me to imagine BTC going to zero. The only way it doesn't make sense for me to keep holding it through the upcoming economic turbulence is in that event that it does fail. What are the odds? I don't know but even if it doesn't fail to stop functioning, I am nearly certain the mining is controlled by the Chinese and they will cooperate with the G20 to make sure you Bitcoin's don't transact until you pay Hellary Clinton or Merkel 100% taxes on your gains (because you can't prove your coins weren't used in money laundering before you obtained them). Capital controls are coming and Bitcoin will not escape them. Will a truly anonymous coin arise to save us before then? I've been keeping my eye on that situation for a long time and I've read your comments about no alt-coins (xmr, dash, etc) being truly anonymous (yet). I've always thought that whatever coin becomes the the choice of the black markets for it's anonymity, will be HUGE. If such an overt coin can stand up to the G20 cooperation and China's ASIC mining dominance of any coin they wish to dominate. I think impossible. However see the recent stand by Apple and enjoined by other tech giants against the NSA. Rather I think the black market coin will be the microtransaction coin. That is the direction I am headed. |
|
|
|
[Idiotic nonsense from a brainwashed fool]
Debt serviceability determines how many loans can be made. The Minsky Moment comes when for each new unit of debt that is created, negative units of cash flow are deducted from the economy. This is called the negative marginal utility of debt threshold. Please don't slobber on my thread again with your tinfoil hat atrophied brain stem. |
|
|
|
I'm long term
What if there is no long-term: Well, that's the question we've all be asking since 2009 essentially. I'll definitely consider what you're saying and I appreciate your comments. It's hard for me to imagine BTC going to zero. The only way it doesn't make sense for me to keep holding it through the upcoming economic turbulence is in that event that it does fail. What are the odds? I don't know but even if it doesn't fail to stop functioning, I am nearly certain the mining is controlled by the Chinese and they will cooperate with the G20 to make sure you Bitcoin's don't transact until you pay Hellary Clinton or Merkel 100% taxes on your gains (because you can't prove your coins weren't used in money laundering before you obtained them). Capital controls are coming and Bitcoin will not escape them. |
|
|
|
I'm long term
What if there is no long-term: Well, that's the question we've all be asking since 2009 essentially. I'll definitely consider what you're saying and I appreciate your comments. It's hard for me to imagine BTC going to zero. The only way it doesn't make sense for me to keep holding it through the upcoming economic turbulence is in that event that it does fail. What are the odds? I don't know but even if it doesn't fail to stop functioning, I am nearly certain the mining is controlled by the Chinese and they will cooperate with the G20 to make sure you Bitcoin's don't transact until you pay Hellary Clinton or Merkel 100% taxes on your gains (because you can't prove your coins weren't used in money laundering before you obtained them). Capital controls are coming and Bitcoin will not escape them. |
|
|
|
But to get back to the thread's point, Factom is benefitting from threefour favourable tailwinds:
a) A new altcoin bull market,
b) centered around "start-up type coins,
c) and the Factom team themselves is already cutting deals for Factom real-world use.
d) technological ignorance of investors and others who endorse shit that is technologically flawed and can't be fixed.
ftfy |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
